THE INCREASE OF CRIME

HL Deb 23 November 1948 vol 159 cc511-38

2.42 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK rose to call attention to the increase of crime in England and Wales; and to move for Papers. The most reverend Primate said: My Lords, I have from time to time read in the Press, as most of your Lordships will also have read, of the increase of crime, but the statements did not convey much to me until a short while ago when I read the Criminal Statistics of England and Wales for 1947. The position revealed in them was so grave that I felt I should draw the attention of the House to them at the earliest possible moment and ask the Government whether they have any policy in mind to deal with that extremely grave situation. To prove my case, I am afraid I must begin by quoting a number of statistics, and I will try to confine those statistics to the earlier part of my speech. In 1938 there were 283,000 cases of offences known to the police, including those which resulted in convictions and those which were not detected. In 1947 that number had increased to very nearly half-a-million—498,000. In 1938 there were 78,000 convictions for indictable offences; but in nine years' time—last year—that figure had risen to 115,000, an increase of 47 per cent. In these nine years the increase in convictions for larceny has been 36 per cent. I ought to say there has been a slight decrease in the number of persons found guilty of fraud and false pretences, but in every other case there has been an increase—in larceny 36 per cent., in breaking and stealing 88 per cent., in receiving stolen goods 141 per cent., in sexual offences 46 per cent., and in violence 58 per cent. There was in some of those classes a noticeable increase in the twelve months 1946 to 1947; and I am told (though I do not know with what authority) that even since the period covered by these statistics there has been a further increase.

There are two special points to which I wish to draw the attention of the House in connection with these figures. First, I want to draw attention to the very large number of offences committed by young people. Of the total numbers found guilty of larceny in 1947, 29 per cent. were boys and girls under seventeen and 12 per cent., in addition, boys and girls between seventeen and twenty-one—41 out of every 100 persons convicted were under the age of 21. For breaking and stealing, of every 100 persons found guilty 52 were under the age of seventeen, and 16 were between the ages of seventeen and twenty-one. Compared with 1938 the increase of offences by those under the age of twenty-one is something like 69 per cent.

The second point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that, quite apart from the figures given in this return, there are a very large number of cases never reported to the police. They are not reported either because people hesitate to report young people or because they shrink from the difficulties or the time that might be taken up if there were an arrest. And apart from these more serious offences, month by month there are a large number of offences which never come to the notice of the police. Those figures show a position of great gravity. It really means that the old homely virtues of honesty and truthfulness—because those two go together—are vanishing. Of course, these offences are committed only by a minority. The great majority of our people are honest and truthful, but there are a minority who are becoming a real danger to the nation. At one time it was possible to say that an Englishman's word was his bond. To-day that cannot be said without some serious qualification.

I think there is general agreement as to the causes which have led to this position. Obviously, the first cause is the war. But the war as a cause is only part of the truth. The war undoubtedly unsettled people, and what was sometimes regarded as patriotic in the war becomes a nuisance and a danger in times of peace. The war brought to a very high pitch the elements of excitement and pugnacity in a large number of individuals, and they find civilian life monotonous and somewhat dull after the excitement they have been through. Most of these people find some escape either in the thriller, in dog racing, or in some other form of amusement. But there are others who are not so easily satisfied, and the spirit of adventure, of daredevilry, leads them into acts which may soon place them on the road which leads to crime. To say that the present position is due to the war, and the war alone, is an over-simplification of a very complicated matter.

Another reason is the way in which goods which at one time everybody could obtain for a small price have now gone up. Goods are rare, they are difficult to get, and what would not have been worth stealing a few years ago is now, in the eyes of many people, well worth stealing. Behind those who steal these various goods there is that most objectionable class of people lurking in the background—namely, the receivers of stolen goods. It is, perhaps, worth while to point out that while in 1938 there were 2,584 people convicted as receivers of stolen property, last year the number was 6,240. If this despicable class of people who take very slight risks and instigate others into the paths of criminality could be dealt with more severely, we might find some reduction in the amount of crime.

Then, of course, there is the breakdown in home life. I have been making a number of inquiries in different parts of the country, and I have found again and again that people of quite different experiences agree in saying that the breakdown in home life is one of the many causes of offences committed by juveniles. Here, again, we are considering a minority, and not the country as a whole; but I fear that it is a large minority. And the trouble does not always arise from the fault of the parents. Overcrowding is so terrible, in many cases, that the children have to spend practically the whole of the day on the streets, and that easily leads them into all sorts of temptation. Then there is the problem of the broken home. A very interesting Report was published in 1942 by two or three investigators, under the title of Young Offenders, in which the authors stated that their investigations supported the widespread view that the atmosphere of a broken home predisposed children towards delinquency. The authors went on to say: Out of 47 homes where the heads, not being parents of the case under investigation, were cohabiting, 43 had cases of delinquency. One of the authors of this Report, in a book, published this year under the title, Juvenile Delinquency in an English Middle Town (perhaps, as an Oxford man, I may offer my condolences to Cambridge men when they find Cambridge described as a middle town), reports that it was found that nearly one-third of all the cases came from broken homes.

Another cause of the trouble is the growing disrespect—or, to put it another way, the growing loss of respect—for law. We are naturally a law-abiding people. The ideal State is the State which has few laws and in which those laws are strictly observed. We are having a very large number of laws and regulations made nowadays, and no doubt many of them are necessary. But they are multiplying so rapidly that it sometimes becomes difficult to distinguish between a law which is necessary, and which should be observed, and one which—to put it mildly—is not of such importance. There is to-day an endless stream of regulations. Some of your Lordships will remember a line or two from the works of Robert Browning in which he says: There's a great text in Galatians, Once you trip on it, entails Twenty-nine distinct damnations, One sure if another fails. I sometimes feel that our regulations might well be described in that way: an ordinary honest person suddenly finds that whilst he has been attempting to observe the law he is tripped up, and damnation falls upon him in the shape of a severe fine which seems to be disproportionate to the offence—perhaps it is a much heavier fine and a heavier punishment than would have been inflicted if he had done something which in the past we should have regarded as a crime.

