Lords Sitting of 8 May 1958

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD MERTHYR on the Woolsack.
Prayers
  UNIVERSITY OF LEICESTER BILL
  Read 3a, and passed.

  TRADE WITH CHINA
  3.6 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, having regard to the fact (1) that on 28th April, 1953, they stated in this House that it would be reasonable to say that the restriction upon strategic goods which was put upon China as long as warlike activities were pursued in Korea cannot possibly be extended to any general overall peace plan stretching far and away beyond Korea, and that on 3rd February, 1954, they stated that the United Nations resolution of May, 1951, relating to the embargo on the export of strategic materials to China, was adopted in order to provide additional measures to be employed to meet aggression in Korea, and that its scope had not been widened so as to cause it to become operative in relation to hostilities in any other territories outside Korea and Korean waters; (2) that in the stated views of President Eisenhower and Sir Anthony Eden the war in Korea has ended; (3) that all United Kingdom troops have been withdrawn from Korea; (4) that so long as the China embargo continues, China is driven more and more for the capital goods necessary for her industrialisation plans to the Soviet bloc and non "Cocom" countries to the long-term disadvantage of British traders; and further, having regard to the urgent necessity of increasing the volume of British exports in world markets, Her Majesty's Government will initiate such
  100
  steps as may be necessary to bring about the termination of the out-of-date China embargo.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF GOSFORD): My Lords, as the noble Viscount has already been told both by myself and by other Ministers on the previous occasions on which he has asked similar Questions, although hostilities in Korea have indeed long since ceased, the objective of the United Nations has not yet been achieved. These controls are now under review by the Co-ordinating Committee in Paris, and I regret that I am unable to say anything further at present.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to thank the noble Earl. Is he aware that his reference to the objective of the United Nations is a red herring which was produced by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in an attempt to stymie me three years ago but did not do so? May I ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that the Democratic Party in California have come out in favour Of trade with China? Is he further aware that at some time or other the United States will herself take the initiative, if we do not, in removing the China embargo? And are we to wait until the United States chooses its own good time to remove the embargo and to launch a concentrated attack on the China market at the expense of British industrialists whom she has been hamstringing in their efforts to trade with China for the last half-a-dozen years?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: Indeed, I am fully aware of the three points on which the noble Viscount has commented. As to the last one, about American unilateral action, I am afraid I cannot in any way go along with the noble Viscount. The fifteen nations which comprise "Cocom" have freely entered into this agreement. America is one of them. I think they will go along together and that no decision will be taken by any of the countries without the other countries' agreement.
  LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, is it not about time that we called a spade a spade, and stated unequivocally that it is just silly nonsense to continue

  101
  treating China as a naughty child and thereby driving her more and more into the arms of Russia?
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I ask the noble Earl whether it is not a fact that many countries were forced to place this embargo upon China by the American threat to withdraw much of their aid at that time? To what extent does the threat to withdraw aid still apply, and how does it influence the position of Her Majesty's Government?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, again, I do not think that I can go along with the noble Lord. As I have said already, the agreement was entered into freely by the fifteen nations as the result of a United Nations Motion. I have also stated that these controls are now under review by the Committee in Paris, and it is hoped that their deliberations will come to a conclusion during the course of the first half of this year.
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, with all respect to the Minister, he has not answered the essential part of the Quest ion addressed to him by my noble friend. The Question asks whether
  "Her Majesty's Government will initiate such steps as may be necessary to bring about the termination of the out-of-date China embargo."
  It is true, as the Minister has told us, that there are fifteen nations involved in this agreement, but, as I have said before, the agreement will go on until one of the fifteen nations takes the initiative to get an agreement to end the embargo. What we are pressing upon Her Majesty's Government is that they should take the initiative with the other fourteen nations involved, to end the embargo.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, it appears to me that I am getting a little repetitive. I have already stated that this matter is under active consideration in Paris at the moment, and our representative is there.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, what does a hack phrase like "under active consideration" mean? The noble Earl has been asked a plain question—will the British delegate suggest an end to this agreement? Can we have an answer to that?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: No.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, may I, for the last time, ask whether there has to be unanimous agreement in this Committee before we can take away this embargo?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, my answer "No" meant that I did not intend to give an answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, if he will forgive me. The answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is that the Committee has to come to an agreement like any other Committee. I regret to say that I cannot give a definite reply to the question about unanimity, for fear that I mislead your Lordships, and I would prefer to have notice of it.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Yes, but this is a Parliamentary Question to which the noble Earl is replying. I do not know what he meant exactly by "No". I asked him whether our delegation would take certain steps, and he said, "No". Did he mean that they would not take steps, or that he did not want to answer me?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, I think the noble Viscount ended his remark by asking, could he have an answer? I said "No".
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is to say that the noble Earl, as representing the Foreign Office and standing for this policy of embargo, declines in this House to answer questions relating to the embargo.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, may I, with the permission of the House, ask the noble Earl whether he is aware that he has not given any answer to the Question whether Her Majesty's Government will take steps. The noble Earl has not given me any answer.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: None whatever.
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government want to do as much trade as—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE,: America will let them!
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: —as is possible. These controls were put on for a strategic reason and that strategic reason still holds. Nevertheless, as

