Commons Sitting of 23 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
GLASGOW CORPORATION CONSOLIDATION (GENERAL POWERS) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL AIR FORCE

    Weston Zoyland Airfield (Grass-drying Contract)
    Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Air why Messrs. Wilco Grass Products were notified only in January of this year that their licence in respect of Weston Zoyland Airfield, which was due for renewal in March, would not be renewed; if he is aware that as a result this company expended, quite unnecessarily, substantial sums of money on maintenance and replacement of plant; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for Air (Mr. George Ward): We told this firm on 7th January that its seasonal grass-drying contract would not be renewed. This was because we saw no need at that time to keep the airfield ready for flying use. There is now, however, a chance that we may need this airfield again for flying. We propose, therefore, to renew the grass-drying contract with this firm until 1st October this year. By that date we hope to have decided whether or not we need to keep this airfield.
    Mr. Peyton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Answer will give a very great deal of satisfaction to these people, who were given very short notice of the
    472
    termination of their agreement? Will he also bear in mind that firms such as this, with a considerable investment in plant and machinery, need some assurance as to the future? Could he say something about the other two airfields in which these people are interested?
    Mr. Ward: We shall be renewing the other two contracts for 1960. I cannot give any undertaking beyond that.
    Sir G. Wills: Although this decision will give satisfaction to the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), does my right hon. Friend realise how much disquiet will be caused to a number of my constituents who owned the land for a number of years and have been deprived of it but were confident in the hope that they would have it back to farm as they used to?
    Mr. Ward: I realise that there will be some disappointment among farmers who were hoping that this land would be returned to full agricultural use, but I think they would be much more disappointed if we returned the land to agricultural use and then had to change our minds later. In any case, it is rather late in the season for them to start ploughing, but as soon as we can make a firm decision, which I hope will be by the end of the summer, we shall dispose of the airfield if we no longer need it.

    West Mailing (Aircraft Noise)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what complaints he has received of unnecessary noise caused by aircraft at the Royal Air Force Station at West Mailing.
    Mr. Ward: There have been a number of letters from people living near the airfield. The squadron's essential training programme is bound to cause some disturbance; but we do all we can to keep this to a minimum.
    I hope the main cause of complaint will be removed when the Javelins move away from this airfield in the autumn.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State impress on his hon. Friend—who is reported to have said that unnecessary noise was caused there by incompetent

    473
    flying—that unsubstantiated remarks like that are very much resented in the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Ward: I quite agree. The pilots of this squadron are highly skilled and experienced. I recognise that there is a real problem of disturbance at the moment; but matters are not helped by allegations of that kind.

    N.A.T.O. Personnel (Training, United Kingdom)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Air to what extent military personnel from the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation countries, training at bases in this country, are and will be directly under control of the Royal Air Force; and to what extent they will be directly under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation command.
    Mr. Ward: Military personnel of N.A.T.O. countries come under R.A.F. supervision while training at R.A.F. establishments, but otherwise remain subject to the discipline of their national forces.
    Mr. MacMillan: Apart from personnel of the Strategic Air Command in this country, does this mean that all other American forces who might be in this country are neither under R.A.F. nor under N.A.T.O. but also will be under some other independent American control?
    Mr. Ward: American forces are covered by the Visiting Forces Act.

    German Air Force (Flying Training, United Kingdom)
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillanasked the Secretary of State for Air whether the German Air Force personnel being trained in this country receive training in the use of nuclear weapons; and whether they engage in training flights in aircraft carrying such weapons.
    Mr. Ward: No, Sir.
    Mr. MacMillan: Will the Minister bear in mind that, in view of the very widespread objections that were taken in this country to the practice, even by our own Air Force and the American Air Force in Britain, of carrying nuclear weapons over this country, it would be regarded as highly obnoxious if Luftwaffe personnel were to engage in flights
    474
    of this kind or in this training with nuclear weapons over a country which was so very recently the target of German bombing forces?
    Mr. Ward: There is no question of that arising.
    Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Air what arrangements regarding landing, refuelling, and other facilities have been made to enable the West German Air Force to carry out practice flights from or over the territory of the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Ward: The arrangements are similar to those for the air forces of other N.A.T.O. countries.
    Mr. Warbey: Does this mean that, in fact, the Government have made arrangements for the Luftwaffe to fly over this country in practice flights, and, if so, will the right hon. Gentleman say so definitely? If they have not, will he give an assurance that they will not do so, because the whole idea is totally abhorrent to the people of this country?
    Mr. Ward: Certainly not. In common with other members of N.A.T.O., facilities have been provided from time to time for the German Air Force to come to several Royal Air Force airfields, also to stations used by the United States Air Force, and to some civil airfields, too.
    Mr. Warbey: Is this going to increase in future, as the Luftwaffe grows with several hundred Star fighters which have been ordered from the United States, and with the lack of air space, of which they complain? Does it mean that we are to have regular Luftwaffe flights over this country, and if so, does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there will be very strong opposition to this?
    Mr. Ward: These are normal staging facilities at Royal Air Force airfields which we offer to our N.A.T.O. allies. In this particular case, the German Air Attache seeks agreement from the Air Ministry in advance, giving the details of each proposed flight, including the facilities needed if the aircraft is to land.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that some of us on this side of the House feel much the same as hon. Gentlemen opposite, but,

    475
    at this stage, the only way of controlling the German Air Force is to work with it and exercise a measure of control by co-operation through N.A.T.O.?
    Mr. Rankin: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether or not he proposes to bring German forces, like the American forces, under the Visiting Forces Act?
    Mr. Ward: No. The flights to which I have referred are individual flights. There has been no visit of a formed operational unit.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that when German military aircraft come here, they come here as aircraft under N.A.T.O. command?
    Mr. Ward: Yes.

    Chalgrove Airfield
    Mr. John Hallasked the Secretary of State for Air why the Chalgrove Airfield has been sold to the present occupiers, Martin Baker Aircraft Company, Limited, and not offered back to the previous land owners.
    Mr. Ward: Chalgrove airfield is surplus to R.A.F. needs. The Government consider, however, that it is essential to the very important work carried out by Martin Baker, Ltd., and have therefore decided to sell it to the company.
    Mr. Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this seems to be contrary to the principles laid down in this House which Sir Thomas Dugdale, then Minister, adumbrated as a result of the Crichel Down affair? Is he also aware that out of the six previous owners of 700 acres, four of them wish to regain their land, and two of them previously farmed 500 acres? Will he look into this matter again?
    Mr. Ward: The two cases are quite different. The Crichel Down case involved the transfer of land from a Department with compulsory powers to another Department which did not exercise such powers for the purpose of State management of land. That was the issue there.
    The present case is a sale—and a sale to a firm which is carrying out important defence work. I should like to remind
    476
    the House that the work of this company has so far saved no fewer than 331 lives of Royal Air Force pilots and aircrew. This sale, in my view, is fully in line with the relevant part of the statement of Government policy which Sir Thomas Dugdale made to the House on 20th July, 1954.
    As regards the former owners, my information is quite different from that of my hon. Friend. My information is that, in fact, when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State went down there, only two former owners were interested in getting their land back, and one, I am told, is now perfectly happy with the proposed arrangement. The other one wanted his land back only for sentimental family reasons.
    Mr. Hall: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg leave to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

    Nyali Leave Centre, Kenya (Coloured Airmen)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for Air why coloured airmen are not admitted to the Nyali Centre in Kenya, to which other airmen serving in Aden are sent on leave.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for Air why coloured airmen serving in Aden are not allowed to go to the Nyali leave centre in Kenya; why the Royal Air Force has accepted this discrimination; what attempts have been made to find other places, with equally good facilities, at which both white and coloured airmen can spend their leaves; and what rent is paid for the use of this centre.
    Mr. Ward: Because of the terms under which the property is leased to the War Office, coloured airmen cannot use the Nyali Leave Centre. I understand that the annual rent is £1,600.
    I am considering alternative arrangements for the airmen affected.
    Mr. Lipton: This is a scandal and an outrage. Will the right hon. Gentleman make the strongest possible representations to his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War to end this really intolerable state of affairs? Will he agree that it is quite monstrous that certain

    477
    Service men, who are rendering just as loyal service as their fellow Service men, should be victimised in this most unpleasant way?
    Mr. Ward: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no colour bar of any sort whatever in the Royal Air Force. I will certainly consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War, and see what we can do to put this matter right.
    Mr. Driberg: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that by accepting this discriminatory clause, he is in fact operating a colour bar in the Royal Air Force? Now that Questions have been put down and asked, the right hon. Gentleman has kindly said that he will consult his right hon. Friend. May I ask him what was done before by the Air Ministry and the War Office to try to get this clause removed from the lease?
    Mr. Ward: The hon. Gentleman knows that the lease is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and the War Office. So far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, to the best of my information this problem has only just arisen.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Who was the leaseholder who insisted on putting this clause in? [Interruption.] Surely, Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to ask this, since it must be within the knowledge of the right hon. Gentleman? Who was the leaseholder who insisted on putting this colour bar in the lease?
    Mr. Ward: There is another Question to my right hon. Friend later on the Order Paper relating to that, and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to await it.
    Mr. de Freitas: Will the Secretary of State consult his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War and ask him to answer Question 68, if it is not reached, because that Question deals with that very matter?
    Mr. Ward: If it is not reached, a Written Answer will be given.

    Cyprus (Bases)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Secretary of State for Air what changes in the plans for the organisation, administra-
    478
    tion and manning of the Royal Air Force bases in Cyprus have resulted from the delay in reaching agreement in the present negotiations.
    Mr. Ward: There have been minor effects on the rate of rundown we had planned.

  TRANSPORT

    Licensed Premises (Food)
    Sir J. Lucasasked the Minister of Transport whether, in order to reduce the risk of road accidents, he will introduce legislation to require licensed premises to have available at all times food, such as biscuits, which can be readily taken with alcoholic drinks.
    The Minister of Transport (Mr. Ernest Marples): Any such legislation would be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to introduce, but I do not propose to ask him to do so.
    Sir J. Lucas: Is the Minister aware that he said that he was very favourable to the idea? If the Minister himself would use his invaluable influence, I have no doubt that it would have a great effect?
    Mr. Marples: I think my hon. Friend has greater faith in my ability than I have, but, as a matter of fact, we must distinguish between the availability of food and the consumption of food. When I look at some public houses on the roads, I see food which has remained there for a very long time, while the alcohol is consumed fairly quickly.

    Nationalised Industries (Answers to Questions)
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Transport if he will list those classes of matters affecting the administration of the nationalised industries within his general sphere of responsibility upon which he is now prepared to answer Questions, despite previous refusals to answer on the ground that they were matters of day-to-day administration by the industry concerned.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House stated on 25th February, 1960, there can be no hard-and-fast formula by which these matters could be identified.
    Mr. Albu: Does not the Minister think that, after the statement by 'the Leader of the House, there is now some confusion? Under the custom of the House, the Table is unable to accept Questions on matters to which a Minister has previously refused to reply. Unless the Minister will now indicate those further matters to which he is willing to reply, it is impossible to put down Questions to him.
    Mr. Marples: As Chatham once said, "I am responsible for nothing but what I control". It is very difficult for a Minister of Transport to be asked questions about why a particular train was late from X to Y, or sometimes even why toilet paper was not there—a question which is often asked. Those are questions of day-to-day management and are not really the responsibility of the Minister.
    Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that the Leader of the House made a statement about this which was intended to ease the situation. Does the Minister realise that, unless a move is made by him and others with similar responsibilities which can be noticed at the Table, there will be no improvement?
    Mr. Marples: I have my right hon. Friend's statement here. He said that there was no very great scope for extension. He said that Ministers can answer Questions only on matters for which they have a recognised responsibility. He went on to say:
    "… they may from time to time be concerned with other questions of broad policy affecting the industries."—{OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 577.]
    If the hon. Gentleman will look at the statement again carefully, he will see that my right hon. Friend left it for Mr. Speaker and the Clerks at the Table.
    Mr. Driberg: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the difficulty that he refers to about the Minister answering about trains being late, and so on, was not found insuperable when the Minister of War Transport had to answer Questions of precisely that kind?
    Mr. Marples: That was a good many years ago, and the railways were not nationalised then.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: I was the Minister who had to answer those Questions. May I ask the Minister if he remembers that the railways were then under full national control and that I found it a great advantage to answer as many Questions as possible?
    Mr. Marples: That is precisely the point. They were under full national control then, and now with nationalisation they are not under full national control.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister aware that it will not—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It is impossible to make any progress with trains or Questions or anything else if hon. Members will shout.
    Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is the Minister aware that under his powers to give general directions he can, if he desires to, control any part of the policy? Is he aware that if he answers Questions about things that go wrong with the nationalised industries, as I did very frequently when Minister of Fuel and Power— [Interruption.]—he will find it of great advantage to all concerned if he gives the House the full facts; and that that is one of the great advantages of nationalisation as compared with private enterprise?
    Mr. Marples: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman considers that to be one of the advantages of nationalisation, but I do not think that the Minister can give broad directives as to whether a train shall be delayed, or clean, or that sort of thing. Quite honestly, I think that I should answer only Questions about matters for which I am responsible, and that I should not be responsible for things that I do not control.

    Vehicle Testing Scheme
    Mr. Straussasked the Minister of Transport when the compulsory inspection of motor vehicles will start operating.
    Mr. Marples: I am grateful for this opportunity to explain to the House the difficulty preventing the early introduction of the compulsory vehicle testing scheme, and I would apologise to the House for the length of the Answer.
    The White Paper of May, 1958, explained that the vehicle test would

    481
    require brakes, steering and lights to conform with the existing statutory requirements. Braking requirements, which are set out in the Construction and Use Regulations, are in general terms and broadly speaking lay down that braking systems of motor vehicles must be such as to be capable of bringing a vehicle to a stop within a reasonable distance under the most adverse conditions. A practical vehicle testing scheme demands some degree of uniformity and we decided that the test for brakes must include a practical test of braking performance. The performance standards required were embodied in a Manual of Guidance which was to be issued to those garages and local authorities who are to administer the scheme.
    I am, however, advised Chat there are legal objections to proceeding on this basis and that any performance standards required must be embodied in statutory regulations. The drafting of the regulations is proceeding urgently and I will report again to the House at the earliest possible moment.
    I should like to emphasise that I intend to press forward with vehicle testing; it is an essential part of plans for reducing road accidents.
    Mr. Strauss: In view of the importance of this matter, why did not the right hon. Gentleman discover this legal snag before? Are not the Government open to the most severe censure for holding up for four years since they have had power this vehicle inspection scheme before discovering various snags and difficulties? Is the Minister aware that it is generally agreed that this scheme is likely to save 10 per cent. of the accidents—that is to say, 600 lives and 6,000 serious casualties a year? Can he say what is the use of expressing concern about road accidents if the Government refuse to take the action or to dither in taking the action which is open to them of bringing into operation this scheme which, the Government themselves agree, would have a significant effect on these appalling figures?
    Mr. Marples: It would have a significant effect but I do not think it would have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman assumes—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—according to the Road Research Laboratory. When I wanted to
    482
    bring this scheme in, it was found that legally it was faulty and I set about putting it right as quickly as I could.

    Driving Tests
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordonasked the Minister of Transport how much time, on average, he estimates the applicants for driving tests, who would under the previous arrangements be tested at Turriff, will require to expend travelling to and from Aberdeen to be tested there; and how much time, on average, he estimates that his examiners will save by not having to travel to and from Turriff.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): The sample analysis shows that the average additional distance travelled to an alternative centre by certain applicants who would, under existing arrangements, be tested at Turriff would be about 8½ miles; this represents a normal travelling time by car of about twenty minutes. The time at present spent by examiners in travelling to and from Turriff is about one-and-a-half hours, which represents the loss of two driving tests on each occasion.
    I am looking closely into this whole subject and shall write fully to my hon. Friend in response to his letter of 25th February.
    Mr. Wolrige-Gordon: Is my hon. Friend aware that this is a matter of considerable concern in the area not only on the part of those who will be seriously inconvenienced by the alternative arrangements that they may have to make, but also because it is symptomatic of the general gradual dehumanisation of these distant country areas for the benefit of centralised administration?
    Mr. Hay: I will certainly bear in mind those points in considering this matter. One must take into account that we are short of testers but we are not short of applicants, and there has to be some kind of proportion kept between the demands on the time of our examiners and the time of the public generally.
    Mr. Hendryasked the Minister of Transport how much time, on average, he estimates that applicants for driving tests, who would under the previous arrangements be tested at Inverurie, will

    483
    require to expend travelling to and from Aberdeen to be tested there; and how much time, on average, he estimates that his examiners will save by not having to travel to and from Inverurie.
    Mr. Hay: A sample analysis shows that the average additional distance travelled to an alternative centre by certain applicants who would under existing arrangements be tested at Inverurie would be about eight miles; this might represent a normal travelling time by car of about twenty minutes. The time at present spent by examiners in travelling to and from Inverurie is about one-and-a-half hours, which represents the loss of two driving tests on each occasion.
    Mr. Hendry: Does my hon. Friend realise that in many cases a person undergoing a test has got to travel by rural bus and may on occasion have to spend a whole day in getting to and from Aberdeen to submit for the test? In many cases this amounts to nearly six and a half hours. Does my hon. Friend consider that inconvenience of citizens to this extent for the purpose apparently of effecting a small saving for his examiners is justified?
    Mr. Hay: I am afraid that the answer is very similar to the answer that I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. WolrigeGordon). These are difficult matters. I am looking into this question very thoroughly and I will communicate with both my hon. Friends as soon as I can.
    Mr. Hendry: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall attempt to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

  ROADS

    Tower Bridge
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport what further meetings have been held since the first meeting of 17th January, 1960, of Che various organisations concerned to discuss the traffic jams caused by the raising of the Tower Bridge for shipping; and what further progress has been made in dealing with the situation.
    Mr. Marples: Circumstances have not warranted any further general conference since 19th January. I am pur-
    484
    suing certain points which were raised at that meeting and those about which the hon. Member wrote to me recently.
    Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fantastic state of affairs whereby any small ship, by flying a signal, can have the bridge opened? Is he further aware that even tiny tugs going into the Pool do this, and that the old-fashioned custom is even abused by small ships that are known to have requested the bridge to be opened, and have then waited in the Pool of London until the level of the water lowered, and then proceeded under other bridges by pulling down masts and funnels which they did not pull down for Tower Bridge? Is he also aware that some of these hold-ups extend from the Elephant and Castle in the south to Bishopsgate in the north, and is it not about time that something was done?
    Mr. Marples: The hon. Gentleman has been most helpful, and, on the understanding that it does not harm him politically in any way, I should like to express my admiration for the thorough way in which he has looked at this problem. I wrote to him today. I have got his letter and all the details, and I can assure him that I will go into them all. I may add that the Port of London Authority has fitted its own yacht with a telescopic mast, and it will be operating this year, and will reduce the number of openings of the bridge which that yacht will require by about two-thirds. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the points he raised ought to be gone into, and that they will be gone into.

    Lancaster-Penrith Motorway
    Mr. Holtasked the Minister of Transport when he decided to have fresh surveys made of alternative routes of the Motorway north from Lancaster to Penrith; and what previous surveys have been made at the request of his Department.
    Mr. Hay: It was decided early in 1959, to appoint consulting engineers to undertake the fresh surveys. Previous surveys which were carried out by the Department between 1945 and 1949, covered routes following the Lune Valley, the Scotch Road, the present A.6 trunk road, and the railway between Kirkby Lonsdale and Sedbergh.
    Mr. Holt: As the Ministry informed the people in the North over a year ago that it was intended to go ahead with the Lune Road and as fresh surveys are now being undertaken, does not the hon. Gentleman realise that it is very disconcerting to the public? They want to feel when these motorways are built that all relevant matters have been taken into consideration as regards the best possible routes before work starts on them.
    Mr. Hay: Yes. It is precisely because we want to take into account all the relevant matters relating to the best possible route that we are having a consultant engineer's survey in this case.

    Bridges (Toll Payments)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport how many bridges have been relieved of toll payments since 1st March, 1959.
    Mr. Marples: None, Sir.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) gave a pledge as long ago as 1954 that Selby Toll Bridge was at the head of the list of toll bridges which would be relieved of tolls? Consequently no toll bridge in the country can be relieved of tolls until Selby Toll Bridge is relieved of tolls. Is it not about time that Selby Toll Bridge was relieved of tolls?
    Mr. Marples: I can well understand my hon. and gallant Friend's anxiety, but toll bridges are on different classes of roads—on trunk roads, classified roads, and so on. The undertaking by our right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire was that of toll bridges on trunk roads he regarded Selby as of the highest priority for the removal of tolls. So he still does. It is at the top of the list and nothing has been removed from the list.
    Sir L. Ropner: Does my right hon. Friend accept my assurance that the version of the pledge which he has just given to the House is completely wrong and that this error has already been pointed out to his Department?
    Mr. Marples: I suggest that we have a tripartite summit conference between my hon. and gallant Friend, myself and
    486
    my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire.

    Selby Bridge (Toll Rights)
    Sir L. Ropnerasked the Minister of Transport what was the valuation placed by his Department on the toll rights of Selby Bridge during the negotiations last year with the company which owns the toll rights; and what was the valuation of the rights by the company.
    Mr. Marples: I do not think it would be in the public interest to disclose the provisional and qualified views on valuation reached by either side during the negotiations with the toll owners in 1958, since to do so might prejudice any future negotiations of this kind.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that negotiations last year lasted for months and could scarcely be put into a worse position than they appear to be in today? Is he aware, further, that both his Department and the toll right owners must know what the other side thinks the value may be? Is he aware, further, that the East Riding County Council, the West Riding County Council, the Urban District Council and the Rural District Council of Selby and the Derwent Urban District Council cannot form any opinion with regard to the alternative schemes for getting rid of this long-standing scandal unless they are informed of the value of the rights?
    Mr. Marples: The whole thing is rather complicated because this bridge was built under the powers provided by the Selby Bridge Act, 1791. The Act exempts the toll revenues from tax. The complication when one has an income which is tax-free at the present day is rather more difficult than when it is taxed in the ordinary course of events. As 169 years ago Parliament passed that Act, even though the sins of the fathers do visit upon the children and even though it was a Tory Administration, I do not think that I can be held responsible for what happened in 1791.

    Church Street, Chiswick (Roundabout)
    Mr. D. Smithasked the Minister of Transport if he will consider placing new warning signs on the three main roads approaching the Cromwell Road

    487
    Extension roundabout at Church Street, Chiswick, in view of the increasing volume of high-speed traffic at that point.
    Mr. Hay: In addition to the standard roundabout signs, a large white arrow against a red background has recently been provided on the Hogarth Lane approach, and the intensity of the external lighting of the advance warning signs is being improved. Conditions at the roundabout will be kept under close review, to see whether any further improvements are necessary.
    Mr. Smith: Is my hon. Friend aware that that reply will be received with satisfaction by the local residents, who have been increasingly aware recently of the number of accidents and near-misses at this junction?
    Mr. Hay: I thank my hon. Friend.

    Lower Regent Street
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transport if he will instruct his traffic engineering department to examine the possibility of extending Lower Regent Street into St. James's Park, in such a way that the Duke of York Steps and Carlton House Terrace and the amenity of the Park are all preserved, in order to relieve the congestion that at present exists in the vicinity of St. James's Palace.
    Mr. Marples: The studies to be undertaken by the London Traffic Management Unit will naturally embrace the adequacy of arrangements for traffic between St. James's Park and the area to the north, and my hon. Friend's suggestion will be considered.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Minister aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to all people concerned about traffic congestion in Central London?
    Mr. Marples: I hope that that will be so, but I find in traffic that very few people appreciate what is done by the Ministry of Transport. Their attitude is erroneous, of course. In this case, we must first measure the exact value of this extra route and think of the repercussions elsewhere. It may well be that the repercussions at Storey's Gate, which is already congested, might be even worse. The point is that we will certainly look into it.

    Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park
    Sir W. Wakefieldasked the Minister of Transport what discussions he has had with the Minister of Works with a view to relieving the heavy traffic congestion at Alexandra Gate, Hyde Park.
    Mr. Marples: A thorough examination of the traffic situation at Alexandra Gate Gate by the London Traffic Management Unit is required before I can usefully take this matter up again with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Work.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Will the London Traffic Management Unit look at this congested place as a matter of urgency with a view to seeing what can be done to relieve the great congestion which continually takes place there every day of the week?
    Mr. Marples: I agree with my hon. Friend that congestion does take place there, but it would be wise to see first whether we can conquer it by traffic engineering methods—that is, to avoid the right-hand turn which is so difficult at that point—rather than take part of the park, for which legislation would be necessary.

    A.6 Road, Disley
    Sir A. V. Harveyasked the Minister of Transport what steps he is taking to alleviate the dangers of crossing the A.6 road which runs through Disley village in Cheshire, having regard to the details which have already been sent to him.
    Mr. Hay: Our divisional road engineer asked the Disley Rural District Council last September for an up-to-date traffic census and accident report. Until we receive it, we cannot decide what safety measures it could be justifiable or practicable to introduce on this stretch of road.
    Sir A. V. Harvey: Will my hon. Friend urge his officials to get really busy on this? There was almost a fatal accident ten days ago, and the local authority informed my constituent that nothing could be done until the number of fatalities increased. How many deaths must there be before we can put up traffic lights?
    Mr. Hay: That is quite an incorrect way to look at the matter. The position

    489
    is that we have to ask the rural district council to provide an up-to-date traffic census and accident report. Until we get those we cannot decide what sort of safety measures should be put there. We are in their hands. The more quickly the local authority can give us the information, the more quickly can we come to a decision.

    Pink Zone (Car Parks)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to motorists by the closing down of the Pink Zone parking-spaces, in view of the ever-increasing need for them; why he closed the Horse Guards car-park two weeks ahead of schedule; and how many cars, up to the latest convenient date, have been towed or driven away by the police.
    Mr. Marples: The car parks around the Pink Zone were a special temporary measure. All but one were closed, after due notice, by 16th January. Notice was also given that the Horse Guards Parade would stay open until the new parking meter scheme began in Mayfair, unless my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works should require it earlier for its traditional purpose. Car parking has now been stopped because the Parade must be repaired in readiness for a review of Household Troops in April, during the State visit of General de Gaulle. I understand from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that during December, January and February, the police removed 16,000 cars from the Pink Zone.
    Mr. Dodds: In view of the excessive taxation imposed on all motorists, is it not about time they received a little more consideration? Why is it that, except on special days, the Royal Parks cannot be used for cars until proper provision is made? Is it not a scandalous state of affairs that the Horse Guards Parade, which has taken up to 1,000 cars a day, should be closed a fortnight earlier so that a distinguished visitor can inspect troops when, no doubt, he would be delighted to be excused this old-fashioned ordeal?
    Mr. Marples: I am sorry, but I must entirely disagree with what the hon. Member said in the latter part of his
    490
    supplementary question. Great importance is attached to friendly relations with people overseas—
    Mr. J. Griffiths: We do not need troops for that.
    Mr. Marples: I do not know—unless one does these things in decent style, one does not get the right atmosphere. All I would say is that the Royal Parks are used for parking. Hyde Park is used, and St. James's Park is used. A great deal of the roads in the Royal Parks is now used for free parking. I can tell the hon. Member that in the off-street car parking provided at one of the biggest garages there are, at the peak hour on any day, 300 vacancies, yet the police are towing vehicles from the streets because there the vehicles can be parked free of charge.
    Mr. Lipton: But what is to be the Minister's advice to those motorists who want to drive into London to see General de Gaulle inspecting the troops?
    Mr. Marples: If the hon. Gentleman will give me the names of the motorists, I will tell them of the garages where they can get off-street parking, provided they pay for it.

    Severn Bridge
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Minister of Transport if he has now acquired the necessary working areas on both sides of the Severn for the construction of the Severn Bridge; and if he will now fix a date for the commencement of the project.
    Mr. Marples: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my hon. Friend gave on Wednesday, 17th February, 1960, to the hon. Member for Abertillery (The Rev. L1. Williams). Negotiations for the acquisition of the necessary land are still in progress.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the substantial industrial development on both sides of the Severn and the fact that this matter is one of great urgency? Will he do his utmost to bring forward the date of commencement of the project?
    Mr. Marples: Yes, but it is only sixteen days or so since negotiations were started and we have to allow them to take a reasonable course.

    Taxicabs, London (U-turns)
    Mr. Liptonasked the Minister of Transport if he has reconsidered the ban on U-turns by London taxicabs; and if he will now lift this ban.
    Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. I have considered a report from the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis on the operation of the experimental ban on U-turns in Central London and have received the advice of the London Travel Committee. I have also discussed the ban with representatives of London taxi interests and have received an assurance that if the ban is lifted they will do all in their power to ensure that taxi-drivers make U-turns with the minimum of inconvenience to other traffic. On that understanding that this will be done, I have agreed to the withdrawal of the experimental regulations, with effect from today.
    Mr. Lipton: For the very first time, may I thank the right hon. Gentleman for a very satisfactory reply? I was afraid that he was going to continue to adopt a non-U attitude.
    Mr. Marples: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman that it is not the first time that he has congratulated me, nor will it be the last.

    Accidents
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport if he will give, expressed in vehicle miles, the fatality rate and the injury accident rate for M.1 and M.45 and for the comparable length of A.5 and A.45, respectively, to the latest convenient date, and similar figures for the same length of A.5 and A.45 for a comparable period before the motorways were open to traffic.
    Mr. Marples: Between 2nd November, 1959, and 29th February, 1960, the fatality rate on M.1 and M.45 was 0·11 per million vehicle miles and the injury accident rate was 0·9. No comparable figures for A.5 and A.45 are available.
    Mr. Janner: Is the Minister satisfied that the construction of the motorways has really improved the situation, and will he say how the matter is proceeding as regards the Leicestershire portion of the London-Yorkshire motorway?
    Mr. Marples: I think, though I am not yet certain, that it has helped the accident rate. These figures should be considered with some reserve, as all the traffic on the motorway has been in the winter months and too short a time really has elapsed to reach a firm conclusion.