A large number of these breaches of regulations are in themselves quite trivial, but their cumulative effect is serious, for they lead to disregard of the law and prepare the way for the black market. When numerous minor breaches are made in the law, the distinction between what is serious and what is minor is blurred, and the majesty of the law becomes befogged with a whole series of petty regulations. These and other causes have produced a dangerous amoral atmosphere, an atmosphere in which there is no real distinction between right and wrong, in which nothing seems to matter very much, in which detection and punishment are regarded as far worse than wrongdoing. Frequently I have heard of boys—and not only of boys but of young men—being utterly ashamed that they have been caught, frightened at the punishment which might fall upon them, yet never inclined to say, "I have done wrong." Honesty and truthfulness are in danger of becoming mere phrases, and the "couldn't care less" temperament is gradually bringing all law into disrepute.

It is easy enough to diagnose causes but it is much more difficult to deal with the remedies. I certainly am not advocating more severe penalties. I doubt whether severe penalties will do much towards helping the position. After all, in the reign of George II, penalties were very severe. The cutting-down of a cherry tree was punished by death; stealing from a shop an article of the value of five shillings was followed by death. I think there were something like 170 offences which were punishable by capital punishment. And we know what happened. Crime increased; juries refused to convict; and the criminal felt that he might as well be hung for stealing a sheep as for stealing a lamb.

Another suggestion is that we should pay much more attention to the remedies which are offered by psychotherapy. I am not now going into the whole problem of psychotherapy; I have no doubt whatever that in certain cases the psychotherapist can do a great deal of good, and may help criminals to clear up certain complexes—I think that is the right term—and possibly do better in the future. Your Lordships will remember Samuel Butler's fantasy Erewhon, and how in his ideal State—if he meant it as an ideal State—those who were ill or suffering from any disease were called before police courts and punished very severely. On the other hand, if a man forged a cheque, or broke into a house, it was treated as a case of illness. If he was a poor man he was sent to a hospital, and there treated at the public expense. If he was well-to-do, he went to bed in his own house and told his friends that he was suffering from "a severe attack of immorality." They gave him their sympathy, and inquired how he was getting on. That was a kind of prophecy of psychotherapy. Within its limitations, psychotherapy can no doubt be of great value, but it is not a real remedy for the whole position.

I find myself in great difficulties when coming to practical suggestions as to what might be done. One obvious remedy is to strengthen and increase the police force. We all have great admiration for our police, for their readiness to help, for their cheerfulness, for their courage and for their resourcefulness. But the police are understaffed. That is certainly true of a large number of our towns, and some of the time of the police is taken up with administrative duties which have only recently been put upon them. Strengthening the police force would undoubtedly do something towards improving the present position.

I think—and I speak rather cautiously here—some inquiry ought to be made into the working of the juvenile courts. I believe in the juvenile courts. I believe that they have done, and are doing, extremely valuable work; but very great care ought to be taken about the magistrates who sit in these courts. Some of them fail to understand the psychology of child offenders. I have heard of cases where the children before hand have decided on the attitude they should adopt towards the magistrate, whether they should tell him they stole for a sick mother or sick friend, or whether they should merely cry. Some of these magistrates overestimate the value of a good "talking-to" from the bench, and are occasionally inclined to overestimate the awe which they inspire. I have the greatest admiration for a large number of these magistrates, who are giving most devoted work in these courts. Rather regretfully, however, I have come to the conclusion that the magistrate who has no heart and a hard head will probably do less harm than the magistrate who has a soft heart and a soft head.

I hope that the new Criminal Justice Act may be fully used. That will do something. But I am not able to suggest any administrative reforms which could be put into force. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, who is to reply, may be able to suggest something; but it is an extraordinarily difficult position. The real difficulty is this: that behind all these crimes there is a moral problem. Of those whom I have asked—a large number of them were not Churchmen, so far as I know, and were not particularly interested in the religious point of view—nearly all have written to me and described it as really a moral problem. Honesty and truthfulness no longer hold their old place, and until we have restored the sense of value of honesty and truthfulness, there will be no great decrease in the number of crimes.

Your Lordships may say, "That is the duty of the Churches. The Churches ought to preach honesty and truthfulness, and upon them there rests the responsibility." But, after all, my Lords, you know as well as I do that on Sunday after Sunday we reach only a minority of the people of the nation. You also know that the vast majority of the people of the country no longer pay attention to what is said by the Churches. If all the Archbishops and Bishops and the leaders of the various other Churches combined in a manifesto, saying that honesty and truthfulness were good things and dishonesty and untruthfulness were evil, it would have no effect upon the majority of the people whom we are most anxious to influence. Those are the hard facts of the position. The Churches have a contribution, and a very important contribution, to make in this matter; but we cannot do it alone. I therefore sometimes wonder whether the State ought not to take a much more active and positive part in dealing with the moral aspects of this question.

