Lords Sitting of 11 February 1954

Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES IN NORTHERN RHODESIA
4.5 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made a statement in another place to-day about his visit to Northern Rhodesia, and I am anxious to make a similar statement in this House. My right honourable friend made it clear before leaving this country that the constitutional changes in Northern Rhodesia which were effected at the end of the year must stand. During his visit to Lusaka he met the Elected Members of the Legislative Council and the four Members representing African interests. Discussions concerned the changes to be made at the end of the term of the next Legislative Council which will be elected this month. Assuming that this Council runs its full course, no decision affecting elections "can become effective for five years "but study of the complicated problems involved will begin at once. My right honourable friend hopes that the Governor will be able, at the right time, to submit to Her Majesty's Government agreed recommendations on the next constitutional advances.
My right honourable friend also met the African Representative Council and certain Paramount Chiefs, and Chiefs with whom he had full discussions on a number of matters, including African land rights and the franchise. My right honourable friend flew up to the Copper Belt, and had informal discussions with the European and African mineworkers' leaders and with the general managers of the mining companies. Renewed efforts are being made at a solution of the vexed problem of African advancement in the industry. He has some hopes that an answer will be found, and was
836
glad to notice that, since he left, a committee representing the unions, both African and European, and the companies has been formed and is holding its first meeting. He also met Sir Godfrey Huggins and the Governor of Nyasaland, Sir Geoffrey Colby, who were good enough to come to Lusaka to meet him. They had encouraging news to give on the way Africans are co-operating in the Federation. The words of the right honourable gentleman the Leader of the Opposition in another place and of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, on July 14 last in this House on this subject have no doubt contributed.
There is one further point upon which I should inform the House, though it does not necessarily arise directly out of my right honourable friend's visit. The House will recall that he undertook in September to consider with the Governor, when the time came, whether a fifth African Member should be appointed to the Legislative Council as one of the two nominated Unofficial Members. Since his return, he has received the Governor's considered views on this and has decided that the time for this move is not ripe.
An explanation is necessary. In addition to the four African Members of the Legislative Council there will be two Members nominated to represent African interests. Of these two, one must sit in Executive Council and, in accordance with the September decisions, hold a portfolio. My right honourable friend is satisfied that no African is as yet capable of filling this onerous post, and that it must for the present be held by a European. Mr. Moffatt, who has represented African interests for so long on the Executive Council and Legislative Council, cannot, for family reasons, continue to serve on the Executive Council, but he is willing to continue on the Legislative Council. This means that the first nominated member of the Legislative Council—that is, the one who is to hold the portfolio in the Executive Council—must be a European other than Mr. Moffatt. This leaves one nominated place in the Legislative Council to be filled. The Governor and my right honourable friend have had to decide whether African interests are best served by appointing an African to this place or retaining the services of Mr. Moffatt. They have come to the conclusion that

837
these interests will be best served for the present, and the four African Members most helped, by retaining the services of Mr. Moffatt, in whom the Africans repose high confidence and who is held in great esteem by all sections of opinion in Northern Rhodesia and in this country.
4.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILL SBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged that the statement made in another place by the Colonial Secretary has been male to your Lordships this afternoon. I regret to say that it was put into my hands only two or three minutes ago, and I have had no opportunity to study it or to confer with my leading colleagues upon the matter. Therefore, I should wish to reserve what we may have to say about the important decisions which the Colonial Secretary has reached. On examination, they may prove to be right decisions, but it may be that it will prove necessary for us to have a debate on them. I welcome the statement by the noble Earl that my noble and learned leader, Lord Jowitt, who is at present away in Africa, and. the Leader of the Opposition in another place, have been helpful in the matter. But this is of such vast importance that I should have liked longer notice than has been given to me, despite the fact that I have been in the House of Lords the whole of the day. I would only repeat now that I am obliged that the statement has been made; we will consider it and see what action, if any, need be taken.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I would only add this. I would not guarantee that I told the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, but I certainly mentioned to one of the Whips on the other side of the House yesterday the fact that I was proposing to make a statement to-day on the subject of my right honourable friend's recent visit to Northern Rhodesia.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords may I, as an unofficial Member of the House, ask what is being done about people who come here day after day, intending to try to discharge their Parliamentary duties, and who then find that at half a minute's notice a statement is made which bristles with controversial issues? There is the question of the mine
838
dispute, the question of African representation, and others. These things are hurled at us, interlarded with self-congratulatory remarks about the success of the policy, and no opportunity whatever is given to anybody to know what is going to be said so that a question may be asked. There will be no opportunity of discussing it for some time to come. I would ask the noble Earl, whose courtesy one acknowledges gratefully, whether it is not possible to improve the machinery of this House in this respect, so that Members of the House who wish to know what is going on and try to exercise their proper duties, may know a little more timeously. The noble Earl said that he told somebody yesterday. Why is it not possible the night before, or at some time, for an ordinary Member to be told, "There is going to be a statement "? The Member need not even know the subject, but he can be prepared to examine it. If I may say so respectfully, I consider this to be a very important point, if this House is really to function usefully.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I have never denied that it is an important point, and the whole purpose of making a statement in this House is to repeat what was made in another place. It is not always possible to give the noble Viscount twenty-four hours' notice. I have done it only out of civility to the Opposition. If the noble Viscount does not wish for any statement to be made in future unless he gets prior notice, that is a different question.
LORD SALTOUN: May I say that in the whole of my experience—which is not very long, only thirteen or fourteen years —I have never known a debate take place on a statement. It is always received with reserve by the Opposition and taken for study later, in order not to delay the House by a debate of this kind when we want to get on with other business.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: That is not quite the point. I have already thanked the noble Earl for making the statement made by his right honourable friend. In this House we are always glad to have those statements made. But it is a question of having moved rather from the general practice of the Leader of the House to

839
give to the leading members of the Opposition as long notice as possible of the detailed statement to be made. So far as I am concerned, my Chief Whip has had no previous notification whatsoever of the matter. As I say, I have been in the House the whole of the day, yet I get the statement at five minutes past four.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I should think it an inadequate description of the functions of this House, as given by the noble Earl, to repeat what is said in another place. I understood that this was a separate House, which discussed things and conducted business in its own way. Inasmuch as this was known last night, quite apart from Official Members, Whips and so on, why was it not possible for the noble Earl to come to this House and say, "To-morrow we are going to have a statement surveying the visit of the Colonial Secretary to Africa," so that Members who wished to ask questions (we cannot debate a statement, because that would be contrary to Standing Orders) could come prepared, and so make this House a useful House?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: As I repeat, I was only making a statement which was made in another place to-day. So far as I am aware, it is quite contrary to all practice in this House to give notification the previous night that a statement will possibly be made on a certain subject the following day. I have followed precedent. I have done exactly the same as was done under the previous Government, when it was originally decided that it would be wise for this House to receive statements similar to those which are made in another place. Therefore I am somewhat surprised that the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, should come along and say that we should not have a statement made in this House similar to that which is made in another place.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The noble Earl is quite mistaken and has misinterpreted—I hope unintentionally—what I have said. I never said that statements should not be made in both Houses. What I said was that when the Government knew they were going to make a statement in this House, they should inform the House. I am not interested in Party machinery at all; I am interested
840
in Members of the House. If the noble Earl knew yesterday that he was going to make this statement to-day, then I contend respectfully that it was his duty to the House to give that information, so that Members might come prepared to listen to his statement and to make any comment, or ask any question that they wished.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: If the noble Viscount had listened to my first observation in reply to a supplementary, he would know that that is what I did.