  103
  have already said (and I cannot say which particular country, if any, initiated this review) these controls are now being reviewed in Paris. I am not in any position to say anything further, however many questions your Lordships like to ask.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, if the noble Earl means that Her Majesty's Government are not prepared to take the initiative in this matter, why cannot he say so?
  LORD REA: My Lords, would it make it easier for the noble Earl if he were asked whether Her Majesty's Government would support some other country if it should take the initiative?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: My Lords, if these deliberations were not now going on in Paris there might be a question of someone taking the initiative, but the initiative has already been taken—
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: By whom?
  THE EARL OF GOSFORD: —and these controls are under active review in Paris.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, "under active review" does not mean taking an initiative. Has anybody in Paris suggested that the whole thing should go? That is the question before the House.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, is it not the case that the discussions in Paris are merely with a view to reviewing the list and not to ending the embargo as we are demanding?

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Home, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That Standing Order No. 35 be considered in order to its being dispensed with in respect of Monday next for the purpose of taking the Report stage of the Children Bill after the other Orders on that day.—(Earl Fortescue.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

  SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, it may be for your Lordships' convenience if I move these four Orders, all of which are in the usual form, together. I ask leave of the House to do so, unless any noble Lord wishes to say anything on any one of them, in which case, naturally, I will move them singly. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Orders made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending section one of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Borough of Port Talbot, the Urban District of Holsworthy, the Urban District of Newquay, and the Urban District of Sheringham, be approved.—(Lord Chesham.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FIRST OFFENDERS BILL
  3.18 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I do not make any apology for introducing this short and very simple Bill to the House and asking your Lordships to give it an uncontroversial Second Reading. The Bill comes from another place with the backing of representative Members of all three Parties. It was originally introduced by Sir George Benson who, as most noble Lords will know, is one of the most practical experts in questions of this kind. The Bill passed through its various stages in another place without any Division and it now comes to this House as a Bill unanimously supported in another place.
  Let me say at the very outset that the Bill interferes with the powers of nobody. It takes no powers away from benches of magistrates. If benches wish to inflict a sentence of imprisonment they will continue to be empowered to do so. All the Bill does is to ask benches of magistrates, in the case of adult first offenders, to give their reasons for a sentence of imprisonment and to say why they have not adopted one of the other alternatives. The Bill is founded upon a section of the Criminal Justice Act which adopted this procedure for juveniles. The result is very interesting. Without imposing any

  105
  obligation upon benches of magistrates the Act has had the effect of reducing sentences of imprisonment upon juveniles by no less than 60 per cent. I do not claim that this Bill, dealing with adults (the Bill deals with adult first offenders over the age of twenty-one), will have the same very notable effect. The convictions of adults for first offences for which sentences of imprisonment are imposed number between 5,000 and 6,000 a year. I would be on the cautious side and say that after the Bill is passed the reduction in prison sentences might be, say, about 1,000. But that is a number that need not be ignored.
  What, apart from the actual number, do we hope to get out of the Bill? Let me give the reasons as they occur to me, in ascending order of merit. First of all, I think that by calling the attention of benches of magistrates to the alternative forms of punishment we shall probably see less disparity between the sentences of one bench and those of another. The last thing in the world that I wish to do is to impose uniformity upon benches of magistrates. They rightly attach a great value, and so do the general public, to their independence. The Home Office has always been very careful not to attempt to impose uniformity of sentences. But within that consideration, it seems to me surprising that there is so great difference between one bench and another in the matter of sending first offenders to prison.
  Let me give noble Lords a single example. In Bootle, an urban industrial district, only 8 per cent. of the offenders who are liable for imprisonment are actually sent to prison, whereas in Worcester the proportion is no less than 44 per cent. It seems to me that a disparity of that kind wants explaining, and I am inclined to think that when magistrates are required, under this Bill, to give their reasons for sending first offenders to prison they will have brought to their attention the alternative forms of punishment, and in a great many cases they will adopt those alternatives rather than prison sentences. That is the first reason for this Bill.
  The second reason for the Bill—I do not put it too high; at the same time I do not ignore it—is that the Bill to some small extent reduces the pressure upon the prisons. I need not discuss to-day
  106
  the overcrowding in the prisons. We had a long debate on the subject a week ago. We had the very sinister figure given to us that no fewer than 4,300 prisoners are sleeping three in a cell. I imagine that a great many of those prisoners who are sleeping three in a cell will be those in local prisons, and it is in local prisons where almost all the sentences with which I am dealing in this Bill take effect. The result of that, quite apart from overcrowding, is that it does clutter up these local prisons. This number of short-sentence prisoners are sent to prison for a week or a fortnight, or perhaps a month. Noble Lords will see that in circumstances of that kind it is quite impossible to have anything serious in the way of training. It is impossible to have any kind of organised labour. There they are—here to-day, gone tomorrow; and it not only does the prisoners little or no good, but makes confusion in the prison organisation.
  On that account, the more we can reduce these short sentences the better it will certainly be for the prison administration; and I am inclined to think also that the better it will be for a great many of the prisoners. I believe myself that in a great many cases these short sentences do more harm than good. They accustom offenders to prison life and, particularly in local prisons, to a life in which scarcely anybody has anything to do. One of the great criticisms of our local prisons is that the present over-crowded conditions, with shortage of staff and so on, make it impossible to organise long shifts of work for the prison inmates. That being so, I am convinced that the more we can keep these petty offenders out of prison the better it will be. All that is proposed in this Bill is, as I say, not to impose any compulsion upon benches, but to call their attention to these facts and to insist that before they send a first offender to prison they should give their reasons and state them on the warrant of commitment.
  Noble Lords will see that that is quite a simple point and it is covered in this very short Bill. This is almost a one-clause Bill. Indeed, I propose at the Committee stage to make it even simpler: I am going to propose—and the undertaking was given in another place—that we should cut out of the scope of the Bill defaulters upon fines. I can go into