Time after time, lately, we have heard of great drives made by the State—drives for economy, drives for greater production, drives for greater safety on the roads. Some of us may be a little sceptical about some of the placards and advertisements and appeals which are made in this connection, although I am sure that these appeals would not continue to be made in this way unless some of them were giving good results. Is it so fantastic to suggest that the State should have a drive for honesty and truthfulness, calling for the co-operation of the Press, the cinema and the wireless, using their various appeals and calling in skilful artists? I would suggest that the appeal be made very largely on social grounds, calling attention to the harm that is done to the nation and to the whole community by dishonesty and untruthfulness. It should try to build up a conscience everywhere, in every department of life, a conscience which condemns dishonesty and untruthfulness wherever they are found. In such a movement the Churches, of course, would have their part to play. They would have to speak of the essentials which lie behind all just law—the Divine Law, which is absolute, applicable at all times and in all places.

Your Lordships may feel that the suggestion I am making is impracticable. But if it is impracticable, I would ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to tell the house what the Government propose to do in this matter. Here we have a position of the utmost gravity, a position which seems to me to be growing worse, year by year. The great mass of honest people in this country, of respectable citizens, are sick and irritated at this perpetual dishonesty and untruthfulness which they find around them. I hope the Government may be able to give us some lead in this matter, and help us to find a way out of a position which is rapidly becoming quite intolerable. I beg to move for Papers.

3.7 p.m.

VISCOUNT SIMON

My Lords, everyone who has had the privilege of listening to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York will be grateful to him for having taken this opportunity of calling our attention, and the attention of the country, to what, as he has clearly shown us, is a very grave menace. I shall not make any attempt to duplicate the case which he has presented, for it seems to me that, in his arrangement of the facts, in his discussion of the causes and in his suggestions as to the remedy, he will find a wide measure of agreement amongst us all. I will venture only to add a few words on each of these three topics.

This is a subject which has engaged the attention of many of us, and this is a good time to analyse it closely. First, as to the statistics, your Lordships are aware, no doubt, that the criminal statistics which are annually published appear in the latter half of the year following that in which the details have been collected. The statistics to which the most reverend Primate referred, those for England and Wales for 1947, were presented to Parliament in September last. Consequently, there have now elapsed another ten months, nearly eleven months, of another year: and it will not be until the latter half of next year, I suppose, that we shall know, by means of a new Blue Book, the trend of these matters in the interval. I think those who have occasion to check and follow these matters as well as they can will gravely fear that the trend for the worse has not been stopped.

It may be that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will give us some indications as to how these figures are showing themselves in the period since the end of the year 1947. One thing is entirely clear when we examine the figures, so far as they are already published and known. There cannot be the least doubt in the world that the particulars which have been put before the House by the most reverend Primate illustrate the lesson to be learned from studying the statistics in detail, and that they disclose a most disturbing and, indeed, a deteriorating situation. In order to judge the matter, one must be careful, of course, to do what is always necessary with statistics—namely, to allow adequately for other changes not reflected in the statistics themselves. For example, an important part of these statistics, as your Lordships know—and every Home Secretary in turn studies them, because this is a Home Office publication—is under the heading, "Crimes known to the police." Of course, if crimes are multiplied, then the instances in which crimes are known to the police will increase. It is the fact—I am not for the moment discussing this point—that under the system now prevailing, under the Defence of the Realm Acts, under the emergency legislation and under very large numbers of regulations of all sorts and kinds, there is no point merely in the totality of the increase of the number of kinds of action which constitute crimes—not the most serious crimes, but, none the less, all going into this total of "Crimes known to the police."

What is perhaps more serious is the position in regard to crimes that are not known to the police. I have the feeling that if, indeed, we could imagine statistics on such a topic—which, of course, we cannot—there, too, we would find a very serious increase. Let me give an example which is known to most people: pilfering on the railways. I make bold to say that a few years back everyone of us entrusted to the railway companies parcels which were to be carried to some other destination, with complete confidence that they would arrive without having been tampered with in any way. I am afraid it is impossible to say that any longer. I believe a great many people even hesitate to send things by the railway, because they are doubtful as to whether they will reach their destination intact. I have not the figures, but I have seen—and we all know—many cases which illustrate the pilfering which goes on when goods are in the hands of transport. It is surely a very shocking thing. The extent of it—I cannot measure it—is admittedly alarmingly great. None of those things, or very few of them, can be included in "Crimes known to the police." Indeed, I think a good many people now put up with the tampering with their parcels so long as the parcel arrives. It is obvious, therefore, that in addition to the crimes which can be statistically recorded and measured, there is yet another element of this subject which, I fear, is increasing.

LORD WALKDEN

Will the noble Lord forgive me for interrupting? I would like to say that it has been found in the case of thefts on the railway that they frequently do not occur at the hands of the railwaymen themselves. Far more frequently they are committed by thieves who raid the railway trucks and trains while they are standing in sidings. There was a case of this only a few days ago.

VISCOUNT SIMON

I am glad that that is so, and I most willingly accept it; indeed, I had not necessarily meant to imply the contrary. But the fact is, however it comes about, that there is to-day so constant a difference between the article as it is dispatched and the article as it arrives that, whoever is responsible, is taking part in a new branch of irregularity which was quite unknown in this country some years ago. The whole point is that you cannot include these things in the list of "Crimes known to the police." The same is true, of course, if we consider major Crimes. Am I exaggerating when I say that it is not so very long ago that gangster crime was practically unknown in our metropolis? It is certainly true that when we were younger we hardly ever heard of anybody being held up by the threat that if they did not raise their hands a pistol would be used against them. I think it is true to say that not so very long ago, if there was a knock at the door after dark, even in the poorest quarter of London, the door was answered without any anxiety by the man or woman inside. It is impossible to deny that in these matters a grave change has taken place, and that the public mind is greatly disturbed by this gradual deterioration.