CHARITABLE TRUSTS (VALIDATION) BILL [H.L.]
4.20 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The LORD MERTHYR in the Chair]
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3:
Savings for adverse claims, etc.
(2) No proceedings shall be begun by any person to enforce his right to any property by virtue of the foregoing subsection after the expiration of one year beginning with the date of the passing of this Act or the date when the right first accrues to him or to some person through whom he claims, whichever is the later, unless the right (before or after its accrual) either—

(a) has been concealed by the fraud of some person administering the imperfect trust provision or his agent; or

(b) has been acknowledged by some such person or his agent by means of a written acknowledgment given to the person having the right or his agent and signed by the person making it, or by means of a payment or transfer of property in respect of the right;

and if the period prescribed by this subsection for any person to bring proceedings to recover any property expires without his having recovered the property or begun proceedings to do so, his title to the property shall be extinguished.
This subsection shall not be taken as extending the time for bringing any proceedings beyond the period of limitation prescribed by any other enactment.
(3) For the purposes of the foregoing subsections, a right by reason of the invalidity of a disposition to property comprised in, or

841
representing that comprised in, the disposition shall not be deemed to accrue to anyone so long as he is under a disability or has a future interest only, or so long as the disposition is subject to another disposition made by the same person, and the whole of the property or the income arising from it is held or applied for the purposes of that other disposition.
LORD NATHAN LORD NATHAN moved, in subsection (2), to omit all words from "Act" down to the end of paragraph (b). The noble Lord said: I know that the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, arranged for the postponement of the Committee stage from Tuesday until today in view of the fact that I, who am interested in this Bill, was abroad. I am grateful to him for that. It was for the same reason that the Amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper could not be put down until yesterday, and I trust that that: fact has not been an inconvenience to any of your Lordships. The matters dealt with by these six Amendments are really the same point or, rather, the same point, looked at from somewhat different angles. The Bill, the Second Reading of which took place on January 19, has as its object the removal, for the benefit of trustees and beneficiaries of charitable trusts, of uncertainty as regards trusts which combine both a charitable and a non-charitable purpose and which in the ordinary course of law therefore might be held to be invalid.
The Bill seemed to me, except in one particular, to answer admirably the purpose at which it was directed. The exception was this. Whereas the Bill provided that in general the period of uncertainty should be limited to a year from the date of the commencement of the Bill, during which legal proceedings might be taken, an exception was made for the benefit of those under disability, such as infants, who were permitted a longer period—in the case of infants until they were twenty-one; as regards others under disability until the disability ceased; and as regards persons in whom rights had not actually accrued, until their rights had accrued. That meant that: whereas the general period of one year would apply, in particular instances a much longer period might elapse. It is quite possible—I could give many instances of this but I will not weary your Lordships with them unless the noble and
842
learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, so desires—that a period of fifty or sixty years in certain circumstances might pass daring which uncertainty might persist.
The purpose of these six Amendments—which are only one Amendment divided into a number of Amendments so as to effect the object I have in mind—is to limit the period of uncertainty for all purposes so that all persons, whether under disability or not, should alike be limited to a period of one year within which to make any claims they have by reason of the fact that the trust appears to be invalid.. In other words, they must begin proceedings, or must give express notice of their intention to begin proceedings, within one year of the commencement of the Bill. The Bill as drafted provides, as I have said, for what is in effect an extension of time in the case of those under disability; but there have been instances in legislation in the past—legislation of rather a different character, it is true—where no such extension of time has been given to infants and others under disability. I quote the Fatal Accidents Act, to which I referred on the Second Reading of this Bill, where the period is six months after the death, during which a claim has to be made, without any reservation in favour of infants or others under disability. There is the Copyright Act, in a different kind of field, where the period is three years. But the Act which appears to me to have the greatest analogy to the present Bill is the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act, 1938, under which it is provided that claims must be made within six months of the grant of letters of administration of the estate of a deceased person. Parliament deliberately on that occasion, or at any rate in fact, made no provision in favour of infants or others under disability. When the period thereby allowed—six months from administration—had elapsed, claims were barred.
The effect of the Amendments upon the Order Paper would be that infants and others under disability in the case of these imperfect trust instruments would in principle be the same as under the Inheritance (Family Provisions) Act, and that there would be a limitation to one year, not only in the general cases but as regards those under disability. The

843
great advantage of that would be that trustees and beneficiaries of imperfect charitable trusts would, at the end of the year, know where they stood. It is the main object of this Bill to ensure that that purpose should be fulfilled. There is this gap at present in the fulfilment of that purpose. I hope the noble and learned Lord may find it possible to accept these Amendments, which will, as I think, fit in with the general scheme of the Bill and fulfil the object which all concerned have in mind. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 1, leave out from ("Act ") to end of line 11.—(Lord Nathan.)
LORD SALTOUN: I hope Her Majesty's Government will not accept this Amendment, for two reasons. The first is that, if I understand the Bill aright, it refers to imperfect trusts that may be formed in the future as well as those that have been formed in the past—
LORD NATHAN: No.
LORD SALTOUN: Very well. My second reason still stands. If the noble Lords carries his Amendment, he puts the representatives of minors in the position that they have to act within a year or not act at all, but it leaves the minor, when he attains his majority, the right of action against his trustees in case they have acted wrongly in refraining from pursuing their right under this Bill. That would put the trustees in the position of being practically forced to take action which otherwise they might avoid.
4.27 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD SIMONDS): I am sorry to say that I cannot on behalf of Her Majesty's Government accept this Amendment. I do not think the noble Lord thought that I would. I venture to think that he has approached the matter from a somewhat wrong angle. This is a Bill which is intended to confer great benefits upon charities, and this is the benefit substantially which it confers. It does not deal with cases in which there is any dispute, but, on the contrary, it confirms an invalid disposition: that is to say, one giving to a charity or charitable institution property which in law it is not
844
entitled to hold. We may or may not like the law, but that is the position. The Bill is aimed to rectify what is regarded as a grievance, but to rectify it by conferring a title on charities which at present they do not have. It is thought —rightly, I think—that that benefit ought not to be conferred without some qualification: that is to say, that those who were in a position to challenge the validity of the disposition under which the charity purports to hold, and reclaim property which is in law theirs, should not be debarred from making their challenge and recovering their property as long as their demands were not stale.
Accordingly the Bill saves the rights of those to whom the rights accrued less than six years from the relevant date—December, 1952—and provides, further, that in any case the claim must be made within one year after the coming into force of the Act. Then the question arose which divides the noble Lord from myself: what is the position of persons under disability? We can confine it, I think, for the purposes of this argument, to the case of an infant. The position of an infant has always been safeguarded in law, in regard to the right to recover property, with a single exception with which I will deal and to which the noble Lord referred. Always his rights are preserved until he has attained his majority and can assert them. That is what, in effect, we do here, because we say that, in the case of an infant, he shall be able to assert his rights within one year of being able to assert them —that is to say, attaining the age of twenty-one years. I venture to think that, in legislation of this kind, which is, in a sense, of a retrospective character and which confers upon institutions property to which they are not in law entitled, that is the least we can do for an individual whose rights are being taken away from him.
Secondly, I would say this to the noble Lord. I venture to think that, if he had his way, it would be much worse for the charity than if he did not—and for this reason. I conceive a probable case to be that, when an infant comes of age, and is in a position to assert his claim, he will appreciate, as those who are now adults appreciate, that he might be defeating the intention of the testator or settlor by asserting his rights, and will refrain from asserting them. That is a common case,

845
no doubt, to-day. If you put it upon the infant, within one year of the date when the Bill comes into force and becomes an Act, to assert his rights, that means that the rights must be asserted, if by anybody, by his guardian: and most assuredly his guardian will not take upon himself the responsibility of saying: "I will not recover for the infant the property which is lawfully his." Accordingly, I should imagine that in every case where the infant was the person entitled, the guardian would take steps to recover the property. There is, of course, the other case, where there is no guardian—at any rate, no natural guardian, a parent, father or mother—and where a guardian might have to be appointed by the court. Are we to go through that sort of process in order to find somebody who can claim on behalf of the infant? I suggest not. It would be doing a grave injustice in that case, as I think, to the infant himself. In those circumstances, I venture to hope that, in the interests of the charities which he so ably represents, the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will think fit to withdraw this Amendment, or at any rate, will not press it.
With regard to the Acts to which he has referred, he has very fairly staled that they are in a rather different context. For instance, in regard to the Inheritance Act, which deals with a very different situation, you have somebody who is making a claim on something which is not, in law, his. He seeks to set aside the will, which is a valid will, of the testator, in order that, under the provisions of the Inheritance Act, he may recover certain relief. Surely it is right that, if he seeks to set aside the provisions of a will, he should do so within a limited time. The Fatal Accidents Act stands on a footing of its own because it is clear that the facts must be investigated within a short time of the fatal accident. Otherwise, of course, the evidence would not be available and the circumstances would have changed. The Copyright Act provided for three years. I am bound to say that I do not quite know why that was so, but it clearly stands in a context of its own. For these, amongst other, reasons—I will not detain your Lordships any longer—I cannot assent to the first Amendment which the noble Lord proposes. I think the noble Lord will agree with me that, in dealing with the first, we cover them all,
846
because the others are, in effect, consequential. I am sorry that I cannot accept them.
LORD NATHAN: I have listened with great respect to what has been said by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I hope they will agree that, although I put forward a case with which they do not agree, nevertheless I put it forward reasonably. I regard the answers that I have received, and the comments to which I have listened, as convincing. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment; and with that Amendment the others fall.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is an Amendment which is intended to fill a gap in subsection (5) of Clause 3. The Bill preserves, in certain cases, the right of the beneficiary to sue the trustees who have been administering the trust if they have been doing so in disparagement of his rights after having had notice of that.
As the clause is drawn, it provides that the preceding clauses shall not prejudice the beneficiary's right, by virtue of his interests in the property, to damages in respect of any dealing with the property. The relief which the claimant in such a case might have might be by way of damage, or it might be by invoking the equitable jurisdiction of the court and asking for the administration of the trust and account; or it might be for other relief, such as an injunction. Accordingly, all that we propose is that after the word "damages" we should insert the words "or other relief." So the clause will now read
"…damages or other relief in respect of any dealing with the property.…"
I think that the noble Lord, who has interested himself in this case, will agree that this is a necessary addition. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, after ("damages") insert (" or other relief").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD NATHAN: All I will say is that I accept the views of the Lord Chancellor that this seems to be a most desirable Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed.