  107
  the question in detail upon the Committee stage, but let me say here and now that further consideration, both in the Home Office and outside, has shown that to include in this Bill defaulters upon fines would merely complicate its proceedings; and for no particular reason. Because in the case of the imposition of a fine it stands to reason that the bench have already carefully considered the question; they have considered the offender's circumstances, and so on, and it really would be a work of supererogation to ask them to give further reasons in the case of the defaulter who defaults upon his fine when the alternative is admittedly a prison sentence.
  That being so, with, as I say, the undertaking given in another place, and with the present view of the Home Office, I shall propose Amendments to omit from the Bill the provisions relating to defaulters upon fines. The result will be a very short Bill, of practically only one clause, stating what I have already stated: that, in the case of adult first offenders, if a sentence of imprisonment is imposed a reason should be given by the bench of magistrates as to why they have not adopted some alternative method. I have hopes that, although this is a comparatively small issue, it will help the work connected with prisons and crime, in which so many noble Lords are interested. It is fully in line with the general movement that is taking place in the country, and it is particularly in line with the work which the Prison Commissioners are attempting to do in the prisons. I hope therefore that, after these few remarks, noble Lords will be prepared to give the Second Reading of the Bill unanimous support and will help me to get the Bill through as soon as possible. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  3.31 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for the clear and persuasive way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this little Bill. Noble Lords on these Benches are in entire sympathy with his objective and believe, with him, that this Bill will carry out that objective. I think that the Howard
  108
  League for Penal Reform, with which the noble Viscount has been associated for a long time as its President, can claim a certain amount of kudos in respect of this Bill, in that the Bill was piloted through another place by the Chairman of the League's Executive Committee; and in your Lordships' House is going, I hope, to have an equally smooth passage under the pilotage of the noble Viscount. As one of the noble Viscount's Vice-Presidents, it gives me particular personal pleasure to support him this afternoon.
  The noble Viscount has deployed the arguments in favour of the Bill so persuasively that there does not remain much to say in support, and I can make my remarks very short. The noble Viscount has pointed out that the indirect effect of the Bill should be to relieve the pressure on the prisons. He did not put that aspect very high; but I am a little more optimistic about it than he is. In my experience, benches of magistrates in some parts of the country are apt to start by giving heavier sentences—of three, six or even twelve months. Obviously, if a good deal of that can be stopped, it will have an appreciable effect on emptying the prisons. But, of course, I do not think that that is the main reason for this Bill, which is good in itself.
  Over and over again, in debates on prison policy, members of what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, recently called the "prison debating society" have emphasised the criminal folly (as one might almost call it, in the great majority of cases), of sending first offenders to prison; and the noble Viscount has shown how, up and down the country, there are a number of benches who are only too apt to commit that criminal folly, as I regard it. Most chairmen of quarter sessions must have had the experience of dealing with criminals whose history has started with terms of imprisonment. Obviously, the noble Viscount is right when he said that a substantial number of people cannot be expected to spend some months in local prisons without running a grave risk of becoming corrupted. Other people can take a lesson, and come out and lead honest, respectable lives afterwards; but I have no doubt at all that a substantial proportion of these young people, if put on probation, would prove amenable to the educational influence and discipline of the probation officers, and afterwards would lead respectable lives.