On the subject of these statistics, there is one other observation I would venture to make and which, so far as it goes, is to be put on the other side—namely, the side which makes the picture less black than it might otherwise appear. The most reverend Primate referred just now to the juvenile courts, and made some observations about them with which I am disposed to agree. But one reason why there are additional figures in these statistics, especially as regards juveniles, is because of the increased use of juvenile courts by parents, guardians, and the like. Previously there may have been a great many peccadillos by children which were either dealt with domestically or not dealt with at all. It is a proof of the value of the juvenile courts, and especially of those that are most wisely managed, that more and more parents—very often parents of small means—go to the court, and the crime committed by the child (it may be quite a trifling one of appropriating something that did not belong to it) is dealt with, and is included, as I understand it, in the "Crimes known to the police." It is right to remember that, because, to some extent—perhaps only to a limited extent—it is a correction when we are making a comparison, and a correction which is on the more hopeful side.

Now I come to the causes. I do not think it likely that anyone in this debate will be able to put the causes more wisely and judiciously than the most reverend Primate has done in his speech—certainly I cannot. We do not want to dwell on the obvious. While there are no doubt many causes, it is the combination of those things which the most reverend Primate listed which, I suppose, largely goes to explain what has happened. I think, however, I should be disposed to add one other cause. May it not be that in these days there is a decreasing respect for the rights for the individual? I do not want to raise any Controversial topic, certainly not across the Table here; but the instinct that grown-up people, and children, too, ought to have, not to lay their hands upon and appropriate somebody else's property—which is nothing less than stealing—is fundamentally based on the realisation, "That does not belong to me; it belongs to somebody else. As it belongs to somebody else, I must respect the right of the individual in this matter." I do not feel at all sure, however, that there is not, among a proportion of our population to-day, so far as private property is concerned, a rapidly decreasing respect for the right of the individual.

I do not know whether there are any figures to show to what extent people who found something used to take it to the police, and how much less likely it is that they would do so now, but I think it is quite certain that in the society in which we now live there are, unhappily, an increasing number of both young and older people who feel the temptation to appropriate something which is not actually being guarded by its true owner, greater than they can withstand. I recollect that there are some countries in Europe in which the good old practice of a guest in a hotel leaving his boots outside the door for the night is thought to be very inappropriate, because they might not be there the next morning. It is that kind of temptation which possesses people very widely in this country to-day and which, I am afraid, in a proportion of our population, is operating so as to produce criminal activities.

The most reverend Primate then turned to the question of remedies. If I may be allowed to say so, I felt a little that he did not put as much emphasis as I should be disposed to put upon the need for an adequate police service. Putting aside the people who may be trusted to do right because they act on moral principles, and who do not need a policeman, it must be the case that one of the most effective instruments in diminishing crime is the certainty, or the comparative certainty, that the criminal will be found out, caught and punished. I do not think it is open to any doubt at all that, in existing circumstances, in London at any rate, the police service, though a splendid service in itself, is so seriously undermanned that that most important corrective is not operating so powerfully as it used to do. Let anybody who happens to want a policeman walk out from his house and see how far he has to walk before he finds one. That used not to be so when I was a young man in London.

I would remind your Lordships, in two or three sentences, of the facts as they were brought out in the debate which we had last February on conditions in the police service—I am limiting myself to the Metropolitan Police, the force for whom the Home Secretary has his special responsibility, and who operate in an area having a radius, roughly speaking, of fifteen miles from the centre of London: though it is not a mathematical circle, it is a collection of local areas approximately extending to that length. The authorised establishment of the Metropolitan Police is, I think, 19,700—under 20,000. Unless I am mistaken, it stands at the same figure as before the war, and for some time before that. The debate last February called attention to the fact that the actual size of the Metropolitan Police force was roughly 5,000 short of that figure; that is to say, there was a 25 per cent. shortage. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor has any accurate figure, but my impression is that, if the situation has been at all improved, it has been improved only very little. We are, therefore, living in a capital in which that all-important corrective force—both as a force of detection and a force of prevention—is short by no fewer than between 4,000 and 5,000 constables. It is the fact that there is a policeman round the corner which stops so much law-breaking.

Your Lordships will recall the most informative debate which we had last February, raised by my noble and gallant friend Lord Trenchard. It was pointed out then—and it is beyond question true—that you cannot attract people to serve in this splendid force unless you are able to meet more successfully the very natural conditions which a man would like to make before he entered the service. The principal obstacle, I believe, is housing. The Metropolitan Police are not, of course, a housing authority. They have to find the houses, which are so urgently required for their members, from local authorities who are housing authorities. Every local authority, of course, has its priorities, and as a rule the London policeman is not able to establish a priority. If he is recruited from the country, an application is made to the housing authority to give him an early opportunity of a house. The answer is: "You have come from the country; you are not a Londoner, whom we have to house in preference to others." If he comes from London, the same difficulty arises in another form. This problem—I am sure I am right about this—is one of the main obstacles in the way of a more successful recruiting of police.

I remember that after the debate in February, when an Inquiry was pressed for, it was first thought that the matter was not so urgent. Fortunately, that feeling was revised, and I believe there is a Committee sitting at present, under the Chairmanship of my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey. We all hope very much that that Committee will be able to contribute something effective. My point is that when we are seeking remedies we must not pass too lightly over the grave handicap which at present embarrasses us: that in fact there is not operating in London at present a sufficiently large force of skilled and trained policemen. All experience goes to show—and I should think our own childish memories sometimes confirm it—that nothing is so likely to conduce to the observance of the law as knowing that there is a policeman who may be watching or following what you do.