SECURITY OF THE MAILS
4.38 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN THE EARL OF LUCAN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied that the arrangements for safeguarding mails are adequate; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, I ask your Lordships to turn your attention to a subject which is extremely topical. No one would deny that there is a considerable degree of public anxiety on this subject of the security of the mails. We look forward to a statement from the noble Earl, the Postmaster General, which, we hope, will reassure us. We hope it will be something more than what has been called those "round and soothing phrases" that have fallen from him recently. While we have no wish on this side to make any Party capital out of this question, we reserve the right to consider the Government's reply and to make such criticisms as we think necessary of the way in which they are discharging their responsibilities.
There have always been mail thefts—there is no doubt about that—and it is as well to keep a sense of proportion in this matter. That is difficult, in these days, when the headlines strike our eyes evening after evening. It would reveal a lack of a sense of proportion to become alarmed over the figure of losses of mailbags which the Government have given—723 bags lost last year out of 350 million carried—more especially as that figure of 723 represents a considerable drop on the figures prevailing in the first year or two after the war. The ordinary hazards of carrying property about the country must, of necessity, mean certain losses, and nobody is going to get worried about the odd mailbag that is snatched off a station platform, the odd bags that are rifled in the course of a rail journey, or the odd van that is driven off when it is left unattended for a moment. To guard against that, to achieve anything like 100 per cent. security of the mail, would, I am sure, mean an altogether excessive cost in money, in manpower and in effort. I think it must be accepted that a certain proportion of losses will always occur. After all, they do in every walk of life; that is one reason for the existence of insurance companies. So let us not get worried about that.
What is alarming, however, is that of recent years there has been an apparent increase in the number of planned raids which have, to a large degree, been successful from the criminals' point of view, and clearly have been aimed at consignments of mail of high value. It is clear, also, that these raids have been carried out by criminals who have access to accurate information which can only come from the inside. I say "an apparent increase," because that is a point on which, so far, the Government have not given any satisfactory figures. The overall figure of loss of 723 bags is really irrelevant to the present situation. We are entitled to know more about the nature of the different losses, to have an analysis of the different types of loss—which are the bigger robberies with the valuable hauls; which robberies have taken place when the mails were in Post Office charge, in Post Office vehicles in charge of Post Office personnel; and which robberies have occurred when the mails were in the charge of the railways. Moreover, one would like to know which are the robberies obviously carried out by a gang and planned and organised; which are thefts on the spur of the moment, and which have been accompanied by violence.
All that is information which I think the Post Office should already have given—and may I say, in parenthesis, that public relations at the Post Office do not seem lately to have been functioning as well as they should. Everybody knows that confidential information should not be given to the public; but there is plenty of information which is perfectly well known to the criminals and could well be published, with, to my mind, a great gain in public confidence in the Post Office and in the measures taken by the Government to combat these crimes. Until we know these figures, showing the relation of minor to major crimes, we cannot tell whether we are faced simply with a slight intensification of a perfectly normal situation, the old problem of thefts, high-lighted by one or two spectacular robberies like the one of May 21, 1952, and marked at the present moment by a perfectly fortuitous occurrence of a number of bold robberies; or whether we are facing a new situation, some association of criminals who have what amounts to a

849
general staff, an intelligence service which collects information about the mails, the means of rapid communication of that intelligence, and the planning and organising ability to carry out these raids. If it is clear, from the information that the Post Office can give, that there is some new situation of that sort, then I think the measures that the Government take have to be judged accordingly.
Glancing through newspaper tiles of recent years one finds an alarming catalogue of robberies. Only last Friday there was the hold-up of a van on a lonely country road near East Grinstead. Fortunately, on that occasion the criminals' intelligence was at fault and there was nothing of high value in the van; but it was a hold-up by a gang which used violence to the driver. A few days before that a bag was stolen in Regent Street; that is the subject of criminal proceedings going on now. In January of this year a Post Office van was driven away from outside a post office in Walthamstow. It was one of a line of vans and only somebody with some knowledge of post office routine and methods would have known that that was the particular van containing large sums of remittances going out to a local post office. In that case the criminals got away with £4,700. In November last year there was a robbery from a London to Brighton train, to the amount of £9,700. In September, 1952, there was a robbery on a Doncaster to Barnsley train when one bag was taken, and it happened to be the bag containing £14,000. In May, 1952, there was another case on the London to Brighton line, when a van was broken into and £10,500 was taken. On May 21 of that year, there was the famous might hold-up near Oxford Circus, when the haul was £236,000.
In March of the same year, 1952, a van was held up outside a post office in Tottenham and £6,000 was taken. That was the only case of which I can find record in which a member of the gang—eight were concerned in the hold-up—was subsequently caught and convicted. We hope that perhaps the Postmaster General will be able to give us news of some others. In January, 1952, on the Salisbury to Eastleigh line, a bag was taken from a train and the haul was £5,000. In the twelve months before that, at least four eases of Post Office
850
vans being stolen and driven away were recorded. Apparently, in those cases there were no losses of valuables from the vans. In March, 1950, there was a theft from a train on the London to Manchester run of £14,000 worth of jewellery. I should like your Lordships to note that crime especially, because it affords a remarkable instance of the possession of inside information by the thieves. The criminals chose one bag out of 400 on the train. They cut open the bag, and they chose one packet. They cut that, packet open, and it was the one that had the £14,000 worth of jewellery in it. The furthest back that I wish to go is April, 1949, when there was another robbery on a train, to the tune on that occasion of £40,000. Those facts—I trust they are accurate—I have taken from newspaper cuttings. I hope that the Post Office authorities will confirm them. They show that recently there have been a number of big robberies.
The feature common to all these robberies is the very accurate information that the criminals possessed about the movement of the high-value packages among registered mail. Another feature—which of course has nothing to do with the Post Office—is the very high degree of success which the thieves have had in disposing of the money and the valuables. We have heard very little about the recovery of notes and so on, that have been taken. I hope your Lordships will agree that it is useless to give a total figure of all bags lost, extending over all cases, because that does not throw any light on the immediate problem. And the immediate problem, as I said, arises from the fact that a gang, or gangs—and we do not know what evidence there is to show which is the case—with a high degree of organisation, discipline and intelligence are operating. And what are the Government doing to fight that?
It surely is imperative that machinery should be set up to organise resistance to this campaign of crime. It is not a simple problem, for a number of different authorities are concerned. The Post Office has its own investigation branch. But when mails are carried by the railways, responsibility for guarding them rests with the railway police. Outside of railway property and Post Office vehicles, responsibility for prevention and detection of crime rests on the police,