  SHIPPING

    Oil Pollution
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware of the increasing financial burden falling upon local authorities along the coast which have now to purchase special machines for cleaning the oil from the beaches and rocks to make them fit for holiday makers, and that this oil comes mainly from oil-burning and oil-carrying vessels; and if he will make it obligatory on all such vessels to install oil separators.
    Mr. Hay: I regret the outbreaks of pollution which continue to occur, but it is fair to say that there has been an improvement in the position generally round our coasts. The best hope of further improvement lies in the acceptance by more countries of the International Convention—
    Mr. Awbery: I think that the hon. Gentleman is answering Question No. 23 now, and not Question No. 22.
    Mr. Hay: No, I am answering Question No. 22.
    Dry-cargo ships registered in the United Kingdom which use their bunkerfuel tanks for ballast water are required to be fitted with oily-water separators. The extension of this requirement to other classes of ships is not necessary because other steps are taken to avoid pollution.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when the number of oil-burning and oil-carrying vessels was small, this problem was insignificant, but that as the number is now growing quickly, and in a very short time almost all our vessels will be either oil-burning or oil-carrying, this problem will become very acute? Will he not make it obligatory that these vessels should carry oil separators? He has not mentioned that part of the Question.
    Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Member interrupted me when I was on that point. I will repeat the Answer. The position is that dry-cargo ships registered here which use their bunker-fuel tanks for ballast water are required to be fitted with oily-water separators. The extension of this requirement to other classes of ships—for example, tankers—is not necessary, because other steps are taken to avoid pollution.
    Mr. Awbery: On the oil tankers.
    Mr. Awberyasked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that after the recent collision of an oil tanker tons of oil floated about causing damage; and, in view of the rapidly increasing tonnage of oil tankers and proportionate greater danger, if he will consider the desirability of having stationed at various ports such vessels as can proceed quickly to areas of collision to collect the sludge and oil before it is dispersed over wider areas causing much greater damage.
    Mr. Hay: I am aware that as a result of this collision a good deal of oil escaped, and I regret the inconvenience caused in the area. Every effort was made by the Southampton Harbour Board, with the assistance of other interests, to prevent further escape of oil into the sea after the ships had been separated and brought under control.
    We propose to review with dock and harbour authorities the arrangements and facilities available for dealing with this kind of situation.
    Mr. Awbery: Is the Minister aware that similar incidents can occur at other places round the coast? In most of our ports we now have ocean-going tugs almost ready to go into commission on call. Could he not provide vessels to dredge the oil, instead of it being allowed to escape to sea, causing no end of trouble?
    Mr. Hay: The point is that my right hon. Friend has no power to incur any expenditure on the provision of craft or equipment for the purpose that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. As I said in my original Answer, the harbour authorities are certainly doing what they can to help here, and we are discussing with them whether there is anything further that can be done.
    Mr. Awbery: But if the disaster occurs five or six miles from the coast, it is not a matter for the harbour authorities but for the Admiralty. Could not the Admiralty do something in the matter?
    Mr. Hay: Perhaps we had better await the outcome of the Conference on the Law of the Sea, now going on.

    New Cunard Liners
    Mr. Benceasked the Minister of Transport if he is now in a position to make a statement on the investigation by the Chandos Committee of the desirability of the State financing the replacement of the present Cunarders ss. "Queen Mary" and ss. "Queen Elizabeth".
    Mr. Marples: The Committee's Report has not yet been received, but I understand that it expects to complete it within the next few weeks.
    Mr. Bence: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is considerable anxiety in the Clyde Valley? Is he aware that the Scottish shipbuilding industry is concerned about the possibility, or the probability, of the replacement of these two Cunarders, and we feel very strongly that with the Cunard takeover of Eagle Air Transport, British shipbuilding may be sacrificed to the competition of subsidised aircraft construction in England at the expense of the shipbuilding industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Marples: I must wait for the Report. I am told that so far it has not been completed, that the members of the Committee have made up their minds but that they have not completed the Report. I have not received it, but it has been printed in great detail in two national newspapers.
    Mr. Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if he eventually makes a decision in favour of subsidising these liners, this will not make the present Government policy any more sensible— in subsidising the aircraft industry to compete with subsidised shipping?
    Mr. Marples: That is not a question for me. I must first of all wait for the Report and study it.
    Dame Irene Ward: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is also a shipbuilding industry in England? Will

    495
    he bear in mind also that there is a feeling among shipbuilders and shipping interests that there is a little too much money being spent on research in the air to the detriment of research into shipbuilding and shipping problems?
    Mr. Marples: I will bear those facts in mind, as well as the fact that there are many parts of the United Kingdom where people wish to build these ships if the ships are to be built.

  RAILWAYS

    Victoria Line Tube
    Mr. Fletcherasked the Minister of Transport whether he is now in a position to announce the plans of Her Majesty's Government with regard to building the proposed new tube from Victoria to North-East London.
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) on 2nd March, the whole of the railway system, both underground and overground, is now being examined.
    Mr. Fletcher: The Minister has now had for several weeks the Report of the London Travel Committee recommending this scheme, and pointing out its urgency. Surely, there is no need for him to await his general overall plan before deciding to implement this scheme, which is urgently required to remove the congestion in North-East London?
    Mr. Marples: This must be considered in the general context of the British Transport Commission's position. The Commission is already incurring huge losses, which will be paid for by the taxpayer. This particular line will add to that loss, and I think, therefore, that to consider it in isolation would be folly.
    Mr. Benn: Is the Minister really saying that there can be no basic decision taken by the Commission until this planning board has sat, deliberated, made its decisions and had them laid before the House? If that is the case, is not the Minister making the task of the Commission of fulfilling its statutory requirements under the earlier Acts quite impossible?
    Mr. Marples: I do not think so. As a matter of fact, it may be possible to put a lot of the recommendations into effect without legislation. Others may require legislation. I do not think that we can look at this railway problem in isolation. It is folly to go into business and organise it in bits and pieces.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that the last Committee did not look at this in isolation but in connection with the whole problem of traffic difficulties in the London area; that the building of this new tube will relieve the traffic in the London area, in addition to providing very much needed travel facilities for people in North London?
    Mr. Marples: That is one of the considerations, but not the only one.

    Transport (Shipping and Special Services) Estimate
    Mr. Rankinasked the Minister of Transport on what basis he founded his estimate of £3,750 in Subhead L of the Transport (Shipping and Special Services) Estimate for 1960–61.
    Mr. Hay: This is an estimate of the amount which will be expended on travel by British Railways on State business by members of the Royal Family and the personal staffs accompanying them.
    Mr. Rankin: How does it come that after nine years of Tory misrule the Government have only now discovered this omission? What representations were made to them about it and from what source did the representations come? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is fair and reasonable that in a case where the Household income is £475,000 per year there should be free travel by sea, land and air while at the same time the Government are denying even cheap travel by tram or bus to old people whose weekly income is £2 10s. a week?
    Mr. Hay: I hope the hon. Gentleman feels better now that he has got all that off his chest.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel better after he has said that.
    Mr. Speaker: That has no semblance of being a point of order and it occupied

    497
    the time, of the House when it should not have done. Mr. Janner. Question No. 35.
    Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot remember whether the supplementary question was answered. If it was not answered, then I desire to have it answered. I apologise to the House.
    Mr. Hay: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that none of it is due to nine years of so-called Tory misrule. It is due principally to the fact that there was, after the General Election, a division of the former Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation into two Ministries.

  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Biological and Chemical Weapons
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Defence to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to be prepared for the use of biological and chemical weapons in times of war.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The policy of Her Majesty's Government is to continue with research in order to assess the threat from biological and chemical weapons and to prepare defences against them.
    Mr. Henderson: Does the Minister agree with the statement of Major-General Chisholm, the Canadian expert, that the potential dangers of chemical and biological warfare are greater today than they have been since 1944? Are our Government stockpiling these weapons, and, secondly, are they putting a firm plan forward at the disarmament conference with a view to controlling these weapons if an agreement is reached?
    Mr. Watkinson: The answer to the first part of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's supplementary question is that we are not stockpiling these weapons. We are, of course, bound by the Geneva Convention, and our only purpose in this matter is the purpose I stated in my original Answer, that we must assess the threat in order to prepare defences. As regards the disarmament conference, nobody will be happier
    498
    than Her Majesty's Government if it succeeds and biological weapons are banned along with all the others.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Has the Minister considered or sought any advice on how this country's position is affected by placing some of its forces within the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation armed forces, with combined control, when some of our allies in that organisation have not signed the Geneva Conventions in this respect which we have signed and are presumably, therefore, not legally bound in that way? What would he the position of British soldiers under the command of an American officer who is not bound by these Conventions at all?
    Mr. Watkinson: That is a quite different question and a hypothetical one.
    Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order?
    Mr. Silverman: I hope it is a point of order to point out that the Minister seems to have misunderstood the supplementary question which he was asked. I asked what consideration he had given or what advice he had taken about it. Surely, that is a question which the Minister could answer in relation to the questions already put and the answers he has given.
    Mr. Speaker: I cannot make the Minister answer if he does not want to.

    National Service Men (Pay)
    Mrs. Castleasked the Minister of Defence when he proposes to increase the pay of National Service men.
    Mr. Watkinson: As indicated in the Government White Paper recently issued on Service Pay and Pensions, it is not the intention to make any change in the pay of National Service officers or men.
    Mrs. Castle: Does the Minister realise that we are paying these conscripts only what he has described to me as the minimum necessary during a limited period of compulsory Government service? Further, is he aware that the National Service grants with which we eke out these minimum rates in cases of domestic hardship work out on an average at only £12 to £13 per man for

    499
    the current financial year, according to the figures which the Minister himself has given me? Can he be surprised that National Service men feel that, because they are conscripts, the Government are getting them on the cheap?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not take that view, and I think it puts the matter more into proportion if we remember that the grants which the hon. Lady has just mentioned will cost this year £1,800,000, and that is six times what they were in 1951–52 when the strength of National Service men was twice its current level. I think, therefore, that they are being administered with some generosity.
    Mr. Dodds: Will the Minister bear in mind that there are many National Service men who have been deferred up to the age of 26 and they are in a particularly difficult situation? Does he not realise that the amount he has mentioned as being paid for twelve months equals the amount which was lost on two orders for Army boots?
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not disagree that there may be difficult cases, particularly among men who have been deferred for long periods. I would only say that, if there are special cases, it is certainly my wish that we should help them, if possible.
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Defence if he will consider raising the pay of National Service men especially that of the skilled tradesman.
    Mr. Watkinson: I must apologise to the House. This Question was to be answered with Question No. 38. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to have it answered again.
    As indicated in the Government White Paper recently issued on Service Pay and Pensions, it is not the intention to make any change in the pay of National Service officers or men.
    Mr. Janner: Not only was the Answer unsatisfactory but the answers to the supplementary questions seem to have been even more unsatisfactory. Does the Minister realise that men who go into the Services expect to be paid a proper rate for the services that they render in a way similar to the way they would be paid in their ordinary civilian occupations? Is it not grossly unfair, especially in the case of skilled people,
    500
    that their services should be used without payment? Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the matter in order to give complete satisfaction to the men who are serving in our Forces?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that I quite accept that, towards the end of National Service, when men, some of whom are 25 or more, are being called up, there may be specially hard cases. It is my wish to help them if possible.
    Mr. Ross: Does not the fact that we have fewer National Service men and that we are paying more in National Service grants show the inadequacy of the pay, since National Service men have to resort more and more to National Assistance for help? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at the matter again?
    Mr. Watkinson: I will look at any special case.
    Mr. Janner: Will the Minister indicate to the country how he proposes to implement the remark that he made that he will deal with cases of skilled people?
    Mr. Watkinson: I did not say that at all. I said that if there were any specially hard cases I would endeavour to meet them.

    Recruiting Offices (Commercial Advertising)
    Mr. V. Yatesasked the Minister of Defence to what extent commercial advertising is permitted in recruiting establishments of Her Majesty's Forces for the purposes of stimulating recruiting; and what payments have been received, from what firms, during the past twelve months.
    Mr. Watkinson: Commercial advertising in recruiting offices is not allowed. This rule was broken in one case recently, and recruiting staffs have now been reminded of the rule. No payment was received from the firm.
    Mr. Yates: I am grateful for that Answer, but is the Minister aware that there has been much resentment in Birmingham caused by the display of certain posters, one of which read:
    " Those who were tired felt fresh,
    Those who were old felt new;
    Everyone sang as he marched along,
    ' Guinness is good for you '."

    501
    Is it not undesirable that Her Majesty's Forces should appear to go side by side with intoxicating drink? Will the Minister see that no such posters are again displayed, because the officer concerned seems to speak as though they will?
    Mr. Watkinson: I have already said that this practice is out of order and must be stopped. Perhaps I may comment that, if only Army recruitment were as successful as the sales of that particular beverage, I should be very pleased.

    QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
    Mr. Warbey: On a point of order. May I ask whether the Minister of Defence has sought your permission, Mr. Speaker, to answer Questions Nos. 41, 42, and 43 after Question Time, because I should like to put it to you, Sir—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member may not do that.
    Mr. Warbey: With respect, Sir, I desire to put the reason for my submission, which is that last week my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) and myself were requested by the Minister of Defence, who was then in the Middle East and who sent a signal to this country, to defer our Questions to this week so that he could answer them in person.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must realise that this is quite incorrect. The fact is that, if a Question is not reached, there is no device of which I know to draw attention to the matter. I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman in his misfortune, but I cannot allow him to do what he is now doing.

NYASALAND (INCIDENTS)
Mr. Callaghan(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will make a statement on the rioting in Nyasaland yesterday in which tear gas was used against demonstrators.
The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport)The Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport) rose—
Mr. Callaghan: On a point of order. Without any personal discourtesy to the
502
Minister of State for Commonwealth Relations, may I ask whether, in view of the sensitivity which is felt in the Colonies about the position of the Commonwealth Office, the hon. Gentleman proposes to explain to us why he should reply?
Mr. Alport: Certainly. The reason is that my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary is at present airborne, on his way to the Federation, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies is in Cyprus. I have been asked to reply.
Last night, my right hon. Friend received from the Governor an account, which I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT, of three connected incidents involving the use by the police of tear smoke and batons, which had taken place in the course of the day. A police detachment was returning to headquarters after making a number of arrests. At one point they were obstructed by 300 villagers, who were dispersed. The detachment was stopped at two further points and obliged to use force.
Four Africans were hurt, but none seriously, I am glad to say. The police party was stoned, but eventually returned safely to headquarters.
Mr. Callaghan: Is the Minister aware that we wished him to give that explanation, although we are not unaware of the movements of Ministers? If hon. Members opposite realised how sensitive African opinion is, they would welcome the opportunity which has been given to the Minister.
Will the hon. Gentleman convey to the Colonial Secretary, who is about to leave the country, our feelings that he should not regard this as an isolated incident, but that it bears out all the information that has been reaching us over the last few weeks that tension is building up? Although we on this side of the House have been very restrained in our approach to this problem since the Colonial Secretary came into office, will the hon. Member convey to the right hon. Gentleman that, nevertheless, we expect that, as a result of this visit, definite progress will be made in the release of detainees and that, on his return, he will be able to report definite progress in further constitutional advance in these territories?
Mr. Alport: Naturally, I undertake that whatever is said in this House will be conveyed to my right hon. Friend, but I think that it is important that the hon. Member and others interested in this incident should study the statement which the Governor has made and which I am to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It says that the incident which took place on 21st March related to the pulling down by villagers of the tented camp of the Assistant District Commissioner and the Agricultural Officer.
The hon. Member is well aware that there has been, over a long period, continuous and almost endemic agitation against agricultural reforms in Nyasa-land which are connected with the anti-soil erosion measures, and are of the greatest importance to the people of Nyasaland. I would hope that the hon. Member and his colleagues will do whatever they possibly can to discourage that sort of agitation, which is against the interests of the people of Nyasaland as a whole.
Mr. Callaghan: I hope that the hon. Member is not imputing that we should in any way encourage such agitation, but, equally, I hope that he will not assume that this is unrelated to the political situation in Nyasaland. Does not the hon. Member think that he would be making a very grave mistake if he were to dissociate what is happening, which is in line with the letters that we are receiving from the territory, from the desire of the people there that their leaders should be released and that there should be constitutional progress?
Will the hon. Member convey to the Colonial Secretary the fact that we shall support him in any action that he takes to achieve a solution on these lines, even if it means the removal of the Governor because he is unable to agree with what is put to him?
Mr. Alport: I am not assuming anything. I only hope that the hon. Member and his colleagues will not read more into this incident than is warranted by the facts when they are disclosed.
Following is the statement:
The Nyasaland police were compelled to use tear-smoke and batons on 22nd March to disperse a hostile crowd of Africans blocking a district road near Mlanje, in the Southern Province. Earlier, a police mobile force.
504
accompanied by the District Commissioner, had arrested 13 Africans at Chinyama village some 10 miles from Mlanje. This followed an incident on 21st March in which the tented camp of the Assistant District Commissioner and Agricultural Officer had been pulled down by the villagers without any apparent motive. While the police were returning to Mlanje they encountered a series of road blocks which had to be cleared by the advance party so that the police vehicles could proceed.
At Mbisa village the police party was stopped by a crowd of about 300 Africans. The District Commissioner spoke to the crowd, but they refused to disperse. As the crowd was hostile, the Riot Act was read and the police mobile force moved forward using tear smoke and batons. It was necessary on two further occasions to read the Riot Act and use tear smoke and batons, and in the course of these encounters four villagers were slightly hurt. Six people were arrested for obstructing the police. The police party was stoned in the course of clearing the road blocks, but were able to return safely to Mlanje.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS
  Medical Research (Renal Diseases)
  Mr. Reynolds: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th April, I shall call attention to the need for greater facilities to be made available for medical research, especially in the treatment of renal diseases, and move a Resolution.
  Union of South Africa (Racialist Policies)
  Mr. Stonehouse: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th April, I shall call attention to the racialist policies of the Union of South Africa and the effect of these upon the Commonwealth, and move a Resolution.
  Transport (Rural Areas)
  Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 8th April, I shall call attention to the problem of public transport in rural areas, and move a Resolution.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Ordered,
  That notwithstanding anything in Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) any Private Business set down for Consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock.—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

  ORDERS OF THE DAY
  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.39 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is a Bill which already has quite a long history behind it, a history which, I hope, is now entering its final chapter. The purpose of the Bill is to consolidate and to bring up to date the substantive law with regard to the jurisdiction and powers of magistrates' courts in matrimonial proceedings. I will attempt to move the Second Reading briefly and leave it to my hon. Friend the Solicitor-General to cover any points which may be outstanding.
  The House will, no doubt, recall that the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended that this branch of the law should be codified. Everyone concerned with this operation has for some time felt that action was needed. It may also be recalled that a consolidating Bill was introduced in another place in November, 1957, but it was then found that there was doubt about the proper interpretation of some of the provisions that were to be consolidated and it was then necessary to withdraw the Bill. It was, therefore, not only consolidation, but also clarification, that was needed and the Government thought that the opportunity should be taken to give attention, at the same time, to certain proposals which had been made for the amendment of the law.
  In withdrawing the consolidating Bill, the Government accordingly decided to set up an expert Committee to advise on the replacement of the existing provisions by a single, up-to-date enactment and, at the same time, to advise on the best method of including in the new Measure certain relevant recommendations of the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce and also of making certain other amendments to the law suggested by experience of its working.
  That Committee, which sat under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Arthian
  506
  Davies, reported in January of last year. Annexed to the Committee's Report was a draft Bill which is substantially the Bill which I am now commending to the House. Before proceeding to the substance of the Bill, I wish to pay a tribute to Mr. Justice Davies and the members of his Committee. They were all, in different ways, experienced in matrimonial law and in the work of the magistrates' courts. We are indebted to them for their thorough and painstaking work. The Committee's Report was generally welcomed by the Press, by the women's organisations and by the professional associations most directly concerned. The Government feel that the Bill, which has been based on their work and which is before the House today, is a useful one.
  Perhaps I may also, at this stage, pay a tribute to the work of the magistrates in this difficult sphere. The magistrates, both lay and stipendiary, perform a most important and socially useful task in dealing with matrimonial cases. My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor quoted some statistics when the Bill was under discussion in another place which indicated the magnitude of this work which is discharged by the magistrates with the assistance of their clerks and the other court officers who are concerned in these cases. On this occasion, I wish to repeat only one figure that was then quoted, namely, that in 1958 no fewer than 24,000 applications were made to magistrates' courts under the Acts dealing with separation and maintenance orders with which we are concerned this afternoon.
  To get a more complete picture of magistrates' work in this field, we should add in each year a further 6,000 or 7,000 applications under the Guardianship of Infants Acts, on which about 5,000 orders were made, and over 4,000 applications under the Affiliation Proceedings Act, on which nearly 4,000 orders were made.
  Nor do these bald figures tell anything of the hours that may be spent on a single case: for, while some cases may involve no more than a single hearing, there are others that will involve protracted court appearances, inquiries by probation officers, and repeated enforcement proceedings.

  507
  Much less can the figures speak of the human problems, in an infinite variety, but all having in common a failure to make their domestic life a success, and looking to the courts for help and relief. The human problems that come before the courts are, to a large extent, beyond the reach of the legislator.
  We owe it to those who administer this, to me at least, difficult law to see to it that the law that they administer is clear, concise, effective and, in some respects, I would like to say, simple, but, at least, no more complicated than the subject-matter requires.
  In the Session before last Parliament enacted the Maintenance Orders Act, which gave to magistrates' Courts new and more effective methods of enforcing matrimonial orders. The House may already be aware that, while as yet we have no figures of the number of attachment of earnings orders made under that Act, the striking reduction in the figures of civil prisoners of all kinds— from over 900 early last year, before that Act came into force, to 378 in March this year—clearly suggests that the attachment procedure, although not entirely responsible for this reduction, is being used, and to good effect.
  The time has now come for the revision of the substantive code of law governing maintenance proceedings. Most right hon. and hon. Members who are attending this debate will already have studied the Committee's Report, which sets out in considerable detail the reasons for which the various changes in the law are proposed. My hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will be dealing with some of these points in winding up, and I will, therefore, confine myself to the principal changes in the law that the Bill seeks to make.
  The first principal change is that the relief available to a husband is made substantially the same as that available to a wife. The second change, which is closely related to it, is that the court is given power, in certain circumstances, to order the wife to pay maintenance for the husband. These changes follow upon recommendations of the Royal Commission.
  The third principal change in the law is that the court is given wider powers to make provision in the interests of
  508
  children who are brought within the ambit of the court by the matrimonial proceedings; these include power, where exceptional circumstances make it necessary, to commit a child to the care of a local authority, or, alternatively, to place a child under the supervision of a probation officer or a child care officer of a local authority. These provisions, which are to be found in Clause 2 (1, e and f) again follow in principle the recommendations of the Royal Commission. They give to magistrates' courts powers similar to those that were given to th e High Court in the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958.
  The provisions in the Bill apply to "children of the family", a term which is defined in Clause 16 as meaning any child of both parties—which includes illegitimate and adopted children—and any other child of either party who has been accepted as a member of the family by the other party. This alteration was made in another place and I have no doubt that my hon. and learned Friend will wish to refer to it when he addresses the House.
  The fourth principal change, which is made by Clause 7 (1) of the Bill, modifies a provision in the present law, which provides that a matrimonial order shall not be enforceable, and shall cease to have effect after three months, if husband and wife continue to reside together, by substituting the criterion of cohabitation for that of residence together. This provision is designed to avoid the cases of hardship which may arise when a wife wishes to leave her husband's home, but cannot do so because she cannot find other accommodation, and so is obliged to continue to live separately in the same home.
  The fifth change in the present law is that the Bill gives the court power in certain circumstances to revoke or vary an order for maintenance if the party in whose favour it is made is living abroad. It was recognised by the Royal Commission, and, indeed, has long been recognised, that hardship can be caused when a spouse in whose favour a matrimonial order has been made goes abroad and continues to benefit from the order, but deprives the other spouse of the means of bringing proceedings for revocation or variation, because in those circumstances it is impossible to serve a summons.

  509
  Clause 9, which contains these provisions, has written into it safeguards which, we believe, are sufficient to ensure that a spouse who is thought to have gone abroad will not have a matrimonial order varied in his or her absence without reasonable steps having been taken to give him or her notice of what is intended. The House may recall that the Maintenance Orders Act, 1958, contains a analogous provision for the discharge or variation of an attachment of earnings order made in favour of a person who is residing outside the United Kingdom.
  The sixth and final change in the law which is contained in the Bill, but was not in the Bill attached to the Davies Committee Report, is the increases in the maximum weekly maintenance payments which a magistrates' court may order. The Committee draws attention in paragraph 8 of its Report to the need for an increase. The Government accept that there is a need for increases in the existing amounts, which were fixed in 1949, and Clause 2 provides that the maximum weekly amounts shall be raised from £5 to £7 10s. for a spouse, and from £1 10s. to £2 10s. for each child.
  These increases represent, in the Government's view, a reasonable estimate of the limits within which magistrates' courts should be enabled to work at the present time, in view of the undoubted increases in costs and wages since 1949. I should emphasise to the House that the new amounts, like the old amounts, are maxima, and that it will continue to be for the court to assess the proper amount to order in each case in the light of the facts of the case, and, in particular, the means of the parties involved.
  Such information as the Home Office possesses suggests that at present it is not very common for magistrates' courts to make an order for wife maintenance up to the present maximum of £5, though it is sometimes done. If this is generally true, we may expect to find that when the Bill becomes law orders for more than £5 will not be frequent, but there will be cases in which they are justified. Hence the reason for the increase.
  On the other hand, the Home Office's information indicates that orders for
  510
  child maintenance up to the present maximum of £1 10s. are not uncommon, and so one may expect more use to be made of an increased maximum for child maintenance.
  I think that I should mention, at this stage, that Clause 2 (1, h) of the Bill, following the Committee's recommendation in paragraph 8, provides that when a child is committed to the custody of a third person, or of a local authority, each parent may, if his or her means allow it, be ordered to contribute up to 50s. a week to the child's maintenance, so that the third party or local authority may receive as much as £5 in all.
  The proposed increase for child maintenance makes it desirable, as the Committee recognised, to increase similarly the maximum amounts which may be ordered in guardianship and affiliation proceedings. This is done in Clause 15.
  Another respect in which the Bill differs from that annexed to the Report of the Davies Committee is in the definitions of "habitual drunkard" and of "drug addict". The Royal Commission thought that these definitions were too narrow, and recommended that the definition should be
  " widened so as to include the case of the man or woman who, by reason of constant drinking or drug taking, renders life intolerable to his or her spouse".
  The Davies Committee discussed this recommendation at some length, but while it recognised the stringency of the present test it found difficulty in the alternative recommended by the Royal Commission. After discussion of this matter in another place new definitions of habitual drunkenness and of drug addiction were included in the Bill, which are now to be found in Clause 16.
  For the benefit of any hon. Member who may be interested, I should, perhaps, say a word on how the Bill applies to Scotland. Generally speaking, it does not apply; but certain parts of Acts consolidated by this Bill must be dealt with. The application Clause may look a little complicated, especially if its ramifications are followed through, but the position is simple enough.
  First, English magistrates' courts are given jurisdiction, in certain matrimonial cases, over persons living in Scotland. This re-enacts existing law, but it may

  511
  assist the House if I explain what it involves. A person living in the neighbourhood of a magistrates' court in England may raise proceedings against someone living in Scotland and vice versa.
  Secondly, in order that the writ of the English court shall run in Scotland, it is provided that the sheriff shall endorse a writ or summons before it is served in Scotland. Reciprocal arrangements are not affected, because matrimonial cases in Scotland are not dealt with at a lower level than the sheriff court.
  The Davies Committee believed that the Bill which it approved would provide a convenient, workable and up-to-date system of law relating to matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts. The Bill was thoroughly discussed in another place and, I believe, further improved. I believe that the view of the Davies Committee is shared generally by those concerned in this work, and that the few modifications and extensions which have been made in the Bill since the Committee reported will enhance its value in these respects.
  3.56 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Fletcher: My right hon. and hon. Friends desire to support the Bill on Second Reading and endorse the welcome anticipated by the Minister. We have certain reservations on matters of detail, many of which can, no doubt, be dealt with in Committee, though I think that it would be convenient if I indicated some of them; and I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and others of my hon. Friends will indicate points of detail which they wish to raise during this Second Reading debate.
  For my part, I should like to endorse what the right hon. Gentleman has said by way of tribute, first, to the magistrates who perform such an admirable social function in dealing with these matrimonial cases which come before them to the extent of some 24,000 or 25,000 applications a year. I think that we all recognise that they deal with an essentially human problem, and that it is most desirable in our society that there should be swift, clear and relatively simple procedure which enables, for example, a wife who has been deserted, or for some
  512
  reason is entitled to a separation order, to obtain an order for separation or for maintenance, with the minimum of trouble and expense.
  I should also like to endorse the tribute paid to the Arthian Davies Committee, which performed a most valuable function, which must have saved both this House and another place a good deal of time, in having exhaustively reviewed the law on these subjects so that in the Bill it can be both consolidated and amended.
  There was one omission, I noticed, in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, which I hope that the Solicitor-General will be able to deal with when he replies to the debate. I observed that the Lord Chancellor, in another place, stated that it was his intention, at an early date, to extend the application of the Legal Aid and Advice Act to applications coming before the magistrates in matrimonial cases, both before magistrates' courts and quarter sessions. Personally, I regard that as most desirable, and I hope that we shall have confirmation that that intention will be implemented at an early date.
  The right hon. Gentleman has outlined the main changes in the law which this Bill introduces, and for my part I welcome all of them. We are glad to observe that the present law is to be made entirely reciprocal as between husband and wife. We welcome, also, the fact that the Bill, in so far as it makes certain changes, places the emphasis on the necessity for making better provision for the children of a marriage which has broken down. There are a number of miscellaneous improvements in the Bill designed to bring within the scope of this branch of jurisprudence provision for illegitimate and adopted children and other children who are members of the family of a marriage which has broken up and who are, I think, very happily described, thanks to an Amendment in another place, as "children of the family". We all agree that in these matters it is the interest of the child which should be the governing factor.
  I also welcome very much the announcement of considerably increased maxima which magistrates are to be empowered to award in future both in respect of a spouse, which is being increased from £5 to £7 10s., and in the case of

  513
  children the present allowance of 30s. being increased to 50s. Some of us may doubt whether even these maxima are adequate, bearing in mind the rise in the cost of living, the depreciation in the value of sterling and the fact that this legislation may endure for some time before we have an opportunity of reconsidering whether these new maxima are adequate in all circumstances.
  There is one incidental point with regard to the position of children which I welcome. As I understand, the law at present is that magistrates have power to make orders for the maintenance of children not only up to the age of 16, but also up to the age of 21 in cases where children are undergoing full-time education, or training, or are incapacitated. There is a very notable and commendable amendment in the law which will now, for the first time, enable a magistrates' court to make such an order in respect of a child over 16. That has been a gap which has been apparent in various cases in the law hitherto and is now being rectified.
  I turn to three specific matters on which I would venture to offer some criticism or, at any rate, make some observations which I hope the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General may be able to deal with in his reply. The first arises under Clause 2(1, b) of the Bill. Hon. Members who have the Report of the Davies Committee before them will appreciate that it annexed as a schedule to its Report a draft Rill which was, in fact, the basis of the Bill introduced into another place, and it was there provided that the order which the magistrates should make in matrimonial proceedings in deciding how much should be awarded to a complainant should be such sum as the court considered reasonable having regard to the respective means of the parties.
  There has been, in practice, a good deal of uncertainty as to whether magistrates' courts, in fixing the amount of the award, were entitled to take into account not only the means of the parties but their respective earning capacities. The question sometimes arises: should the court consider in, for example, an application by a wife for a maintenance order not only the wife's means, if any, but also her earning
  514
  capacity? As the House will be aware, it frequently happens, particularly where there are no children, or where there are no young children, that a wife is sometimes in a position to earn very nearly as much as her husband. In such a case, should the husband be penalised in the amount awarded to the wife if the wife chooses not to earn?
  This was a matter which was considered at some length by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce, over which Lord Morton of Henryton presided. The Commission gave a great deal of thought to it and reported in the following terms:
  "If the wife is not working, it is, however, uncertain how far the court has to take into account the amount she would he likely to receive if she were earning. … 'Of course, if a wife does earn, then her earnings must be taken into account; or if she is a young woman with no children, and obviously ought to go out to work in her own interest, but does not, then her potential earning capacity ought to be taken into account; or if she had worked regularly during the married life, and might reasonably be expected to work after the divorce, her potential earnings ought to be taken into account. Except in cases such as these it does not as a rule lie in the mouth of a wrongdoing husband to say that she ought to go out to work simply in order to relieve him from paying maintenance'."
  This matter was then considered by the Davies Committee, which took rather a different view of the legal position. On page 29 of its Report it says, in parenthesis, in a paragraph which is printed within brackets:
  "… (It was suggested to the Committee that under the present law the court may not take into account a wife's earning capacity … and that the draft Bill should give express power to do this …)"
  It then says that it came to this conclusion:
  "… the Committee is satisfied that, although practice may differ, there is no such rule ….
  I observe that the present Bill contains a notable departure from the draft Bill produced by the Davies Committee. Clause 2 (1, b) now provides that the court shall award such sum
  "…as the court considers reasonable in all the circumstances of the case."
  Personally, I would have preferred an explicit direction to the court to have regard not only to the means of the parties, but also to their respective earning capacities. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be good enough to say whether he is satisfied that the