I would venture to make only one other observation, and then I will leave the matter to other noble Lords. It is perfectly true, of course, that, fundamentally, the better observance of the law and the avoidance of wicked crime depend upon the wide and genuine observance of the moral standard. That is obviously true, and anything that can be done to that end will, I suppose, have the warm approval of us all. Boys' clubs, under wise leadership, are in some quarters of London improving these young "toughs" in a most remarkable way; there are one or two places on which I could put my finger in the area of Greater London where a change has taken place in recent times, almost entirely, so far as we can see, because the right people have thrown themselves into that work and are capturing these high-spirited, reckless young creatures, bringing them into a better way of life, one just as lively but not as criminal. And, of course, there are other ways too.

But I think that fundamentally the thing which one most deplores is the loss of that tradition which really marks out the people of this Island as standing in an exceptional position compared with most other nations and populations—the respect which they had for the law because it was the law; the automatic reaction: "Well, that is the rule, and as it is the rule I will obey it." It is of enormous importance that that tradition should be recovered. Anyone who looks back and recalls how this loss has arisen in his own experience and the experience of his friends must deplore it.

The great trouble, I think, about these minor offences (I am not speaking about gangster crime, which is a different thing) is perhaps that we have so many rules and regulations that a considerable proportion of the population no longer consider there is any moral issue involved in disregarding these minor rules. It is impossible to suppose, for instance, that people would deal in the black market as they are prone to do (unless they are prevented) if they had kept that standard which certainly used to exist in this country. There was no country in the world, I apprehend, in which people more instinctively and naturally observed the law: they respected the law and were prepared to observe it, whether other people saw them or not, and they expected their friends to do likewise. But in some quarters this standard has now tended steadily to deteriorate. How this is to be remedied is not for me, at the end of this speech, to say.

Last of all, I rejoice to have heard the most reverend Primate declare that the reproach which he had to make is really addressed to and concerns quite a minority of our population. It is not true that we are a nation of crooks or swindlers or criminals—not in the least. The truth is that there is an immense mass of opinion in this country which wishes to respect the law and observe it and which expects other people to do the like. But that we in this House should consider this matter in the spirit in which the most reverend Primate has introduced it, I am sure everyone will agree. I feel we have every reason to be grateful to the most reverend Primate for having raised this grave matter in the way he has this afternoon.

3.36 p.m.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

My Lords, I have at the outset to apologise to the most reverend Primate and to your Lordships for thrusting myself into a debate at the inception of which I was unable to be present. My only excuse must be that I was detained on other public duties. No one will quarrel with the most reverend Primate's thesis that not only the absence of any decrease in the figures of crime but an actual and continuing increase is a matter which must cause all of us high and mounting alarm.

I imagine that when the war came to an end it was generally expected that there would be an abnormal increase of crime for a limited period. There was the fact of which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, has just spoken—a marked deficiency in the establishment of police forces, certainly in the metropolis. At the same time there were let loose upon the world a large number of men who for many years past had been schooled in novel, ingenious and effective methods of violence, and encouraged to devise and experiment with others of their own. There also accumulated during the years of war a substantial nucleus of deserters from the Forces, whose only method of livelihood and only chance of escaping detection was to embark upon and continue a life of habitual crime. Not only were they themselves guilty of a number of crimes but they were conspicuous in inciting, persuading and corrupting other people to assist them by themselves committing crimes of the same nature.

But the war ended three years ago; and we might have expected that by this time there would be a perceptible bracing of the moral laxity which was perhaps not unexpected at the end of six years of war. After all, there is at the present moment no great measure of unemployment, of hunger or of suffering amongst the people, and the essential commodities of life are distributed on a reasonably fair basis. Therefore one is compelled to tax one's mind with the problem of what is the basic cause of this tidal wave of crime. Some of the reasons, of course, spring fairly readily to mind. I think perhaps one may say this: that when the late war came to an end people were anxious to readjust their lives, to settle down and forget that period of mingled fear and frenzy, and to live in peace. But unfortunately the world's nerves are still taut: everywhere there is insecurity and instability. That reacts upon people by way of infusing into their lives a great element of restlessness. At the same time, life is on the whole rather dull, rather drab and rather monotonous. Although the potentialities of life may be great, the actualities are not particularly stimulating. I think it is largely a combination of those two apparently, at first sight, discordant elements—mental restlessness, on the one hand, and mental boredom on the other—which lead a great many people on psychological grounds to commit offences which in different conditions they would never have committed.

There are also a number of other and more obvious reasons. There is the inducement which always exists when a number of desirable things are in short supply, and when to supply them is a highly profitable undertaking. So long as the game is worth the candle, there will probably be found people who are prepared to play it. But, when we come to censure those who are responsible for supplying goods thus illicitly obtained, it is right that we should remember also that the offence would not be committed if there were not far too many other people prepared to accept the proceeds of those illicit operations and in this way to support the continuation of the black market.

There is also one other matter, which was only lightly touched upon by the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken. The army of professional and semi-professional criminals is unfortunately accompanied by a considerable body of camp-followers—amateurs in crime who commit what are, on the whole, perhaps minor crimes but none the less offences against the law. They commit offences almost as a protest against the feeling that they are being shackled by a number of regulations, prohibitions and restrictions of various kinds which they regard as senseless, irk-some, and trivial, and which they consequently consider themselves not only free to disregard but justified in disregarding. I am not saying one word of justification for that point of view—that is a matter for dispute in quite a different context—but I believe that that is an element which operates considerably in the minds of a number of people. They are not the gravest of crimes, but they are crimes. From that point of view, it is a dangerous and a regrettable symptom, because to a very large extent that type of crime is committed by just those people who, in years gone by, were the most zealous upholders of the law. They are a series of crimes which are presumably ephemeral, because to a large extent they are so much created by the conditions of the moment that they might almost be described as a topical disease.