851
as also does responsibility for the pursuit of the criminals and the recovery of the stolen property. But the police are not one body under one command. The police consist of a large number of autonomous forces all over the country. Take the case of a consignment which may be missing in transit between London and Glasgow. The Post Office and the railway police come into it, and there are also the Metropolitan Police, the Glasgow police and all the intervening police forces, all of which have to be co-ordinated. I hope that the Government will be able to tell us that they have set up some co-ordinating body, or some system for allocating responsibility and for co-ordinating the activities of all these different organisations.
EARL WINTERTON: May I ask the noble Earl a question? Would he extend his argument a little? Does he suggest that this co-ordination—which must be a tremendous undertaking, having regard to the number of autonomous police forces involved—should be confined merely to thefts of mailbags? Or would the noble Earl suggest that it should be extended to deal with crime as a whole?
THE EARL OF LUCAN: We are dealing at the moment with mails. Presumably the Government also have in mind the problem of mails, and have made their arrangements accordingly.
Another point I would raise with regard to the fight against these crimes is this. May we have an assurance that there is no departmental jealousy holding up, or causing friction in, the efforts to fight this campaign of crime? There is no place in this sort of situation for any jealousies or ill-feeling, or for working in water-tight compartments. I am sure that each of the authorities concerned is highly efficient in its own sphere. I am a believer in specialisation. I believe that the Post Office investigation branch are experts in their own line. Those attached to it have spent all their careers in the one task of preventing and detecting crime in the postal service. I do not believe that we could find anyone better qualified to combat these crimes.
But outside the official world there are other people concerned with those robberies—I refer to the insurance com-
852
panics. I wonder whether we can hear to what extent they have been brought into consultation with the Government. We have been told that the Post Office liability on lost packages is limited to £5 each, no matter what the value of the package, so that all the rest of the loss must be borne by the insurance companies. I wonder what their views are and whether they are satisfied with the methods being adopted to deal with the situation. I wonder, too, whether their investigation staffs are being called into consultation by the official world. I believe that some years ago there was very successful co-operation with the insurance companies in dealing with a wave of arson.
One matter which has, I am sure, been disturbing the personnel of the Post Office is that a great deal of the information which gets into the possession of the criminals must come from inside. Is there a Fifth Column in the postal service? One need not jump to conclusions, because there are many thousands of men who have worked for short or long periods, or on temporary duty, or as what they call "Christmas casuals," who have gained some knowledge of the inside working of the Post Office. Their information could be very valuable to a gang of crooks. Nevertheless, it must be faced that there may be people in the Post Office service with undesirable associations. I am sure that those who are most anxious to root out such people from the Post Office service are the men and women in the Post Office. I wonder whether the noble Earl can assure us that he has appealed to the personnel of the Post Office for their co-operation and assistance. I am sure that that appeal would not go unheard.
Another precautionary measure is the checking of the credentials and characters of prospective entrants into the Post Office. We have been assured that that is being done and that methods of recruitment are being tightened up. Nobody will quarrel with investigations with the object of disclosing any criminal past, but I should like to give a warning. Once we start investigating people's pasts, it can only too easily degenerate into a Gestapo, into an investigation into their morals and politics. In this country we do not like inquisitions of any sort and I hope the Government will bear in mind

853
that these investigations must be kept strictly to the criminal past, if any, of applicants for the service. The best assurance against leakage from the service is that conditions shall be such as will attract the best men and women into the service and keep them there for long periods, and attract their families, in the way which I believe was general before the war.
Finally, a word about physical means of protection for mails and those in charge of them. Men who are given charge of valuable property are entitled to ask for the best possible protection. That applies not only to Post Office employees, but also to railway employees. Of course, I do not ask the noble Earl to give any particulars of what measures have been devised to make the criminal's task harder, but we should like to know whether the noble Earl is satisfied that the progress of fitting any devices thought necessary is sufficiently rapid. We should like to know, too, if that progress is not being speeded up, what is stopping it? Is there any financial red tape, anything to do with Annual Estimates or anything of that kind, which is holding it up, or is provision going ahead as rapidly as possible? There is no doubt that this is a serious situation; how serious we shall not know until we get more details. I am sure the public will not be satisfied with any vague assurances. We must be satisfied that the Government are taking this matter seriously, have set up machinery and are seeing that it works. I beg to move for Papers.
5.5 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I cannot help feeling that far too much prominence has been given in the Press and elsewhere to these mail robberies. I suggest that this sort of prominence may well incite others to go and do likewise. I was glad to hear that the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, does not share that "considerable alarm" which was evinced by his friends in another place and is able to look at the matter a little more dispassionately. It is perfectly true that more mail robberies have taken place than before the war, but, on the other hand, the figures have been decreasing year by year since 1947. I think I am correct in saying that the losses have gone down from three to two bags per million during
854
the last six years. It is sometimes forgotten that the primary job of the Post Office is not the protection of its vans and postmen, but the quick and efficient delivery of the mails. The Post Office is like a very large business organisation, and to expect it to give full protection to its goods, in addition to police protection, is really nonsense.
Undoubtedly, there is a serious crime wave in this country, in my opinion largely due to too lenient sentences, a crime wave which is being felt not only by the Post Office but by many other organisations. Sonic of your Lordships may think that criminals engaged in these robberies are rarely caught. This is quite untrue. I believe that in 1952 to 1953 more than 2,303 criminals were caught and punished for dishonesty against the Post Office, including 457 for thefts from the mails. I should be the first to agree that there is every reason for tightening up the security arrangements. I have little doubt that the noble Earl the Postmaster General has this matter well in hand and will tell your Lordships something about it later.
It has been suggested in some quarters that Post Office vans should carry armed guards in addition to their usual staff. I need hardly point out to your Lordships what has already been mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan: that this would be enormously expensive and would far outweigh any losses which are being experienced now or likely to be experienced in the future. Of course, in very special cases this could well be done and no doubt will be done, but I suggest that there is no reason for any drastic steps of this nature covering the whole system; that would be quite impossible. It may well be that a few undesirables have filtered into the Post Office organisation, but that is likely to happen with any large business, and I have no doubt that the Postmaster General will look carefully into the checking of new recruits that come into the service. In my limited association with the Post Office as a member of the Post Office Advisory Board, I have always found a spirit of great pride and efficiency in the service. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this service is second to none in the world.
5.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the tone of the speeches to which we have just listened has shown that in this House, at least, there is no desire to discuss this matter in terms of Party interest. It is a great advantage that your Lordships can discuss the position in this way and I am certain there is no wish on any side to make political capital out of the difficulties of the Post Office. One thing is certain about the outcome of the recent mail van robberies, and I think everyone would agree with this conclusion: at no time since the war has the Post Office occupied so much space in the columns of the daily Press. It is almost as though the Postmaster General had inadvertently placed the head of Malenkov upon a new postage stamp. I have tried to follow Press comment on the Post Office fairly closely for a number of years and it is interesting to note that the fact that we have one of the most efficient postal services in the world—a fact that those of your Lordships who travel will know from experience—and also that our Christmas mail is punctually delivered every year, often under the most trying conditions, receives the most scanty, and indeed, sometimes almost monosyllabic acknowledgment. But crime, especially when it is spiced with violence, brings the Post Office right into the head-lines and attracts a vast number of editorials and news articles.
I feel that we must be fair to the Press about this. I am sure that the Postmaster General will agree with me when I say that the attitude of the Press to the Post Office has always been friendly and open-minded. I am sure that is true, as a general rule. I am not for a moment suggesting that there is any bias against the Post Office, a bias that might possibly have arisen because it is a nationalised service. The Post Office was nationalised in the reign of Henry VII, and it has acquired a venerable air of respectability, as well as an established record of efficiency, which its juniors, I fear, cannot expect for several centuries. It would also be unfair to the Press to suggest that the newspapers have been solely interested in the sensational aspect of these crimes, or indeed, that Press comment has been generally inadequate in matters
856
of fact and unreasonable in criticism. Some papers have certainly shown a very authentic concern for the public interest and the safety of the mail, and a real willingness to suspend judgment until they have a fuller knowledge of the facts.
Nevertheless, I am afraid that the treatment of these crimes in certain newspapers with a considerable circulation may have had some harmful effects. This must have tended to undermine the confidence of the public in the Post Office, and to make the Post Office staff feel that they are not trusted by the public. These psychological reactions, however little justification there may be for them, are genuine reactions and must be taken into account. It cannot, therefore, be too often repeated that, even if there are some black sheep in the Post Office—and, of course, there are such in every profession: in the Army, in the law, and in all walks of life—the vast majority of Post Office servants are as honest as the day and extremely proud of their work. I doubt whether many people outside the Post Office are aware of the tremendous esprit de corps in all the branches of the postal service. There are Post Office families just as there are Army and Navy families, that have served in the Post Office for several generations. Traditions of this kind, which ought to be supported so far as possible, are certainly not encouraged by a good deal of undiscriminating criticism.
But no one would wish to overlook the very real concern felt by the public, and rightly expressed by the newspapers, about the safety of the Queen's mail. This is a genuine and legitimate anxiety, which can be removed only if the Post Office can satisfy public opinion that everything possible is being done to prevent dishonesty and crime. People are, I think, beginning to doubt whether the mail is as safe now as it was in times past, and even to wonder whether the Post Office may not be neglecting its duty to protect letters and parcels entrusted to its care. These doubts can be set at rest only by the fullest possible information being given about what is being done to protect the mails, including an assurance that fresh security measures are in hand. I think my noble friend Lord Lucan was fully justified in addressing a number of questions to the noble Earl opposite, and I hope that in his reply he will take the