  515
  present language laid down for the future guidance of magistrates' courts is sufficient to enable the magistrates' courts to follow the practice which for a long time past on this branch of the law has been followed in the High Court.
  The second point on which I desire to say a few words arises under Clause 7, and is a matter of some social importance. As the law now stands, a wife whose husband fails to maintain her has to leave him and leave the matrimonial home before she can enforce an order for maintenance. As I understand the provisions of Clause 7, the law on that subject is not substantially changed. One appreciates that a wife who is deserted or a wife whose husband fails to support her by paying her any household allowance is entitled to go to the court and obtain what has hitherto been called a maintenance order but which in future, under the terminology introduced in the Bill, will be called a matrimonial order. But a wife will not be able to enforce such order until she has actually departed from the matrimonial home.
  This is a situation which in my experience, and I am sure in the experience of my hon. Friends, often imposes considerable hardship on a wife, particularly in urban areas where there is an acute housing shortage and a serious housing problem and in which very often, with the best will in the world, it is impossible for a happily married couple and family to obtain any alternative accommodation. But it is infinitely more difficult for a wife, deserted in such circumstances, perhaps with young children, to go out and find somewhere else in which to live.
  I appreciate that the terms of the Clause use the word "cohabit". Clause 7 says that
  "the order shall not be enforceable and no liability shall accrue thereunder until they "—
  that is, the parties—
  "have ceased to cohabit."
  I am chinking of cases which have come to my knowledge in which the wife has been living with her husband and children, frequently in only two rooms and sometimes in only one room, and in circumstances in which friction has arisen, very often aggravated by the deplorable housing conditions in which so many people are, unfortunately, con-
  516
  demned to live, and in circumstances in which a wife is entitled to obtain an order, obtains it, but has this difficulty about enforcing it.
  This was a matter which was also considered by the Royal Commission, and one reason why I venture to urge that the Bill should be amended in this particular is because the course which I am urging was strongly recommended, by a majority of eighteen to one, by the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce.
  The Commission said:
  "We recommend … with one dissentient, that if a wife obtains an order on the ground of her husband's wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance for her (or the children), her husband should be liable to make payments under the order, and it should be enforceable, notwithstanding that husband and wife are living together in circumstances amounting to full cohabitation."
  The Commission gave its reasons for making that recommendation, and I regard it as a matter of regret that the recommendation is not carried into effect in the Bill.
  It is perfectly true that the matter was considered, but apparently not in any great detail, by the Arthian Davies Committee. It dismissed it somewhat lightly on page 37 of its Report, in which it merely says that
  "… the Committee have not felt justified in including in the draft Bill the Royal Commission's further recommendation (115) that where an order is made on the ground of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance the defendent should be liable to make payments under it, and the order should be enforceable, even if the spouses are living together in circumstances amounting to full cohabitation."
  The Committee gives no reason whatsoever for departing from the recommendation of the Royal Commission which, as I have said, was carried by a majority of eighteen to one.
  In my view, not only will cases of real hardship continue to arise unless this provision in the Bill is amended, but it is important to notice that there is this further serious anomaly that unless the Bill is amended in this particular a very regrettable difference in the law will continue to obtain with regard to cases that arise in the High Court and cases that arise in the magistrates' court.
  If a husband and wife quarrel, and the wife goes to the High Court to obtain a separation and a maintenance allowance,

  517
  she is entitled to obtain an order and to enforce it, notwithstanding the fact that the parties still continue to cohabit and live in the same household and presumably in the same room. This is a case of an invidious social discrimination for which I, personally, can see no justification at all, and I hope that it is one of the defects which we can redress in Committee.
  Then there is the third point, which will require some consideration. The Bill provides, for, I think, the first time, in Clause 2 (1, e) that in future the magistrates, in making provisions for the custody of the children of a marriage which has broken down, should be able to commit the children not merely to the custody of either parent or some other individual, but to the local authority. In so far as that is in the interests of the children, I very much welcome it. of course. I appreciate that it is a provision which will be exercised only in special circumstances, and I hope that it will be very carefully exercised.
  Two questions, however, arise. The first, in the interest of the child as well as that of the local authority, is whether, in such a case, there is any reason why there should be a restriction on the maximum amount which either parent should be ordered to pay. The House will be aware that the general law in regard to children requiring care and protection is laid down in legislation dealing with children, and it frequently happens that cases arise in which the child is committed to the care of a local authority in circumstances where there may be unhappiness in the matrimonial home, but it has not become such as to justify either party in going to the court for a matrimonial order.
  In all such cases the magistrates are entitled to make an order for a contribution from either parent without any limit of amount. The only limit that is, in fact, acknowledged is the cost to the local authority of providing for such a child. My information, derived from the Association of Municipal Corporations, is that the average cost of maintaining a child is over £4 a week, in some places as much as £7 a week. In the interests of uniformity of the law, I ask the Government, therefore, to consider whether, in this class of case, there is any merit in prescribing the
  518
  same maximum as applies to an order where the child is in the custody of one of the parties to the marriage.
  There is a further difficulty that arises in this class of case. In cases of children committed to the custody of a local authority, under the existing law the local authority has parental rights. It is able to exercise the discretion of a parent with regard to the education of a child, with regard to treatment in hospital should such be necessary, with regard to access by another spouse, and so forth. As the Bill stands, it is uncertain whether, if a child is committed to the care of a local authority, the parental rights will be vested in the local authority, or will remain with the court, or perhaps with the parents. That is a Committee point which, I hope. we shall be able to clear up later.
  No doubt there are other points of detail which will be raised during the course of this debate. I have spoken of those that occur to me and, having made those recommendations, I conclude as I began, by endorsing the welcome which has been given to the Bill, based, as it is, on the very valuable labours and advice of the Arthian Davies Committee.
  4.22 p.m.
  Mr. W. G. Morgan: In accordance with tradition, I ask for the indulgence of the House on this, the first occasion that I have had the honour to address it. In doing so, I have two things well in mind. The first is that I must make some appropriate reference to the constituency which I have the honour to represent. The second is that I shall be uncontroversial.
  In the limited time at my disposal I feel that I can hardly do justice to my constituency. I like to think that it is the fairest part of this realm, being, as it is, in the heart of North Wales. We have many beauty spots. We have majestic mountains. We have the Vale of Llangollen, the Vale of Clwyd, and even part of the Vale of Conway. I think it right to say that we also have an excellent seaside resort in Colwyn Bay. Our beauty spots have achieved national fame, but we can do even better than that, because in Llangollen we have achieved international distinction by the International Musical Eisteddfod that

  519
  has been held there regularly for the last twelve years.
  Before I pass from the scenic grandeur of North Wales to the rather more prosaic provisions of the Bill, it is only right that I should say, in fairness to my constituents, that they are not unduly given to litigation of this kind. I am prompted to make a modest contribution to the debate merely because it is a matter of considerable public concern. I am the more inclined to do so because this important Measure is probably of greater public concern than many other Measures which have been much more publicised when they have come before the House.
  As regards the second requisite for a maiden speech, I feel it will be difficult in this case to be controversial, because this is a Measure that will be welcomed on both sides of the House, since there is no political flavour to it. Its importance can be gauged from the fact, which was brought to the notice of the House by my right hon. Friend, that about 25,000 applications under the provisions of the existing Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Acts are made to the courts annually. I believe that about 14,000 orders are made and, of course, a further 5,000 orders, roughly speaking, are made annually under the provisions of the Guardianship of Infants Act. Put another way, this is roughly equivalent to the number of matrimonial causes entered annually in the High Court. I would like to make this comment as well, that the financial effect of some of those orders made in the magistrates' courts is often far greater in the last analysis than those of civil actions tried in the more majestic surroundings of assize courts.
  I endorse the tributes which have been paid to the work done by magistrates who have carried out their work on the special panels appointed for this purpose since 1935. I also add a tribute to the work done by magistrates' clerks. Having had some experience in this kind of litigation, I cannot conceal my admiration for the way in which magistrates' clerks have often dealt "off the cuff", as it were, with knotty points raised by the ingenuity of advocates.
  The Bill contains many points on which it may be commended. The first is that it consolidates the law. That
  520
  is always desirable, and particularly so when the administration of this part of the law is left to lay magistrates to such a great extent. Secondly, it makes the relief which is available to a husband the same, broadly speaking, as that available to a wife. For the last eighty years we have been concerned in this country to raise women to the status of men. Paradoxically enough, in this case we are raising men more or less to the status of women.
  The provisions enabling husbands to sue wives are not actually an innovation. It is a little-known fact that such proceedings can already be taken, for example, on the ground of adultery. Now it will be possible for them to be taken on the grounds of cruelty and desertion as well, and, of course, the provisions for the payment of maintenance are a new departure.
  Here the Bill does not quite make men the equal of women, because a wife may obtain maintenance against a husband even though she has an earning capacity of her own, whereas the husband can obtain maintenance only if his earning capacity has been impaired through old age, ill-health or disablement. However, I do not think that men will begrudge to the fair sex this remaining crumb of privilege. I doubt whether much recourse will be had by husbands to the right of maintenance given by the Bill, but it establishes a just and necessary principle.
  I welcome, also, the wider powers given to magistrates' courts to make orders for the benefit of children of a marriage that has broken down, which, broadly speaking, are the same as those which have been enjoyed by the High Court since the passing of the Matrimonial Proceedings (Children) Act, 1958. I welcome, too, the very necessary increase in the maximum weekly amounts that can be the subject of an order, and also the replacement of the old criterion of residence by that of cohabitation as a bar to the enforcement of an order.
  On this, of all occasions, I must not exceed my time, but I hope no one will consider me impertinent if I refer to three points of detail. The first has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher), and I hope that the matters I

  521
  am referring to may be considered at a later stage or perhaps in ancillary legislation. I am fortified in referring to them by the fact that they have already ben raised in another place by persons much more competent to do so than I am.
  One observation I make is that it will still, even under this Measure, be necessary for a wife to leave her husband before an order which she has obtained can be enforced. She will have to leave him even if it means only that she sets up a separate ménage—if that is possible —under the same roof. As the hon. Member for Islington, East said, the Royal Commission which discussed this matter was heavily against the state of the law whereby a wife has to leave her husband before she can enforce the order which she has obtained. I believe that the voting was eighteen to one against.
  There are two objections to a change of the law in this respect. The first is that it would be casting too heavy a burden upon magistrates to interfere, as it were, in the economy of a matrimonial home by making an order in the case of a wife who continues to live with her husband. It has also been said that the problem has, to some extent, been met by the replacement of the criterion of residence by cohabitation. But it does occur to me, as I believe it occurred to the hon. Member for Islington, East, that there is a possibility of injustice.
  I have in mind the kind of case where a wife has an improvident husband, who spends his money on drink and the "dogs." She can get an order on the grounds of his wilful neglect to provide her with reasonable maintenance, but it may be impossible for her to leave him, and the accommodation may be so limited that it will be quite impossible for her to cease cohabitation, or, at any rate, to prove that it has ceased. That is the kind of case I have in mind. It may be rare, but as the law stands injustice could result, and I would be happy to see the recommendation of the Royal Commission implemented.
  I will discuss two other matters briefly. One is the technical matter of condonation. It is an important matter in the matrimonial law generally. The law, since the decision in Henderson v. Henderson in 1944, has, in this respect, been unfairly weighted against the
  522
  husband, and the Royal Commission, presided over by Lord Morton of Henry-ton, recommended that husbands and wives should be placed on equality in this respect. The objection to that being done in this Bill is that it would be impracticable to have one definition of condonation for the magistrates' courts and a different one for the High Court, but this is a matter which should be considered in some way. Some steps should be taken to amend the law in this respect.
  My last point is very simple. It is not a profound legal point, but, in practice, it may be the most important of all. Under the Income Tax Act, 1952, small maintenance payments up to £5 in the case of a spouse and 30s. in the case of a child can be made without deduction of Income Tax. This provision should be extended to the increased amounts of £7 10s. and £2 10s. respectively which are fixed in the Bill. As we are all no doubt painfully aware, sometimes it is a difficult and lengthy matter to obtain repayment of tax, and the provisions of the 1952 Act should be applied to this new Measure.
  That, of course, is really a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and I appreciate that it is a delicate matter to raise at this time of the year. I hope, however, that he will give it his consideration. I would be very grateful if my right hon. Friends would also give their consideration to such points as I have raised. In conclusion, may I express my appreciation to hon. Members for the indulgence which they have shown me on this occasion.
  4.35 p.m.
  Mr. Leo Abse: I am sure that the whole House would like to congratulate the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on the very erudite contribution he has made. I regard myself as fortunate, coming from South Wales,to be able to congratulate a Member from North Wales. When he speaks of the beauty of his land, I am sure we all agree that, apart from South Wales, North Wales is indeed the fairest part of the realm. I am sure that he will make many contributions, not only to matters such as this, with considerable weight, but also in speaking on matters broadly affecting Wales, which concern all of us.

  523
  I hope that I shall not be regarded as being churlish if I am a little restrained in my congratulations on this Bill. Certainly it is not because I wish in any way to do other than join those who applaud the efforts made by magistrates and their clerks in dealing with this intricate part of the law. Nevertheless, I feel that there are certain aspects which are, in this field, being neglected and which are of considerable importance.
  We have been given a short history of the events leading to the Bill, and certainly I would not like to go back to more than 100 years ago when matrimonial causes were in the hands of ecclesiastical courts. These courts, when they administered the matrimonial law, took it as their first task to attempt reconciliation; that was a pastoral office of the Church. It is regrettable that secular courts are ill-equipped to make similar attempts with the same zeal.
  I would have thought that the very distinguished Departmental Committee, presided over by a distinguished Welshman, would not, when charged with the task of making a workable and up to date system of matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts, have been constrained, even by its rather narrow terms of reference, to avoid re-examining the present machinery for attempting reconciliation. Certainly the desperate need for adequate machinery is underlined by the figures which have been given— 24,000 applications made to magistrates' courts under the Summary Jurisdiction Act in 1958. These are the cases which probably lead, ultimately, to seven marriages out of every 100 in this country being doomed to end in the divorce court.
  The extension of legal aid to matrimonial proceedings, and the passing of this Bill, will undoubtedly succeed in taking major steps in perfecting the machinery for the severance of marriages in the land. I regret that the State does not pursue with the same energy and sense of responsibility a service that would mean that some—possibly 50,000 —children would not, each year, suddenly find that what we are now describing as a matrimonial order or a decree of the higher court has caused them to lose one or—by the workings of this Bill—both parents. This Bill
  524
  once again gives painstaking attention to marital rights but is comparatively indifferent to what I may regard as family rights.
  It is now almost twenty-five years since the work of probation officers in reconciliation was acknowledged in the Domestic Proceedings Act, 1937, and it is fifteen years since Lord Merriman's proposals to build an element of conciliation within our marital law were rejected. It is thirteen years since the Denning Committee called for a State-sponsored marriage welfare service.
  Surely a Bill responding to the request that there should be brought into being an up-to-date system of law relating to matrimonial proceedings would in the face of the persistent contemporary clamour for maintenance orders and divorces, have brought some hope that some new attempt would be made to save children from the disaster of the broken home. Instead, all the Bill does is to leave the hapless probation officer to carry yet more burdens. To the task of marriage reconciler must now be added by this Bill the new statutory rôle of vicarious parent.
  I wonder whether, when passing the Bill, we appreciate fully what burdens already fall upon probation officers. At present, the typical city probation officer regularly supervises about 70 juveniles and adults who come before the courts. He can quite easily give 200 reports on offenders each year to magistrates' courts and 50 reports to quarter sessions. He prepares scores of reports for psychiatrists on juveniles in custody. He reports to attendance centre officers on the boys being sent to them. We have given him extra burdens recently by causing him to act as guardian ad litem under the recent Adoption Acts, and he has supervision orders by the score to follow up on fines which have been made on dozens of young people. Now the Home Office clearly intends that the probation service should carry the after-care of under-21's released from the detention centres.
  I do not want to go on enumerating the burdens which fall upon probation officers. It seems to me far easier to pass a Bill of this character placing extra burdens upon them than to expect those duties to be carried out with efficiency. It is obvious that with his present burdens the probation officer

  525
  cannot adequately cope with what is the most exhausting task of all, which is to attempt to bring an armistice to the battle of the sexes.
  In any event, it is certainly no disparagement of the probation officer to say that he is ill-equipped and ill-trained very often, as well as absurdly low paid for his task. Some of the best probation officers I know are men over 30 who have received only twelve months' training, only three months of which is anything more than an empirical course.
  But the task of conciliation between parties whose love has temporarily turned to such hate as to bring them into magistrates' courts, as I well know from my own experience, is essentially a professional one. Well-intentioned magistrates may kindly cajole them; solicitors may, as they so often do, endeavour to bring their warring clients together; and overworked probation officers may occasionally succeed. But, more usually, if success is to be attained, problems between the man and wife need to be levered out by psychiatric help. Magistrates and solicitors can deal only with the explicit surface problems. The subject matter of complaints enumerated in Clause 1 are mere symptoms, not causes, of the breakdown of marriage. To attain a real catharsis, readjustment and reconciliation, is a psychiatric task, and the machinery and personnel should be available to help those who come before the courts.
  I am aware that built-in reconciliation procedures within the law in some Continental countries have been reduced to a farce or a mere formality, but there have been other attempts made, both in the United States of America and Canada, that are worth trying out in this country.
  In Canada, for example, I understand that family courts exist in Montreal, Toronto and Quebec. In Toronto, the family court is housed in a magnificent building, has a president who has a background of child psychology and philosophy, with experience of social work, and several of the judges of the court are full-time, and not all of them are lawyers. The court possesses splendid facilities, including an up-to-date psychiatric clinic with a full-time psychiatrist as director and a full-time psychologist as deputy director. It is
  526
  endowed with a large lecture room and has, I understand, the aid of social workers. In the United States, too, there are a number of such clinics which are either independent bodies placing their services at the disposal of the court or in fact belonging to the court.
  I know that every time the Home Secretary mentions psychiatrists in a discussion on crime and delinquency Tory back benchers reach for their whips, but surely even the most unsophisticated of his back benchers would not raise objections to the deployment of contemporary depth psychology techniques to prevent broken homes. Even those back benchers must know that the most casual reading of the case histories of boys in our approved schools shows that for the children of broken marriages there is a direct route from the magistrates' matrimonial courts to Borstal.
  It is true that, under the Bill, to protect such children a child can be committed to the care of the local authority or placed under its supervision. This is one more burden being placed on child care officers. We pass the Bill. That is easy. They have the burden. They, like probation officers, are hopelessly overstretched. Only 650 people have been trained in twelve years for a service whose strength needs to be kept at about 1,400 and whose requirements for newly trained personnel are certainly not less than 200 a year. Whilst in the Bill we shift more responsibility for children away from the parents to these officers, we continue to expend wretchedly inadequate amounts both upon their recruiting and their training.
  People today are marrying much younger, and so there is bound to be— in fact, I believe I can already see it— a tendency for many more younger people to turn to magistrates' matrimonial courts, particularly when trouble arises during the first three years of marriage when they are substantially debarred from proceeding to the Divorce Court. Perforce they will be coming to the courts when they have very young children. Psychoanalytical studies in delinquency all point to the permanent emotional stunting which can be traced back to an unstable first five years of life. These young marrieds who have not shaken down to the disciplines of married life

  527
  come to the courts we are discussing. A healthy society, for their sake and the sake of their children, should have something more to offer than a harassed probation officer and a Bill such as this which so efficiently codifies the degree of hate, recrimination and indifference necessary to obtain a separation.
  In a recent custody application a pathetic document was exhibited to one of the affidavits. It was the incoherent plea of a 7-year-old girl living unhappily with her father and his brand-new youthful wife. Her plea ended by asking that the mother—the child's real mother-should have the custody of the child. The child continued:
  "When will they tell me where I am going?
  Who decides these things, anyway? "
  To that child's questioning and to all such children this type of Bill indeed gives a dusty answer.
  In my view, we shall have a right as legislators to congratulate ourselves on having an up-to-date matrimonial law only when we have built into it a conciliation service adequately manned by psychiatrists, psychiatric social workers and an adequate number of family case workers.
  4.48 p.m.
  Mr. Graham Page: I am rather embarrassed at intervening after the eloquence from both North Wales and South Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on his most eloquent, interesting and informative maiden speech. I was particularly gratified by his very generous and kind remarks about magistrates' clerks. I was one myself once. From knowledge thus gained, and gained too from practising in the magistrates' courts, there are one or two points to which I should like to refer on the Bill, without referring to all the good points which have been mentioned. These are, I hope, two constructively critical points.
  I look at the Bill from the point of view of what I might call the fourth parties. There are normally three parties to these proceedings—the husband, the wife, and the child or children. In certain cases there is, as it were, a fourth party.
  The definition of "child of the family" includes the child of either the husband or the wife concerned in the proceedings
  528
  by another. That means that there may be a parent not a party to the proceedings concerned with a child about whom an order can be made under the Bill; a parent who should be entitled to express an opinion to the court as to the future of that child. Indeed, the Bill as drafted allows that parent to be represented before the court, or to appear himself, or herself, before a court in certain circumstances.
  Under Clause 2 (1, d), for example, the court can make an order for the legal custody of the child. Under paragraph (e) the court can make an order committing the child to the care of the local authority. Under paragraph (f) the child can be committed to the custody of some independent person. Under paragraph (g) the court can make an order as to access. In all those cases the court may be dealing with a child who is not the child of both the husband and wife then before the court. Under Clause 4 (6) the parent of such a child is entitled, as I read that subsection, to come before the court and make representations concerning that child.
  I am not sure, however, from that subsection, nor from the Bill as a whole, exactly how that person is brought before the court. I think that under paragraph (b) of that subsection it is necessary for the persons who are already parties to the proceedings to give some sort of notice to the parent of the child, but it is not clear how that parent is to be notified and brought before the court. Under Clause 10, which deals with the variation of an order, where there is a child of the family who is not a child of both parties to the marriage, the parent of that child has a right to be heard.
  There is a strange difference between Clause 10 (1, a) and Clause 4 (6). Under Clause 4 (6) there is a proviso that there is no need to give notice to any person who is the father of an illegitimate child unless that person has been adjudged by a court to be the father of that child. That proviso does not appear in Clause 10, and I am a little puzzled why it should appear in Clause 4. It seems that to have the right to come before the court on these matrimonial proceedings the father of the illegitimate child concerned in these proceedings must have been adjudged by a court to be the father.

  529
  It might be that amicable arrangements had been made for the child to live as a child of the family, and in such a case there would be no court order. It is in such a case that the father of the illegitimate child would be most likely to assist the husband and wife parted. I do not know whether under that proviso it will be possible for the court, in these matrimonial proceedings before it, to adjudge a person to be the father of the child. I do not know whether it could be done in one proceeding or whether this proviso requires it to have been done before, but it is a matter which might be looked at. We ought to try, not necessarily for the sake of the parent of the illegitimate child but for the sake of the child itself, to see that if that parent desires to help in the difficult circumstances which may have arisen, he or she has notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to come into court to help in the future of the child. That is one type of fourth party to these proceedings.
  The other type of fourth party is the person with whom adultery may be alleged. Under Clause 1 (1, d) adultery is one of the causes upon which complaint can be made, and therefore an order can be made. There is nothing in the Bill which obliges the party alleging adultery to give notice to what we would call in the High Court the co-respondent, or, if it were a woman, the woman intervener.
  These matrimonial proceedings could go through, a decision could be made by the magistrate that adultery had been committed, say by the wife with Mr. X, his name could be blazoned in the court and in the headlines of the local papers, and Mr. X may know nothing about the proceedings having been brought. That seems grossly unfair.
  The Royal Commission recommended that some form of procedure should be set up to give the person whom the noble Lord, the Lord Chancellor, referred to many times as the paramour, notice of adultery. The Royal Commission said:
  "Nevertheless, we think that it is right in principle that a person who is alleged to have committed adultery should be allowed to defend himself. Accordingly, we recommend that notice of an allegation of adultery should be sent by the court by registered post to the last known address, if any, of the third person: that person should then have the right to
  530
  appear and defend himself or herself against the charge. We consider that if this simple procedure were adopted, it would, so far as is reasonably practicable, rule out the possibility of injustice being done."
  I emphasise the words:
  "if this simple procedure were adopted"
  because the argument against giving notice to a co-respondent, or to a woman intervener, and allowing him or her to come into the proceedings is that it would complicate the proceedings before the magistrates. The Royal Commission did not think that, and surely that is no excuse for injustice to the person whose does not know whether the proceedings are taking place and yet is accused of adultery in those proceedings.
  A further argument against the Royal Commission's recommendations has been, "Oh, this does not happen." The Lord Chancellor in another place continually said, "It does not happen." The argument is that if a wife is accused of adultery and she wants to deny it she usually brings the man with whom she is supposed to have committed adultery before the court. Sometimes he is called by the complainant. It is therefore said, "Usually he is before the court, and knows all about it."
  There was evidence before the Royal Commission of a case which is exactly of the type I have in mind when I say that this is unfair. Mr. Wilson, the president of the Justices' Clerks Society, gave evidence before the Commission. I will put his evidence in my own words rather than read a long paragraph. He referred to a man and wife who were on bad terms. The wife was a neurotic, who often went to see her doctor. In order to annoy her husband, one day she said that she had habitually committed adultery with that doctor, and the husband believed her. The story was quite untrue, but the husband brought proceedings in the magistrates' court alleging that adultery. Fortunately, the justices' clerk was very concerned about this allegation against a well-known local doctor, and he consulted the Director of Public Prosecutions as to what should be done. In the end, the case did not come into court and the doctor did not receive the publicity which he might have done, which could have been very damaging to him.
  That is a particular instance; indeed, it may show why the argument is used

  531
  that this kind of thing does not happen. I agree that magistrates' clerks take some care in these matters when they see allegations of this sort being made and try to prevent damage occurring. But it is not up to magistrates' clerks to do that. It is not their job, and perhaps they are acting most improperly when they do it. There is, therefore, not merely a mere possibility of injustice here; injustice is done in many cases, especially in that a magistrates' court order can be used in the High Court in subsequent divorce proceedings as prima facie evidence of the facts found by the magistrates. That means that a person may be accused, with no knowledge to himself or herself, of having committed adultery. The magistrates may find that proved without calling that man or woman before them, and the order of the magistrates may go to the High Court as prima facie evidence that adultery has been committed. A quite simple procedure can avoid that. The person alleged to have committed adultery can be given notice.
  The argument that this would be complicated is overcome by the fact that legal aid is to be applied to proceedings in magistrates' courts. Further, it is nothing new for three parties to appear before the courts, where there were only two to start with and one more is brought in as a third party. It happens in connection with the Food and Drugs Act and the Public Health Acts. An owner may be prosecuted for some offence and he may say, "I am not responsible; it is the occupier who is responsible. I want to bring him into the proceedings. He ought to have provided the dustbin," or, "He ought to have put in the grate, for the clean air programme." It is quite a usual proceeding in magistrates' courts for notice to be given by one party to bring in a third party.
  That procedure could be applied to the Bill, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General will give this matter serious consideration. The argument that I am now putting forward failed in another place, but I hope that it will be more successful in this House.
  5.4 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), in his usual analytical way, has raised
  532
  some very important points. I am obliged to him for doing so, and especially so in regard to one point which he emphasised. I am delighted that he has again brought to the notice of the Government the proviso to Clause 4 (6). It is true to say that in these circumstances nobody is better able to help a matrimonial court than the person who is accused of being the father of an illegitimate child when the proceedings before the court are based on adultery. Like the hon. Member, I hope that the Government will look again at this proviso in order to see whether it is not possible to remove this stain and to give people in this position a proper opportunity to state their case.
  As the hon. Member said, cases have occurred in which men's names have been bandied about because of reports which have gone outside the courts. These people have found themselves in very difficult positions. They are entitled to receive adequate notice in order that they may appear in proceedings of this kind.
  As far as I remember, everyone who has addressed the House so far, apart from the Joint Under-Secretary of State, has been either trained or learned in the law, and I rise as the first layman to speak since the Minister himself. On that account, I may claim to be entitled to express the thanks of lay magistrates to almost everybody who has spoken about them. Starting with the right hon. Gentleman himself, commendations have been made in respect of the work of the lay magistrates and stipendiary magistrates in matrimonial courts. We lay magistrates feel that in our work in the matrimonial courts we are probably rendering to the community a much greater service than we are able to render in the ordinary adult courts in which we sit. Matters there are very difficult from time to time, but in the matrimonial courts we are faced with human problems day after day and week after week, and in those circumstances it is very nice to know that what we are trying to do is appreciated.
  I want to deal with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Ponty-pool (Mr. Abse). He dealt at great length, in a powerful speech, with the question of reconciliation, and he