When we turn to consider possible remedies for the situation, I admit that I have no very sensational plan to propose. To make up the strength of the police is, of course, a primary and obvious remedy. I think, too, that although the number of deserters has, substantially decreased, there ought at this stage to be an amnesty extended to those men which would enable them to return to society, to take up useful avocations and to put an end to a criminal career that has been forced upon them over a period of years by their original offence which they might now surely be regarded as having expiated. I believe that it would remove, once and for all, a highly disturbing factor in the social organism. It is probably idle to suggest at the moment, and also obvious that it would be a remedy if it could be used, that in the end the release of more consumer goods is the best way of eliminating the black market. But in that context there are other considerations than crime figures to be taken into account, and I will leave the matter in passing.

I would come back for a moment to this question of restrictions, prohibitions and controls, not on this occasion in any controversial spirit, but merely from this angle: I venture to suggest that there should be some very thorough and drastic inquiry into the whole body of controls, statutory orders and other similar documents which have been issued since the end of the Second World War, in order to see whether the time has not now come when a number of them can be eliminated. I am not talking of the kind of controls that are being gradually removed. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack knows that there is volume after volume of statutory orders and similar documents which have come out in the last years, the mere multiplicity of which bewilders people to such an extent that they develop a feeling that, because they have probably unconsciously violated a certain number of them, it does not very much matter if they consciously violate a certain number more. If there could be some such inquiry which would result in the discarding of those orders which were no longer of real importance, and which might help towards the clarification of the language of others, the simplification of the method of observance of some, and an explanation of their purpose (because I suggest that one of the reasons people are disposed to flout some of these orders is that they cannot understand why they still exist) I believe that it would go far to restore the confidence in the law of just those people who used to be its firmest supporters, but whose allegiance in the last few years has been shaken by the condition of affairs prevailing.

At best those are but passing palliatives: the real cure—probably a gradual cure—must, of course, lie in a heightening and re-establishing of the moral standards of the country. That is especially true concerning the deplorable situation in regard to juvenile crime. From that aspect, I suppose, the two main factors which react upon children are: first, the comprehension that something they are proposing to do is not merely mischievous, not merely a childish prank, but is definitely wrong and, for that reason, ought not to be done; and the second influence which bears upon the childish mind is perhaps the less elevated one, that the child realises that if he does something wrong and is found out, retribution will follow swiftly and vigorously. It may be an old-fashioned doctrine but I think it is still true to say that the ultimate responsibility rests not upon the child but upon the parents. Unless parents are prepared to face up to the social obligation which rests upon them to instil discipline—not by methods of brutality—into their children, we shall still have this startling spectacle, day after day, of reports in the Press of people bringing into magistrates' courts children of six, seven and up to ten years of age, complaining that they are unmanageable and must be taken out of the parents' care because the parents are incapable of handling them.

My Lords, that is a reflection upon the parents themselves, far more than upon the children, and until parents face up to that responsibility and assume the obligations which parenthood imposes upon them in that respect, we shall still have this formidable body of juvenile crime. None the less, as the most reverend Primate recognises, we have in this matter to keep our sense of proportion, and to realise that we are probably still the most law-abiding, because the most law-respecting, country in the world. But it is a sorry reflection that we should be even in danger of losing that pre-eminence just at the moment when the need for re-building not only the economic but the moral foundation of the country is most urgent and most plain.

3.54 p.m.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, may I intervene for one minute, and for hardly more than that, on the question of the statistics, which I have studied with interest and care? I do so for the amiable reason of trying slightly to lessen the blackness which is alleged to exist in the surroundings. My Lords, the point which I think gives us some reason for hope in the future—not too much hope, but a little hope—is that according to the figures that we have in the recent book, the statistics with regard to juvenile crime during the last two years have been better; it looks as if there is a turn towards the better side with regard to juvenile criminals. Page 5 in the beginning of the Criminal Statistics book shows in regard to larceny (taking the age groups of under fourteen years) that in 1946 there were 12,357 cases; and in 1947 there were 12,056. That is an improvement.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I am afraid your figure is not right; it should be 12,956.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

I am afraid the light is not good enough for my eyes. I stand corrected in regard to that figure. In the age group of fourteen years and under seventeen, in 1946 there were 9,633; in 1947, I think I am right in saying, the figure was 9,196—which is an improvement. Taking the two ages together, under fourteen and under seventeen, we do not find any very shocking instance of increases in the amount of crime. If we turn to breaking and entering (again taking the two age groups under fourteen and under seventeen) for the same two years, we find the following result: in regard to under fourteen there is a reduction from 7,391 to 6,518, which is an improvement; and in regard to under seventeen, from 4,829 to 4,085. That again is an improvement. Frauds and false pretences we need not bother about, because that type of offence is not much committed by the young. There is only one matter in which infant or juvenile crime does not appear to have shown an improvement, and that is in regard to thefts from shops and stores, which are of course a great temptation to children who walk along the streets. There the position is somewhat worse. I will not go into it in great detail although I could if necessary. I think, however, that the truth with regard to juvenile crime is that there is no reason for thinking that the increase in crime, which has been so serious since the year 1938, is still continuing.

With regard to the other matters shown in the statistics, I take some satisfaction from the figures to be found on page 15. These are summaries of the whole of the preceding tables with regard to indictable and non-indictable offences. In the columns on the right your Lordships will see the proportion per million for the three years, 1945 to 1947. Of course they are big figures, but they do not show any substantial increase. I will take the three years shown here. For the year 1945 the proportion per million was 2,928; for the year 1946, 2,690; for the year 1947, 2,874. That is less than the proportion for the year 1945, and a little greater than the proportion for 1946. There again, I say that those figures establish that the very serious wave of increase in crime which has taken place since 1938 is, to a certain extent, diminishing. For my part—and I trust that I am not being unduly optimistic—I do not see why, when we put into force some of the suggestions that have been made—such as increasing the numbers of policemen, the introduction of better terms for the police to attract better men, if that is possible, than we have now, and also deal with the question of deserters (who, I agree, ought no longer to exist in a civilised country, walking about, quite unable to get an honest living and so are driven to crime)—there should not be considerable hope of improvement, even in this imperfect world.