857
public as fully into his confidence as may be possible in the circumstances. People are thinking—your Lordships must have heard opinions of this kind expressed in casual conversation—that mail bags may be exposed to more risk than should be taken, and that there may be leakages of information about valuable mail inside the Post Office. My noble friend Lord Lucan referred to several thefts which suggested that there might have been inside information available to the criminals. Anything the Postmaster General can say about fresh security measures to meet these dangers, and any assurance he can give that such improvements are not being held up for lack of funds, will, I am sure, be widely welcomed.
But while we are entitled to expect the Post Office to do everything possible to prevent the continuation and recurrence of these crimes, and to give the public the fullest possible information about its security policy, there are two things which I feel should not be forgotten b at which people are sometimes inclined to forget. The first is that it obviously would be most unfair to ask the Post Office to describe publicly the details of its security arrangements. Such a detailed description, of the specific security measures would give criminals exactly the information they want to have. Of course, only the Postmaster General is in a position to judge what information can be given to Parliament, to the Press and to the public, without helping potential criminals. The second thing is this. Crime, of course, is costly; but so is its prevention. It would be unreasonable to expect the Post Office to adopt a drastic, revolutionary measure, such as providing a guard for every van with valuable mail, which would add enormously to the cost of the service and might result in an increase in the present rate of postage. All Governments since the war have been trying to reduce the number of persons employed in the Civil Service, because we have felt that such persons could be more usefully occupied elsewhere. If the Post Office were now to recruit an enormous army of security officers, they would be taken from occupations in which obviously they would be doing the country far more good. So that cost and manpower must be seriously
858
considered when assessing the value of possible improvements in Post Office security policy.
As my noble friend Lord Lucan rightly said at the commencement of his remarks, we must, I fear, as rational beings, accept a proportion of loss in mail every year, even after every reasonable security precaution has been taker. So, while I am. sure the whole House would welcome as much information as the Postmaster General can give about the measures; that the Post Office are taking and intend to take to deal with crime, we do not wish to press him to say anything more than what he thinks is right and wise in. the public interest.
5.19 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, one happy feature about this debate is that it gives noble Lords who take part in it an opportunity, apart from considering this particular question of robberies, to pay a tribute, as the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has done, to the grand work of the tea; of thousands of postmen throughout the country who are not in any way concerned with the subject we are debating to-day. I feel that my noble friend Lord Lucan rather brushed aside the satisfactory down-drop in the loss of mail bags which has taken place during the last six years. I understand that the figure is now two per million bags, as compared with three per million some six years ago. That is a satisfactory background against which we can debate this particular series of crimes. At the beginning of his remarks the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said that he wished to make no Party capital, but reserved the right to criticise Her Majesty's Government. Equally, I am sure he will grant that it is our right to criticise views: expressed by noble Lords on the Front Bench opposite.
I was rather amazed at the numerality expressed by the noble Earl. I do not dispute what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said: that we may have to accept certain losses. But the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, "No one is going to be worried about the odd bag." The people who own something in the odd bag which is lost are going to worry. The whole system of pace outside and security within the Post Office will, I hope, worry about that single bag. I trust that we ate not going to develop

859
a mentality which says, "The big robbery matters, but, please, we do not worry about the little one." A sort of "Stop me and 'swipe ' one" mentality.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I think the noble Lord will recollect that the public anxiety about mailbag losses is a thing of fairly recent growth. During the many years when there were, as I have said, the odd bags being stolen, the public took it in a very rational common-sense way. It was only when the big robberies started that public alarm began.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: Let me get this right. Do I understand that the noble Earl would like to withdraw the expression, "No one is going to be worried about the odd bag"? He does not really mean that.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: I mean that the public as a whole would not be concerned with trivial thefts, such as go on all the time, and always will go on, in every society. That is not what is causing the public anxiety.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sorry, but I am afraid that we have a different outlook. Noble Lords who concur with me will not condone crime because it is only a small one, but will endeavour, to the best of their ability, to condemn all crimes, small or large. I think these crimes are a reflection of the general increase of lawlessness that we are seeing in a post-war period. As the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, said, "Let us keep a sense of proportion." He said, "We have always had mail robberies." It is quite true that there are always mail robberies. I find in the Journals of your Lordships' House for May 1, 1668:
"The Committee for the Bill against thefts and robberies on the highways are to meet this afternoon."
So your Lordships will see that we are not debating this particular subject of robberies on the highway for the first time. Far from any expectation of immunity from this crime wave, I think the Post Office must expect to get its full share of the increase. If I were a robber, young, vigorous, determined and ruthless, I think a Post Office robbery would show many advantages over other forms of attempted robbery. It has many favourable factors, of which I should like to submit one or two to your Lordships.
860
First of all, disposal of the "swag" (I believe that is the technical term) is very easy, compared to the disposal of other forms of possessions taken by robbers. But the most favourable factor for the robbers is the regular routine of the Post Office. I understand that a figure of 177 million miles a year are run by Post Office vehicles, and the majority of that mileage is on regular scheduled routes, which it is difficult to alter because connections have to be made with trains and boats, and because there are timed deliveries at the other end. The mails go on regular scheduled mail trains; they go on standard vehicles, and they go at standard times. Everything is there for the robber—advantages that he does not get when he tries to break into a private house. He does not know the most likely and favourable time for getting jewellery, and he does not know who will be there. There are many unknown factors in private robbery. That is why we see so many robberies in houses at about dinner time, because it is then that the burglar thinks he has the best chance of getting what he knows he can get at a set hour, as when he endeavours to rob Her Majesty's mails. Therefore, I think the Post Office cannot expect anything except, possibly, a greater pressure on its security forces to withstand burglaries and robberies while this crime wave is on.
I will conclude by saying this about prevention and punishment. I hope the Postmaster General will be able to tell us that the most modern and scientific devices are being used in the field of prevention. The Post Office could have two-way radio. The noble Earl may well have it already, but I do not think it would be giving away anything secret if he could tell us that it was being used. No doubt automatic warning devices on vehicles and in post offices are already being used, but perhaps they could be used to a greater extent in the future. With regard to punishment, I should like to see much heavier penalties imposed by the courts for this class of crime. I believe that the Post Office are having the light of public anxiety and public opinion focused upon their work at the present time. My own view is that they have done a fine job in the past, and I am not frightened or alarmed that they will not be able to withstand fully the scrutiny of the public of this country.
5.27 p.m.
LORD AMMON: My Lords. I venture into this discussion in the mood of one visiting the scenes of his childhood, and at the same time commenting that, "They were the days." They certainly were, in many senses compared to the present time. I propose to be reminiscent, because I think something can be gained from applying to the present situation the experience of the past. The first thing I would say is that the Post Office is not the only public service which suffers from robbery: both the railways and the docks were largely in the news a little while ago. The Post Office, however, is a Department which touches everyone and, therefore, is good news, and hound to receive wide publicity. I think there is something to be said, too, for the fact that in the days gone by there was a different method of recruitment from that which prevails at the present time; and the whole service has undergone tremendous changes. Whether or not the administration have kept pace with them is a matter for discussion.
I joined the Post Office more than sixty years ago—that is a long time—and at that time recruitment was, first of all, by lads who made the Post Office their life service. In addition, they had to take examinations, and their references were vetted and discussed. Therefore, there was a continuous stream of people who were well vouched for. Also, there grew up in the service—I think this has been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Listowel—a sense of pride, which is still there, largely with those who have had a long acquaintance with the service. It was felt generally that they were part of the Civil Service, and that they had a position of some significance in the land, a position of which they were proud. It is ironical, though true, that conditions of employment then were very different from those of the present time. I went to work for eighteen shillings per week, and had to get up at four o'clock in the morning and walk three miles to get to my work. I do not think you would get a very large queue nowadays for that kind of job. Nevertheless, there was this pride in the service that I have mentioned. The employees felt that they belonged to a service of which they could all be proud. It is true that conditions in the old days were such that the late
862
Will Crooks, on one occasion during a discussion in another place on Post Office conditions, when the usual Government reply was given, to the effect that the job was permanent, said, "It is quite true that it is starvation—but thank God it is constant! "That, perhaps, more than anything eke, is an indication of the state of affairs in those days.
It was the noble Lord, Lord Teynham, I think, who made reference to this pride in the service. It would be a very bad thing indeed if that were in any way lost to us. As I see it, the present difficulties are part of the general malaise which possesses the community at the present time. I believe that it is beginning to show signs of dying out, but there are steps that can be taken which will help to make it more difficult for these raids to be carried through. We have had signs of this malaise in the docks—I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, will bear me out in that—and we have had it on the railways. Speaking of the docks, I recall the case of a man who appealed to me once when I had something to do with the docks. He had been dismissed because he had been convicted. I sent him the usual letter saying that the: matter would be inquired into. I found upon investigation that he had, in fact, had one or two convictions. I thereupon wrote him a letter saying that his dismissal would have to stand, and I received from him the stimulating reply, "You said you would look into it and you certainly have done so!"
The Treasury, I think, have something to say, as they always have, in regard to the Post Office. In days gone by, I had to take part in the inside and outside work on behalf of the staff. I edited their journal for over twelve years, and for over twenty years I took part in the leadership of the organisation. But the Treasury then, as now, were very reluctant to help, and made it difficult for us to be able to spend money or to take the steps that would have met the altered circumstances. They are reluctant now to take the precautions that may be necessary to put some check on the robberies that are taking place. I was once travelling in a train from the West of England, in company with another Member of your Lordships' House, and I had a fair indication of how some of