  533
  pointed out that the Bill in no way touches that great subject. I am as concerned as he that Parliament should not always act in a way which creates the impression that it is helping to break up marriages while doing very little to maintain them. I am sorry that my hon. Friend is not present, because I wanted to tell him that although I largely agree with him about the principle of the matter, I thought that he drew some rather exaggerated conclusions. It seems to me to be cracking a nut with a sledgehammer to try to bring about reconciliation with all the paraphernalia of the institutions which he described in coun-tries like Canada and the United States.
  I should like to see incorporated in the Bill the right type of reconciliation machinery, even though it is in the hands only of magistrates. Perhaps I am betraying a little magisterial pride and, if so. I apologise. But I feel that magistrates could be given much greater powers to enable them to do more in the way of reconciliation work. I should like to see established special reconciliation courts where there might be one magistrate, or perhaps two at the most, who would, as it were, hear the preliminaries of a case. They would hear the application, not in detail, but a general statement. If the court felt that there was a real chance of saving the marriage, a date could be fixed when, in the presence of an independent person, the man and wife could discuss their affairs and be assisted by a magistrate who would have a great deal of experience in these matters. In that way it might be possible to bring the couple together again before a full application was heard and a decision made.
  I confess that I have tried this method, and I may say that my efforts were attended with a good deal of success. If, however, such a preliminary hearing proved unsuccessful, the full application should ultimately be heard by other magistrates. I should like the Home Office and the Solicitor-General to consider this question and to see whether it is possible to include in the Bill something on the lines of the reconciliation machinery which I have suggested.
  Despite that criticism, I join with other hon. Members in welcoming the Bill. It was necessary that we should have a consolidation Measure of this kind, and it is good to feel that these
  534
  matters are being brought within the compass of one Act of Parliament. That will assist in the administration of the courts. The provisions contained in Clause 1 will simplify the work of the courts. The Clause lays down what shall be the reasons for the granting of a separation order. I have always been of the opinion that the legislation regarding matrimonial courts was far too loose, and this will have the effect of tightening it up.
  I consider that Clause 4 provides extra safeguards for children. It will assist in the work already being done under the provisions contained in the Children Act and other Measures designed for the safeguarding of children which are already on the Statute Book. Sometimes, as we know from experience, it is desirable that the children should not be with either their father or their mother.
  I wish to say a word about Clause 6, which deals with interim orders. I am glad that it has been seen fit to include in this Measure a provision that there may be more interim orders by magistrates' courts, but I am wondering whether the period of three months is sufficient. We know that where cases have to come before the High Court long delays may occur. A period of more than three months may elapse before the case can be heard; for example, we must take into consideration the vacation time. Perhaps the Government ought to look at this limit of three months and consider whether it is possible to make interim orders for a period exceeding three months because of the possibility of delay. In some cases, three months would be a long time for a defendant to have an interim order placed upon him when ultimately no order would be made against him. But I think that the danger that the High Court may be so long in hearing the case is the greater.
  There is also the question of payments, which has always been a controversial matter. I remember that when a Bill, which was supported by Mrs. Muriel Nichol, was introduced in 1949 and became the Married Women (Maintenance) Act, we pushed the amount of the payments up to £5 for a wife and 30s. for a child. At that time we discussed whether to increase the amount of £5. The previous figures were ridiculous in the light of what happened during the war and in relation to

  535
  incomes following the war years. Since that previous legislation the value of money has changed. Today we may well be legislating for many years to come, and I wonder whether an allowance of £7 10s. as a maximum is sufficient.
  Many women who appear before these courts have been used to quite a high standard of living. Often their husbands are men with adequate incomes, and if a man has been "kicking over the traces" and makes himself liable to the provisions of Clause 1 of the Bill he may very well think, if he is well off, that £7 10s. a week is pretty cheap for getting rid of a wife he does not want. I am open to conviction, but I think that we might easily go to a figure of £10 and leave it to the discretion of the magistrates, as is at present the case. If the justices could go to an upper limit of £10, I am sure that in many cases that would be a valuable thing. When I think of the appetites of children between the ages of 11 and 16, I am concerned about whether 50s. is sufficient to keep a child, and there is also, of course, the question of education costs to consider.
  The Bill provides for an independent person to take charge of a child in certain circumstances. Under the Children Act and other legislation, we have encountered difficulties regarding foster parents. Particularly in the case of working class people, it requires real love for a child who is not one of the family to keep it on an inadequate allowance. There is no danger nowadays of people taking in children just for the money; child farming has gone from our midst—I hope forever.
  In those circumstances, is 50s. enough for that independent person to take over a child of tender years, bring it up to the age of 16, with all the responsibility of feeding and clothing it, and making some contribution to its education? I doubt whether the £7 10s. for the wife and the 50s. for the child is enough. I know that these are Committee points, and I apologise for raising them at this stage. However, I would like the Government to consider them before the Bill is considered in Committee.
  Having made those minor criticisms, I say with great sincerity that this is a good Bill. It has been needed for a long time, and I wish it well in its pro-
  536
  gress. I thank the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary for the way in which he introduced it. I cannot claim legal knowledge such as is possessed by people like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), but after a long experience as a lay justice, I hope that I may claim to have some real interest in this subject.
  5.22 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Gower: If, after the remarks of the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), it is necessary to state an interest, I have to say that I, too, am connected with the legal profession. First, as a colleague representing yet another constituency in South Wales, I should like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on his maiden speech. I express to him my best wishes for future occasions of debate.
  I should like to comment on the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page). I hope that my right hon. Friend will realise, as a result of some of the speeches, that there are a considerable number of hon. Members who feel very strongly about this particular matter. Whatever was said in another place, some of us think that this provision should be altered, and that we should subscribe to the idea that it is right in principle for a person alleged to have committed adultery to be allowed to defend himself and, moreover, to have the knowledge necessary for him to do so.
  I have spoken to a number of solicitor colleagues and friends who do a lot of work in the magistrates' courts, and I find that they are quite united in thinking that there should be this alteration to the Bill. I am sure that my right hon. Friend has noted that this was said in another place, and that it is also the view of the Law Society. I cannot speak, of course, for the other branch of the profession, except those with whom I have come in contact, but I can say that most barristers to whom I have spoken about it seem to share this view.
  Therefore, while I have noted the objections made and the countervailing reasons stated, I would point out to my right hon. Friend that, in his evidence before the Royal Commission, the president of the Magistrates' Clerks' Association said that he saw no difficulty in such

  537
  a notice being served. It was suggested that service should be by registered post to the last known address, but I think that there should also be some advertisement in the Press in the area in which the person has lived; as there is always a very grave danger that the person may have changed his address, and someone else may have signed the receipt for the registered letter, as is sometimes done. I myself have sometimes had people accept registered letters and sign for them on my behalf.
  There is that danger, and there is the danger of the signature being illegible. I certainly think that notice should be sent by registered post in the form suggested by the president of the Magistrates' Clerks' Association, and I hope that we shall have some assurance on this very important point before this Bill goes through.
  As the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) said, this Bill classifies with admirable clarity the reasons for which a court may make a matrimonial order. We now have, as it were, a clear charter for magistrates. As has also been pointed out, this is associated with a very considerable extension of the facilities of legal aid. In other words, separation at the order of the matrimonial court will be easier, more practicable, than ever before.
  I suppose that this reflects changing social opinions about separation and, indeed, about divorce, but I have recently discovered, as other hon. Members probably have, a good deal of anxiety in the minds of people lest this process may not have gone too far. They wonder whether the very easiness of separation and divorce may not sometimes mean that people become separated or divorced who, had they thought more, or had there been some of the former obstacles in the way, might have been reconciled and enabled ultimately to lead a fairly happy matrimonial life.
  That being so, there is point in the suggestion of the hon. Member for Pontypool, that by means of this Bill— amended, if necessary—or by some other Bill, there should be introduced much more effective machinery and a better-equipped organisation to deal with reconciliation. As I say, this Measure clearly states the reasons for which
  538
  separation can be ordered by the court, and the extension of legal aid makes it available, as it were, to all the population. There is, therefore, a very strong case for a more effective and better-equipped organisation, with much better advice—psychological, medical and so on—available to it to help it in its work. Like the hon. Member for Pontypool, I think that the existing organisation is quite inadequate, and I share his view that the duties of probation officers are far too extensive.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West, though not a member of the legal profession, has very extensive knowledge of magistrates' courts, and he commented on the amount of £7 10s. for the wife. It is true that such an amount can be stated in this Bill—other amounts have been stated in former legislation—but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that it may now be opportune for us not to state a definite amount.
  Circumstances are changing, earnings are increasing, people are moving into different kinds of jobs, standards of life are improving rapidly, and it may well be that if we insert this figure now we may find in a very short time that it is quite inadequate. I think, therefore, that there may be a strong case for deleting this reference to an amount and for substituting a Clause which will give the Minister the power to come forward from time to time with an Order for a different amount to be approved by the House. I think that that might well be the most suitable machinery in the conditions of today, rather than have a fixed amount as was suitable in the conditions of yesterday and yesteryear.
  5.30 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: I intend to intervene in the debate for only a very short time. In the first place, I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) on his maiden speech and also for restoring an ancient tradition of the House, in that, after having spoken, he has remained to hear what other hon. Members have to say on the Bill. I only hope that his example will be infectious, because the astonishing thing is that in the House these days very few Members, having managed to get something off their chest, think it worth while to remain and see what effect it has had on speakers who follow them.

  539
  I wish to speak as a former Home Secretary and to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Undersecretary of State on the fact that many Measures are now being consolidated in the Bill. If one looks at the "Table of Statutes referred to in this Act", on the back of the Bill, one sees how many of them are quite modern. Only the first three date back to a period before the Second World War. In recent years there have been a number of Acts dealing with this matter, each of them making some slight alteration in the law. More than one of them is generally required to be referred to if one is asked to deal with any matter arising in this connection.
  It is a good thing that this consolidation has taken place. There are one or two other similar matters dealing with Home Office legislation which, I think, could in the next year or two receive similar treatment to the great advantage of the people who occasionally find themselves interested in such matters.
  Having said that, may I just say that I share the feeling of the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) concerning the case of a person who is accused of adultery under the Bill, although not a party to the original proceedings. I do not think that anyone, no matter how high he may be in the law, should ever assume that everything always goes correctly in the courts unless there is an express provision that an appropriate course of action should be followed. Mistakes are make, not wilfully but sometimes by inadvertence or sometimes when the matter has not been brought to the notice of one of the parties in the court.
  As one with a very long career as a magistrate, happily now terminated in that connection, I always found how easy it was on occasion for learned counsel to suggest that someone who was not before the court was really the cause of all the trouble. One found the feeling mounting in the minds of the magistrates to the effect that "If we only had him here we would then do justice which we cannot do" because this very convenient "stooge", sometimes existing only in the minds of learned counsel, had for some reason or other not been brought into the court at that stage.
  540
  I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) in what he said about the work of probation officers. I am quite certain that they are overworked. They are certainly underpaid, and they do a very good amount of good. If I may say so to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle), I would sooner have a probation officer as the person to attempt to effect a reconciliation than a member of the bench. I personally do not like to see members of the bench unnecessarily intervening in too intimate a way in matters which will ultimately have to be decided by their colleagues.
  I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman himself said that, because if a magistrate undertakes the task of reconciliation, he ought not then to adjudicate. Having watched efforts in this connection, may I say that in most cases if a magistrate was successful in bringing about a reconciliation it was a good thing, for that meant that the matter would not then come before the courts for adjudication?
  This is a Measure that we should all welcome, and I hope that in its working out it will enable some considerable improvement to be made in the administration of the law in this wide range of very human cases with which the Bill deals.
  5.35 p.m.
  Sir Frank Soskice: In winding up the debate on this very useful Bill, I address myself, in the first place, to the extremely pleasurable task of saying to another member of my profession how warmly I congratulate him on the very charming way in which he introduced himself to his fellow Members in the House.
  The maiden speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan), I think everyone present will agree, possessed all those qualities that we look for in a maiden speech. It was happily phrased, it was witty, it was light and, at the same time, extremely well informed. It undoubtedly enriched the debate. I say to the hon. Gentleman in all sincerity, and I know that I speak for all hon. Members in the House, that we look forward with avidity to hearing him not only in a non-controversial atmosphere, in which he found himself today, but

  541
  plunged in the heat of debate. I am sure that we; shall derive great advantage as well as pleasure from hearing him on future occasions.
  I say at once that I join with those who welcome the Bill. It would be churlish of me not also to join, as I do readily, in those expressions of gratitude both to those who have prepared the Bill and whose learning has contributed to its birth and also to the patient, long-suffering labours of members of the bench and their officers who, for many years, have throughout the country made this sort of Bill a reality in terms of human life.
  I suppose that if we picked out from our legislation those Measures which intimately affect large numbers of ordinary people we would pick out, perhaps, the Rent Restriction Acts, the old Workmen's Compensation Acts and would undoubtedly join with those Measures the married women's Summary Jurisdiction Acts which are being consolidated and improved in this Measure.
  I think that we would all agree that the Bill, non-controversial as it is, is eminently suitable for minute examination in Committee. Many valuable points have been adumbrated and explored in this debate and it would not be assisting the House if I went over the ground that has been so very well trodden already. However, I wish to emphasise one or two points because they seem to me to be of particular importance.
  The point that I would select as being in my estimation the most important is the one which relates to persons whose names are mentioned as being involved in some act of adultery. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page), my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) spoke of it. I believe that it is a matter which really causes very wide concern. I think, also, that the reasons advanced against giving the impugned person the right of intervention also cause concern.
  Some years ago I remember defending before a jury a most respectable young man—as the jury's verdict pronounced— who was the victim of a charge of an act of impropriety at the instance of an obviously neurotic young woman. The hon. Member for Crosby also told the
  542
  House of a doctor who was the victim of an allegation by a neurotic woman. It is shocking that perfectly respectable people in this country may find their names mentioned and impugned as having been involved in an act of adultery with a married man or woman and learn of it only suddenly for the first time when they pick up their morning newspapers.
  Mr. Abse: Is it not correct that those proceedings would be in private? The essential distinction is that in the divorce court they would be public and known while in the matrimonial court they would not be known. Would not my right hon. and learned Friend recognise that in giving service of that notice on a married man we might be disrupting two families? That comes out of my experience.
  Sir F. Soskice: I must confess that my approach is almost diametrically opposite to that of my hon. Friend. If we want to disrupt a family we would do so by allowing it to be said that one spouse had been guilty and depriving that spouse of an opportunity of rebutting the charge. I do not mind whether it is publicised or not publicised, but if it is found as a fact in a court that a person living happily with his wife or her husband has committed adultery with a third person we are putting that little married unit in jeopardy. The husband or wife may be forgiving, but, on the other hand, they may not be. I think it very regrettable that we should contemplate with equanimity that perfectly respectable people might find themselves victims, not of an accusation, but of a proved fact in court in proceedings which may or may not have been publicised—they may have been widely publicised—and not be given an opportunity of intervening.
  In another place, the Lord Chancellor said that it does not happen, but it may happen and the hon. Member for Crosby gave a case in which it nearly did happen. It should be one of our major endeavours, in framing legislation dealing with proceedings in the courts, to try to avoid cases of grave injustice. I must confess that if an innocent respectable person is the victim of some fantasy at the instance of a neurotic man or woman, and is unjustly accused, and then convicted of an act which is liable

  543
  to break up another home, I think that that is a case of grave injustice. Speaking for myself, I would very much hope that the Solicitor-General, when he replies, will say that this is a matter which he will look into seriously again.
  That it would complicate proceedings to give such a person a chance of speaking for himself does not seem an adequate answer. That this kind of thing does not often happen does not seem to be an adequate answer. Why bother to have proceedings in court at all if, generally speaking, people are not the victims of injustice? Those proceedings are to prevent injustice happening. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will see the force of what has been said and, when he realises the feeling behind it, that he will have another look at the matter. It is a subject we can discuss much more fully in Committee. I feel sure that it will form the subject of some kind of Amendment in order to introduce it into the debate in Committee.
  Other points I should not desire to traverse at length. I have some uncertainty about how Clause 7 (1, b), which deals with the question of cohabitation putting an end to a matrimonial order or an interim order, will leave matters. If I understand correctly the reasoning which has gone behind the framing of the language of this provision, a distinction is drawn between residing in the same house and cohabitating in the full sense of living together as man and wife. That sometimes seems a rather dangerous distinction to draw and sometimes it leads to an unreal result. When people of very modest means are living in the same house, and perhaps finding it difficult to separate in the physical sense and reside in different parts of the same house, with very limited accommodation, it is very difficult for the courts to decide whether from the wording used they ought or ought not to regard the matrimonial order or the interim order as having been brought to an end.
  If cohabitation in the fullest sense is to be the test, it will not be easy to determine as from what time the three months has run, when the period is to begin and when it is to end. I think that that is a Clause which wants more careful study. I know that it has re-
  544
  ceived careful study and perhaps in throwing out these ideas I am treading ground which has already been fully trodden, but I should like this matter to be looked at again.
  Although I can understand the argument that it is unfortunate that there should be diversity in the application of the law in the High Court and in the magistrates' courts, we should perhaps reconsider the rather anomalous situation which exists in regard to condonation. Clause 8 (2) preserves the existing law which makes a difference between condonation by a husband and condonation by a wife. One single act of sexual intercourse produces the inevitable result that the husband has condoned adultery, whereas it does not have that result in the case of the wife. That, I should have thought, was a distinction which is difficult to justify if we can avoid it. I quite agree that perhaps it is an even less justifiable distinction to have a different law as to condonation in the High Court and before courts of summary jurisdiction. However, I should like this matter to be looked at again.
  The speech of the hon. Member for Denbigh was followed by a speech full of feeling by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypool. I agree that it is somewhat depressing if we concentrate too much upon the machinery for disruption without seeking to solace ourselves by some corresponding machinery for reconciliation. He made an appeal to which I hope the Solicitor-General will listen. In particular, he pointed to the practical issue of the great burden which is being placed on the shoulders of probation officers and child welfare officers at present. He appealed, and I hope that his appeal will not go unheard, for some consideration in view of the extra burden now to be placed on their shoulders by this Bill. This type of legislation will not work at all unless it has willing hands and willing minds to convert it later into reality in terms of human life.
  That seemed to me a valuable speech. Whether a psychiatrist, sitting in a large building with a large staff, would be the most appropriate conciliator, or whether a probation officer or member of the bench is a more suitable person for that purpose is perhaps open to controversy. Whatever views one may have, I think we all recognise—perhaps my hon. Friend

  545
  the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) will agree—that the probation officer, more, even, than the member of the bench, is in a position to do extremely good work in this regard. I hope that officer's efforts will be recognised as possessing a very real value in the community.
  I again congratulate the Government on consolidating the law, which at present is to be found in diverse statutes separated over a period of years. The analysis made by the Committee and the debates in another place have greatly added to our knowledge of this subject. We in this House owe a special debt of gratitude to the members of the Committee for the painstaking labours they have bestowed on this problem. I hope that we shall give the Bill a Second Reading.
  5.50 p.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Sir Jocelyn Simon): I am very grateful to the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) and to all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate for the very kind welcome that they have given to this Bill. As the hon. Member for Salford. West (Mr. C. Royle) said, this is a field where consolidation is particularly necessary, and, indeed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh (Mr. Morgan) pointed out, this is a field where a lay magistracy has to administer the law, and where it is essential that it should be as simple and accessible as possible. We have the high authority of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), as a former Home Secretary, to reinforce that view.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West not only said that this was a good Bill, but, in words with which we are now familiar in a slightly different context, actually said that he welcomed Clause 4. At any rate, I am grateful for the tributes that have been paid to the Bill, and to the Davies Committee which did so much work on the subject.
  Mr. C. Royle: Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will permit me to say that we on this side of the House are very glad that Clause 4 stands part.
  The Solicitor-General: I must say that that is a controversy into which it would be very improper for me to enter. I should like to pay my tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for
  546
  Epsom (Mr. Rawlinson) for his part in the work of the Davies Committee.
  Before I come to the main points that were raised on the Bill, I should like to associate myself with the warm and felicitous tributes that were paid to the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh. It seemed to me, as it obviously seemed to every hon. Member who followed him, that it was an outstanding maiden speech. My hon. Friend not only obviously commended himself to the House by his manner of address, but made a real contribution to the debate which was taken up by subsequent speakers. I should also like to say how grateful I am for all the constructive criticism that has been made in the course of the debate. If I do not reply to all the points, it will not be because we shall not consider them before the Committee stage with every care.
  Before I come to the actual terms of the Bill, I should like to say a word or two about the approach of the hon. Member for Pontypool (Mr. Abse), because I think it is one that commended itself to the whole House. He used the striking phrase that our duty was to save the children from the disaster of a broken marriage; and I think that many people these days are concerned that in our modern society, with its higher standard of living and all our welfare services, marriage, which is so fundamental to human happiness, should so frequently end in disaster and unhappi-ness for the parties. Therefore, I think that his plea for reconciliation is one to which we found ourselves responsive.
  I feel that to try to set up an elaborate machinery for reconciliation is possibly the wrong approach. I can say that all the more strongly because that was my own approach earlier, and I put to the Royal Commission a very elaborate machinery to be built into our matrimonial law. On consideration, and in the light of experience, I am quite sure that it was the wrong approach, and I am very glad to see that the right hon. Member for South Shields himself feels so.
  What the Royal Commission said in recommendation 26 was this:
  "The State should give every encouragement to the existing agencies engaged in matrimonial conciliation as well as to other agencies which may be approved in the

  547
  future. It should not define any formal pattern of conciliation agencies or set up an official conciliation service."
  That was after examining the formal conciliation patterns which we get in many Continental and Transatlantic codes. The Royal Commission went on to say, in recommendation 27:
  "Exchequer grants to voluntary agencies towards the cost of training and central administrative expenditure should continue to be made."
  In fact, as the House knows, the Government accepted that recommendation, and increased financial aid has been given, to be allocated between the four main marriage guidance societies.
  The Royal Commission also said, in recommendation 30:
  "As an aid to the promotion of reconciliation, the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, relating to legal advice should now be brought into operation."
  That again has been done, and I hope that we shall see its results in order that solicitors will be brought in at a sufficiently early stage to be able to give advice with a view to reconciliation in the way in which family solicitors have been accustomed to do so much in the past, and not merely at a stage where litigation is impending and inevitable.
  The hon. Gentleman mentioned, as indeed did several hon. Members, including the right hon. and learned Member for Newport, the burden on the probation officers. I personally found myself in agreement with the right hon. Member for South Shields that a probation officer is better than a member of the bench as a reconciliation agency, and I am inclined to think, with the right hon. and learned Gentleman, that it would be difficult to find a better reconciliation agency than the officers of our present probation service. I readily recognise the great burdens that we are placing on them, which they so gladly assume, and the hon. Member for Salford, West, who is still a deputy chairman of the Magistrates' Association, would be the first to recognise the debts of benches to the probation service.
  Mr. C. Royle: The hon. and learned Gentleman is perfectly right about the probation service, but could we ask him at this moment what exactly has happened to the Departmental Committee?
  The Solicitor-General: The hon. Gentleman took the words out of my mouth. I was going to point out that the Morrison Committee is still sitting, and has under review all the matters to which the hon. Member for Pontypool drew attention—training, pay, conditions of service and recruitment. I cannot say at the moment when we shall get its Report. The Committee has been sitting a fair time, and, although similar Committees have taken two years to report, I hope that we shall get something from it in the near future.
  Mr. Gower: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and learned Friend. He has just said that he thinks that this duty can be best carried out by the probation officers, and I agree with him. He also indicated that this work should be undertaken by solicitors. Does he think that a solicitor's training is such that he is equipped to do this sort of work? Surely the training of a solicitor is not the type of training which would qualify him for this task of reconciliation, although there are some family solicitors with particular experience of this matter.
  The Solicitor-General: Personally, I venture to differ from my hon. Friend, and to agree with the Royal Commission that the bringing into effect of the legal advice scheme will be an aid to the promotion of reconciliation. By and large, I think that solicitors feel a duty to explore any possibility of reconciliation, particularly when there are children, and I personally do not agree that their training militates against that.
  I have one other comment to make in reply to the hon. Member for Pontypool. We have valuable child guidance clinics in this country and my impression is that magistrates use their power of adjournment to refer difficult cases involving children to child guidance clinics. At any rate, while one must obviously constantly bear in mind the necessity to do all one can to prevent the breakdown of marriages, nevertheless, one must face the fact that marriages do break down. It is, therefore, our duty to improve the machinery whereby the differences between spouses can be ventilated and adjudicated upon, and it is because the Bill effects an improvement that it has been so generally welcomed.
  The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. Fletcher) asked me three questions,

  549
  the firs: relating to Clause 2 (1, b), the phrase being,
  "such weekly sums not exceeding seven pounds ten shillings as the court considers reasonable in all the circumstances of the case "
  as a provision for the wife. In its draft, the Davies Committee had the phrase "having regard to their respective means".
  That was amended in the House of Lords to the phrase which now appears in the Bill, with the express intention of enabling the court to take account of earning capacity. Obviously, the earning capacity of the spouses is one of the circumstances to which the court must direct its mind.
  The hon. Member also drew attention to the provision in Clause 7 whereby a wife whose husband has failed to maintain her has to leave before she can enforce a matrimonial order. The hon. Member said that that imposed a hard-shin and that there were accommodation difficulties and that it might not be possible for the wife to find other accommodation.
  I think that he recognised that the Bill marks an advance on the present law. At present, an order cannot be enforced so long as the parties are residing together, and that has been held to mean living together under the same roof. Clearly, in the sort of case which the hon. Member envisaged, it might not be possible for a wife to put herself under a different roof. Only the division of the living accommodation, so as to make it, in effect, accommodation for two families, might be possible. As a result, to meet that case, the Bill uses the words "ceased to cohabit", meaning to live together on terms of husband and wife.
  It is quite true that the Royal Commission recommended by a large majority that where an order was made on the ground of wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance, the order should be enforceable even if the spouses were living together in circumstances amounting to full cohabitation. I have been very attracted by that recommendation in the past, even before it was made by the Royal Commission, because it is arguable, and it has been argued, that to render an order enforceable only on the separation of the spouses is to put a premium on the break-up of matrimonial cohabitation.
  550
  On the other hand, one must attach considerable weight to the objections. The proposal in effect gives the magistrates' court power to fix the housekeeping allowance, to say what is a reasonable provision for a wife while she is still living under the same roof as her husband, possibly still on terms of complete cohabitation. Is that really possible? Obviously, it is possible. We discussed it in principle a year or two ago when the right hon Lady the Member for Warrington (Dr. Summerskill) introduced a Measure shortly before the Royal Commission sat, but on the whole the proposal was rejected by hon. Members on both sides of the House.
  Mr. Fletcher: There would be no such power in the magistrates' court unless there had been a matrimonial offence.
  The Solicitor-General: Yes, but the matrimonial offence involved is the wilful neglect to provide reasonable maintenance, and that at once raises the question of what is reasonable maintenance for a woman who is living with her husband. This is obviously a matter which we can and should discuss further in Committee, but I think that the Committee, and later the House, will have to weigh very carefully what a serious invasion of domestic life such a proposal would involve.
  The hon. Member said that the wife could enforce a maintenance order made by the High Court while still remaining in cohabitation. That is true formally, but, as the hon. Gentleman with his wide experience knows, in practice the High Court does not make an order in such circumstances, and on resumption of cohabitation would vary or terminate the order.
  The hon. Gentleman, lastly, asked me about Clause 2 (1, e)—maintenance in the case of committal to a local authority and the limits of the order. That was a matter also raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) and the hon. Member for Salford, West. The hon. Member for Salford, West thought that many husbands would say that £7 10s. was cheap to get rid of a wife; but, as he went on to make his further suggestion, I could not help thinking that, regrettably, there were some husbands who would say that £10 was cheap to get rid of a wife. It

  551
  does not seem to be possible in a court of summary jurisdiction to leave the amount at large. What the proper amount should be is a matter for argument, and no doubt we shall have an opportunity of considering the matter further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Denbigh, to whose maiden speech I have paid tribute, asked a specific question about small maintenance payments. As he indicated, that is a matter for the Finance Bill. However, I can say that, when preparing his Finance Bill, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will obviously carefully consider any repercussions which this Bill may have on the provisions of previous Finance Acts relating to small maintenance orders.
  At the beginning of his speech, the hon. Member for Islington, East asked about the extension of legal aid to matrimonial proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction. I am very glad to be able to repeat to the House what my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said in the House of Lords on 16th December in introducing the Bill. He said that it was his intention in the next financial year to extend the provisions of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, to matrimonial and affiliation proceedings in magistrates' courts and quarter sessions. I am sure that the whole House will welcome the increased facilities given to litigants in this important jurisdiction to ensure that their cases are properly presented.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) asked about Clause 4 (6), which relates to the hearing of a parent by the courts. He asked about the machinery. As the Clause indicates, the machinery will be prescribed by rules made by my noble and learned Friend. He also asked, as did the hon. Member for Salford, West, about the relationship between Clause 4 (6) and Clause 10. Their point relates to the right of a parent who is not a party to the proceedings—a parent of a child now called a child of the family—to appear. The answer is that there is the same right under both Glauses for such a parent to attend the proceedings. The proviso to Clause 4 (6, b) appears only because it is not practicable to give notice to the
  552
  father of the illegitimate child unless, by and large, that person has been adjudged by a court to be the father of that child. For purely practical reasons we have that distinction.
  Mr. Ede: I have dealt with a case in which the father of the illegitimate child had entered into an agreement before the child was born to make a certain payment. As a matter of fact he never made a payment, but he had admitted his paternity and had recognised his liability by a deed which had never been operative. That was a very important matter once when the mother of the child, having married another man, wanted, with her husband, to adopt the child as a member of the family.
  There are cases in which no adjudication has been made by the court but in which sometimes an agreement has been made in order to avoid the publicity and other discomforts which attach to a visit to the courts. I hope that even the father of an illegitimate child who in some way or another has acknowledged his responsibilities, even if he has not discharged them very well, will not lose the whole of what might have been his rights if he had consented to a merely formal adjudication by a magistrates' court.
  The Solicitor-General: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. These circumstances arise. As I have said, there is machinery for such a person to intervene and to vindicate his rights. What the Bill does even further, as we shall investigate when we reach Committee, is to ensure that the courts take into account the liability of the putative father in the circumstances which the right hon. Gentleman envisaged. In taking them into account they would also have to take into account how far he had honoured his obligations.
  I was about to turn, finally, to a question which has obviously disturbed a number of right hon. and hon. Members—the question of the service of notice of the proceedings on a third party who is named as an adulterer. That point was raised by my hon. Friends the Members for Crosby and Barry, by the right hon. Member for South Shields and by the right hon. and learned Member for Newport.
  The matter was very carefully considered by the Davies Committee, who

  553
  referred to it in paragraph 9. I imagine that none of us would dispute the general principle, which is quite unexceptionable, that where an allegation is made which may involve the honour of a third party, notice should obviously be given to him or her. It is only when one considers the practical difficulties that a very different complexion is put on the matter.
  The right hon. and learned Member said that adultery may be found as a fact by the courts against the paramour. With very great respect to him, that is not correct. The magistrates' courts, unlike the High Court, do not make any findings against the third party. As the hon. Member for Pontypool pointed out in addition, the proceedings are domestic proceedings and are heard in private. There is the danger of a break up of the second marriage. That is inherent in the High Court proceedings, but the High Court proceedings are heard in any event in public, there is publicity and there is an express finding which implicates a third party.
  Secondly, it seems to me that there is less chance in a magistrates' court that an unsubstantiated allegation of adultery will be accepted uncontested by one of the parties to the proceedings. In divorce proceedings both parties may be anxious to secure their freedom. In the magistrates' court those against whom allegations are made will have every incentive to contest them and none at all to let them pass. That seems to me to be a fundamental difference.
  Mr. Page: It has been known for there to be collusive cases in magistrates' courts. That is what we are trying to protect against in asking that notice be given to the person alleged to be an adulterer, particularly where there is collusion between husband and wife.
  Mr. Ede: The proceedings in a magistrates' court may be in private but it by no means follows that there will not be whispers as to what has been happening, and that is far more damaging than a statement which is made openly, appears in the Press and can be rebutted. I know that efforts are made to preserve secrecy, but in quarrels between husbands and wives, and when they are trying afterwards to justify to their friends the fact that a quarrel has
  554
  arisen, it is astonishing what secrets, which may be facts and may not be facts, are revealed.
  The Solicitor-General: Nevertheless, it seems to me to remain true that the spouse against whom the allegations are made in the magistrates' court has every incentive to contest the allegations and none to let them pass, and, in the majority of cases in which an unsubstantiated allegation of adultery is made, will call the paramour as his or her witness. As for the point which my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby made about collusive proceedings, I am bound to say that my experience and my opinion do not coincide with his. I think that collusion in the magistrates' courts is very rare indeed; and that was so much the view of the Davies Committee, as the House will have noticed, that it recommended—and the Bill adopts this —that the bar of collusion should be dropped in magistrates' courts, because it is virtually irrelevant as a bar.
  I was about to point out, in addition to those considerations, that the Davies Committee recognised the practical and procedural difficulties which this would throw on the magistrates' courts. I am bound to point out that Lord Merriman, with his unique authority in these matters, said in another place that, after consulting all the experienced judges who sit with him now or who have sat with him, neither he nor they knew of any single instance in which there had been a grievance owing to the non-citation of the third party in the courts of summary jurisdiction.
  Although examples have been given where there might have been a miscarriage of justice, in fact in neither of those cases was there such a miscarriage. Obviously this is a matter which Members will want to examine further in Committee. As to all these suggestions, we have not closed our minds. We will certainly examine the arguments that have been put forward and will listen to the arguments advanced in Committee, but I do not think it would be right, unexceptionable as the general principle is, to minimise the practical difficulties that obtain.
  Having said that, it only remains for me to thank once again right hon. and hon. Gentlemen for the welcome that they have given to this Bill and for the