  109
  So that if this Bill does have the effect, as I hope it will, of creating many more probation orders, it will undoubtedly be a good thing, because our experience of the probation system is that a substantial majority of lads, and even older men, for whom probation orders are made keep straight after the order has come to an end.
  Even if the Bill leads to the imposition of fines, instead of imprisonment, it may be a good thing. Curiously enough, the fine has been neglected of recent times. With a certain type of man a fine can be very effective, especially in a time of high employment, when large wages are being earned. I have had a number of cases in which the man involved has undertaken to make good damage he has done. In the discussion which goes on between the chairman of the bench and counsel for the defence (though such an undertaking is not actually made part of a probation order), a man may indicate that if a certain course is taken he will repay the money, or make good the damage. And I think that, on the whole, there have been satisfactory results from that type of understanding; and in the same way a fine can be more effective than a short prison sentence.
  The only argument that might be made against the Bill is that it might encourage a certain type of vicious person to have a "first bite", so to speak, hoping that, since magistrates will be required to think, at any rate, before sending him to prison, they will not do so. Obviously, there is a possibility of that, because there are persons who think these things out in advance—I have come across them—but the experience of the working of an analogous provision in the 1948 Act does not support this view. I have not come across arty suggestion that the younger offender, who is just as capable of thinking this out in advance as the older man, has behaved in this way. Of course, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, imprisonment will still be possible, and in a number of cases no doubt will still have to be imposed, so that the gamble which already exists—because, after all, there is a good chance of a first offender being put on probation—will not be much more in the favour of the man than it has been in recent years. So that, so far as I can see, there is no real argument against this measure. It is likely to produce good results, and I am sure
  110
  that it will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I should like to say two or three words in support of this Bill. Speaking from my now long experience as a magistrate, I doubt whether it is always realised what a shattering experience it is for a first offender to find himself brought into court and charged with an offence. That man has to go back to his normal life amongst his family and friends with this stigma—for it is a stigma—on his shoulders, something which he has to live down; and in many cases such a shattering experience is in itself such a punishment that I doubt whether it is wise or right to add a sentence to the punishment which the man already feels he has suffered. In fact, I think that in many cases the placing of a sentence upon that man is likely to undo, to some extent, the effects of the experience he has gone through in being brought into court and charged with an offence. That has been a matter which has greatly impressed itself upon my mind and has led me to think that in a great number of cases the infliction of a further punishment on a man is more likely to do him harm than to do him good.
  3.40 p.m.
  LORD REA: My Lords, I rise to support warmly this small but excellent Bill and to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for having brought it forward. It seems to be based on humanitarianism and common sense. As regards common sense, I think we must all pay great attention to those whose experience—and I refer particularly to the Prison Commissioners—shows that a short sentence (the normal sentence for a first offender), really does no good. We shall not agree probably about what is the intention of imprisonment, but that it should be only retributory does not seem desirable. In the nursery of to-day the first offender is seldom punished outright anti immediately. There are two schools of thought: one, that first offenders need a quick, sharp and painful penalty attached, and others who would treat them more generously as the dog is treated: that a first bite is not too important. It seems to me that to extend the present benefit, which already applies to those under 21, to those over 21 is

  111
  only logical. The first offence can be committed equally at the age of 20 or 80. I beg to support the Bill.
  3.41 p.m.
  LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I find myself in the happy position in this matter that I agree completely with almost every word that has been said by everyone; consequently I am happy to be able to add my voice to that of my noble friend Lord Templewood in commending the Bill to your Lordships. It is not a spectacular Bill; it is limited in scope and in purpose, and it will solve none of the problems of penal reform which were before your Lordships last month. However, it is a useful measure which, in particular, implements one of the recommendations made by the Home Secretary's Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in their Report Alternatives to Short Terms of Imprisonment.
  I should not like it to be thought that I stand here as an advocate, so to speak, of undue leniency in these matters. We are all aware of the gravity of the situation, and certainly I should not agree with this measure if I thought that in any way it implied a decrease of gravity of the punishment that would overtake those who commit various forms of misdemeanour and crime.
  As my noble friend Lord Templewood said—and this is the main reason why I am glad to support the Bill—the Bill does not seek to deprive magistrates' courts of their power to send first offenders to prison. It only requires them before doing so to consider fully whether any of the other courses available to them would be appropriate and, if they decide that imprisonment is the only proper sentence, to formulate their reasons. In no way is the Bill intended to prevent magistrates' courts from sending first offenders to prison in those cases (and this also was agreed by the Advisory Council) where imprisonment is the only possible sentence; cases, for instance, of frauds perpetrated over a long period, or of flagrant breaches of trust. The effect of the Bill is to obviate sentences of imprisonment which are unnecessary.
  I think, too, that there are other reasons for supporting the Bill. Some of these have already been referred to and. therefore, I can be brief in dealing with them.
  112
  We have to remember that, except in exceptional circumstances where the offender is convicted of a series of offences of which at least two are indictable, a magistrates' court cannot impose a term of imprisonment of more than six months, and a large proportion of the sentences imposed are in fact of three months or less. The Advisory Council analysed the people who went to prison in 1954 with sentences of six months or less. Roughly, 90 per cent. of them had been sent there by magistrates' courts: about half of the total had sentences of three months or less, while a quarter had five weeks or less.
  Some mention has been made of the subject of the value of going to prison at all. I think it would be true to say that most of us regard a prison sentence certainly in the light of a deterrent, and most of us regard it also as an opportunity for reform, which is possibly as important as the deterrent aspect. I should agree with my noble friend Lord Templewood on this subject. As has been pointed out, a short sentence will probably have no reformative value, because it is too short for anything effective to be done, and if it is to be a deterrent the sting is likely to be taken out of that for the future.
  I think it is right, as the noble Lord, Lord Winster, mentioned, that there is certainly reason to think that imprisonment is not generally necessary to ensure that a first offender keeps out of trouble from then on. A large proportion of adult first offenders do not come before the courts again; and there is reason to think that that proportion does not vary greatly, no matter what sort of punishment or penalty they have received. I think that suggests, as the noble Lord said, that for the majority the shock and shame of having to go before the court at all is really the major part of both punishment and deterrent. If, then, a case can be made, as it has been, for thinking that the importance of a prison sentence may be of doubtful value in certain cases, I believe we should be entitled to consider also the question of relative costs. Imprisonment is an expensive process. It costs £6 11s. a week to keep a man in prison. While it is not possible to produce the comparative figures of what it costs for a man to be on probation for a week, it cannot be