863
these incidents occur. At the end of the first-class corridor, quite near the entrance to the dining saloons, there was something like a small safe on the floor, underneath which were mail bags. There was no fastening whatsoever. They were quite close to the window and to the door near which we sat. We were there for some hours, yet nobody came down during all that time to have a look at the bags. It would have been the easiest thing in the world for someone to open them or, with collusion from outside, to toss the bags through the window; a robbery could have taken place without any difficulty. That sort of thing should be stopped; but it quite definitely goes on at the present time. I took this matter up the other day with the Post Office people, and they admitted that that sort of thing is happening.
The noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, spoke about prison sentences. There is a tremendous amount of undue leniency in this direction. In the old days of which I have spoken conditions were bad; pay was low and conditions generally were very poor, yet the standard of honesty was high. Someone said to me recently that our national reputation for honesty has deteriorated simply because there are not so many policemen in the streets. There may be something in that. But in those days the sentence for such thefts was never less than seven years, even for a small case of theft in the Post Office. Nowadays you almost expect sometimes that a man will be patted on the back and told, "Go away and be a good boy, and don't offend in the future." I am certainly not going to advocate the infliction of heavy sentences, but at the moment we seem to be going too much in the other direction; and having regard to the state of affairs at present it looks as if a little of the older method might be necessary.
There is another point to which I wish to refer. There must surely be some return to the former method of recruitment. After all, in a service such as this, the Post Office being the custodian of the property of the public, it has a bounden duty to ensure, so far as possible, that the personnel it employs can be trusted. It has been forced at the present time, by pressure of circumstances, to take on
864
numbers of people of whom it has little or no knowledge, without making all the fullest investigations that it would normally make. Moreover, the age of entry has been altered. Above all, there is the question of the engagement in the Post Office service of a type of people that were not known in the old days. During the war years we found that there was much careless talking in public places, as a result of which information could be pieced together, to their advantage, by those who were concerned, and that is one of the dangers we suffer under present conditions. I suggest to the Postmaster General, with the greatest friendliness (and I am still speaking as one who is jealous of the good name of the postal service) that all possible steps should be taken to overcome this problem. If the Treasury stand in the way, I am sure that the noble Earl has only to come to either House with the certainty that they will take the necessary steps to give him all support possible.
I do not want to exaggerate in any way the situation which exists, and which we all deplore. I believe that it will pass, as it has on other occasions. It is, as I have said, a result of the terrific upheaval we have endured and the general malaise, and of the collapse of moral principles including honesty. These are things which we have to work out. We must give the Postmaster General, in his difficult job, all the support we can, and we must not do anything to make the genuine and honest members of the staff feel that they are in any way under suspicion or that there is any lack of confidence in them. We must give them every help, and hope that they will co-operate to the utmost with those responsible for the administration of the service.
5.38 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, I feel myself very fortunate in having to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, who has been a personal friend of mine, though not a political one, for many years. I think I am expressing the views of all your Lordships when I say that we have listened with delight to his reminiscences of the good, or bad, old days—I am not sure which: he seemed to hover between the two. I am particularly pleased to follow him to-day, because on a previous occasion I had the honour to follow him in a debate

865
when he attacked the Dean of Canterbury—with such effect that the Dean has not since made a single Communist speech from the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral.
I want to keep your Lordships for two or three minutes and follow a custom which prevailed in another place when I first became a Member (it has not always been followed there, or here, in your Lordships' House) of taking up a point made by a previous speaker. I agree that this is a general question and not a particular one. If I make one criticism of Lord Lucan's speech, it is that he seemed to suggest that this was a particular question. It is, in fact, a general one. The noble Lord, Lord Ammon, is quite right, in my opinion, in saying that there is a general malaise (I think was the word he used) in the country which is responsible for crime of all sorts. In fact, as a distinguished man, not a member of your Lordships' House, said to me the other day, the real fault with the people of this country is that a portion of them, not the whole of them, have ceased to follow the Ten Commandments, and especially have they ceased to have any regard for the Eighth Commandment. I think that what the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, has said is true, though it is not a subject that one can pursue on this occasion: that it is a question whether the leniency of some sentences does not make the position worse.
I think, therefore, that this is a general problem, and the point which we have to consider this afternoon is whether any additional steps need to be taken. As has been instanced by two of my noble friends on this side of the House, the problem is really not such a large one: it is a matter of only two bags out of a million. The question is whether any special steps ought to be taken. I do not think a security service that would cost a great deal of money is needed in the Post Office. I was not quite clear what the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, meant by that. I thought he hinted that there should be some form of security service which should inquire into the bona fides of members of the Post Office. Perhaps I do him an injustice in saying that. I do not think it is necessary.
I suggest that two things should be done. First—and it is easier for a Back Bencher to say this than it is for the
866
Postmaster General, though I feel that he would agree with me in regard to it—I think that the railways should do more to protect the mails in their care. It is their responsibility. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, on that point and I would go further and say that the situation on some main line stations is scandalous. No one is in charge of mail bags or people's luggage. No other country in the world has the system that we find on British Railways. A porter puts private luggage or mail bags in the train, and anyone can walk among them and take them away. That was all very well in the days when we had a high reputation for honesty, but when we no longer have that reputation it is very dangerous. Another point is a "King Charles's head" of mine—I have referred to it both here and in another place—and that is, to try to wake up the public, the Government and the local authorities of this country to the fact that we are in a position of extreme danger because the police force is so undermanned. It is a terrible situation that, in this great city of London, with a bigger population to look after than ever before the war, the police are 4,000 under strength. It is all very well for us to get up and complain and ask why mail bags are being stolen. What we need to do is to bring the pressure of public opinion to bear upon the question of how we are to get more police. I do not want to speak any longer, but I should like to say, as a new recruit to this House, that I think it has been a useful debate, and we are looking forward to what the Postmaster General has to say.
5.44 p.m.
THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (EARL DE LA WARR): My Lords, I think we all agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Winterton, has just said: that this has been a most interesting and valuable debate. I should also like to echo his words that I ant glad, as a comparatively new recruit to the Post Office, to follow that great veteran of the Post Office, Lord Ammon. We all enjoyed his speech very much. I am particularly grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for putting down this Motion, and for the manner in which he moved it. He put certain rather critical questions—but why not? We all know that the country is