  555
  very helpful and practical suggestions that have been put forward and to say that we shall consider them carefully.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

  MATRIMONIAL PROCEEDINGS (MAGISTRATES' COURTS) [MONEY]
  [Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Considered in Committee under Stand-ing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).
  [Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend and consolidate certain enactments relating to matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under any other enactment.—[The Solicitor-General.]
  Resolution to be reported.
  Report to be received Tomorrow.
  INDECENCY WITH CHILDREN BILL [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  6.22 p.m.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Dennis Vosper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This, I think the House will agree, is a simple but important Bill. I have little doubt that it will meet with approval on both sides of the House. It is designed to close a gap in the law which makes it impossible at present to prosecute for indecent assault a man who invites a child to handle him indecently but uses neither threats nor force. That conduct is not at present an indecent assault because in the absence of force or threats it is not an assault at all.
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred this problem of how best to close this gap in the law to the new Criminal Law Revision Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Justice Sellers. It was that Committee's first task; and in a little more than three months it produced a report in the form of a draft Bill and a commentary on it. My right hon. Friend once again is most grateful to the Committee for dealing with this problem so quickly. The Committee has now moved on, as I think the House knows, to the consideration of other important issues. The Report was published as a Command Paper last August, and Clause 1 of the Bill now before the House embodies the draft Bill which the Committee appended to its Report.
  The Committee recommended that it should be an offence for any person to commit an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under 14 or to incite a child under that age to such an act with the offender or with another person.
  The first limb of this provision, which is embodied in Clause 1 (1) of the Bill, covers, first, successful invitations of the kind to which I have just referred; and the Committee thought that it also covered most other kinds of indecent conduct with children which were likely to occur in practice, and which ought to be penalised and which are not penalised under the existing law.
  The second limb, which makes incitement to the act in question an offence,

  557
  covers cases such as those where the invitation is unsuccessful, or, although it is successful, the resulting act of indecency occurs between two innocent children.
  The new provision has the additional advantage that it removes the difficulty in prosecuting a man for indecent exposure with intent to insult a female when the female in question is of such tender years that she is unlikely to be insulted.
  Perhaps the most difficult question which Shis Bill poses, and which the House will possibly wish to discuss, is the Question up to what age children should be protected under the Bill. The Criminal Law Revision Committee considered this most carefully, and concluded that the protection should apply to a child under 14, on the ground that it was intended to protect children incited to do things the full meaning of which they did not comprehend, and that children of 14 or over would have the necessary comprehension and would be adequately protected by the existing law relating to sexual offences.
  The Committee pointed out in addition that the age of 14 has the additional advantage that a person below that age is a child within the provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933. The Committee also points out that a boy below that age is presumed not to have sexual capacity; and it said that while there was room for more than one view on whether the age should be 14 or 13, it was
  "convinced that it would be wrong to choose an age as high as sixteen".
  The Government have examined this point very carefully both before introducing the Bill into another place and also as a result of discussion in another place. They remain in agreement with the Committee that 14 is about right and that 16 would be much too high. This, as I have said, is a matter which there will be opportunity to discuss in Committee, but as it goes to the root of the matter I should, perhaps, say a little more about it now.
  The principal object of Clause 1 (1) is to protect little girls—boys, I think the House will appreciate, are substantially protected already by Section 13 of the
  558
  Sexual Offences Act, 1956—against a form of indecency which consists in the exploitation of the innocence of a child who does not either understand the purpose of the indecent invitation or realise that what she is asked to do is indecent. This presupposes a fairly young child, a child Who is not only ignorant of sexual matters but who is also unprotected by the notion of indecency; a child who can be induced to behave indecently without any force or threat, and consequently at present falls an easy victim to the man who is aware that if he uses threats or force he will lay himself open to a charge of indecent assault. We think that a child of 14 or above is outside this category. She may not know why the man asks her to handle him, but she must realise that to do so is indecent. That is the reason for adhering to the age of 14.
  On Clause 2, the Government have thought it right to consider at the same time another subject which was not referred to the Criminal Law Revision Committee, and therefore not dealt with in its report: namely, the question whether children are adequately protected by the maximum penalties available for existing sexual offences. For most offences the penalties are adequate, but there are certain anomalies which it is sought to remove in the Bill.
  The most striking of these is that while the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13, like the penalty for the corresponding offence of rape, is life imprisonment, the penalty for attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13 is only two years' imprisonment, whereas the penalty for attempted rape has, since the Attempted Rape Act, 1948, been seven years' imprisonment.
  The Government think that this is wrong, and the Bill accordingly increases the maximum penalty for attempted unlawful intercourse with a girl under 13 to seven years' imprisonment and the penalty for attempted incest with a girl under 13, which is simply a special form of the more general offence, to the same amount.
  The Government have considered also the problem of indecent assault. There are, unfortunately, serious cases of indecent conduct with little girls which

  559
  come very near to the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse but in respect of which the proceedings for attempt of that offence cannot be taken because the evidence of attempted penetration is insufficient. In such cases, the offenders can be prosecuted only for indecent assault, which carries the maximum penalty of two years.
  Two years is an appropriate penalty for the great majority of indecent assaults, many of which are relatively trivial, but the courts have not found it adequate as a penalty for these very serious offences which approximate to the full offence of unlawful sexual intercourse and may do a great deal of harm to the child.
  The Bill, therefore, seeks to increase the maximum penalty on indictment for an indecent assault on a girl under 13 from two years' imprisonment to five years.
  The remaining provisions of the Bill are merely ancillary to these purposes and follow, where appropriate, the corresponding provisions in the Sexual Offences Act, 1956. The Bill does not apply to Scotland or to Northern Ireland.
  I do not think I need detain the House with a more detailed exposition of what is, I think, a simple Bill designed to remove defects in our law which I know have worried hon. Members on both sides of the House and those who practise or adjudicate in the courts for some time and which, indeed, have been a cause of anxiety to all who have their responsibility for children at heart.
  6.32 p.m.
  Miss Alice Bacon: I am sure that all hon. Members will agree that this Bill is necessary. Not only does it close a gap in the law and give protection to children against depraved and abnormal people in our midst, but it increases the penalties in a way which most of us would think necessary.
  It is a very sad fact that sexual offences generally are increasing. Between 1937 and 1954, the number of recorded indictable sexual offences rose by 252 per cent., that is, two and a half times during those years. Eighty-two per cent. of the victims of these offences were
  560
  children under 16 years of age. From 1st July to 31st December, 1958, there were 3,660 convictions for sexual offences. These are recorded indictable offences, and it is worth while remembering that Dr. Radzinowicz, of the Cambridge Institute of Criminology, believes that recorded sex offences are only about 5 per cent. of the sex crimes actually committed.
  It is sometimes argued that sex offences are attributable to mental disorders, but, out of the 3,660 cases which I have mentioned, only 261, or 7 per cent., of the offenders had had treatment for their mental condition. It may be that the offences with which we are dealing today are only a small proportion of the total number of sex offences, but because of the very great harm done to innocent children I believe that this further legislation is necessary.
  We support the Bill, both the main part of it which closes the gap in the law and that part of it which imposes greater penalties for existing offences. Any argument about it will be directed to the ages proposed. First, there is the age of the victim, with which the right hon. Gentleman has dealt, and, secondly, there is the age of the offender, with which he did not deal.
  Under Clause 1, it will be an offence to commit an act of gross indecency
  "with or towards a child under the age of fourteen".
  That does not mean children of 14, but children of 13 and under. In another place, it was proposed that the age should be raised to 16, which would have the effect of bringing within the range of the Bill boys and girls of 14 and 15. Although this was resisted in another place, I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider it again. I know the difficulties.
  I know that girls, in particular, mature much earlier than they used to do. It is argued, as the right hon. Gentleman has argued, that girls and boys of 14 and 15 know that they are doing wrong, so are not in need of protection. That may be true of many children today, but it might not be true of all girls and boys of 14 and 15, and if only some were protected who need protection, then it would be worth while raising the age.
  For a long time I was a teacher in a school with boys and girls from 11 to

  561
  15. I know from my experience as a teacher of children of those ages that at 14 and 15, young people are much more impressionable than younger children are, and if, unhappily, a girl or boy of 14 or 15 is invited to take part in gross indecency, this can do more harm to that child, perhaps, than to a younger child. It is sometimes argued—indeed, it was argued in another place—that backward children would be among this class of child.
  But I do not think that that always follows. My experience has been that it is sometimes the highly intelligent boy or girl, the boy or girl who is studious and concerned with swotting and books, who is sometimes much more innocent of sexual matters than the backward child who is sometimes very knowledgeable about these things. I hope that the Government will look again at this age of "under 14" and consider whether we can include children of 14 and 15.
  I come now to the age of the offender, about which there was some discussion in another place. According to Clause 1, any person who commits an act of gross indecency would be liable to penalties under the Bill. What does that mean? By "any person" I think we mean anyone of eight years and over, because eight is the age of criminal responsibility. I know that a young offender would always be dealt with by the juvenile court as in need of care and protection, but I hope that the House will think very carefully before making it possible for a child of eight and upwards to be hauled before a juvenile court for indecency probably towards or with another child. We have been told in another place that this would not be likely, but it could happen under the Bill.
  In another place there was an Amendment to substitute the age of 18. I should not agree with that; I think that that would be much too high an age. It would mean that boys of 15, 16 and 17 could not be proceeded against. I feel that a reasonable age would be 14, and we could say that any person over the age of 14 committing an act of gross indecency would commit an offence under the Bill.
  It has been said that it is unlikely that an offender would be under 14 because of the age of puberty, but this raises the question of what is meant by gross
  562
  indecency. The right hon. Gentleman has said—it was said in another place, too—that the Bill altered the law with regard to indecent exposure. But if indecent exposure is included within the term "gross indecency", then the argument about the age of puberty loses its validity. I believe that we must have the protection for children which the Bill gives, but we must not, at the same time, make it possible for harm to be done to children by a sense of guilt through being brought before a juvenile court.
  I know that the Government will say that it is unlikely that a child of 14 will be brought before a juvenile court on these charges, but it should be made quite clear by putting in the age of 14. We do not want the Indecency with Children Bill to become the Indecency by Children Bill.
  One other point which has been put to me by one of my hon. Friends is that we might include in Clause 1 provision with regard to gross indecency not only with or towards a child under 14 years of age, but in the presence of a child. Matters concerning the age of the offender, the age of the victim and whether we might include provision with regard to the presence of a child can be considered in Committee.
  We on this side of the House agree with the principles of the Bill. We think that it should be supported, and hope that it will have a Second Reading.
  6.41 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: I strongly support this Bill, particularly what might be described as its secondary object, namely, to increase substantially the powers of punishment which a court will have in dealing with a person convicted of sexual offences against girls under 13 years of age. I think that the House and the country recognise, rightly, that these are very grave offences and constitute some of the worst in our criminal calendar.
  I am not, however, altogether satisfied that the maximum penalties of imprisonment laid down in the Bill are adequate. Take the case of a child who is maimed or disfigured as a result of a physical assault upon her. The person convicted of causing such grievous bodily harm with intent to maim or disfigure will be liable to a maximum punishment of

  563
  imprisonment for life, but the punishment for the same person convicted of a sexual assault is limited by the provisions of the Bill to seven years' imprisonment for attempted sexual intercourse or incest and five years' imprisonment for indecent assault.
  In my view, a sexual assult on a child—and a girl under 13 years is certainly a child—is not only an assault upon her body but upon her mind which may maim and leave a mark upon her character for life. Under the present law, the maximum penalty which can be imposed is only two years' imprisonment. The need for a severe sanction, the power to impose a lengthy term of imprisonment, is quite clear if we are to give our children maximum protection.
  Parents should realise that they have in their own hands the power to protect their children. They can warn their children—and I think that they should do this repeatedly, particularly if they live in cities and large towns—of the dangers of such things as taking sweets from strangers, going for walks with strangers and allowing strangers to speak to them in quiet places.
  Unhappily, there is another and very ugly side to this problem on which the Bill, as drafted, does not touch. Often when a girl under 16 years allows or encourages a young man to have sexual intercourse with her, the blame is not always exclusively his. Sometimes it may be entirely hers. All too frequently the courts are shocked by evidence of undisciplined precocity. Time and again the courts hear evidence of a young girl who has gone out wearing the clothes and make up and with the bearing of a mature woman, deceiving, and apparently with the intention of deceiving, any young man she may meet about her true age. Neither parental discipline nor self-discipline has any influence or meaning with such children. They might well be described as teen-age terrors and a peril to any young and unwary man they may meet.
  I can only urge that when precocious girls come before the courts, even as witnesses, the courts should bear in mind the possibility of intimating the desirability of these children appearing before juvenile courts so that it can be declared, if necessary, that they are in
  564
  need of care and protection. In many of these sad cases investigation would show that the girl's parents have abdicated all responsibility and that there is no control or discipline. All too frequently one feels, sadly but strongly, that the people who should be in the dock with the man charged are the parents of the girl concerned.
  Finally, there is an anomaly in this aspect of the law. If a young man under 24 years of age, who has not been charged with a like offence as sexual intercourse with a girl under 16 years, can satisfy a court that he believed the girl to be 16 years or over, or had good cause for so believing, he has a perfectly valid defence. But if he is convicted or charged with the lesser offence of a sexual assault upon a girl under 16, that defence will not avail him, no matter how obvious it is that he may have believed, and was induced to believe, that she was over 16. I ask my right hon. Friend whether this aspect of the law could be considered. As this is an amending Bill, it might be possible to cure this defect.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Royle: I apologise for the fact that I had to eat and, therefore, missed the preceding speeches. I assure the right hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary of State that I shall not prevent him replying to the debate, because I can see the necessity of the Bill getting a Second Reading before seven o'clock.
  I should like to make two points. Clause 1 (1) of the Bill reads:
  "Any person who commits an act of gross indecency with or towards a child under the age of fourteen"—
  I am concerned with an extension of those words. I hope that, in Committee, some consideration will be given to the insertion of the words "in the presence of". It may well be that during an act of gross indecency against a girl, perhaps of 13 or 14 years of age, a much younger child was present, and not only its susceptibilities but thoughts and future may be deeply affected. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman and the Home Office will give some consideration to such an extension in the Bill before the Committee stage.
  My other point concerns the culprit in these cases. As the Bill stands—I

  565
  am sure that the point must have been considered—a child of eight could be brought before a juvenile court for this kind of offence. That is the age of criminal responsibility. One does not like to get on to a delicate subject of this kind too closely, but I try to take my mind back to my early grammar school days and recall what we discussed among ourselves. What we discussed about the girls of our acquaintance in early grammar school days was "nobody's business."
  I am a little concerned about bringing before the court for offences of this kind in a criminal way boys of, perhaps, 12 years of age. Parliament should be very careful before placing upon a boy of that age what might be a lifetime stigma of being accused of gross indecency. These things happen as a form of curiosity more than as any form of evil intent. None of us knows exactly how the young adolescent mind works in these sexual matters and in that period of curiosity things happen that might not happen when a boy reaches, say, the age of 16. I am, therefore, worried at the possibility of bringing these persons before the courts charged with offences of this kind when some other kind of advice or treatment might be the right method.
  I wish that we could raise the age of criminal responsibility in a general sense. Eight years of age is now completely out of date. We should be much more progressive in these matters. In the meantime, however, we can perhaps do it in the Bill and I hope that the Government will seriously consider this.
  6.53 p.m.
  Mr. Percy Browne: With my eye on the clock and having put my notes away, my main excuse for speaking for only a minute or so is that when I drew a place in the Ballot for Private Members' Bills, I wished to introduce a Bill on this subject, for two reasons. The first, which relates to Clause 2 of today's Bill, is that it is difficult to bring the criminal to book because there is difficulty in getting corroborative evidence owing to the age of the victim.
  If we are to introduce the maximum possible sentences, we should introduce the birch for this sort of crime. I am not a flogger—I am very sparing in my belief that we should use the birch—but in this case we should try to produce
  566
  the most varied sort of punishments available to add a deterrent to people who might be prevented by such punishment from committing an offence of this nature. I was hoping to produce a long argument on this matter, but, unfortunately, I cannot do so. I ask my right hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, however, whether we might consider this point in Committee.
  6.55 p.m.
  Mr. Vosper: In the few minutes that remain to me, I do not intend to be drawn into the argument raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. P. Browne). I discussed this matter elsewhere last week, but I note what my hon. Friend has said. All I can do now is to thank hon. Members for giving a welcome to the Bill. I had no doubt that they would do so, because it is an important Measure. In general, the points that have been raised are matters which the House will want to consider in Committee, as was done in another place.
  I would like to associate myself with what my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Gardner) said so eloquently and to agree with what the hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East (Miss Bacon) said about the increase in offences of this nature. Two issues which the House will want to consider further, which were both considered in another place, are, as the hon. Lady said, the age of the victim and the age of the offender.
  I refer once again to the Report of the Criminal Law Revision Committee, which was quite emphatic that whereas there might be an argument between the ages of 13 and 14, there was no case for the age of 16. In my opening speech, I referred to the reason for this. It is probably also relevant to point out that when dealing with the existing provisions concerning sexual offences, the Committee said that
  " those provisions already present problems for both courts and prosecuting authorities in relation to girls approaching sixteen, and the creation of a further offence would tend to increase these difficulties."
  The Committee will want to consider this matter further, but the Government still remain of the view expressed in another place, that the Committee was right in coming so emphatically to the conclusion that 14 was the proper age.

  567
  The age of offenders is another matter that will be discussed in Committee. The hon. Lady the Member for Leeds, South-East said Chat she did not share the view of her noble Friend that, possibly, the age of 18 should operate in this respect. The hon. Lady probably knows that, as the law stands, no child under the age of eight can be guilty of any offence and a child under 14—the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. C. Royle) referred to this—is presumed to be incapable of guilty intent although the presumption may be rebutted by satisfying a court that the child knew he was doing wrong. The question of raising the age of criminal responsibility is, no doubt, within the terms of reference of the Ingleby Committee, which is considering the whole of this aspect. I should be hesitant to make any alteration in the Bill, although we can consider the matter further.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay spoke, also, about penalties. I am advised that the penalties in the Bill are in line with the existing penalties for sexual offences. I will, however, examine what my hon. Friend has said and see whether there is any adjustment. I will also consider the question of the anomaly to which my hon. Friend referred, although I am a little doubtful whether it exists quite in the shape he mentioned.
  The hon. Member for Salford, West asked me to add to Clause 1 the words "in the presence of". That is a point which I wish to consider further. At first, I thought that it might be covered by the second limb of the Clause, but I think that it would be outside its terms.
  I am grateful for the comments which have been made and for the fact that hon. Members have enabled the House to give the Bill a Second Reading before seven o'clock.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Standing Commitee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).
  BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION BILL (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  7.0 p.m.
  Mr. Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House, and would be in accordance with precedent, that I should give a general ruling on the scope of our debate on the Second Reading of this Bill. Its terms are such as would make it permissible within the basic rule of relevancy in debate to discuss generally the administration of British Railways, the railways of London Transport, and the inland waterways of the Commission. On the other hand, it would not be in order to discuss the other undertakings of the Commission.
  There is a specific reference in the Bill to the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry and the Strood Dock, so discussion relating to those two topics would be admissible, but a general debate on ferries or docks would not be in order.
  It may be helpful to remind hon. Members that there are related matters not mentioned in the Bill, many of which are of a kind governed by public and not by private legislation—for instance, fares, freight charges, or the structure of the Commission—and it would not be in order to discuss such matters on this Question now before the House. Nor can wages or pensions be discussed, for there is no mention of them in the Bill.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: Following that Ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance on one point upon which difficulty may arise? Administration of the railways does come within order by your Ruling. I believe that some difficulty may arise in drawing a line between the administration of the railways and the structure of the Commission, because administration and structure are very close together. I wonder, therefore, if it would be possible to take a very liberal view of that in any discussion which there may be.
  Mr. Speaker: I shall listen, as always, to what is said, but I must adhere to the

  569
  Ruling which I have given, that discussion of some remodelling of the structure of the Commission must be out of order within the terms of this Bill as it stands.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: Do I take it, Mr. Speaker, that we must not make any reference to the Guillebaud Report in any shape or form?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes. a debate on wages is on precedent right outside discussion on a Bill in this form.
  7.2 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: This Bill is a formidable document. It is divided into six parts and contains 48 Clauses and nine Schedules. It is also, in most respects, a quite commendable document, and the Bill, so far as I am concerned with it at all events, would have had an unopposed Second Reading were it not for the presence of one Clause, Clause 37, a long one beginning at the bottom of page 33 of the Bill and occupying nearly all page 34.
  By this Clause it is proposed to close the ferry services between Tilbury and Gravesend at a date as yet undecided. The date will be when the Purfleet-Dartford Tunnel, which is now being built under the Thames, is opened to public vehicular traffic. We do not quite know when that will happen. Everything seems to move slowly in my part of the world. We have the worst railway system in Britain and we have been waiting many years for the Purfleet Tunnel to be built.
  However, this Clause empowers the British Transport Commission to close those ferry services. There are two services, the passenger ferry service and the vehicle ferry service. This proposal is causing great alarm on both sides of the river, and particularly in the urban district of Thurrock, in which is situated the northern terminus of the ferry. It is felt there that the tunnel will not absorb all the traffic which is now ferried across the river. In any case, the tunnel is more than seven miles away to the west, so chat a journey by car in future from Gravesend to Tilbury would be about 15 miles long, which seems to be a considerable hardship. Furthermore, having regard to the ever-increasing number of cars on the road, we believe
  570
  that the vehicle ferry at Tilbury will still remain essential.
  The Transport Commission has said and has written that it has no intention of closing the passenger ferry, and that it will not close the vehicle ferry without first having discussions with the area transport users' consultative committee. With all due respect to the Commission, I am not concerned with its good intentions. Between good intentions and Acts of Parliament there is an unbridgeable chasm. All that I know is that the good intentions are not written into the Bill. There is nothing in the Bill which would compel the Commission, as it is at present compelled, to continue these ferry services.
  Then the idea of the Commission having talks on the matter with the area transport users' consultative committee does not commend itself to me. In fact, I thoroughly disapprove of it. For one thing, Thurrock Urban District Council is not represented on the Committee. As I have already said, Thurrock Council is the local authority responsible for the district in which is situated the northern termination of the ferry; but even if Thurrock Council were represented, I would still object, and I hope every Member of the House will object with me, for this reason.
  These area consultative committees have very narrow terms of reference. They were certainly never intended to interpret Acts of Parliament. It is beyond their constitution, surely, to sanction the abandonment of legal obligations. There is only one tribunal which can do that, and that is Parliament. That is why I raise the matter in Parliament, and that is why I hope that all hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree with this argument of mine, that Parliament should be consulted, that Parliament should decide and that the matter should not be left between the Commission and the area transport users' consultative committee.
  We have opposed this Bill so far chiefly on these grounds. We want this Clause taken out, or so amended as to safeguard the ferries, the passenger ferry and the vehicle ferry, between Tilbury and Gravesend. Unless we get an assurance either now or when the Bill is examined in Committee we shall continue our opposition to the Bill right through the Third Reading.
  7.8 p.m.
  Sir Anthony Hurd: I want to refer particularly to Clause 18, which would continue to give the British Transport Commission, in dealing with the Kennet and Avon waterway, the right of absolution which was given by the Act which we passed in 1956. That Act, which runs till December of this year, absolved the Commission from the obligation to keep the Kennet waterways open to navigation. It did require the Commission to maintain the Kennet waterways, and the appliances on the Kennet waterways, so that the capacity of the waterways to perform the functions which they were capable of performing before the passing of the 1956 Act, would be unimpaired.
  Unfortunately, the capacity to perform the functions was sadly impaired by neglect before 1956. That was why we had a rather prolonged discussion on that British Transport Commission Bill four years ago. As the months pass, the months of disuse, the conditions of the locks and banks along the length of the waterway from Reading to Bath gets worse. So my constituents, and I myself, do not welcome this Clause 18 in the present Bill, which extends this dispensation for another three years.
  I should like to inform the House about the Kennet waterway and I think that I can do so most briefly by quoting a few sentences from a paper published by the Inland Waterways Association. It says:
  "It might be no exaggeration to state that the Kennet and Avon is the best loved waterway in Great Britain. The most important engineering and artistic achievement of the great John Rennie, it links the Severn with the Thames; in effect, South Wales with the London Docks. It is a wide waterway, traversing beautiful and peculiarly English country from end to end. It was purchased in 1852 by the former Great Western Railway Company, which, by raising the tolls, by imposing restrictions, and by neglecting maintenance, virtually destroyed it. It was saved from actual abandonment at the hands of the company's even more ruthless successors, the British Transport Commission … "—
  by the action of many interested people outside this House, and by our own action in this House, when we amended the abandonment proposals of the Commission by the Measure which we passed in 1956.
  Many of us look forward to the day when an authority other than the Trans-
  572
  port Commission will take over this waterway and restore it to a navigable condition for present-day needs. I need not remind the House of how congested the Bath Road, the A.4, is today. For many miles it runs parallel with this waterway and I need not remind my right hon. Friend the Minister of the proposal to create a new motorway, the South Wales motorway, which will again run parallel with the Kennet and Avon Canal. Yet we have this old avenue for traffic disused and so far disregarded as to prevent an opportunity for development and an opportunity to meet some of the harassing problems of the very heavy traffic which passes East to West and West to East through southern England.
  The Bowes Committee had its say about the future of the Kennet and Avon Canal and now, happily, we have the Minister's advisory committee which is looking closely into the possible development for present-day use of this waterway which some consider no longer has the commercial value that it had in the old days. I am glad to know that the advisory committee, of which my hon. Friend the Member lor Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) is a member, is to visit the Kennet and Avon Canal at the beginning of May.
  While we are waiting hopefully the findings of this advisory committee, the local people have not been idle. Through the Kennet and Avon Canal Association, and individually, they have done much to restore a length of the canal to enjoyable uses. It is a stretch four miles around Newbury. The local people have helped to dredge out and repair the locks. I am glad to say that the Transport Commission, through its new body the British Waterways, has been much more co-operative than when I had to speak about this in the House in 1956. I then said:
  "A few hundred pounds spent sensibly on routine maintenance will regain for the Commission some of the good will which it lost by its restrictive and unhelpful attitude while it has been preparing the way for this Bill."
  That was the Bill of 1956.
  " I suggest that it should now turn over a new leaf and be more co-operative in trying to work with the local people to get the canal revived at the least possible cost and to get some life into it again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 13th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 327–8.]