4.0 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will be grateful to the most reverend Primate for raising this question. I say frankly that it is a matter which I regard as of the greatest importance, and it is one which fills me, at the present time, with some alarm and some measure of despondency. I have had the advantage of seeing some of the advance figures for the present year, 1948, and I think it is my duty to tell your Lordships that the inference I draw from the 1948 figures, as compared with the 1947 figures, is grave, and the picture which I have to present is, undoubtedly, most serious. This is a problem which, certainly, is no Party matter and it calls for the attention and the assistance of all men of good will of any Party and of no Party. It calls for the assistance and the co-operation of political leaders and religious leaders.

May I first submit an analysis which I had made before I knew anything about the 1948 figures, and give your Lordships my impression of the Blue Book figures? I worked on Appendix 1, which shows the number of persons found guilty of indictable offences. To simplify the matter I took the figure at the foot of the last column of indictable offences, and this shows that the total number of persons found guilty of indictable offences in 1947 was 115,672. That is disappointing because it was in excess of the 1946 total, which was 107,000 odd—1947, in fact, showed an increase of 7 per cent. In non-indictable offences—with which I am not concerning myself now—the 1947 figure showed an increase of 20 per cent. over that for 1946. This increase was disappointing, because I had thought that the improvement which 1946 showed over 1945 would have been followed by a still greater improvement in 1947 as compared with 1946; but it was not so.

On the other hand, when I came to try to analyse these figures further, I looked at the same point as did the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, to see how far I could find out what was the increase in juvenile crime. That, after all, I think, is the most important factor in the whole picture. I took larceny and I found these figures relating to that particular offence. The total number of persons found guilty of larceny in 1947 was 76,154, which is slightly below the figure for the peak year, 1941. But the consoling factor there was that the number of young men under seventeen found guilty of this offence has fallen very considerably, from a peak, in 1940, of nearly 27,000 (26,992 to be exact), to 19,557 in 1947, which was in excess, but not very greatly, of the figure for 1938. In the age group seventeen to twenty-one, the figure for larcenies by males in 1947 was actually under the figure for such larcenies in 1938. So, looking at these figures, I meditated—as also, I think, did Lord Maugham—that although the figures are increasing as a whole, at any rate we have the satisfaction that so far as the young are concerned it seems that the situation is getting slightly better. That, I think, was a fair and reasonable inference to draw.

Now we have the statistics for the first six months of 1948, and I can therefore compare that six months with the first six months of 1947. If I assume that the first six months provide figures for approximately half the whole year, I can then, of course, compare the years. I have only the figures relating to indictable offences dealt with by magistrates' courts, as they constitute the great bulk of such cases in both 1947 and 1948. It gives you a fair picture of the comparable increases of indictable offences dealt with by the magistrates' courts only. Comparing 1947 with 1948. there is an overall increase in 1948 of 16 per cent. But the real gravity of these figures, to my mind, is that the age group under seventeen shows an increase of 30 per cent. In the age group seventeen to twenty-one, the increase is 8 per cent., and for the age group twenty-one and over it is 9 per cent. So the big increase which makes up an overall increase of 16 per cent. relates to young persons—juveniles under seventeen. The greatest increase is in larceny and in breaking and entering.

I have gone into this further and I find the figures show this. The numbers of juveniles (and when I say "juveniles" I mean primarily schoolchildren) found guilty of indictable offences—I give round figures to the nearest 1,000—were as follows: in 1938, 28,000; in 1939, 31,000; in 1940, 42,000; in 1941, 43,000; in 1942, 38,000; in 1943, 38,000; in 1944, 40,000; in 1945, 43,000; in 1946, 36,000; in 1947, 35,000, and for the first half of 1948, almost 22,000. Therefore, multiplying the figure for the first half of 1948 by two produces a figure which exceeds even that for the year 1941. As I have said, the increase is primarily amongst schoolchildren. We do not want to exaggerate these figures, and, of course, it is the fact that the great majority of the people of this country still lead decent, honest, law-abiding lives. But the truth is that a trend like this is a matter which must cause grave concern to every right-thinking man and woman.

Several of your Lordships have attempted to indicate the causes of the present position. Mention has been made of the strength of the police forces. Of course, it is quite obvious that the stronger and more adequate the police forces are the more likely we are to be able to prevent crime, but that is not a satisfactory answer to the problem. I was asked for the figures. In September, 1938, the authorised establishment of the Metropolitan Police was 19,300 and the strength was 18,700. In September, 1948, the authorised establishment was 20,000 and the strength 15,500; so that the Metropolitan Police are some 4,500 below establishment. Why I do not think this is altogether a satisfactory explanation, is that the diminution of the police force arose only at the end of 1945. Up to that time the force was almost fully staffed, and it is obvious from the figures that, notwithstanding that a full and adequate force prevailed up to the end of 1945, there was a great increase in crime as compared with pre-war years. It will clearly help if the strength of the police can be increased, as I hope it can, and Lord Oaksey's Committee are inquiring into the means of doing this.