  113
  anything like that; and, of course, the cost of imposing a fine is very small.
  My noble friend Lord Templewood mentioned the overcrowded state of the prisons, and I should like to say a word or two on that subject. It is true that while the number of prisoners who go to prison with a sentence of six months or less is fairly large, the amount of space they occupy is relatively small. The figures for 1954 are that the daily average of those serving sentences of less than six months was 1,900, compared with the total daily average population of prisoners of 19,000. But short-term prisoners impose some strain on the administration of local prisons because of their rapid turnover. I think it would be fair to take up the point to this extent: that in view of the present overcrowding any measure that will result in a reduction of unnecessary sentences is desirable. I would agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that we cannot expect a decrease of anything like 60 per cent., and I do not think I should like to hazard any form of estimate, or guess by how many the number of sentences of imprisonment might be reduced. In many parts of the country, in fact, the Bill will merely give the force of law to what is already the practice of the justices. But if it does no more than bring to the attention of justices everywhere the importance of considering with the greatest care all the information available to them about a first offender before they take the serious step of sending him to prison, it will have served a useful purpose. I am happy to commend it to your Lordships.
  3.52 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I want to say one word on this Bill because I took part for the first time (I am a probationer myself) in our last debate on prisons. On that occasion I made a strong point of the fact that it was desirable to concentrate even more on keeping as many people as possible out of prison than on what was the main topic of the debate, the provision of more prisons. I thought there were a great many people who were sentenced to prison who need not have been, and, of course, I would include first offenders as chief among them. Therefore, I welcome the Bill.
  There are some words here which attracted my attention, and that is that
  114
  magistrates should not commit people to prison unless the court is of opinion that no other method of dealing with them is appropriate. There are very few alternative methods of dealing with people. One case which came before the courts the other day, about which we all read, was of a person who was alleged to have driven into a boy with a car. One feels that society ought to mark its disapproval of an action of that kind, and the woman in question was sentenced to prison. If there had been some other method of dealing with that case, I myself should have preferred it. But what is the alternative method of dealing with a case of that kind? A heavy fine? In most cases the fine is limited by Statute, and the normal fine is inadequate. I do not know that anything can be done on the matter by this Bill; it is a question of general revision of our penal laws. But there are cases where a much more stringent alternative would be suitable. For instance, a much heavier fine, a period of having to report daily, or something of that kind, would be much more appropriate than imprisonment.
  I thought I would make that point, because in many cases there is no satisfactory alternative to mark the disapproval of society. That is one of the justifications for sentencing people to prison—to mark the disapproval of society. Of course, with a great many people that is an important influence—not so much the imprisonment itself, but the fact that society has expressed its disapproval of their action by some definite means. As I say, I do not think anything can be done about it in this Bill. I support the Bill, but we have to do a lot more thinking before we can regard our method of dealing with offences and crimes as really satisfactory.
  3.55 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the Bill has received such a favourable reception that I have scarcely anything to answer. But let me, in a sentence or two, say a word first of all about what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has just said. I agree with him that a great many of our sentences might well need to be revised, but that is a much wider issue than the issue of this Bill. All that this Bill attempts to do is to draw the attention of magistrates to the