  573
  Happily, through my words, or just through good sense, the Commission has taken that line. I am glad to say that the present director of British Waterways, Major-General Sir Reginald Kerr, has been most helpful in doing those little things—such as spending £30 on putting in a new lock gate in co-operation with the local people—so that now we shall have at least four miles of canal which small pleasure craft can use. There are many hundreds of people who delight, in the summer months, in going on the canal, which is a very beautiful stretch of water. I am glad that not only my constituents but many people coming from a distance should have that opportunity for recreation.
  The next stage must be to reopen the whole stretch of this waterway from Reading to Hungerford at least. I say that particularly because today we are suffering not only by being denied the use of this waterway, but also because it is becoming so disused that there is serious risk of flooding. Indeed, in January, had it not been for the good sense of the local farmers, at Midgham, a large area of farm land would have been flooded. Why? Because British Waterways did not keep a maintenance staff on Saturdays and Sundays and if it rained during the week and the water rose there was no one there to open the sluices.
  That is one of the troubles when we leave the canal unused and for a few days of each week unattended. I drew the attention of British Waterways to that—it was very contrite about it—and I hope that someone will now be on duty at weekends to take care of this kind of risk.
  I raise this matter this evening, because I am anxious to ensure that the Transport Commission does not feel that because we are giving it Clause 18 in the new Bill today—giving it this dispensation—it is free to prejudice, by neglect or deliberate action, the restoration in due time of this part of the canal from Reading to Hungerford, or, indeed, any other part of the Kennet waterway from Reading to Bristol. We want it to be restored to a fuller life of usefulness in the future.
  I am sure that we are bound to need, with the traffic problems as they are in
  574
  this country today, that throughway which was created many years ago. We should be extremely foolish in our generation if we cast it away through neglect and lack of foresight.
  7.18 p.m.
  Mr. Ede: In 1956, I joined with the hon. Member for New-bury (Sir A. Hurd) and the hon. Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and others in securing in the British Transport Commission Act of that year a Clause dealing with the Kennet and Avon Canal. All that I want to do tonight is to say that I regret that more has not been done in the period between 1956 and 1960, although I welcome the fact that the British Transport Commission now appears to have passed from hostility to regarding the waterway with a kind of benevolent neutrality and has, on occasion, done some of the things which the hon. Member for Newbury has mentioned.
  I hope that with the interest that is being taken by the people and local authorities along the course of the Kennet and Avon Canal there will be more active co-operation between the Transport Commission and those people and authorities, and that as a result of their combined efforts considerable reaches of this waterway will be brought back into active use, first, probably, for pleasure reasons; but I am certain that, as the hon. Member for Newbury has said, there is a future for this waterway if it can be made workable from end to end for the conveyance of goods, many of which ought to be on the canal rather than on the roads.
  After all, there are certain traffics which really have their efficacy based upon establishing a rhythm rather than speed. In the old days the canals were able to achieve that rhythm and people were able to be assured of the delivery of their goods to places on such canals as the Kennet and Avon Canal. Manure was delivered for the farms and coals for the towns and villages on the route. These loads were loads for which a steady flow of movement was more important than is speed to some of the traffic which ought to be on the roads.
  I hope that the good will which has begun to grow will strengthen and that the reasonable needs of the localities served by this fine piece of English

  575
  engineering will benefit in the future from a better feeling than existed certainly just before 1956.
  7.22 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Lewis: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker? You may be aware that at the moment lobbying is taking place by old-age pensioners against the very miserable pensions which they are receiving at the hands of the Government. Outside, about 50 or 60 of these aged people are standing in the streets, where it is cold and windy.
  Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will indicate what is the point of order.
  Mr. Lewis: I am coming to the point of order, Sir. I am seeking guidance and asking whether or not it is in order to keep these people standing outside in Old Palace Yard while the old St. Stephen's Hall is completely empty. Could you issue instructions that these old-age pensioners should be allowed into St. Stephen's Hall?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order. If the hon. Member addresses himself to the Serjeant at Arms he may be able to ascertain whether it is possible to do something to avoid the inconvenience to which he refers, but it is not a point of order.
  Mr. Lewis: Further to that, Sir, there was a similar occasion twelve to eighteen months ago in the time of your predecessor when I raised a similar point of order. With great respect to you, Mr. Speaker, your predecessor then said that he thought it was wrong and that he would advise the Serjeant at Arms what action he should take. Could you follow your predecessor's action in this matter?
  Sir F. Markham: Is it not a fact, Mr. Speaker, that every hon. Member is informed, when he becomes a new Member of the House, what the rules and regulations are? The hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) knows these rules. He is deliberately taking the time of the House in order to get a little self-advertisement. He could very well follow this question through by the normal method of going to the Serjeant
  576
  at Arms and doing the thing without a public demonstration of his interest in a subject in which we are all interested.
  Mr. Lewis: I resent that interjection—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that observations about hon. Members' motives are helpful. I hope that the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) will recognise what I have said— to which I adhere—that no point of order is raised. If he will adress himself to the Serjeant at Arms I feel confident that anything that can be done to meet the inconvenience to which the hon. Member refers will be done.
  Mr. Lewis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  7.25 p.m.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I wish to speak for a few minutes on Clause 22 of the British Transport Commission's Bill. As hon. Members will have seen, the Clause deals with the Oxford Canal and the desire of the British Transport Commission to take water from it. If I may say a few words about the canal so that the House will appreciate the difficulties of the situation generally, perhaps that will not be altogether out of place.
  The canal is one of our very old canals, built, and finally opened in 1790, by the great canal architect James Brindley. It was part of his scheme to effect the famous "cross" of waterways which we now have in Britain joining the Thames with the Mersey and the Wash with the Severn. It is the only satisfactory way of getting from the very populated area of the Midlands to an area which perhaps some of us think is now getting too populated around Oxford.
  Undoubtedly the canal has a very great future as a waterway. It is, of course, an outstandingly beautiful waterway, where one can achieve a solitude which it is almost impossible to believe could exist in the heart of England. In the Summit Pound, which is about eleven miles long, it is possible to travel for two or three hours without seeing not only a human being but a house or a building of any kind. Therefore, the canal is something which we have to treasure very much as a heritage and for the future good and pleasure of our

  577
  people. I am saying all this with a view to showing how important it is to be careful about the conserving of water in that area, because there is really quite a shortage of water in that watershed.
  The Summit Pound receives its water from three very remote reservoirs situated high up on the boundaries of Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Northamptonshire. Hardly anybody has ever seen them. Unfortunately, as is the case with so many of the Transport Commission's reservoirs, the dredging has not been as well carried out as in the past or as well as it should be. Therefore, conservation is not anything like as good as it was and ought to be. When the rains come in the winter, instead of the reservoirs filling up as they should do, they overflow and all the water goes to waste.
  That is the situation on the Summit Pound. The water supplies the canal down to a short distance before one gets to Banbury. After that the River Cherwell supplies the canal. If I am sufficiently fortunate at a later stage in the debate, I intend to move an Instruction to She Committee on the Bill in terms which I will then read and which I hope my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will accept. The object behind the Instruction is to make sure that a limited amount of water be taken from the canal, probably not more than is already being taken from the River Cherwell by the British Transport Commission, and that that should be made to suffice.
  One cannot understand altogether why it is necessary to come to Parliament at all for these requirements at this stage. We understand that the water is needed mainly for locomotives, and to some extent for washing down locomotives and other railway equipment. But we know that the locomotive is on its way out. Therefore, it should be possible to insert in the Bill a provision that less and less water be taken as the years go by.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Surely the hon. Member is not suggesting that because steam locomotives are now becoming obsolete the diesel locomotives which succeed them will not also need washing? I hope we shall have them cleaned as the old railway engines used
  578
  to be. It is quite fallacious to say that water will not be needed in the future as much as in the past, though the amount of water is a matter of argument, and I do not know the facts.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I see his point, and it is important. What is happening is that a great deal of water is going into troughs and being picked up by locomotives to be blown off in steam between Oxford and London or between Oxford and Birmingham, as the case may be. That is the larger aspect, which I am saying should be a decreasing factor.
  The other important point is that if water is taken out of the canal, which, by the very nature of things, is short of water, it should be put back into the same pound from which it was taken. There is no argument about the shortage of water because this whole area tends to be short of it. If that water is put into a lower pound, the one above will have been denuded and there will not be sufficient water in the reservoirs higher up to put back that pound into a reasonable state of navigation. Although there may be plenty of depth of water above the pound in which to float craft, and the same thing may be true of the pound below, in the pound affected water may be short and so navigation will not be possible. Although I realise that water which has gone into locomotives cannot be put back, it is important that as much as possible should be put back into the pound concerned.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) cogently said on 4th December, the most important task of a water undertaker is to sell water. It is upon the sale of the water that much of the maintenance in future will depend, and so far very little has been done to tackle the problem properly. Unfortunately, the Bill seeks to perpetuate one of the worst aspects of the eighteenth century legislation, in that it confers great privileges on large interests, in this case the railways. In whatever we are doing now we must also have an eye to the future. We may be doing something beneficial for the railways, but we must also be sure that it will be beneficial for the inland waterways as well when the time comes for a different form of management, which we hope will be in the not-too-distant future.

  579
  I hope that when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies to the debate he may be able to indicate that, subject to a slight alteration which I am prepared to make in its terms, he will accept the Instruction, which will then go to the Committee. We must remember that in all these things there is only a certain amount of water to be taken, and once it is taken from the area it is gone for ever.
  7.32 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: I understand, Mr. Speaker, that in accordance with your Ruling and previous custom it is in order to say a few words about the running and administration of the railways. I have two points to make in this connection.
  The first concerns non-railway property now in the ownership of the British Transport Commission. I hope that the Government will not compel the Commission to sell this property. If it wishes to sell it, that is a different matter, but it should have discretion to sell or develop. After all, the Commission creates a lot of the value of such property and it has always been an integral part of the railway system. I have often been a critic of the British Transport Commission, but it deserves a compliment for what it has done to its hotels. We may think them expensive, but they are good. If you, Sir, should ever find yourself short of a cook, I recommend you to go to Charing Cross Hotel where you will find a building which was constructed by the same architect as constructed your house—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I should be glad to accept the hon. Member's recommendation if it were in order. I do not think that he was here when I indicated the scope of this debate. I cannot get into the Charing Cross Hotel on it.
  Mr. Grimond: The Charing Cross Hotel may be too far away, Sir, but I think that the general administration and running of the railways would be in order, and it was to that point that I was addressing myself. The Commission has made an effort and the Government should give it power, if the Commission desires it, to raise money by debenture on the open market in order to develop this property.
  580
  My second point is this. The Government have said that they intend to set up a planning board to assist the Commission in certain respects. I am glad to see the Minister of Transport here. He is, or was, an eminent businessman. Does he really think that it can be helpful to the Commission or to himself that a board should be interpolated in the machinery for running the railways? Most of the proposals made have been current for many years, and many of them have been made by Liberals. If they are not well known to the Minister of Transport and to the British Transport Commission, I should be surprised. There is a need to build morale in the railways, from the top to the bottom, and the continual chopping and changing is not good for morale.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay) indicated assent.
  Mr. Grimond: I am glad to see that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agrees. I urge the Government either to say to the Commission—or possibly to the Minister of Transport—"You are not able to do your job" or, if they have confidence in the Minister and the Commission, they should let them try to bring in these reforms themselves and make a success of the railways, as I have no doubt they are keen to do.
  7.38 p.m.
  Mr. Humphrey Atkins: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) about Clause 22, which deals with the Oxford Canal, and I will say why I am not very happy about it. Subsection (2) states:
  "The Commission shall have power and shall be deemed always to have had power to take and use water not required for the purpose of navigation from the Oxford Canal…"
  I am not happy about the wording of the Clause because it seems to me to be open to almost endless argument what "not required for the purpose of navigation" might mean. What it means today may not be what it will mean in three or four years' time, and in my opinion an Act of Parliament should not contain words which will give employment to members of your profession, Sir, for many years to come. I would like to see those words left in, because they

  581
  matter, but other words added, if possible, specifying a maximum amount of water which can be taken out of the canal.
  I will now refer briefly to Clause 17 This, again, is about waterways and confirms the agreement made between the British Transport Commission and the National Trust last November for the lease by the latter of thirteen miles of the Stratford-on-Avon Canal. This is a stretch of water of particular beauty which is known to, and loved by, many thousands of people. Its original and primary purpose was that of transport, like all the other canals of this country, but that has changed with the passage of time and its primary purpose now is to provide amenity.
  I am particularly delighted to note that by this Clause the Commission has appreciated that it is not the body best suited to look after amenities, and has agreed to lease this canal to the National Trust. It does, of course, rid the Commission of a financial problem.
  In the agreement quoted in the Second Schedule the Commission covenants to pay the National Trust £1,500 a year during the course of this lease. That, I believe, is in the neighbourhood of its present annual loss on the canal, but there is no doubt that this figure will increase in years to come, particularly if improvements which should be done are done. The Commission has managed to fix its contribution towards the cost of maintaining the canal for a number of years, and has got rid of the bogey of abandonment, because that is what it would ultimately be faced with if it continued the present policies. I believe I am right in saying that the estimated cost of abandoning this section of the canal is £125,000.
  It reflects great credit on the National Trust that it is taking over this canal and will maintain and try to improve it with what is a rather poor inducement. I fear that the Trust may find itself in financial difficulties with the canal, and I hope that it will be able to obtain financial assistance from somewhere else. The Trust has other sources on which it can draw to help in this work—not financial but voluntary help and effort which the Commission would not be able to get. I understand that volunteer
  582
  helpers are already working on the canal, despite the fact that the House has not yet passed this Bill.
  I have every confidence that this venture will be a success. I welcome it and commend it to the House, and hope that it will be the forerunner of other schemes whereby the waterways will be transferred from the British Transport Commission, which does not want them, to another body which does.
  7.42 p.m.
  Mr. George Thomas: The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) drew attention to morale of British Railway employers. I am glad the British Transport Commission has taken the trouble and the pain to bring this Measure before the House. I presume that the Bill is intended to meet its requirements at least for the next five years, and I do not expect that it is thinking in terms of another Bill coming along in a short while. I presume also that the Commission is seeking to bring British Transport up to date to deal with the modern industrial developments in various parts of the country. I notice that the alterations proposed in the Counties of Monmouthshire, Gloucestershire and in Newport are such as to make it look as though the Commission hopes to deal with the increased traffic with the new steel works at Llanwern and with the great development that that will require.
  I want the Commission to deal with another little matter which niggles me, and that is the snobbery which is attached to the administration of the railways. I have strong feelings on this matter. It concerns what I call the "top hat treatment" for "top people".
  I noticed this week at Cardiff Station local building contractors being greeted by the stationmaster wearing a top hat. This is in 1960. To me it is a lot of outmoded poppycock which I would have expected the right hon. Gentleman, who came to the Ministry of Transport from the Post Office, to have blown away. I would like to know, within the terms of the administration of British Railways, what the definition is for people being accorded this top hat treatment. It is a fair question. It does not happen in industry or anywhere else that the boss takes it into his mind to say, "I will

  583
  decide who are the important people, the top people." I have made it my business to inquire as to who are the top people in Cardiff and South Wales—
  Mr. Hay: The hon. Member?
  Mr. Thomas: No. Members of Parliament—and this is part of our grievance no doubt—do not come under that heading. I would hasten to assure the hon. Gentleman that I have noticed that junior Ministers do get the top hat treatment.
  Mr. Hay: I have not had it yet.
  Mr. Thomas: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be a little more patient. He will get it if he drops a note to the stationmaster and says that he is going to Cardiff.
  This is irritating. British Railways at Cardiff have another absurd custom. There is a V.I.P. gate one yard away from the public entrance, and in the rush hour, with only two porters on duty trying to deal with the crowd, if one of these important building contractors happens to come—I see that this is touching the Minister on a sensitive point—a porter is taken from his duty in order to go a yard away and open the gate to let important people through.
  British Railways are seeking to modernise their engines and to improve their lines. I suggest that they should modernise their approach to the public. This Victorian snobbery is quite unjustified, and in a nationalised industry I believe that it is offensive. I can understand it if the top hat is kept for Royalty, but of course British Railways are now in the position that they can only treat Royalty as they treat building contractors—with the same top hat and tails. Sir Brian Robertson and British Railways should look at this ridiculous custom and bring the railways fifty years forward to 1960, because they behave in this matter as though it were 1910.
  I am so glad that, within the terms of this Measure, it has been possible for me to say these things. I would only add, so that I can keep myself completely in order, that I am very glad that British Railways are realising that this canal in the heart of the most beautiful part of England is better left to the National Trust. I welcome the Measure, and hope that my words will not fall on deaf ears outside the House.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Kimball: I am sorry that, on this question of the general administration of the railways, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Thomas) did not pursue his researches into headgear a little further. I hope that when the administration is changed nothing will be done to stop senior inspectors who look after engines and such things riding on engine footplates in billy-cock hats.
  I follow the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in what he said about an even flow of traffic on the canal dealing with coal and particularly heavy objects, but I wish he had extended his remarks to cover Clause 23, which deals with the closing of Strood Dock.
  Strood Dock is a typical example of a coastal port in the United Kingdom which deals with small coastal vessels with a draught of about 700 tons. All hon. Members will be familiar with the practice of the old private railway companies who were determined to squeeze out small coastal ports because they regarded them as rivals to the railways and hoped that by squeezing them they would be able to divert to the railways traffic which went through the docks.
  In three Transport Bills we have had the closure of no fewer than nine small ports or wharfs, and I am particularly perturbed that, unless some warning is sounded and if there are further British Transport Commission Bills, we shall have the closures extended to Keadby at the mouth of the Trent in North Lincolnshire. The closures at places like Strood follow a general pattern. First, the port is allowed to fall into a start of disrepair. Then it becomes unsafe and then uneconomic. The incredible thing about Strood is that beside this dilapidated and decaying dock, owned by British Railways, there is a thriving and expanding dock run by private enterprise.
  It seems to be a matter of the general administration of the railways to do no maintenance whatever on any of these small ports and docks. In the case of Keadby Wharf, British Railways even went so far as to deliver all the materials for repair and reconstruction four years ago, and then did nothing about it. Now the dock has been declared unsafe and unusable.

  585
  The one coalfield which we all agree to be economic and worth keeping on working is that in South Nottinghamshire. There is a very flourishing trade through the Trent to Keadby with the coal then being taken by coastal shipping from the Midlands to the South Western Gas Board's works in Cornwall and elsewhere. We cannot indefinitely continue to allow British Railways to neglect ports of this kind and allow them to fall into a terrible state of dilapidation. Even if they have no economic use, they are vital to the tourist trade and to the growing use of small boats round our coasts.
  There is an unhappy marriage in the Transport Commission attempting to control these small ports and coastal shipping and the railways, which are their rivals, in one Commission. I hope that this is the last Transport Bill which we shall see and that this is the last year in which British Railways will have the responsibility, which they have continued to neglect, for small ports and wharfs round our coasts.
  7.53 p.m.
  Mr. Frank McLeavy: It is right that when Private Bills come before Parliament hon. Members should insist on a debate of this character during which they can raise topics vitally affecting their constituencies. The remarkable thing about tonight's debate is that although the Bill is comprehensive and has 47 Clauses, there have not been many objections to its provisions. I can well understand that hon. Members should refer to the closure of and interference with canals in their constituencies, because those canals are vital local amenities of great value to the industrial and agricultural life of the community.
  Most of us appreciate that the protections about promoting Private Bills are very strong. First, the House has to give a Bill a formal First Reading. On Second Reading, hon. Members who wish to object to any of the Bill's provisions are able to put forward their points of view. That is important, because those points of view are recorded in HANSARD and are thus available to members of the Committee who eventually consider the Bill. Those of us who have served on Committees of that character know that due regard is paid to observations made in the House.
  586
  However, it is only right that the public should be reassured about the safeguards which Parliament very properly provides when Private Bills are promoted. When a Bill leaves the House, having had a Second Reading, local authorities, industrial organisations and individuals who wish to object to its provisions can make their representations in Committee. There is also a very valuable safeguard, that the Minister concerned—-in this case the Minister of Transport—departmentally examines all the Bill's provisions, paying due regard to what he considers to be the best interests of the community. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the Bill, the Minister ensures that it is amended in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will take note of representations made this evening and will see how far they are justified and how far they can be reasonably met.
  I was very impressed with what my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) said about the proposed closure of the Tilfoury-Gravesend Ferry. My hon. Friend made a legitimate case for careful examination by the Minister. This ferry is very important to my hon. Friend's constituency and it is only right that we should ask the Minister to see that the Clause in question is so amended that the Minister is left with the final decision about when the ferry is to be closed. When the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel is completed, it may be that the ferry will be of very little use.
  It would be wrong to allow the British Transport Commission, immediately the tunnel is constructed, to discontinue the ferry service. Provision ought to be made for the ferry service to be discontinued only with the approval of the Minister of Transport. That would meet the point made by my hon. Friend and safeguard the rights of his constituents. It would enable the Minister to re-examine the position when traffic was going through the tunnel to see whether it would be a disservice to my hon. Friend's constituents to discontinue the ferry service. I am not one of those people who would ask the British Transport Commission, or any other authority, to run a service which was not required. My hon. Friend has made a legitimate case, and I hope that my suggestion will be considered so that in Committee the necessary provision can be made.

  587
  I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) appeal to the Minister of Transport not to succumb to the invitations and temptations to sell off land owned by the British Transport Commission. All reasonable people want to see British Railways pay their way. We want to see them run as efficiently as possible, and we want to hear less carping criticism of those who are trying to do a first-class job.
  My sympathy goes to the Chairman of the British Transport Commission, who has rendered great service, and to his colleagues who have been shot at right and left, and who, in spite of all the difficulties with which they have been confronted and the restrictions put on them by the interference of the Government, have done a first-class job. I regret, and probably the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland shares my view, that it was considered necessary to appoint a planning board. I can see nothing which reflects more adversely upon the ability of the chairman and members of the Commission than that the Government should appoint a planning board when the Commission has a competent staff which is capable of running the railways properly and efficiently.
  It is not a planning board that we should appoint. We ought to give the railways an opportunity to do the job for which they were intended. I appeal to the Minister of Transport and to hon. Members opposite to give British Railways a chance to do their job. Let us relieve them of pettifogging restrictions. Let us make sure that in meeting the increased costs arising from wage increases and other factors the public understands the problems of the railways. If we do that British Railways will continue to have the good will of the community.
  For many years British Railways will be vitally necessary to the industrial and social life of the nation. That is why I want the railways to prosper. I want British Railways to serve industry and society in such a way that they will bring benefit to all sections of the community. If we had a committee of industrialists drawn from industry and from the Trades Union Congress to advise the Minister and British Railways on the requirements of industry, we
  588
  would have a far more successful set-up than this so-called planning board. The railways need a committee to advise them on the needs of industry.
  We must not forget that the cost of our exports depends on the cost of transport. If we improve the railways and enable them to pay their way we may keep down the cost of transport, and perhaps reduce existing charges, to the benefit of industry and the travelling public.
  In spite of attempts to describe the British Transport Commission as an ineffective organisation, I hope that it will go out from this House that we have the utmost regard for the chairman and members of the British Transport Commission, and that we wish them well in the task which lies ahead.
  8.7 p.m.
  Mr. John Wells: I hope that the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely in matters of railway administration, because I should like to deal with water-borne travel, which has concerned most hon. Members this evening. But before I get on to that I should like to make one small point.
  I note that in Clause 12 (1, h), which refers to some footpaths in my constituency, the British Transport Commission may substitute new paths for old. I have had no representations or complaints to make about that, but I notice that in paragraph (g), which deals with footpaths in Gloucestershire, the Commission may stop up and discontinue roads or footpaths, without offering any alternative. I hope that the Commission has consulted the local residents and farmers in the neighbourhood of the proposed alterations.
  May I now turn to marine matters, both inland and sea-going. Those of us who are interested in the well-being of our inland waterways welcome Clause 17. This is a new experiment in canal rehabilitation and maintenance. We welcome it.
  Clause 22 is not quite so good. Hon. Members will see that there is a Motion on the Order Paper in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris), to which I have added my name. We want to see

  589
  not only that water is restored to those points from which it is taken, but that the Commission should be forced to keep some account of the water extracted.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) said on 4th December, the Transport Commission or the inland waterways undertaking of the future, whatever it may be, is likely to get a great deal of its revenue from the sale of water. Clause 22 gives the railway authority power to take a free gift of water for the benefit of its undertakings. If the railways and the waterways sections of the Commission are at any time divided I do not want to see this free gift of water quoted as a precedent. If other water users have to pay for it, so should the railway authority.
  Mr. J. T. Price: How would the hon. Member deal with this matter if he were in charge of the Commission's ventures? How would he levy a charge upon himself, merely for taking something from his own property? This seems a remarkable doctrine to come from the Tory benches. I do not understand it at all. It is the most original thing I have heard in this House for a long time.
  Mr. Wells: There should be an accounting procedure. Nobody expects that the Commission, in its present form, will continue for ever administering both railways and waterways. It would be desirable to keep a precise yearly account of water taken, in millions of gallons. We should keep records of the gallonage taken for the time being, so that if we wish to proceed on a cash basis in future the necessary information will be available to us.
  Clause 23 comes much nearer my constituency of Maidstone. Strood Dock is one of the many small coastal ports scattered round the country. Since the Commission was formed it has attempted to abandon or close 11 docks, and this is the most recent venture it has made. Coastwise shipping is a great national asset, and if it is to continue in any form it must have small ports as well as large ones. The point about coastwise shipping is that small barges and lighters can deliver their goods to the doorstep. Immediately outside my constituency, but affecting many thousands of my constituents, who gain their livelihoods from it, is Aylesford Paper Mills, which is the largest mixed mill in Europe. The bulk
  590
  of its pulp is delivered up the Medway, past Strood Dock.
  The Commission attempted to close Whitstable Dock recently, but it is now prospering substantially, largely due to the great activity of the London and Rochester Trading Company, whose main place of business is situated practically alongside Strood Dock. It is deplorable that this proposal to close Strood Dock should be included in the Bill without any opportunity being given for other interests to take it over.
  Subsection (2) of the Clause says:
  "Any person who suffers loss by the extinguishment of any private right … shall be entitled to be paid by the Commission compensation…"
  Paying compensation to a man with rights is no safeguard for the future. In other hands good use could be made of these small docks.
  A firm of welding suppliers on that section of waterway where the Medway flows into the Thames is at present having much of its supplies brought in direct from Sweden by water. On 12th February of this year there was considerable comment in Kent about trade between this country and Denmark— timber coming here from Denmark and the sale of second-hand tractors by this country to Denmark. That trade is carried on from our small coastwise ports. As I have said, coastal shipping is a national asset, and it should not be continually eroded because of the ineptitude of the Commission.
  Mr. F. H. Hayman: Will the hon. Member give an example of the ineptitude of the Commission? His own Government have required it to give up branch railways which are no longer economic.
  Mr. Wells: I am not speaking of branch railways; I am speaking of coastwise shipping and, in particular, these small ports. It is a completely different matter.
  Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Member suggesting that where a loss is involved in carrying on a certain operation the Commission should nevertheless carry it on at a loss for non-economic reasons? How does this square with the claim which is constantly made that the Commission should operate on a business or financial basis?
  Mr. Wells: The hon. Member will agree that I was making out a case for maintaining these small coastal ports.
  Mr. Benn: At a loss.
  Mr. Wells: Not necessarily.
  I trust that I shall not be ruled out of order following Mr. Speaker's Ruling at the beginning of the debate. I want to refer to Whitstable Dock, which is only a few miles from Strood Dock. That is operating very profitably in other hands. Clause 23 provides for the closing of Strood Dock, but says nothing about offering it to other people. It merely provides that it shall be closed, and that those who lose their rights as a result shall be compensated. I would rather see the dock sold to people who will operate it on a commercial basis, as the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) would wish.
  Mr. Benn: Is the hon. Member saying that there are reasons, in this or in other cases, why the Commission should operate something at a loss? If so, will he say so plainly?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker(Major Sir William Anstruther-Gray): I do not want the House to be led away beyond Mr. Speaker's Ruling. Anything to do with Strood Dock is in order, because it is mentioned in the Bill, but a debate on docks in general would be outside the scope of the Bill.
  Mr. J. T. Price: May I submit that when, in supporting an argument related to a Clause in the Bill, a Member sees fit to refer to the Commission as having shown gross ineptitude in seeking powers to rid itself of an uneconomic limb of its business, it is definitely related to the text of the Bill and is not dealing with generalities to point out the fallacy in the hon. Member's argument? From that point of view, I hope that you will agree that my hon. Friend is in order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that the hon. Member had got out of order, but there was a danger of his doing so.
  Mr. Wells: I fear that I must have expressed myself very badly. When I referred to the ineptitude of the Commission I meant in the administration of small docks and particularly Strood Dock. I should prefer that the dock was
  592
  not abandoned, but that powers be acquired to dispose of it.
  I wish to express the Kentish point of view on Clause 37, to which reference has already been made by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy). Subsection (2) states that the northbound ferry "shall be extinguished" and that the southbound ferry "shall cease". As was said by the hon. Member for Thurrock, this is a matter of great regret in Essex and also, I think, in Kent. To satisfy those hon. Gentlemen who are anxious that everything the Commission does shall be profitable, it may be necessary to extinguish the ferries at some future date. But I would rather have seen some permissive right accorded the Minister to enable the extinguishment to take place at a later date when we know what is the volume of traffic.
  I do not wish to raise what might be regarded as a Committee point, but I think that the Clause is unfortunately worded in the statement that the ferries "shall" be extinguished and "shall" cease. It would be nicer if powers were given to the Minister, or if the whole matter were left until the tunnel was much nearer completion.
  May I say how much those of us who are concerned with the well-being of the waterways welcome this Measure and the fact that I may have found myself in certain difficulties regarding my references to coastwise shipping in no way lessens my desire to see the inland waterways prosperous.
  8.22 p.m.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I have been interested in some of the points advanced by hon. Members whose constituencies lie in those areas of the country where canals have been allowed to fall into disrepair. Many of the canals are in surroundings of great natural beauty. I fully understand the need to safeguard the heritage and amenities of the countryside, and those things which by their beauty bring joy to so many people. Anything I say which may seem to be in opposition to that feeling is said not because I am less zealous than other hon. Members regarding the preservation of the amenities of our country, but because, as an hon. Member of this House, I have some responsibility for the public institutions which were created here.