867
worried about this matter, and it is much better to be clear and open upon it. One of the main reasons for worry is that it is not only a matter of the material value of the losses that are being inflicted on the public; the whole question of public confidence in the Royal Mail is involved. The mail of this country is one of the very foundations of our social and business life. Therefore, I regard it as my first duty to maintain that confidence. not only by ensuring that the Royal Mail is safe, but, almost equally important, by ensuring that it is felt to be safe.
The public cannot possibly decide whether to have continued confidence in the mail unless they know the facts. That is why I ventured the other day to put out certain figures, some of them not quite so complete as I should like to give your Lordships to-day. I start by making this assertion, and making it with all the strength at my command: that the safety of the mail is not decreasing. Losses are not increasing, nor is it true to say, as I have heard it said, that it is easy to get away with robbery of mail and that few people are caught. Some of the figures I am going to use have already been referred to this afternoon. I ask your Lordships to forgive me if I repeat them, because I want to put them on official record as coming from the Minister who is responsible for the conduct of the post. If some of the figures I am about to give are rather less alarming than the prominence which has recently been given to this subject may seem to indicate, I beg your Lordships to believe that I want in no way to be-little the gravity of the problem. But if the public are to judge, they are entitled to the facts, and all the facts, whether those facts be good or bad.
Incidentally, it is not only the public who should have those facts. I was grateful for what one or two noble Lords have said about the effect of publicity upon the criminal world. I want to give facts and figures which will not only be reassuring to the public but will bring it home to the criminal world that the Post Office is not quite such "easy money" as some statements which have lately been made may suggest. I have heard that it was stated the other day in another place that postal losses had increased since this Government came into office. It is
868
utter rubbish to think that criminals care what particular Government is in office; but, in order to make it clear that this is not in any way a matter of Governments or of Party politics, I want to point out that the figures I am about to give and which show a steady decline of losses are taken over six years, and that the decline started under the ægis of my predecessor.
What are the facts and figures of the situation? It is our duty to undertake the collection, transport and delivery of registered mail worth well over £2,000 million a year. The average compensation we have paid out during the last six years has been £71,000. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, has asked me not to give round figures, and he also spoke of "round phrases." However, he must forgive me; I really cannot take him into every item of postal loss over the last five or six years. When dealing with a question of policy, we must deal in what are necessarily rather general figures. The figures that your Lordships have already heard this afternoon are correct. In 1947 the Post Office lost 1,200 mail bags—that is, three bags per million. Last year 720 mail bags were lost, or two per million. During the same period—here again the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked me to be as specific as I could; therefore I am going to give him the figures—losses of and from registered letters fell from 11,000 to 7,000, and registered parcels from 6,900 to 2,300.
The noble Earl asked which incidents were violent and which were not. I am afraid that whilst I can give him the figures about incidents, it becomes a subtle point as to whether or not violence has been used in a robbery. Moreover, it would involve making an examination of old records, a task which would be difficult. I will give him the incidents, but it is difficult to divide them up as between the railways and our own vans because of the number of undiscovered crimes, and we are not entirely clear about the source of loss. I think I am right, however, in saying that recent losses on the railways about which we are fairly sure amounted to 29. I can be a little more specific on the question of losses on the road but, again, I cannot always say whether they were with or without violence. Perhaps the noble Earl would not press me in regard to that matter.

869
There were 30 incidents in 1947, 13 in 1950, and 9 in 1953. The whole tendency is downwards. I mention only some of the figures, because it complicates the question to give too many. So far this year there have been three incidents about which your Lordships have recently read.
One last point to which I would call your Lordships' attention is the fact that there has been a reduction in value in the losses of our registered letters and parcels. This has gone steadily down over the last six years. I was particularly glad that the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, gave the figures of convictions. Your Lordships will remember that I said that just over 700 bags were lost last year. Although one cannot point to a particular number of arrests or of bags lost in a particular year, nevertheless these figures are related: whereas 720 bags were lost, 457 people were caught last year for robbery of the mail, I hope your Lordships will desire to join with me in congratulating the police, aided of course by our own investigation branch, for the very considerable success of their activities lately. I welcome the opportunity of assuring the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, of the close collaboration that exists, when necessary, between the police, the railway police (where the loss concerns the railway) and our own investigation branch. I have inquired as closely as I could into the question of the alleged jealousies that exist between the two forces, but I confess that I can find no evidence at all in that direction: on the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence of very close collaboration. The noble Earl asked me also about insurance. As it happens, only recently my Department were told by an important firm of transit insurers who deal, amongst other things, with many of our consignments, that in their experience postal transit is as safe as any other, and that if it were not so insurance companies would have raised their premiums, but they have not done so and are not thinking of doing so.
The figures I have given your Lordships certainly show a decrease, but I want to pause on this point and to say that the fact that: the figures are decreasing is no reason at all for complacency or for thinking that things are entirely satisfactory. In my view—it would be monstrous if this were not my view—
870
any loss of mail matters. It was probably an unfortunate phrase which was used by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, but certainly I should associate myself with the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, in saying that I did not much like the noble Earl's reference to no one worrying about an odd bag being lost. I worry very much about an odd bag. But with these figures before me, I should not he doing my duty if I allowed myself to be stampeded into spending public money on remedies which I knew perfectly well would cost many millions of pounds and would save, if the remedies were successful, only a very small amount in thousands of pounds. When talking about the Post Office we must remember that we are talking about an organisation which handles other people's money. Noble Lords have referred to the vastness of our operations—the fact that we have 24,000 post offices all over the country, that we have over 10,000 vans traversing every lane and by-lane and travelling, as the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, said quite truly, over 170 million miles a year. Thousands of trains and railway stations are concerned. It would be easy for me, in order to stave off public criticism for the moment, to adopt some of the suggestions that have been made, and at the end of it to have made nothing more than a gesture, and a very expensive gesture, in relation to the public.
I think the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Ammon, asked me the same question in regard to financial 1imitations imposed by the Treasury. I can tell them that during the last few years I have spent large sums on security, and on no occasion has any question been raised from the Treasury; in fact, in regard to the larger part of my expenditure I have not had to go to the Treasury. No honest remedy that is likely to be effective or that has any reasonable relation to the losses involved would ever, for financial reasons, be turned down by me—and it is a question for myself rather than for the Treasury.
My Lords, it is my duty to deal with realities, and one reality that we must face is, as many noble Lords have said, that there is now more crime in this country than there was before the war, and that, in common with other private citizens and business organisations, the Royal Mail is having is share of suffering

871
from that crime wave. But, having said that, I hasten to add that the public are entitled to an assurance from me that the postal service is making every effort to adjust itself to these unhappy conditions. I take this opportunity of giving that very solemn assurance. But what I will not do, because I cannot, is to promise immunity. With the number of criminal gangs and thugs that are going about today, it is inevitable that we shall have more attacks. We who are responsible for the mail feel our responsibilities very deeply, and we shall do our best to repel and throw off these attacks by the precautions which we take. But it would be most dishonest and most foolish of me to suggest, in view of the state of lawlessness which now exists, that for some subtle reason the Post Office alone is likely to be chosen to be left immune from the attacks of criminals.
What have we done so far? Since the war—I stress "since the war," because it is not just a matter of the last two years—the Post Office has been concentrating its efforts on security, and all the steps that have been taken to that end have been taken in the closest touch with the railway authorities and with the police. I am afraid that for very obvious reasons I must speak in rather general terms. Criminals, as well as your Lordships, can read. We have overhauled our safeguards; we have considered all sorts of possibilities, including some of those to which Lord Balfour of Inchrye has referred—namely, types of warnings such as radio warnings and so on. Your Lordships will not expect me at this juncture to say anything more under that head. Not only have we overhauled our security precautions, but we have taken strong steps to impress them on all our staff. We have doubled the strength of the Post Office Investigation Branch, and we have worked particularly closely with the railways on improving precautions at stations. Incidentally, very large sums have been spent in this connection. I should like to refer particularly to a matter which Lord Ammon, and, I think, Lord Winterton also, mentioned. There has been a good increase in the provision of locked cages in corridor trains on the main railway lines. The noble Earl, Lord Lucan, asked me whether I was satisfied with what is being done in that direction. I
872
would say that until the task is completed, I do not think anyone could be satisfied. But I am satisfied that a great deal is being done, and I am taking every step that I can to see that these operations are being speeded up.
After the great robbery of 1952, I appointed a special expert committee to investigate conditions surrounding that robbery, and extensive steps have been taken as the result of their considerations. But I came, at a very early moment, to the conclusion that it was most important that the committee should continue in being as a standing committee, because this is a continuing problem. As the result of their activities, all the arrangements at railway stations have been reviewed and looked at again. One particular point that may interest your Lordships is that, in consequence of the committee's work, all the routes that were followed by what we call our "high value packet service" were examined. As the direct outcome of that, it was decided that there were strong security reasons against the Redhill to East Grinstead route. So it was that high value packets, which doubtless the robbers were looking for, were not in the mail which was taken in the recent robbery. There was some registered correspondence, some of which has been recovered. But there were no packets of high value. One does not want to build too much on one event, but I think that was definitely an encouraging circumstance.
What I must remember all the time—and, indeed, we must all keep it in mind—is that there is no winning shot in this game. We are up against skilful gangs who plan ahead. I am not going to tell your Lordships how much I think this problem arises from the operation of skilful gangs and how much from thuggery—I think there are elements of both. But there are skilful gangs at work, who are capable of planning ahead; and of one thing we can be sure—they are going to think up new methods and new plans. In these matters, the price of security, certainly, is eternal vigilance. Nor must we concentrate our energies only on the very valuable consignments in the mail. I can assure your Lordships that we are not doing so. Naturally, our energies were first concentrated in that direction, but steps have