  115
  alternatives as they exist to-day, and to ask them to take them into account. The case which the noble Lord quoted just now was a very bad case. My own view, for what it is worth, is that the sentence of imprisonment was perfectly justified, and I am glad to see that there has been no interference with it.
  Apart from the particular case, I think one of the merits of this Bill is that it leaves a latitude to the magistrates. I am an old member and former Chairman of the Magistrates' Association—I see the present Chairman to-day on the Wool-sack—and both he and I have noticed with great interest and satisfaction the increasing attention that magistrates all over the country are taking in their duties. It has been most remarkable since the end of the last war—progress that is, I believe, mainly due to the work of the Magistrates' Association. But whether that be the case or not, 99 benches out of 100 are taking far greater interest in these questions than they did in my early days. When I was still at Oxford I was made a magistrate of the County of Norfolk. Everything was cut and dried, and there were none of these consultations about alternative penalties, and so on. The merit of the Bill is that it leaves this judgment to the magistrates. I believe that by doing that it will tend to raise their standards. It will make them think, and when they come to think we shall not see that kind of disparity between one sentence and another that we have seen in the cases I have quoted this afternoon.
  I must not trespass upon the patience of the House, particularly when your Lordships have given the Bill such a favourable reception. Let me say, in conclusion, that the wider question of deterrence raised by the noble Lord. Lord Chesham, is a terribly complicated one, and I am not going to attempt to say anything at all about it. The longer I have been interested in these penal questions, the more inscrutable many of them seem to be and the greater the danger of generalising about this or that particular phase or this or that detail. But I am sure that none of these problems need be raised by this Bill. It is a small step, but it is a step in the right direction.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  LAND POWERS (DEFENCE) BILL
  4.0 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this Bill, which I beg to put before your Lordships to be read a second time, might well be termed a modest Bill, but it has far-reaching effects upon the rights and liberties of the individual. I am sure, therefore, that your Lordships would wish me to go through this Bill as carefully as I may, making a synopsis of the clauses as they come and, with your Lordships' permission, where clauses fulfil the same purpose I will take them together. It is a very technical Bill. Some of the provisions could be argued about by the most learned gentlemen, and I ask your Lordships' indulgence should I trip over some of the effects of this Bill, being but an amateur. But I have now learned the reasons for those officious signs which are put up in manœuvre areas and which say, "Troops—Keep out", just at the time when, in a lull in an exercise, it would be most convenient to obtain some refreshment for oneself.
  My Lords, this Bill represents a further step that Her Majesty's Government have taken to revoke certain emergency powers and regulations under which the individual has suffered since the beginning of the Second World War, now nineteen years ago. I would make it perfectly clear that this Bill deals only with the use of land, and not with the acquisition of land, by the Service Departments. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War has already stated in another place—and it is written in the White Paper—that the complex task of revising the Defence Acts will be undertaken as soon as is practicable.
  Any measure that seeks to govern the use of private land by Service Departments is bound to be complicated and far-reaching. This Bill, however, has had the personal supervision and attention of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, who is temporarily absent from his place upon the Woolsack. I know that your Lordships will be most grateful for the time and the personal care and trouble which my noble and learned friend has put into this Bill. and into the other provisions that will be following in Her Majesty's Government's

  117
  policy to implement the Franks Committee's recommendations. My task has been made considerably lighter by the publication of Command White Paper No. 352, and by the clear and concise explanation of this Bill by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in another place (Hansard, February 10, Cols 36 to 46).
  Clause 1 of the Bill revokes five Defence Regulations as listed, and this revocation will become effective at December 31, 1958. I am quite certain your Lordships on both sides of the House will agree that the world is still a very long way away from the panacea of peace we all desire. At any time it may be necessary for my right honourable friends and my noble friend the First Lord to exercise their forces in training for their latest tactical rôles. Indeed, those tactical roles are for ever changing as new weapons and techniques are brought into practice. Hitherto it has been possible to hold large-scale exercises only under the provisions of the now out-moded Manœuvres Acts of 1897 and 1911 and under various Defence Regulations. five of which, as I have already stated, this Bill seeks to revoke.
  Clauses 2 to 5 of the Bill deal with Manœuvres and the Manœuvres Commission. The Bill will continue in an improved form the power to hold major manœuvres in this country and to set up modern Manœuvres Commissions. The holding of manœuvres will be authorised in each case by Order in Council which will require the approval of both Houses of Parliament. At the same time, the Bill will provide probably the greatest protection for public and private property within the Manœuvres area that has ever been given by any Government in the world. The Commission's directions will include general measures for the avoiding of damage, and may also limit the land over which the troops may go. Their directions must, of course, take account of the military needs for the successful holding of the Manœuvres, already blessed by Parliament, but at the same time safeguarding the interests of owners and occupiers. The arrangement for the Manœuvres held under the Order in Council, and the procedures of the Manœuvres Commission follow closely the recommendations in the Franks Report.
  118
  Clause 6 will enable my right honourable friends and my noble friend the First Lord to use certain lands occasionally for the purpose of small-scale exercises and certain specialist training exercises, and for bivouacking in the course of approach marches to existing training areas. The Bill enables such suitable sites to be compulsorily used, previously only possible under Defence Regulation 52. Normally these sites will be most carefully chosen; the least damage and inconvenience will be caused, and in most cases the normal use to which that particular land is being put will be able to continue, perhaps even when the exercise is taking place. Full rights of objection apply, and the right to be heard by an independent person appointed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. Full compensation will be paid for any proven damage. No buildings or house property may be used, and this is clearly stated in the Acts under which the Order in Council for holding the Manœuvres is made. Due in part to this Clause 6, many sites of minor training areas will be enabled to return to their rightful occupiers, so that they may be maintained and used to the best advantage, which is not always the case at present. My right honourable friend intends to release some 150,000 acres in the course of the next two to three years, and, of course, these minor sites of training areas will contribute towards that figure.
  If there should be any objection to any of these Orders, a full inquiry will be held thereinto, which might mean anything up to three months before the final Order is made. Even then, fourteen days' notice must be given before the land is entered upon by the troops. The temporary use may not exceed seventy-two hours at any one given time, nor occur more than six times in the course of the twelve months when the Order is in force. There must be an interval of at least twenty-one days between each occasion. The safeguards for the individual owner and occupier of land that will be used for temporary occasions are pretty wide.
  Clause 7 permits my right honourable friends and, most properly, my noble friend to make by-laws covering sea areas around the coast without actually owning or purchasing the adjacent shore land, as the position is at present.
  Clause 8 permits highways to be closed for defence purposes to provide for the