  593
  I am not referring to canals built by famous engineers of the past, but to the present difficulties and liabilities which face the British Transport Commission in its operations. I have heard hon. Members making speeches which reveal what is perhaps a rather narrow point of view in these matters. They seem to think, for some romantic reason, that it would be a great shame if we lost all these waterways and people could not take a 10-foot craft on them at weekends. I agree that it would be a great shame, but may I remind hon. Members who advance these views that when the Commission began its operations under the provisions of the 1947 Act it took over many of these broken-down undertakings which had been left in a state of disrepair and ruin for generations?
  I disapprove of these strictures upon the Commission, because I think that they art; quite unfair. The Commission has a job to do. It is continually criticised because it is not making a profit in terms of a commercial undertaking. It is not making a profit for reasons which I should be out of order in referring to, but I think that we should be a little more charitable in our attitude to the Commission, however zealous we may be to retain the waterways and the many legacies and inheritances of the past.
  In the Bill, to which I hope the House will give a Second Reading, the Commission seeks working powers to deal with the immediate problems connected with the development of its main undertaking. I do not regard it as part of the duty of this House to require the Commission to maintain for ever undertakings which are demonstrably causing a serious loss to it and which were already in a bankrupt condition when this nation paid a good compensation price for them as part of the take-over terms from the old railway companies. The Commission is entitled to be given these powers, subject to the proper safeguards of scrutiny and examination which this House is amply empowered to apply.
  This is the last opportunity which we shall have to raise constituency points on this matter and I wish to refer to Clause 12, which occupies about six pages of the text of the Bill. The Clause is concerned mainly with giving the
  594
  Commission power to discontinue and stop up a large number of footpaths and roads in different parts of the country. There may be good reasons for many of these closures, but they are not revealed in the Bill because it would mean a long Explanatory Memorandum to give such details. I have as much regard as anyone for the preservation of the existing amenities, particularly in the countryside.
  I see the hon. Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) smiling at me. He has recently come to the House from the North, where I also live. He and I have often wandered across Kinder Scout and other places in the North where there are no railways within a mile or two. We have been interested in the preservation of footpaths and even in trying to create footpaths where there is none. He and I can argue this matter when we chat outside the House. When a footpath is to be closed, for whatever purpose, the intention to close it should be properly scrutinised to see that there are good reasons for it.
  At the bottom of page 16 of the Bill hon. Members will read:
  "(i) In the county of Lancaster—
  In the urban district of Blackrod—
  they may stop up and discontinue so much of the road known as Factory Brow which is crossed by the railway between Blackrod and Adlington at the level crossing known as Anderton Hall crossing…"
  This footpath follows the line of an ancient footpath which has probably existed for hundreds of years. I have recently consulted a 1-inch ordnance map to check the locality. If it is convenient to him, I should like the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, in his reply to the debate, to give me the reasons for the closure of this footpath.
  I should like to draw his attention to another matter connected with the preservation of footpaths. There are many accommodation roads and footpaths, as they are described by surveyors and others who are technically responsible for these things, in respect of which there were long-standing contracts made by the railways which were the predecessors of British Railways, and long before nationalisation, for maintenance. Railway companies very often accepted responsibility for the maintenance of accommodation roads and footpaths. I

  595
  have come across several examples in recent years of roads which have been allowed to fall into complete disrepair because, for some reason, these old obligations have not been pursued. Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary tell me whether this is a road over which any rights have been established and any maintenance obligations undertaken either by the Transport Commission or by the railways whose operation the Commission took over?
  Mr. Hay: The only information I have on this matter, supplied to me by the Transport Commission, is that the Anderton Hall crossing is very little used by vehicles and that the local authorities and other local interests have agreed to its closure to vehicular traffic. The London Midland Region of British Railways intends to provide wicket gates for people on foot. That is as far as my information goes. I cannot help the hon. Member further tonight.
  Mr. Price: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman.
  This is clearly a matter which must be adjusted at local level, but merely to say that a road is little used by traffic is not the best reason for refusing to maintain it open for the use of those people who like to walk across a right of way. The existence of a right of way goes beyond the question of whether traffic is using the road. Hon. Members who have been interested in the Footpaths Preservation Society, as I have, know what I mean. The fact that traffic does not use it does not conclude the matter. I am obliged to the hon. Member for giving me that information. If the local authorities are satisfied, I shall not be unduly contentious about it.
  I give my support in general terms to the Second Reading of the Bill because I am convinced that if the public only realised the tremendous energy which is being put into the job by the Transport Commission, in the face of all these discouraging circumstances, there would be a much happier relationship between that great body, which deals with one of the main economic assets of this country, and the public. We should encourage the Commission in the great modernisation scheme which it is carrying out to improve facilities. If it needs legislative adjustments which require Parliamentary
  596
  sanction, we should not be unduly obstructive. We think that the Commission ought to have these powers. I heartily support the Second Reading of the Bill.
  8.34 p.m.
  Major Sir Frank Markham: Both the hon. Member for Westihoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) and the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) have made appeals to hon. Members on this side of the House not to obstruct either the Bill or the British Transport Commission. I think I can say for everyone on this side of the House that we have never had any intention of obstructing the Bill. What is more, we have no intention of obstructing the Commission, nor shall we have. Reviewing the debate so far, it seems to me that the greatest criticism of the British Transport Commission has come not from the Conservative benches but from the other side of the House.
  If the hon. Member for Westhoughton will cast his mind back to the speech of the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), he will remember that it contained the most damaging criticism that has been made of this Bill and of the British Transport Commission tonight. I know that the hon. Member for Westhoughton is one of the most sincere Members in this House, and the same applies to his hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East. But sincerity demands that they should give credit to us on these benches for possessing the same high-minded motives which move them, and they should not belittle the party to which I belong because we are trying to put high principles into practice.
  Mr. J. T. Price: I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman has misunderstood me. I am much obliged to him for the implied compliment; it is generous of him. I am not seeking to belittle anyone. So far as I remember, the only critical reference I made was in response to a very objectionable expression used by an hon. Member opposite when he spoke disparagingly of the British Transport Commission. I thought that reference was unfair. However, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman thinks that I have been unfair, I hope he will take a charitable view. I was trying to be most temperate and reasonable. I could be more controversial if I wished to be, but this is not the occasion.
  Sir F. Markham: I am glad to receive the hon. Gentleman's explanation. I objected to his statement that we on these benches were being obstructive. However, I accept the withdrawal and I will now move to the Bill.
  This Bill affects my constituency as much as any constituency in the country. Not only does Clause 24 (2) but the whole of the first part of the Fourth Schedule refer to parts of my constituency. These references are mainly to the creation of a new marshalling yard at Swanbourne and Mursley in Buckinghamshire in order, as the Bill says, to provide a railway depot and to improve railway communications between Bletchley and Oxford and for other purposes. By and large, we welcome this move. We think it is good. We hope that this great improvement in east-west freight communications that will follow upon the creation of this new marshalling yard will justify all the hopes of the British Transport Commission in making these new plans.
  My criticism goes back a little earlier than this. British Railways have been considering this new marshalling yard for years. Their plans must have been made before the last General Election, but they kept one or two local farmers on tenterhooks. Months ago British Railways produced plans showing the areas that they wanted, but they never said to the farmers, "This is when we shall want the land." The result is that even at this moment—and here we are in March, with the first day of spring already past—one or two local farmers whose lands may be affected do not know whether to plant for this year or not. Surely the British Transport Commission could have given to people like Mr. Stacey of Lower Grove Farm, Mursley, a much earlier and clearer indication of their intentions concerning his land.
  The reason that the British Transport Commission have given for not providing the fullest information is that they are waiting for Parliamentary approval of this Bill. We all know, as the British Transport Commission must have known, that the chance of this Bill going through this House is about a million to one in favour. The odds in favour of Parliament approving of this Bill were fantastic. The British Transport Commission should have been fairer to the
  598
  local farmers. Under this Bill we give them full powers to impose immediate controls upon certain farmlands. They should have been fairer and should have given the farmers the right sort of notice to enable them to cultivate for at least a year without undue loss.
  My next point concerning my constituency has already been raised in connection with another constituency. When British Railways take over lands for extensions or for marshalling yards and so on, there arises the vexed question of footpaths and roads. The same thing arises in the Winslow Rural District Council area. I should like an assurance —I do not know whether the Minister can give it to me or whether he can get it from the British Transport Commission—that, before the final plans for the Swanbourne marshalling yards arc completed, the Commission will consult the Winslow Rural District Council with a view to ensuring that road communications and footpath or bridlepath communication are retained as far as possible.
  Your predecessor in the Chair, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, in a very wise review of the subjects which we might debate tonight, ruled, if my memory is correct, that, while we might speak about the administration of the railways, we must not speak about the future of the British Transport Commission as a Commission and we were not to mention wages or the Guillebaud Report. I hope that I can weave my way between the "mays" and "may nots" and, walking on the edge of impartiality, as it were, say a few sentences with reference to other railway problems.
  I wish, first, to refer to the disquiet which exists in many railway workshops simply because the British Transport Commission cannot—I think "cannot" is the word rather than "will not"— give a definite forecast for a few years ahead about what will be the work requirements of the railway workshops. The outstanding example, of course, is probably Wolverton, because the railway workshops at Wolverton are so extensive that they make Wolverton a one-industry town.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I have your guidance? I cannot

  599
  find any reference in the Bill to what the hon. and gallant Member is now discussing.
  Sir F. Markham: Although there is no reference to Wolverton in the Bill, I understood Mr. Speaker to rule that we might discuss certain aspects of general railway administration, even if they were not included in the Bill. If the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) had been here when Mr. Speaker gave his Ruling, he would not have risen on that point of order. May I come back to where I was when I was so blithely interrupted?
  Mr. Spriggs: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I believe that Mr. Speaker gave a Ruling against the subject about which the hon. and gallant Member is now speaking.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am listening very carefully to what the hon. and gallant Member is saying, and I admit that I am anxious lest he should put himself out of order. I think that the hon. and gallant Member heard Mr. Speaker's Ruling, and I hope very much that he will keep himself well within the bounds of that Ruling.
  Sir F. Markham: To make this quite clear, may I put this question to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? Am I properly in order in discussing the future of the railway carriage works at Wolverton?
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The administration of the railways in general is in order under this Bill, but the topic of wages is right out and any reference to Guillebaud would be right out.
  Mr. J. T. Price: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry to delay the House for a moment or two longer, but you have just given a Ruling which, according to my recollection, is at variance with the instruction given to the House by Mr. Speaker when the debate began. I have been in the Chamber the whole time, and I distinctly recollect that the sort of subject now being raised was specifically excluded by Mr. Speaker's Ruling.
  If it had not been so, instead of speaking for only a few minutes a short time ago when I caught your eye, I should most certainly have spoken at considerable length about railway works because
  600
  I have the honour to represent one of the largest railway workshops in the country. I restrained myself in view of what Mr. Speaker has said. I am quite certain that Mr. Speaker made it clear to us when we began that the debate could not be conducted in a wide-ranging fashion to cover the sort of topics now being introduced. I therefore feel deprived in having resumed my seat when I could have spoken with much greater effect on a question of greater importance than the one on which I spoke in trying to keep myself within the bounds of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Perhaps it would help the House if, instead of relying on our recollections, I were to read the words with which Mr. Speaker was good enough to preface the debate. He said: "It is permissible to discuss generally the administration of British Railways, the railways of London Transport, and the inland waterways of the Commission, but not the other undertakings of the Commission." I think that I have read sufficient to make it clear that to discuss the general administration of British Railways is in order.
  Sir F. Markham: Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am sorry that my friend the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) did not realise the width of the debate, in which case we might have had a still more illuminating speech from him.
  May I get back to my beloved subject of Wolverton? Wolverton is practically a one-industry town, and that industry is British Railways, centred in the carriage and wagon works.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am getting anxious again because Wolverton and the carriage and wagon works are not, I think, mentioned in the Bill. I think it would be better if the hon. and gallant Member kept clear of that.
  Sir F. Markham: I feel rather like a shuttlecock. I do not know on which side of the net I am landing, but in order to save embarrassment all round I will move from the subject of Wolverton. Before I do so, perhaps I might say one sentence. It would be a great blessing to the people of Wolverton and district if the Commission would

  601
  let them know what its future longdistance intentions are about those works.
  I say this with great diffidence because I do not want to embarrass you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or anyone, but I gather that if I went on to say a few words about the future policies of the Commission I would be out of order. We have already heard two speeches from hon. Members opposite urging that everything should be done to make the Commission pay its way.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: A discussion on the general administration of the Commission is in order under the Bill.
  Mr. F. Blackburn: Surely the hon. and gallant Member does not want to discuss the general administration. The request of the hon. and gallant Member to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, was whether he would discuss future administration, which, I take it, would be out of order.
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that is true. I do not think this Bill deals with the future general administration.
  Sir F. Markham: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I add that I did not mean to speak for more than a few minutes, but I think hon. Members will agree that I have spoken so long solely because of the manifold interruptions I have had from hon. Members opposite.
  Appeals have been made by hon. Members opposite to us on this side not to criticise the Commission. I believe most strongly that we in this House have a responsible duty to any nationalised industry of bringing to public notice and to the notice of that industry any improvements that we can suggest. I think that we should take full advantage of debates of this kind to bring out these points. I should not like a constructive debate of this kind to be termed obstructive criticism, because that is not in the minds of any hon. Member on this side, nor, I am sure, in the minds of hon. Members generally.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. Arthur Holt: We seem to be getting a little thin-skinned in this House when the hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) takes exception because somebody talks about obstruction.
  602
  The hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price), who is a fairly tough character when he gets going, as I know to my cost, took great offence because somebody said that something was inapt.
  Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) was himself fairly tough on my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham, North (Mr. A. Lewis) earlier in the debate.
  Sir F. Markham: It had nothing at all to do with this debate.
  Mr. Holt: The hon. Member for Westhoughton appeared to make his apology for the deficits of the Transport Commission by saying that they were, at least, no worse than those of private enterprise. That seems to me to be a rather inadequate defence of nationalisation, which, we were told, would put everything right. However, I do not wish to get drawn too much in that direction, because I might get out of order, although there has been considerable discussion about it from other hon. Members.
  This debate has taken much the same form as previous debates on Private Bills of the Transport Commission have taken in recent years. Indeed, many of the faces attending this debate are very much the same. One of the difficulties in previous years has been to discuss the kind of things that arise in a Bill of this type, as, for instance, the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry, or, in Clause 23, the Strood Dock, against a comprehensive background of policy. Some of us, whilst admitting that problems were raised for individual passengers or people who use parts of the Commission's activities by the closing down of some of them, have pressed the House to recognise that it was absurd for us to expect the Commission to make both ends meet and yet still carry on these uneconomic activities.
  Like my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I have always been one of those who wish to get economic sense into the activities of the Commission. We have never denied that there were, and would be, perhaps for many a long day yet, some activities which it was in the public interest to carry on even though they would still be uneconomic. It is largely

  603
  a question of dividing these into clear categories and then examining the case for, say, the ferry or the dock against that background. Before I get on to that, however, I would like an assurance from the Minister that he will deal widely and thoroughly with the question of the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry.
  Mr. Hay Mr. Hay indicated assent.
  Mr. Holt: One of the things that slightly alarms me about this is that I have a note which indicates that since the Bill was presented, the promoters have decided not to proceed with so much of the proposals in the Bill as would relieve them of their legal obligation to provide a passenger ferry service. There is now a difference between the way in which they intend to treat the vehicular ferry service and the passenger ferry service. If, even when the new tunnel is open, there will still be a demand for a passenger ferry service, we ought to see how it will be provided. If, however, it cannot be provided economically we must be very careful before we put any pressure upon the Commission to continue to provide it.
  I would also ask the Minister whether he will be giving any assurance to his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells) on the question of Strood Dock. Surely it cannot be true that the Commission is proposing just to close this down and is not prepared to offer it to anyone else who might be prepared to run it for the general good of those who wish to use it?
  I hope, too, that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies he will be able to give us some background to how he views these problems of the various uneconomic services, some of which are being dealt with in this Bill, and to the closing down of which there is some resistance. It seems to me that we can arrive at a reasonable and logical position if the Commission's services are divided into three categories: firstly, those which really can be made economic; secondly, those which are marginally uneconomic but which are still necessary to the public and whose closing down would cause the very greatest inconvenience for many people; and, thirdly, those which are really quite uneconomic and for whose continuance
  604
  really no case can be made out. The latter category is quite simple. It is the middle one which is the difficult one.
  I hope that when the hon. Gentleman takes these matters into consideration he will also give attention again, as I believe he has already given attention to it, to a Motion which my hon. Friends and I put down some while ago in which we drew attention to our objections to Government policy and in which we set out how we would go about putting it right. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give a very full reply to the very interesting points which have been raised by other hon. Members besides myself, particularly on those two matters.
  8.57 p.m.
  Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I am surprised at the rather parochial outlook with which hon. Members on the other side of the House have viewed the British Transport Commissions' proposal to close the Strood Dock. It is not long ago that the Minister, speaking from the Government Front Bench, said—as, indeed, the Prime Minister later said—that he would expect the co-operation of everyone concerned to help to bring about the speedy closing of railway lines which are uneconomic. If that is the Government's policy, and apparently it is, it is rather unfair of hon. Members on the benches opposite to oppose Government policy because something is happening in their constituencies which is very unpopular among the public.
  In considering Clause 23 and, in particular, subsection (2), it is very interesting to a railwayman who has known redundancy, and has been offered a job hundreds of miles away from home, without expenses, and living on a single wage, to note the way in which compensation is proposed to be paid to private people who lose private facilities. What I want the House to consider is that when rail-waymen lose their jobs they should be offered alternative work within reasonable distance of their homes, and that the Commission should be told so by Parliament. Moreover, services should be provided for the workers between their homes and their new jobs. Where, at any time of day or night, services are not available to take redundant workers to their new jobs, other jobs, where there are better transport facilities, should be offered.

  605
  My next point concerns Clause 37 (2), which deals principally with the closing of the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry. If we are prepared to deal with constituents in general and those who would require the car ferry, I think that hon. Members should consider what is to happen to redundant staff. Nothing in the Bill says what the Commission is prepared to do by way of finding alternative work. Before I give my support to the Bill, I want to hear from the Minister what the Commission proposes to do for the staffs who will be concerned in all the proposed closures. I believe that, on principle, we should consider, first and foremost, the people who run the industry.
  Clause 33 (2) deals with the development of lands at Euston. I am rather disturbed at the wording of the subsection:
  "The Commission shall have power to construct and fit up on over or under the specified lands buildings and works of any description for the purpose of letting or otherwise disposing of the same or any part or parts thereof and in connection with the occupancy of any such buildings or works …"
  I believe that if we are honest in our criticisms of the Transport Commission, when studying its financial report and knowing something of land values and the rackets that are operating in London, it is about time that we gave the Commission a warning that valuable assets should be developed. I would have thought that the development of any assets to raise finance would have been in line with what the Minister of Transport has been saying since I entered the House.
  There has been a growing deficit year by year, yet the Commission and those responsible for the drafting of the Bill, and whoever was behind the scenes prompting it, put this Clause in so that the Commission would be empowered to sell valuable assets. They must share the responsibility for what is in the Bill. I hope that when the Minister replies to the debate he will remember what has been said about the closing down of docks, the ferry, and the reasons that have been put forward from the benches opposite. I can assure the Minister that I have taken a note of what has been said and that if hon. Members opposite are prepared to use the arguments which have been used over the past few years, with the intention of destroying the
  606
  prestige of public ownership, I shall not forget to remind him of what they have said.
  9.5 p.m.
  Mr. William Small: I should like some clarification of Clause 31 which deals with the compulsory purchase of lands and easements, and I am also concerned with the provision for arbitration in Clause 47. It would appear from Clause 47 that though parties to an arbitration usually prefer that there should be three members of an arbitration court, where the parties fail to agree to the appointment of a single arbitrator—as provided in the Bill—either party can apply to the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers to appoint a single arbitrator.
  It appears, therefore, that both contestants would be required to agree to the same individual, but at the end of the day a heavy onus would be placed on the president of the Institution of Civil Engineers in making a single appointment. Current thought in relation to arbitration cases is that there should be three arbitrators if all the parties are to be satisfied.
  9.6 p.m.
  Mr. Wedgwood Benn: As I am the only hon. Member to rise, perhaps I may assume, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that your eye is pointing in my direction. Perhaps that may even be written in as one of your Rulings if you have not already given it.
  I should like to say a few words about those aspects of the Bill which have not been discussed. It is a very big and important Bill, and only a very few points in it have been sufficiently controversial for hon. Members to rise to speak about them. What we are doing tonight is, in a sense, reviewing the work of the British Transport Commission, much of it connected with the modernisation programme which it wants to get through in the next month or two or year or two. It would be wrong that we should pass the Bill on Second Reading without paying tribute to the Commission for the progress of its modernisation plan. Some of it causes temporary inconvenience as lines are re-adapted and bridges rebuilt, but there is no question at all that it brings great benefit to the country as a whole. As the roads get

  607
  more congested and as the modernisation programme progresses, it may well be, and we hope that it will be, that traffic from the roads, both passenger and goods, will return for comfort and speed to the railways.
  Most of the points made in the debate inevitably have been constituency points. It is quite appropriate that it should be so. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport will no doubt deal with many of them. I do not want to take them up individually, except to relate them to what seems to me to be some of the general problems which the railways have to face at the moment.
  As I listened to hon. Members opposite and heard them appeal for the preservation of a beautiful canal or of a dock which has great associations with their own constituencies, I wondered how all this fitted in with the rigid demands which we are always having from the other side of the House that the British Transport Commission should be run on a strictly commercial basis. Hon. Members opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot expect the Commission to operate as a purveyor of amenities to the British public and then hit it time and again because it is not being a financial success.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: We do not want that. We want the Commission to give way to a body much better fitted to do this work.
  Mr. Benn: The Commission is providing money for the Kennet and Avon Canal. Is it not £1,500 a year?
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: That is so in a small case, but I am speaking of the whole waterways problem.
  Mr. Benn: I will come back to the waterways in a minute. But here is an example of where the Commission is doing it with money which is coming within the general deficit. I am not saying that this is wrong. I am only saying that it does not fit in with the general argument that we have often received from the other side of the House.
  Before I come to some of the applications of these detailed points, I want
  608
  to make one or two general points. First, I really wonder how far this procedure of proceeding by Private Bill every year is really necessary. It goes back to the days when all railway advances were made by Private Bill. But surely the British Transport Commission should be given as much authority as a local authority has to acquire land and make changes in its undertakings without having to come back to this House for legislation?
  Obviously we want to preserve the public right of criticism and comment, but let us compare this procedure with that used by the Minister himself who lays more orders than any other Minister in the House, most of which involve rights of way. I receive all the regulations laid before the House every day at home; 75 per cent. come from the hon. Gentleman's own Department and they offer the right of prayer against them. I do not see why the Transport Commission should be required to legislate always on some things which are really part of its day-to-day administration, so long as the rights of the public are preserved.
  The other question raised by this debate is that of accountability, to which I will return in another context. It is important that there should be an airing of views tonight on the relationship between a Member of Parliament and his constituents and the British Transport Commission. I hope very much that we can have some general broadening of accountability in this regard. I was extremely disappointed by the Minister's reply today at Question Time, when he seemed to limit himself strictly to the traditional approach to accountability.
  I believe I am speaking for many other hon. Members on this side of the House as well as for myself when I say that we are heartily sick of the Transport Commission being used as a political football, so that whenever a train is late there are cheers from the other side of the House. One reason why we want a greater degree of accountability is because we believe that if the Minister's reputation were a little more involved in making the British Transport Commission a success, we should get away from this hideous business which in my opinion has been going on far too long. However, we shall have other opportunities to come back to that.

  609
  Now I come to the effect on railway administration of the Government's statement, made by the Prime Minister ten days ago. I am relating this strictly to the administration of the railways. It would be quite out of order today to speak about the economic problems of the British Transport Commission, and I do not propose to address a word to that question. It would also be out of order to talk about the Guillebaud Report. But it is perfectly in order to discuss the rôle and function of the planning board which is to be set up by the Government, and which has been referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party and other speakers. The intervention of a planning board over the administration of the railways seems to me to be a highly unsatisfactory procedure.
  First, we do not know when the board will start work, we do not know who will compose it, we do not know what it will do, we do not know to whom it will report, we do not know whether it is advisory to the Commission or to the Minister. We do not know whether it is accountable to Parliament. If we understand, as we do today, that an important decision like, for example, the decision over the Victoria Line tube is now to be taken to the planning board and to be postponed until that board has reached a decision, an entirely new principle of Parliamentary accountability is being introduced, namely, that there should be a committee appointed outside Parliament by the Minister which will evidently have power over the British Transport Commission.
  I must say frankly that I agree with what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy), and by many other speakers, that the Commission is being put in an impossible position by the imposition of an outside planning board with no definition of its responsibilities, and being told by that planning board how the railways are to be administered. The 1953 Act, which provided a measure of decentralisation, has been implemented. There has been a considerable amount of regional decentralisation since the Act came into operation, and there is no question about it that it is going well. At the same time, there are great benefits from some centralisation in railway administration. I give two examples which come obviously to mind.
  610
  The central design and ordering of rolling stock by the Commission has been organised on a much more economical basis, because the number of different designs and engines has been reduced and there has been great saving to the Commission as a result.
  Secondly, the benefit of centralised control and organisation by the Commission may be seen in centralised wagon control. I believe I am right in saying that there are still too many wagons which are not being used as effectively as they might be, and the Commission is conscious of this. Unless there is centralised wagon control, and the Commission prevents every region from keeping its own private strategic reserve of wagons, it is impossible to get a higher productivity from the wagons. Any attempt by the planning board to reorganise the administration of the railways which gets away from central design and ordering of locomotives and central wagon control would lead to great inefficiency of administration.
  We come now to the question of regional accountancy. For some reason, the Minister and Members opposite have become bemused by the idea that it would be much better if every region had its own accountancy system. I am not referring here to freight rates or wages or anything of that kind, but asking whether it is seriously believed that anything would be gained from attempting to impose a regional accountancy system.
  A load may start on a branch line in one region where it is very expensive to load and deliver. It may then go to marshalling in another, which may cost more money again, and then go through a part of the line of another region where, because of a much higher productivity, as it were, the costs are very much reduced. It may then come to be unloaded in a third region where terminal charges are very high.
  What sense is there in dividing that operation up for costing and describing it as regional accountancy? This aspect of Government policy makes no sense. As anyone who bothers to look it up will find out, before the war the accountancy of the private companies was purely notional. I believe that 75 per cent. of all railways receipts were pooled then, and

  611
  the only reason that a notional balance sheet was published—it did not reflect true accountancy divisions but the share of the pooled receipts which came to each company—was in order to provide some sort of basis for dividend payment.
  I am speaking now purely on this question of railway administration. I believe Government policy is absolutely false in its conception and will lead not only to no economies but to less efficient rather than more efficient administration. I also support strongly what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) said when he commented that to impose this planning board on the Commission was technically unsound.
  If the Minister—who is occupying a somewhat detached relationship to this debate in sitting at the end of the Front Bench—thinks that there should be a reorganisation of the Transport Commission, he should either compel Sir Brian Robertson to carry out that reorganisation or dismiss him and put somebody else in who will reorganise the Commission and, if the Commission disappears, go with it.
  Frankly, after all these months and years of uncertainty, to come along and say that there has to be another re-examination of railway management is an extremely unsatisfactory solution. Indeed, I wondered whether there was any significance in the fact that it was not announced by the Minister himself but by the Prime Minister, which suggested that the idea may have been produced strictly outside the Ministry itself. What are required at the moment from the Government and the Minister of Transport are certain clear decisions, and there is no reason why those decisions should not be given. I want to give examples of at least three or four of them which stem entirely from the Bill.
  Let us take first the whole question of branch lines. We have an example in the Bill of the closing of Quainton Road Station. This is rather an unusual provision, because most stations and branch lines do not require legislation to be closed. They are closed after the Transport Users' Consultative Committee has considered them and a report and recommendations have been made.
  612
  We want a clear decision from the Government as to the policy to be pursued about branch lines. The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) is quite right to say that where there is difficulty is where a branch line is neither profitable nor absolutely hopelessly unprofitable but where there is a middle position and where, with a little Government help, the line could be made profitable. I see no reason at all why the Commission itself should subsidise lines which are uneconomic.
  If those lines are to be kept open and should be kept open for non-economic reasons, if there is a strategic, amenity, educational, or some other reason why those branch lines should be kept open, it is quite unfair to expect the Commission to bear responsibility, particularly if at the end, when the Commission is bearing that responsibility, it is accused of failing to observe strictly commercial principles. What we want from the Government is a clear statement of policy about those branch lines, which we fully recognise to be part of the public service, but which at the moment it is not possible to operate on a perfectly ordinary commercial basis.
  The next point which stems straight from the Bill is the question of the development of sites, and the example given in the Bill is, of course, that of Euston Station. Here, again, we have the possibility that the Doric Arch at Euston Station may have to be removed. I think it is a hideous arch. I was rather expecting some hon. Member to say that it was part of our national heritage and that it was part of the duty of the Commission to provide for the benefit of overseas tourists an arch at Euston which could be typified as part of our way of life and catalogued in the British Travel and Holidays Board's brochure. I can only say that I am relieved that Chat has not been the case and that we are not told that the Commission also has the duty of maintaining ancient monuments.
  Clearly, the Commission's duty at Euston is to get an efficient station. I gather that under the old L.M.S. powers it was in order for the old railway company to develop sites, including Euston, for other than strictly railway purposes, but under the 1947 Act, introduced by my right hon. Friends, those powers of site development were removed. Frankly,

  613
  we believe that the time has now come when they should be restored.
  There may be two reasons for restoring those rights. One is that if the Commission can make a profit on valuable city sites, that profit should be made. If the Commission is forced to see its land, then that is in the character of a forced sale and the speculators who want to buy the land will benefit very greatly from the operation of the existing statutory provisions. It seems to me that it is to the great advantage of the taxpayer, who would otherwise have to provide money to meet a deficit, and to the great advantage of the Commission that the Commission should be allowed to develop those sites which it needs for a profitable purpose.
  However, I am not so much concerned only with that aspect, although I think that the case is made out entirely. I am also concerned that those railway sites should be developed for transport purposes, because in practice we should benefit enormously if existing railway stations were redeveloped primarily to give greater transport use. One of the things which one notices very much about the London termini—and this applies to other large stations—is how bad are the arrangements for handling goods and passengers compared with those at London Airport and similar places. That is nobody's fault. "It is because they are old stations, but they cannot be redeveloped to provide for the modern handling of goods and passengers unless in that process something else is clone which makes the re-development profitable. One could not otherwise justify great expenditure purely for the convenience of passengers and goods.
  We hear a lot about the necessity to develop off-street car parks. That is right, but they should be developed on railway sites as part of the redevelopment of our railway stations. If we want people to make use of the railways, we must provide them with car parking facilities so that they can go to the station, leave their cars in the car park, and use the railways. If we do not provide car parks near railway stations people will not go by train. They will make their journeys by other means.
  Similarly, if we are to attract people to London and get them to use public transport, we must see that there is a
  614
  proper rebuilding of many London main line stations so that they join up with the underground system. I do not know whether the Minister has travelled in this way, but when one goes to a main line terminus one sees streams of people criss-crossing and jostling in an endeavour to get from a main line station to an underground station and one realises why people would rather go by car, which is more expensive, than put up with this intolerable inconvenience. We want better standards for passengers. We cannot get that unless we redevelop London's main line stations.
  Mr. Holt: Perhaps I might give the House an example. London Road Station, Manchester, is being rebuilt without any provision for cars.
  Mr. Benn: That is a good example. It is ridiculous not to redevelop our stations to take into account future transport developments.
  Inter-city helicopter services are not very far away. They may be only ten or fifteen years away. If they are less, so much the better. These new stations will probably last fifty or sixty years, and it is ridiculous not to try to develop heliports on top of railway stations in the middle of our cities. That is the sort of thinking that we want and this is all part of site development policy.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Thur-rock (Mr. Delargy) raised the question of the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry in relation to the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel. The British Transport Commission has said that as there is to be a tunnel it need not run the ferry. That is reasonable. It does not want to be left holding the baby as it has been in the past with all the best traffic creamed off in the tunnel and then have to listen to hon. Members opposite saying that as ferry boats are one of our greatest national assets they must be kept on because of their attraction for school children in the summer.
  Somebody ought to be thinking about the future development of traffic in this country. Somebody ought to be thinking that even when the tunnel is completed the build-up of new cars will be so great that my hon. Friend's constituents will find that they cannot get through the tunnel because of traffic blockages and they will wish that the ferry was still there.