But a careful analysis of this does not bring us quite to the root of the matter. When in August of this year the Home Secretary saw the figures to which I have referred, he asked the opinion of many people whose advice is valuable—selected probation officers, chairmen of juvenile courts, chief constables, school teachers and so on—and I can tell your Lordships the opinions that many of these people have expressed. Quot homilies, tot sententiœ—every person has some particular aspect that he dislikes very much and attributes crime to that. I am not satisfied that in that sense I have arrived at the root of the matter.

I do not think the number of regulations has very much to do with this problem directly, because obviously it does not apply to the large number of children under the age of fourteen who steal. Of course, it may indirectly have an effect, if the parents break the law in various ways. That may be fundamental. But we must recognise that we are living in very difficult times, and it is idle to carry on as though we were in comfortable, affluent and happy circumstances; we are not, and we would be living in a fool's paradise if we pretended for a moment that we were. We have to see that things are fairly shared. It is obvious that when there was plenty of soap the temptation to steal soap was not acute, but who nowadays leaves a cake of soap lying about in a railway train or anywhere else and expects it to remain there? I am responsible, in a sense, for the juvenile courts, but your Lordships will remember that outside London the selection of magistrates who sit in these courts is in the hands of their colleagues. If we were able always to have a magistrate with a warm heart and a cool head—of course this is a platitude, which I hope the most reverend Primate will forgive—that would be best; but we cannot always secure that, either in magistrates or Judges, or in other people. It is an opinion expressed by the people to whom I referred that one of the difficulties to-day is the lack of respect which children have for the magistrates' court, and that one of the beliefs which is being formed is that every child, and indeed every adult, is entitled to his first offence, just as it used to be said that a dog was entitled to its first bite. There is no doubt that indiscriminate and repeated binding over may do a good deal of harm. I think that is accepted by everybody who has gone into this problem.

Psychotherapy has been mentioned but I do not believe that takes us very near to the heart of the problem. There is a special wing at Wormwood Scrubs where selected convicts and prisoners are specially observed and treated by psychotherapy, and the possibility of extending the scope of psychotherapy is under consideration by the Advisory Council for the Treatment of Offenders. But that is very far from the heart of the problem. It is not for lack of psychotherapy that a large number of small children are guilty of larceny and breaking and entering. If we come to analyse all the causes, I suppose everybody can pay his money and take his choice. For my part, I blame, not the schools and not the churches; I put the responsibility primarily on the parents. I believe the centre of our whole life has always been, and must always be, the home; and if the first five or seven years are wrong, and if the right sort of instincts are not inculcated in children, it is not fair to expect the schoolmaster or parson, or anybody else, to do it afterwards. Children are quick to observe, and it is useless to have a precept without example. But if, in a time of national difficulty, everybody is trying to play his own hand and getting what he can, either within or without the law, and if that is the atmosphere in which children are brought up, one cannot wonder that small children see no harm in stealing sweets or bicycles.

That is the reality. I do not think the most reverend Primate will mind my saying that there is another factor which I believe to be of immense importance—namely, the fact that large areas of the country can no longer claim to be Christian. I know it is sometimes thought that the Christian ethic can be separated from Christian dogma. That may be, or it may not be; I am beginning to have doubts about it. Anyhow, I think we all know in our hearts that what I have said is the fact. It is a challenge to us all, and one which we have to meet. I do not think there is any one single solution. I believe that we have to attack this problem from many angles and through many agencies. I was talking about this to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary only this morning, and he said how very pleased he would be if those noble Lords who have interested themselves in this matter would care to arrange a discussion with him; he would make available for them all the documents and figures which he has, in order that together they may see what is the best way to tackle the problem, which concerns all of us equally. If the most noble Prelate tells me, in his reply, that he would welcome that opportunity, I can assure him that it will certainly he equally welcomed by the Home Secretary.

Various interests will have to be considered, in particular, the Ministry of Education, and we must have the co-operation of the schools. As your Lordships will remember, a Committee are now inquiring into the influence of the cinema on children and their Report is expected early in the new year. We must press on with the reforms in the new Children Act. We must do what we can to secure more respect for juvenile courts. We must seek help from the Churches, and the Churches have the right to demand help from us. We must do what we can, my Lords, to see that children do not suffer unduly from the consequences of the broken home. I have told your Lordships several times that I cannot view with complacency the vast number of divorce cases that are heard every year. In my own mind I feel fairly confident that it is frequently the children in those unhappy homes who, not possessing the anchorage of a happy family life, do not have a fair chance in life.

I have tried to tell your Lordships simply and shortly what the facts are. I feel there is a danger that amongst a definite section of the community, too large to be negligible, there is a lowering of moral standards to-day, as compared with the moral standards which used to prevail. I think that is a matter of which, without being in a state of alarm about it, we should take most serious notice. The only practical suggestion I have to make is that the most reverend Primate should consult the Home Secretary about this, and if together they can devise effective means of combating this danger, we can strike before it becomes out of hand.

4.23 p.m.

THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK

My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble and learned Viscount for the reply which he has made. He has put before us a number of extremely grave facts, of which I hope note may be taken throughout the country. I fully agree with him in the belief that it is quite impossible to tackle this problem in any one particular way; it has to be approached from different points, and a number of various remedies have to be applied. However, I am convinced that the moral standard is the real centre of the problem and, personally, I believe that moral standards and religion are so connected that they cannot be divided. I welcome wholeheartedly what the Lord Chancellor has said, and will roost gladly act upon his suggestion and get in touch, through him, with the Homo Secretary. This is a matter on which all men of good will, of different Parties and different views, can co-operate. It is not a Party question, and it is not a matter which is of interest to only one particular Church: it is of interest to all good citizens, and I hope that some policy may be worked out which will lead to a change for the better. I again thank the noble and learned Viscount, and ask the permission of your Lordships to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.