  119
  safety of the Services and the public alike. When the Supplies and Services (Defence Purposes) Act, 1951, ceases to operate, roads may be closed only if the site is developed: it is not sufficient when it is the aircraft which is developed and not the actual airfield. At present, my noble friends are not able to close a road for the safety of the public or the Services when some new aircraft requires more space for take-off than it has at the present time, or when extra special safety precautions are involved, due to new techniques. This clause, therefore, allows a new road to be built clear of the danger area and at the expense of the Service Department concerned.
  Clause 9 enables new roads to be built safely clear of new runways in the cases where old roads have already been closed on account of an aerodrome but where the planned alternative roads, which are now unsafe, have not yet been built. To take an example, if an aerodrome has extended its runways and made one road unsafe, that road would be closed and a new road would have to be planned. If later types of aeroplane make that new planned road unsafe my right honourable friend cannot at present build a new road round the new runway until he has, in fact, built the planned road which is already unsafe. I think your Lordships would agree that this would be a ridiculous position. Therefore, Clause 9 allows a new road to be built where a planned road is already unsafe and has not been built.
  Clauses 10 and 11 provide, within a two-miles radius, for the removal or modification of obstruction to runways and also of metal objects which interfere with defence radio or radar equipment. Again, full safeguards apply to owners and occupiers and are provided for in the Second Schedule to the Bill, in accordance with the Franks Committee's recommendations. Full compensation will be paid for expenses incurred and for the disturbance caused, and, if settlement is disputed, by direct recourse to the Lands Tribunal. Clauses 12 to 18 extend the provisions of the Requisitioned Land and War Works Acts, 1945 and 1948, to enable my noble friend the Minister of Power to acquire land to build oil storage tanks and pipelines, and for Service Ministers to maintain pipelines, for defence purposes. They may also obtain
  120
  wayleave orders to build and maintain pipelines and associated equipment. Again, in the Second Schedule, based on the Franks Committee Report, full protection is given to owners and occupiers. Full compensation will be payable not only for the pipeline itself, or for the land which is above the pipelines, but also for any damage which is caused to land on either side. Under Clause 15 the Minister responsible is required to keep the pipeline in order at all times. Clauses 19 and 20 give powers subject to the same safeguards, to my right honourable friend the Postmaster General for purposes connected with deep-laid and other defence communications, again for defence purposes only.
  Clause 21 gives the power to enter upon and survey land for purposes contained within the Bill. In general, seven days' notice must be given, and twenty-eight days' notice must be given before any form of boring takes place. Clause 21 applies except in cases of emergency with special regard to pipelines. In such cases, notice that entry has been made must be given within seven days, and again full compensation is payable. Clauses 22 to 27 describe the method of serving notices, and the making of regulations and orders, and deal with the application in general with regard to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
  With your Lordships' permission, I should now like to direct your Lordships' attention back to the main provisions or highlights of this Bill. I have mentioned the necessity for training our Forces to the latest standards. At present, Manœuvres are carried out under Defence Regulations: in future, they will be carried out, as of old, under Orders in Council. It would be useful if I were to give your Lordships roughly the programme that will obtain, when the Order in Council gets under way, for holding Manœuvres in the future—it is not Manœuvres next year, the year after or any particular Manœuvres: just Manœuvres in the future.
  From the time the initial draft Order is laid before Parliament some twelve months at least will elapse before the beginning of the Manœuvres—I will call it "M-Day", to save a lot of words. The draft Order will designate the areas that the Manœuvres will cover. Buildings and farms are out of bounds in any case. At