  615
  Nobody in this country, certainly the Minister with his bright ideas, and I am a great admirer of him, as he is of himself, has done anything, as far as I can see, to project the transport requirements of this country as a whole further forward into the future.
  We do not want another re-examination of railway management. What we want is somebody, or a group of people, appointed by the Minister to sit down and re-examine the transport needs of this country over the next fifteen years. For example, the modernisation plan produced by the British Transport Commission was produced without regard to the building of motorways. It was not the British Transport Commission's responsibility to consider the effect of motorways on its plan, but the motorways have an effect on its plan because they are built between big cities and tend to attract traffic on to the road. That affects railway traffic.
  Similarly, if we are to have helicopters and vertical take-off aircraft, we want somebody to work out what effect that will have on inter-city travel. If there were a helicopter service between here and Bristol, I would rather use that service than go by train or by road. Somebody ought to calculate what effect such services would have.
  We read about the pipelines which will be built by the oil companies and others. It is possible even to move coal by pipeline. Who is sitting down and working out where the pipelines should go, how much traffic they should carry, and what effect they will have on the British Transport Commission? Or have we to wait until the end and then be told that this is something which has happened, and the British Transport Commission is criticised for not thinking forward? Let us take the question of congestion in the cities. It may be that the only answer is a fleet of cheap taxis to carry people about.
  Who is doing all this thinking? I would like to see it done by the Minister. I believe it is his job to think ahead about the total transport needs of the country and, when he has worked out plans, to try to relate it to the different branches of transport. The United States
  616
  has recently invested 200,000 dollars in exactly this sort of survey of future requirements.
  Mr. Speaker. I am in an astonishingly indulgent mood, but I find it difficult to relate United States surveys to the British Transport Commission Bill.
  Mr. Benn: I did not know whether I was in order, Mr. Speaker, or whether you were interested. I was hoping that both were the case. At any rate, I have come to my last few sentences and hope my peroration will not be out of order.
  This Government face transport problems greater than those faced by any Government in the past. Most of them are predictable, if only someone will think ahead about them. We have recently had a new Minister. We have admired, encouraged and supported him, but we have had nothing but delay on some of the basic decisions. Today, we have been told that the Victoria Line tube, which has been referred to many committees, is to be delayed again by the planning authority. We are told that the acquisition of sites is to be delayed, and the whole question of branch lines is also to be delayed. This Government will be judged, rightly, not by the bright ideas flowing from the right hon. Gentleman's Department, but by the forward-thinking and action that it takes. We believe that there must very soon be a clear Government statement about all this, and we shall want to debate it as soon as it is available.
  9.32 p.m.
  The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay): I am sure that the House will agree that the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East (Mr. Benn) has made a very stimulating and interesting contribution to our debate. I was especially pleased to hear him compliment my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport in the terms in which he did. [Laughter.] I speak within the recollection of the House. It was the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East who said that the whole of our transport problem—the most serious problem that we have to face—should be handed to my right hon. Friend to deal with. I commend that suggestion to the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, who is in a

  617
  somewhat less semi-detached position on the Front Bench opposite than my right hon. Friend has been.
  The subject of the debate is the British Transport Commission Bill, and I would like to refer to the many points which have been raised by hon. Members before coming to some of the wider issues raised by the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East. The first issue brought to our notice was the question of the Tilbury-Gravesend Ferry. This was mentioned by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy), supported later by the hon. Member for Bradford, East (Mr. McLeavy) and my hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Mr. J. Wells).
  It is important to understand exactly what the present state of play is in regard to this proposition. Clause 37 and the Seventh Schedule to the Bill give the Commission power to be relieved of its legal obligations to operate ferry ser-vies between Tilbury and Gravesend as from the opening of traffic in the Dart-ford-Purfleet Tunnel, which is now about to be constructed. At the moment, the Commission operates both a vehicular and passenger ferry service between those two points, as successor to one of the old railway companies.
  I am told that, in law, three separate ferries are now operated by the Commission. The first is a statutory ferry, or a steam communication, which is authorised by the London, Tilbury and Southend Extension Railway Act of 1852; the second a franchise ferry from Gravesend to Tilbury, known as the northbound ferry, which the Commission now owns in fee simple and which has its origin in the Middle Ages, when it was originally provided for pilgrims to the shrine of St. Thomas a Becket, of Canterbury, and the third ferry is again a franchise ferry, but leased from the Crown Estates Commissioners.
  It is interesting to note the origin of this ferry. At one time, in the sixteenth, or it may be the seventeenth century, the Officer Commanding Tilbury Fort found that his pay was in arrears. He compounded his pay with the War Office and obtained, in return, the right to run this ferry. In the course of time the right became vested in the Board of Ordnance and eventually in the Crown. This is the southbound ferry. The Commission now leases it, for a period which will
  618
  expire in 1980, from the Commissioners of Crown Lands.
  The difficulty about these three ferries, as any hon. Gentleman who has studied this fascinating subject of ferries knows, is that the powers to run a statutory ferry are usually permissive but each of these franchise ferries carries with it an obligation at common law to provide a service. Therefore, the Bill proposes, in Clause 37 (2), that as from the time when the Dartford-Purfleet vehicle ferry is opened the northbound franchise ferry run by the Commission, the one which it owns, should be extinguished. At the same time, its lease on the southbound ferry would equally be determined. The effect would be that the Commission's legal obligations would be completely removed, leaving it only with permissive powers under the Act of 1852 which I have mentioned.
  As I think the House knows, the present services are a passenger ferry between Tilbury and Gravesend and the combined passenger and vehicular ferry between the same two points. These services are operated with five vessels built at different dates between 1901 and 1927. The age and condition of these vessels is now such that they have obviously to be replaced before long if they do not come to a full stop. Therefore, with the Dartford-Purfleet Tunnel coming along very soon, this appears to the Commission an opportune moment to take the necessary statutory steps.
  The Commission recognises that there will be a continuing need for a passenger service. It assures me that it has placed an order for three marine diesel passenger vessels in replacement of the steam "puffers" which are used now. Those vessels will be delivered some time this summer. When the Bill becomes law the Commission will be in a position to terminate its legal obligations, but it does not have the intention of withdrawing the passenger ferry. It will not withdraw either the vehicle or passenger ferry service without first submitting its proposals to the transport users' consultative committees.
  As was said by the hon. Member for Thurrock, there has been a good deal of local opposition to this proposal and I think it important to realise that the Commission has been quite forthcoming in trying to meet this opposition. The

  619
  Commission has told me that it intends, during the Committee stage proceedings on the Bill, to propose Amendments which will make it clear that the Clause is not intended to relieve the Commission of any of its obligations with regard to the passenger service.
  As I understand it, the effect would be that the Commission would no longer have an obligation to run a vehicle service for which the tunnel would be provided, but it would continue to have the legal obligations to run a passenger service. Some hon. Members have said that this is a somewhat premature proposal and that the Commission ought to have waited until the tunnel was opened before coming to the House to seek these powers. I think it only right to point out that the Commission do not wish to incur the very heavy expenses involved in the replacement or renewal of the existing vehicle ferries. It is replacing the passenger ferries, but does not want to spend a lot of money on replacing the vehicle ferries.
  From the traffic surveys which the Commission has taken, and from the additional information which we at the Ministry of Transport have been able to provide there is no doubt that once the tunnel is opened almost all, if not the whole, of the vehicle traffic at present using the ferry will go through the tunnel. If that be the case, I am sure that the House would not wish that the Commission should continue to be under an obligation to provide this expensive vehicle ferry.
  Mr. Delargy: Is the Minister satisfied that to leave the matter to the discretion of the Commission and the transport users' consultative committee is a better expedient than leaving it to the Minister?
  Mr. Hay: That may well be a matter for the Committee on the Bill. I do not think that there is any precedent of a case like this in which my right hon. Friend has obtained from Parliament some reserve of power in respect of ferries of this kind.
  If Parliament relieves the Commission of the parts of its legal obligation to provide the ferry which I have mentioned, the Commission intends to go to the transport users' consultative committee in the normal way. I remind hon.
  620
  Members that this committee machinery was established under the Transport Act, 1947, and that, on the whole, it works well, although some people may not necessarily agree with me if they have suffered from the removal of a service which they held dear. I do not think that my right hon. Friend would be wise, at this stage, to offer to undertake to be the final filter on this proposition, but no doubt those of our colleagues who sit in Committee on the Bill will take note of what has been said in the debate.
  Much of the debate has turned on the exciting and interesting subject of canals and inland waterways. This is the second debate which we have had on this subject in recent months. I well remember the debate on Friday, 4th December, 1959. On that occasion I had the pleasure of explaining to the House the Government's reactions to the Report of the Bowes Committee. I also mentioned the setting up of the Parham Committee on the redevelopment of inland waterways and I told the House that we wanted a little more experience from that Committee before we reached final conclusions on what should be done about Britain's canals.
  Since then, and in the last month or two, the question of the reorganisation of the Transport Commission has emerged. In the meantime, the Parham Committee is continuing with its work, and some of the first fruits are shown in the Bill, for example in Clause 17, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Merton and Morden (Mr. Atkins) referred; Clause 18, containing provisions about the Kennet waterway; and Clause 19, dealing with the closure of certain disused canals in the Midlands.
  I can say nothing more about the canals and inland waterways in general at this stage, because if we are considering the reorganisation of the Transport Commission and its various undertakings, it is inevitable that the canals and waterways will have to be considered, as well as other branches of the Commission's affairs. In our consideration we will certainly bear in mind the various points which have been made by hon. Members tonight and which were made at greater length on a more general basis in December.

  621
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir A. Hurd) and the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked me about the Kennet waterway. Clause 18 extends for three years, until the end of 1963, the interim period which is fixed by Part III of the British Transport Commission Act, 1956. That provision limits the obligation upon the British Transport Commission to maintain the canal in its 1956 condition and further says that any proceedings which might otherwise be brought against the Commission for failure in its statutory duty should be prevented.
  Clause 18 is intended to give the Commission time to prepare a redevelopment scheme in conjunction with observations which the Parham Committee may well make; and I understand that the Parham Committee intends to put forward some suggestions for a redevelopment scheme for the Kennet waterway. In that event, the Commission must be given a breathing space, and that means that the statutory provision must be extended for a further period to enable all that to be investigated and, if need be, implemented. That is the purpose of Clause 18. It is a matter for the Committee upstairs to consider, and I have no doubt that the Commission will take very careful note of the various points which have been made in the debate by the right hon. Member for South Shields and my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury.
  May I now come to the subject of the Oxford Canal. This is a canal which I know very well, because it forms one of the boundaries of my constituency. I think that the House now appreciates that Clause 22 has the effect of authorising the Commission to extract surplus water from the Oxford Canal which it owns and to make use of it for railway purposes at its Banbury locomotive depot, and also for the water troughs on the railway south of Banbury. This supply to the troughs, in particular, has been taken for a good many years past.
  At the moment, the locomotive depot is supplied by the Banbury Corporation, as local water undertaker, but the Commission believes that it could make a considerable financial saving if, in future, it could take a supply of water from its own canal. The Banbury Corporation, however, has disputed the
  622
  Commission's power to use water from the canal for this purpose, and, therefore, the Bill proposes to put this matter beyond doubt by giving the Commission the power to extract the water.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Nantwich (Mr. Grant-Ferris) and other of my hon. Friends have raised the question whether or not there should be some check upon the amount of water to be extracted from this canal. I understand that my hon. Friend will later seek your permission, Mr. Speaker, to move an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill. He has been kind enough to tell me its terms. It is, I understand, a slight modification of the Instruction which is now on the Order Paper. As far as my right hon. Friend is concerned—and I have looked at the suggested form of words very carefully —he would see no great difficulty about it.
  As I understand my hon. Friend's suggestion, it is that the amount of water extracted, or an equivalent amount, should be replaced by the Commission into the pounds which he mentioned. I think that it would be impossible for an arrangement to be made whereby the same water that was extracted from the canal to be used by the Commission should go back into the pounds. This may sound highly technical, but I assure the House that this is a problem, because the water will not be used simply for cooling or for some industrial process as a result of which it can go back without alteration. It will be used for steam generation and all sorts of other purposes, and the only obligation which we could put upon the Commission would be to put back into the canal an equivalent quantity to the amount of water which it took out.
  The Commission is perfectly clear that it is willing to enter into any undertakings and to have any safeguards written into the Bill to ensure that the volume of water in the canal will not be so substantially reduced as to make the sort of navigation which is at present carried on there impossible. I hope that with that assurance, which the Commission has authorised me to make, my hon. Friend, possibly with his Instruction, will feel satisfied.
  May I next come to the major point which was raised by the hon. Members for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond).

  623
  for Bradford, East and for Bristol, South-East. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland raised two major points. He wanted to know, first, what was the position of the planning board to which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred in his statement to the House on 10th March. The second point that the hon. Gentleman raised was the question of disposal of British Railways' property. I should like to refer the House to the words that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used, because I think that there has been, not only inside the House but certainly outside as well, some misunderstanding as to what exactly was in my right hon. Friend's mind in referring to a planning board.
  If hon. Members will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT for 10th March, they will see that my right hon. Friend laid down three major principles which henceforward will have to guide us in our ideas about the British Transport Commission. First, he said:
  "… the industry must be of a size and pattern suited to modern conditions and prospects. Secondly, the public must accept the need for…"
  certain changes. Thirdly, he said:
  "… the Commission must accept a radical alteration of its structure, so as to secure a more effective distribution of functions and a better use of all its assets."
  He went on, to clear up the doubt in the minds of hon. Members opposite about what this means, and said:
  "Measures of reorganisation should include decentralisation of management so that individual undertakings, including the regions of the British Railways, should as far as practicable, be made fully self-accounting and responsible for the management of their own affairs."
  These are the important words:
  "The detailed application of these principles to all the Commission's undertakings is a matter of urgency and will be worked out by a special planning board. Legislation, as well as administrative action, will certainly be required. This planning board will be appointed by the Government and will report both to the Government and to the Commission."
  Then he said:
  "Meanwhile, the Commission is securing expert advice on the question of regional accounting for the railways."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th March, 1960; Vol. 619, c. 643–4.]
  If one looks at that statement carefully, one sees that the planning board is to be set up to give us, the Government,
  624
  advice on the detailed way in which the principles enunciated by my right hon. Friend should be carried into effect. It may be that some of these principles can be carried into effect without legislation, in which case the planning board will say so. It may be that some of them will require legislation. Again, we shall be advised.
  The board will report to the Government and to the British Transport Commission jointly. It will not be some kind of supernumerary body wedged in between the Minister of Transport and the Transport Commission to run the railways. That is important. It is not the intention that the planning board shall run or administer the railways. It is to be a purely advisory body to suggest to us the answers to some of the points which the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East raised, about what sort of size, shape and pattern of railways we need in this country, what are the future prospects for traffic, and so on. On all these matters we need detailed expert advice.
  The Government will be represented. The Transport Commission will be represented, because it is in possession of a great deal of the information. We want also to have on the planning board a number of people with great experience of large industrial undertakings in private hands. That, briefly, is the story about the planning board.
  Mr. Benn: I must say, having listened to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, that I wish that he had been allowed to make the statement on 10th March instead of the Prime Minister. What he has said is a very important announcement. If this planning board is to consider the future development of traffic as a whole in this country, including, as I think he said, all the points I mentioned, it puts a very different aspect on the matter. I should be very grateful if the hon. Gentleman would amplify what he has said.
  Mr. Hay: I shall not amplify it further. I think that I have said enough to make the matter perfectly clear.
  These things are all within the ambit of the planning board. It will be able to advise us on the whole problem facing us with regard to the Transport Commission. It may well be that the board

  625
  will wish to advise us on traffic flows and matters of that kind. Perhaps it will not. Nothing is barred. Although the final terms of reference are in process of being worked out, and the detailed composition of the board is at present under discussion, I think that the Opposition will find, when the names and details are announced, that we have not done anything tremendously different from what the hon. Gentleman was suggesting.
  Mr. Holt: I think that the hon. Gentleman referred to people with detailed and expert knowledge. Why, in heaven's name, should they not be allowed to run the industry? Why is it necessary to put them on some advisory group?
  Mr. Hay: I think that the hon. Gentleman had better wait until the planning board starts its work.
  One detail which the board will have under consideration is the possible disposal of British Railways property, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and the hon. Member for Bristol, South-East referred. In the Transport Act, 1947, Section 2 (2), there are words which prevent the Transport Commission from developing property which it owns for anything other than purely transport purposes. This is not our fault on this side of the House. I was not here in those days, but as far as I know we never put this provision in. I do not say where the blame lies. Let us say that a mistake may have been made in the past. But possible legislative change in this matter is something which the planning board certainly may look at and advise us upon.
  Mr. Grimond: Is it not true that, although this may be the fault of the Government ten years ago, the Transport Commission has asked to be relieved of that part of the Act? If so, is there any reason why the Government should not do it now?
  Mr. Hay: That is a difficult question to answer briefly, but, as I understand it, the situation is that the Commission asked comparatively recently for this provision to be lifted so that it would be enabled to carry out general development, and then almost at once the whole of the difficulty—the crisis, I might call it—we have been having in recent months with the railway industry began to come
  626
  along. The whole thing has gone on together, and now it is clearly a matter for the planning board to consider whether there should be legislation to enable the Commission to redevelop its property, to enable it to make use of its track for pipelines and of its premises for car parks and other things that any normal commercial enterprise would be entitled to do. These are matters which the planning board could consider and advise us upon.
  I must come from these lofty heights down to Strood Dock, about which so many hon. Members have spoken. Provision in the Bill authorises the abandonment of this dock. It is important to understand why this is being done. Originally, it was the terminal basin of the Thames and Medway Canal which was filled in under statutory power more than a hundred years ago. The dock was formerly used for coal traffic, and the position today is that it is much too small to accommodate modern colliers. It have been operated by the Commission and its predecessors, I believe, at a loss for a good many years. There is no prospect whatever, with the best will in the world, of making it profitable.
  Nevertheless, once again by Statute, the Commission is prevented from closing it and it therefore seeks power in the Bill to close it. If Parliament agrees and the Bill is passed it intends to go to the transport users' consultative committee and put forward the proposal to close it in the normal way. If it is closed, the Commission hopes to dispose of it to a firm of barge owners and warehousemen which will purchase it and take a lease of an adjoining site for the erection of a warehouse. It will not, therefore, be completely lost to commerce.
  Time is now inadequate for me to deal with the remaining points made. I hope that what I have said will have helped the House to come to a conclusion about the Bill. I have no doubt that the House will wish to pass it.
  Mr. Spriggs: Will the hon. Member answer the question that I put to him about the staff that will be made redundant?
  Mr. Hay: I cannot answer that, because I want to give my hon. Friend time to move the Instruction on the

  627
  Order Paper. I 'hope that the House will pass the Bill, so that we can get on.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.
  9.58 p.m.
  Mr. Grant-Ferris: I beg to move,
  That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to insert in Clause 22 a maximum figure for abstraction of water from the Oxford Canal by the British Transport Commission, and to ensure that such water be returned to the same pound.
  I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are likely to rule that the Instruction must be passed in the form that it is in on the Order Paper, but I should like my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to understand that I clearly appreciate what he meant. He and I have the words "as much as possible" or "an equivalent amount of" in mind, and that is what the Commission is prepared to accept.
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member's grapevine communication is astonishingly efficient.
  Question put and agreed to.

  COVENT GARDEN OPERA COMPANY (TOURING PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
  9.59 p.m.
  Mr. James Watts: I wish to raise the question of the desirability of the Royal Covent Garden Opera Company coming up to Manchester. Parliament has just approved a large increased grant from the Consolidated Fund to the Arts Council, which, I believe, arranges the programmes for the Covent Garden Opera Company. At present, a large area in the North-West—
  It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]
  Mr. Watts: —is excluded from the Opera Company's tour. This area ranges from Preston, in the north, to Whit-church in Shropshire and, from west to east, from Liverpool to Sheffield.
  Of that area Manchester is the geographical centre. I understand that I am right in interpreting a recent Answer to a Question of mine from my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury that the omission of Manchester from the tour is due to certain physical difficulties. If these difficulties relate to the fitting in of special large scenery from the Opera Company in London in either of the two large theatres, the Opera House or the Palace Theatre, in Manchester, I think that they could be overcome by the following obvious fact.
  All of us who live in the area have from time to time witnessed the whole of the Wagnerian sequence of operas— "The Ring", and so on—and we have heard all the Italian operas in these theatres in Manchester. There must, therefore, be a lot of standard scenery available which, perhaps, could be got out and put into these theatres if the scenery of the Opera Company is too large.
  I have had telegrams from two Lord Mayors, from the Lord Mayor of Manchester, who supports what is being

  629
  done, and from the Lord Mayor of Liverpool, who supports what is being done but is not sure whether people would wish to come over from Liverpool to Manchester. There is a strong indication all over the North-West that this is a popular and necessary move, because I have had telegrams, copies of which] have sent to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, from the Mayors of Altrincham, Ashton-under-Lyne, Bacup, Blackburn, Blackpool, Bolton, Bury, Chester, Chorley, Clitheroe, Colne, Eccles, Leigh, Middle-ton, Oldham, Preston, Prestwich, Rad-cliffe, Rochdale, Sale, Salford, Swinton, Stockport, Stretford, Warrington and Wigan. There is, therefore, evidence of support for what I am asking. The managers of the two theatres in Manchester have been good enough to fell me that if physical and financial arrangements—naturally, agreeable to them—can be forthcoming, they would welcome a tour of this kind.
  I do not want to be pompous, particularly after our serious debates of the past week on Government responsibility, but when I was a young gentleman, many years ago, I read a book by, I believe, Professor Maitland, explaining the principle which was formulated many hundreds of years ago that "grievance must precede Supply." Perhaps this is still true, but if the Opera Company does not visit us, an awful lot of people in my area might even think that the House had reversed the old principle and that there was now a new pattern based on the policy that "supply precedes grievance." I do not know whether I am right in that, but I think there would be a suspicion that something of the kind had taken place, and I think it is very upsetting for Ministers at present, who have to answer questions from boring old gentlemen who have to represent their constituencies and do what they can, that it is not really certain whether they are responsible or not responsible for these matters.
  I was not allowed to ask a second Question because the Financial Secretary was. not responsible. If that is so, then it may be true that the money which goes out through the Consolidated Fund and finds its way into the hands of this and other outside bodies is often directed without control from
  630
  Parliament and without control by a responsible Minister. Unless this is made clear, I think Ministers may find themselves in a very difficult position, because till the matter is clarified they do not know whether or not they really are responsible to this House for the expenditure of money once it leaves the Consolidated Fund. That, I think, is really what was discussed last week.
  So I am most grateful to Providence that I should have been lucky in the Ballot, and to you, Mr. Speaker, who, I believe, made the choice of the subject, for thinking the matter worth while debating, and I am very grateful on behalf of all the people in the North-West to have been able to raise this matter of such importance. I should like to thank the Financial Secretary for his kindness in writing to me and for keeping me informed of what was happening during the last three weeks, and for being so kind when I have kept him up. I hope I have not been a great nuisance.
  10.7 p.m.
  Dame Irene Ward: I am very glad indeed that my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) has raised this question and that he was kind enough to say that a word in support of the North-West, and about the provision of opera in the North-West, which he has urged, might come from me. I am, of course, delighted to give him that support, because, as I think my hon. Friend and the Financial Secretary will know, it has been a source of great distress to all opera lovers in the provinces that there has been such a restriction placed by the Arts Council on provincial opera.
  I do not know, of course, what the correspondence is which has passed between the Financial Secretary and my hon. Friend, but I rather gather from what my hon. Friend has said that there is difficulty in Covent Garden touring. I am not at all satisfied by that, because when the grant was withdrawn from the Carl Rosa Trust, which was a provincial touring company, we were told that Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells would provide opera for the provinces, which is undoubtedly their right, because taxpayers' money comes from the provinces

  631
  to maintain the grant to the Arts Council. Nobody can deny that the taxpayers have a right to get something for the money they pay.
  All I wanted to say about that really was that it may be impossible for Covent Garden to tour; I would not know; but what I do know is that Sadler's Wells does not want to tour. Therefore, we were left really only with a touring company which did want to tour, and that was the Carl Rosa Company, which has a record over eighty years of touring, but the Arts Council withdrew the grant. I am not in any way criticising either Covent Garden or Sadler's Wells, both of which have centres in London. Very naturally, they want to perform in London, and I am delighted that there should be good opera, provided it is good opera, in London—but not to the detriment of the provinces.
  I want to draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to what he said in the debate that took place the other day. As my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side has quite rightly pointed out, the difficulty, of course, is that the Financial Secretary— I am not in any way criticising him personally—just announces as policy what the Arts Council guides him or instructs him to state. I want to draw his attention to this phrase, because it makes me absolutely hopping mad. In replying to the debate on the fine arts, on 26th February, he said:
  "The Arts Council has arranged that the provinces should have altogether between 40 and 50 weeks of opera and operetta for 1960–61 "—
  Of course, that is very right.
  "In its view"—
  that is, the Arts Council—
  "this is all that really could be absorbed at the present time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th February, 1960; Vol. 618, c. 777–8.]
  I think that of all the condescending statements to be made by a grant-aided body getting a large additional sum out of the taxpayers, that one really is the limit.
  I do not for one moment blame my hon. Friend. I do not know how much he loves opera and appreciates and enjoys music, but I suspect that he does very much indeed. My hon. Friend is
  632
  a provincial. I am well aware of the musical productions of the City of Birmingham, part of which he so adequately and ably represents in this House, and I am delighted to tell him that his own provincial Press, the Birmingham Post would very much appreciate Carl Rosa as a touring company rather than Sadler's Wells, which does not want to tour, although I do not want to suggest by any means that Covent Garden and Sadler's Wells would not be very welcome in all the provincial towns.
  My hon. Friend has read out—I counted them—28 towns which would welcome Covent Garden. But the Arts Council has told the Minister to say that the provinces cannot absorb more than 40 or 50 weeks of opera. I think that my hon. Friend referred only to towns in Lancashire and possibly over the border Cheshire, so the whole of the rest of England, Scotland and Wales have hardly any opera provided at all.
  I will not commit my hon. Friend, because he does not really know the wiles of the Arts Council yet, but the Arts Council exercises patronage in London and among the people to whom it wants to give patronage and not always with the seal of integrity upon it. I am absolutely certain about that, but I will not develop that tonight. It is well known over a very wide field.
  I want once more to put on record that we have a tremendous admiration, and rightly so, in this country, for Sir Kenneth Clark, but he is not, of course, interested in the provinces, and part of the reason we are in this difficulty over opera is because Sir Kenneth Clark spent quite a portion of his time while Chairman of the Arts Council being the Chairman of I.T.A. That enabled Sir William Williams, the General-Secretary of the Arts Council, to get his claws into the administration and he has never dropped them and will not drop them until we have a strong-minded chairman, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Goole (Mr. Jeger) when he asked a Question yesterday.
  I am sorry that I was not here then, Mr. Speaker, to catch your eye, because I would have also pointed out that we want a strong chairman to give the provinces what is their due. It is simply wonderful for the provinces to have my

  633
  hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side in the House, prepared to do battle for the North-West. The more we battle the better it will be for the future of the arts in this country. We want a strong chairman and we could very well do with a new general secretary, and then perhaps we might get the provision of opera on a fair and reasonable basis. I shall not say any more than that, but I hope that we shall have a satisfactory reply.
  10.16 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): First I would like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss Side (Mr. Watts) for kindly giving me notice of the points which he proposed to raise, for the very courteous speech he has delivered and particularly, at the end, his kind reference to myself. I was very pleased particularly to hear him pay tribute to the writings of F. W. Maitland, who has always seemed to me, with the solitary exception of Gibbon, easily the best and most readable historian this country has produced.
  I shall deal with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), but I must say at the start that it has always been the practice that our grant-in-aid to the Arts Council is the Council's responsibility when it comes to splitting it up. It would be quite impossible if we in the House started to lay down in detail how that grant should be divided. I hope that I am as fond of music in general and of opera in particular as any hon. Member. I am lucky enough not only to represent a constituency in Birmingham, which has a first-rate symphony orchestra, but also to live only forty minutes by car from Glyndebourne Opera where I shall be going several times this summer.
  I expressed quite clearly in the debate a few weeks ago that the Government want to see a fair balance between support for the arts in the Metropolis and support for the arts in the Provinces, but however keen we may be on the arts in the Provinces we must leave it to the Arts Council to decide in detail how its grant-in-aid should be split up. While I do not want to go back over what I said in the earlier debate, I would remind the House that no one can say that the
  634
  increase in grant will result in the Provinces being neglected; I had encouraging figures to give, for example, about the provincial theatre. As to grand opera, there are very considerable practical difficulties. The productions of Covent Garden are on a scale and of a lavishness which make it extremely difficult to do more than a certain amount of touring. For example, I am told that the cast for the current production of what are popularly known as "Cav and Pag", or "I Pagliacci" and Cavalleria Rusticana", includes 106 men, 68 women, 25 small boys, 13 small girls, and a pony, quite apart from the orchestra; and a whole battery of green rooms, wardrobe rooms, bathrooms and workshops is needed backstage to keep the cast and their settings and accessories in good order.
  Mr. Charles A. Howell: And the pony.
  Sir E. Boyle: Yes, indeed. Moving such an enterprise, and moving it not once but several times in the course of a tour, must really be a very exacting task. Indeed, it is a tribute to the spirit of the Covent Garden Opera Company that it so often goes to the provinces. Moreover, unlike touring companies it does not take a single production with it and mount it every night of the week. Its normal practice is to take six different productions for a fortnight's playing and it reckons never to give the same one two nights successively.
  Dame Irene Ward: Neither does Carl Rosa.
  Sir E. Boyle: As the massive scenery designed for the stage in the London Opera House is never quite right for other stages and has literally to be cut down to size, it means extremely difficult problems for the scene-shifters, and constant rehearsals so that everyone is familiar with the altered placings and the lighting arrangements.
  Then there is also the point about finance. Covent Garden cannot expect much financial reward for its provincial tours. Not one provincial theatre is large enough for the opera to avoid heavy losses, even when the house is sold out to capacity. Indeed provincial managements usually feel that to charge higher prices for seats would defeat their

  635
  own object, because that would inevitably lead to a falling off in attendance.
  The small increases that have on occasion been agreed have never brought seat prices up to the London level. This means, in round terms, that in the provinces the opera plays to audiences which pay from 4s. 6d. to 15s. for their seats, while in London it plays to an audience which has paid anything up to 28s. a seat.; This point about price is important. Today even a bad seat at Covent Garden will normally cost about 10s., and the provinces cannot charge anything like the same amount for seats as is accepted at Covent Garden.
  There are many more items which must be counted on the debit side when Covent Garden goes on tour. Touring allowances are paid to the cast, all of whom have to find temporary accommodation in the neighbourhood; transport charges amount to a considerable sum; and when the company returns home again a great deal of money and time and trouble has to be spent on rehabilitating the scenery and refitting it once more to the London stage.
  In view of all these difficulties that inevitably arise from taking grand opera to the provinces, it is understandable that Covent Garden has not felt able to extend its touring programme. It has been out to the provinces every year during the last ten, for periods varying from eight to five weeks. Its customary tour was omitted this year only because, when the decision had to be taken, which was nearly a year ago, an opportunity offered itself of presenting a production under one of the world's most distinguished conductors. Such an event would have reflected great prestige not only on Covent Garden but on the operatic life of the country in general. As things turned out, the conductor in question fell ill and the project had to be abandoned, but it was then too late to book provincial theatres and arrange a tour for 1959–60.
  What I can tell the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Moss-Side is, as I am sure the House will be glad to hear, that the company is engaged at the moment in planning a provincial tour for the spring
  636
  of 1961, which is now the earliest date at which such a tour can be arranged. In all probability, Manchester will be included in this tour. I cannot answer my hon. Friend on the point of the other twenty-six boroughs or county boroughs to which he referred.
  At the same time the provinces have other touring companies, ministering to their need in a way that a company designed to mount metropolitan grand opera cannot hope to do. Covent Garden is restricted to a narrow orbit of nine or 10 cities in its provincial opera touring, simply because no other theatres are large enough to take its productions. However the two miniature opera companies, Intimate Opera and Opera for All, have played all over the country and in Scotland too. Also Sadlers Wells has been tirelessly active in taking opera round the provinces.
  During the last minute or two of this debate I can say a word in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth. She has had a great deal to say, both in this House and by way of correspondence, to successive Financial Secretaries on the subject of the Arts Council, and in particular of its relationship with the Carl Rosa Company. She never pulls her punches in this House. I have always been grateful for the kindness and friendliness she has shown to me since I first became a Member here, ten years ago. But I would be failing in my duty— and I hope that this does not sound pompous—if I passed by her personal attack, by implication, on the Secretary-General of the Arts Council. I am bound to say —and she knows this—that I cannot associate myself with her views. I do not only say that because of my office. Clearly it would be improper for me to condone what she said. But I had the pleasure of leading the United Kingdom delegation to U.N.E.S.C.O. at the end of 1958. On that delegation there were a number of distinguished unofficial delegates. During our time there I had the opportunity of seeing a fair amount of Sir William Williams, and my impression of his services to this country in a number of capacities is not that of my hon. Friend. I will not say more than that tonight, but I do dissociate myself from the personal attack she has thought fit to make.

  637
  It is extremely important in everything to do with the arts that we should try to see that a fair balance is kept between the Metropolis and the Provinces, not only in opera but in everything else. We shall continue to watch this question, and I would not hesitate myself to have a talk with the Chairman of the Arts Council at any time if I thought it was desirable. At the same time, we in this House should be very careful before we take upon ourselves responsibilities which we should find it impossible to fufil. I think that applies to relatively small and limited matters as well as to great matters.
  10.26 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Before the House adjourns. I would like to thank the Financial Secretary for what he has said about the Arts Council, and particularly for his reference to the Secretary-General. We on this side of the House associate ourselves with what he has said and deprecate the references which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) made to Sir William Williams.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes past Ten o'clock.