873
been taken, and will continue to be taken, to strengthen precautions for the normal mail vans.
There are two incidents to which I should have liked to refer. The first is the Regent Street incident; but I am afraid that I must not deal with that, for arrests have been made, and the whole matter is now sub judice. With regard to the Walthamstow affair—to which reference was made, I believe, by the noble Earl, Lord Lucan—the position was quite clear. The van in question was a special Post Office remittance van, and it should not have been left unattended, Instructions were disobeyed. It is a question of breach of regulations, and all I can say to your Lordships is that suitable action will be taken as and when every fact has been completely clarified.
I think those two incidents lead me to my last point, which has already been referred to by two or three of your Lordships. I refer to the feeling that some of these crimes indicate that a great deal too much inside information and inside knowledge is possessed by the perpetrators. It is true, as Lord Lucan has said, that hundreds and thousands of men have passed through the Post Office and know our methods. We employ from 100,000 to 150,000 temporary workers every Christmas. We cannot pretend that our methods are a great secret. The postal staff comprises over 160,000 men and women. I do not believe that anyone running any organisation, even if it were a great deal smaller than that, would pretend for a moment that it had no weak links in it. Certainly I do not. But I assure your Lordships that the matter is closely present in my mind. I would ask the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, and the noble Lord, Lord Ammon—who, I know, are greatly interested in this point, and who have asked me one or two rather definite questions about it—to allow me to leave the matter at that, and to accept my firm assurance that the matter is very much in my mind.
But if I say nothing on that point, I want to say with great force that the backing which we have received from the postal staff generally in meeting this present challenge—and it is a very great challenge—has been admirable. I know how deeply they will appreciate a great deal of what has been said in your Lord-
874
ships' House to-day. The strength of a regiment runs parallel with its morale. Your Lordships will forgive my speaking with a certain amount of feeling on this point. I do not believe that anybody can become associated with the Post Office without having a deep and (judging from the way in which the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has spoken to-day) abiding feeling for that organisation. These postmen, tens of thousands of them, are doing a good, steady job for us day after day.
By all means press for a continuance of my efforts and an increase of them. Do not spare me, as the Minister, if you feel that the measures I have outlined are insufficient. I earnestly hope that noble Lords, if they have ideas on particular problems, and fee] that there are steps which might be taken, will place them before me. I hope that the House will allow me—and from the speeches delivered to-day I believe that I can take it for granted that; your Lordships will allow me—to give a message of confidence to the men who, under trying conditions, are doing a difficult job, and doing it not entirely without success, as the figures I have ventured to give to your Lordships show. There is no "medicine for the troops" better than a message of encouragement and understanding.
6.12 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords, I am sure that we have all listened with interest, and certainly not without sympathy, to the speech we have just heard from the noble Earl the Postmaster General. It is perfectly clear that during recent years Her Majesty's Post Office has been in an exceptional measure a victim of the activities of organised criminal gangs. As the Postmaster General himself has suggested, it may be that the Post Office has suffered also from foe activities of individuals following in the wake of the organised gangs, very much as jackals are believed to follow in the steps of marauding lions and tigers. But clearly, in the main, the Post Office has had to reckon with gangs of criminals, organised, cunning. resourceful, clever and determined.
But there is nothing really very new in that situation. From my ten years as permanent head of the Home Office, I can

875
remember cases when in various places—Sheffield, Cardiff and Glasgow, for example—gangs of criminals operated with an intensity and to an extent that caused great public alarm. In the course of time, by appropriate measures, peace and confidence were restored. Now no doubt, it is the job of the Post Office to take, and no doubt it has taken, all sorts of measures within its own sphere—protective and warning devices (various kinds have been suggested by my noble friend Lord Balfour of Inchrye), sudden and frequent changes of route and changes of timing. But that sort of thing is by no means the whole story. In this matter I am absolutely convinced that noshing can ever take the place of steady, patient and unspectacular police action.
In this connection, I do not think there is any reason for misgiving, such as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, expressed, as regards the distribution of the responsibilities of the police of this country among a number of different forces. I believe that, on the whole, co-ordination for dealing with this and other forms of criminal activity is very good indeed. If I may be reminiscent for a moment, I have had personal experience of the suppression of conspiracies of violent criminals in various places, in Ireland and in India, and the experience is the same everywhere. It is by good, sound police action, with adequate information, that the forces of law and order get the better of those criminal activities. In this matter success is cumulative, and cumulative in quite a spectacular way. As the police begin to have success in the apprehension of criminals, suspicion is sown in the minds of the criminals themselves. Information begins to come in. Men begin to suspect that their associates are "giving the show away," and in the end, very often, "give the show away" themselves. To my mind, that is the line on which this disturbing development of the post-war years has to be attacked.
I do not know, but perhaps some of your Lordships may have suffered personally from the activities of violent criminals, "cat" burglars, smash-and-grab raiders, whatever they may be. It
876
is bad enough to lose one's own property in that way; it is even worse to lose valuable property with which one may be entrusted, and it would be just too bad if one were to be pilloried after that had happened. So far as that is concerned, I am sure that my noble friend the Postmaster General has absolutely no reason to complain of the tone of the speeches to which we have listened this afternoon in the course of an interesting and useful debate. I have no doubt whatever that the improvements which the Postmaster General has been able to record will continue, and that in the end we shall re-establish the reputation for honesty and good order of which in the past we have had every reason to be proud.
6.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, it only remains for me to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate this afternoon. In particular, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, for the speech he has just made, in which he put more clearly than I could the point which was in my mind, and which I am afraid I failed to get over to the noble Earl, the Postmaster General—namely, that the threat was from gangs and not from casual criminals. I was glad that the noble Viscount mentioned that, because to my mind it tends to refute those noble Lords who, if I may so describe it, tried to "ride off" on "the crime wave" and to put everything down to what they consider to be the deterioration of morals at the present day. This is no moment at which to raise that subject.
I am sure that gangs are the problem, and that is what led me to use the phrase about the mail bags which the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, misunderstood. I still think that the public are not deeply concerned with trivial crime; it is the big scale, spectacular, successful crime that has caused the present acute anxiety. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in his reply, although he was not so specific in his figures as I should have liked, gave a number of encouraging facts. In

877
particular, I should like to congratulate him on the first success, one might say, of the campaign which diverted a high value package from one route to a less vulnerable route. I should like to endorse what the noble Earl said about the spirit and integrity of all grades in the Post Office, and I am sure that all your Lordships send your best wishes to the Post Office for a successful conclusion of the present campaign. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE
THE LORD CHANCELLORacquainted the House that Her Majesty had (by Commission) revoked certain Letters Patent and had appointed the Chairman of Committees for the time being, the Earl of Drogheda, the Earl of Clarendon, the Viscount Mersey, the Earl of Listowel, the Earl Jowitt, the Earl Fortescue, the Lord Ammon, the Viscount Wimbome, the Lord. Teynham, the Lord Merthyr, the Lord Blackford, the Lord Kershaw, the Lord O'Hagan, the Lord Terrington, the Lord Shepherd, the Earl of Buck ingha m-shire, the Viscount Hall, the Lord Rea, the Lord Milner of Leeds, Speakers of the House in the absence of the Lord Chancellor: The said Commission was read.