  121
  the same time, copies (with map descriptions) will be sent to all local authorities and bodies concerned in the proposed Manœuvres area, and a notice of intention to hold the manœuvres will also be published in the local newspapers. Two months will elapse before the Order will be discussed for approval by both Houses of Parliament. This will give ample time for objections to be lodged, and no doubt members of the public would bring their objections before your Lordships and in another place. From the time of the Order being made, at least nine months must elapse before M-Day.
  Meanwhile, the Manœuvres Commission will have been appointed, and will be working upon the draft directions to minimise damage and interference, partly from its local knowledge of the area and partly on account of the objections that it will he receiving all this time from people in the area of the manœuvres. After hearing public and private objections, the Commission will then publish its draft manœuvres directions in all areas that are concerned. At least one public inquiry must be held by the Commission before the draft manœuvres directions, with amendments, if necessary, are submitted to the Secretary of State. There must still be four months to go before M-Day when the manœuvres begin. Should your Lordships have any doubt about these Orders in Council I think that there will be ample time from the submission to your Lordships of the draft Order, or from the decision of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, to the actual start of the manœuvres, so that all may object and state their cases. If my right honourable friend should be dissatisfied with any of the Commission's draft directions (which is unlikely, but nevertheless possible) he will have the power to amend them, but only so far as to ensure that the purposes of the manœuvres are not frustrated. He must lay a copy of his amendments before Parliament, and then the Commission will publish the final manœuvres directions at least three months before M-Day.
  My Lords, I will now refer to the new Manœuvres Commission itself. The purpose the new Manœuvres Commission will fulfil is exactly the same as that which the old Commissions have served so well in previous times under the Acts of 1897 and 1911—namely, the prevention of damage to private and public
  122
  property by Service Departments in the course of military manœuvres. The old Commissions were made up of representatives of local authorities on the scale of two for each county council and one for each county borough in the manœuvres area. Then, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State—or, rather, his predecessors—appointed representatives from private property owners living in the manœuvres area. These Commissions worked excellently in the days when manœuvres covered, say, a county or less. The last large-scale manœuvres in this country were held, as your Lordships may remember, in 1951, and they covered six counties or an area of 3,500 square miles. Such a large representative body as would be required under the old Acts for a Manœuvres Commission would, of course, be quite impracticable—in fact, the last manœuvres were held under the Defence Regulations only and without a Manœuvres Commission. Therefore, the new Manœuvres Commission has been given what might be termed a "new look," in line with the Franks Committee's recommendations, and this has the approval of my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack.
  The Commission will be able to cope with to-day's manœuvres problems in the fairest and quickest way possible. It will consist of twelve members, and an independent chairman will be appointed by my noble and learned friend. Four representatives will be appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, one of whom will be an expert in agriculture. Another will be an expert in forestry, and I am sure that all noble Lords will be pleased that this particular safeguard has been included. Another member will be a representative of land-owning interests and a fourth will be a representative of farming interests.
  Four more representatives will be appointed by my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government. Of those, three will be appointed from representatives of local authorities, and one of them will be an expert in amenity matters. The fourth representative, who will be appointed by my right honourable friend, will be nominated by the National Parks Commission, whose land may happen to be in the area affected by the manœvre. Finally, my right honourable friend the

  123
  Secretary of State for War will appoint three military representatives. Subsection (3) of Clause 3 enables my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to make payment of fees or expenses to members of the Commission, should this prove necessary.
  In order to work this procedure of Orders in Council and the Commission which I have just described, it will be necessary to amend No. 216 of your Lordships' Standing Orders relative to Private Bills. This Order provides that a private person may petition your Lordships against an Order in Council requiring an Affirmative Resolution, unless such Order be a measure under the Church of England Assembly Powers Act, 1919, a regulation under the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, or an Order made under the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. As I have described, the Manœuvres Commission is being set up to deal with objections of exactly the kind which might lead to petitions in your Lordships' House against the Bill. It will not therefore be necessary for every farmer or landowner involved to come to London to petition your Lordships with complaints, as their complaints will already have been heard and considered by the Commission. I would therefore ask that your Lordships might allow my noble friend Lord Merthyr, the Lord Chairman of Committees, to consider this procedural matter and, if he sees fit, to ask your Lordships in due course to approve an amendment to the Standing Orders which will allow the provisions of this Bill to be added to the list of exceptions to the right to petition in your Lordships' House.
  I apologise for taking up so much of your Lordships' time. I am fully aware that I have made but an inadequate explanation of this modest but highly technical Bill. I will endeavour to do my best to answer any questions your Lordships may wish to raise. Perhaps I cannot do better than to re-direct your Lordships' attention to the masterpiece of explanation of this Bill which my right honourable friend gave in another place on February 10. This Bill will be of great benefit to the Services and to their reputation over training matters with the general public, and I am certain that it will give the greatest possible protection and indemnity to the private individual and his property should controversy
  124
  arise out of the limited amount of field defence exercises which this Bill envisages. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Earl Bathurst.)
  House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
  4.26 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LUCAN: My Lords, I believe we should all welcome, in the first place, a measure which at one fell swoop does away with five Defence Regulations; and, as the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, has explained very clearly, this Bill is going to facilitate the task of the Service Ministers in carrying out their duties. I would start by saying that the concluding passages of the noble Earl's speech raised an altogether new point of which I had not been aware and one which seems to need some consideration; that is, the proposal to give this Bill, when it becomes an Act, an immunity from petition under the Standing Orders of this House. I feel that that is a matter which needs rather serious consideration, because in fact we are reducing the rights of the individual in the matter of the powers of Defence Departments. I should not like straight away to express, on behalf of my noble friends, our agreement with that provision, for I believe that we should like to look at it very closely.
  The Bill covers a number of activities in the field of defence. I believe we shall all welcome the statement that in the course of the next few years the Service Ministers hope to be able to release 150,000 acres of land which they now hold. It is all to the good that so large an area of land should be released by the War Office. We welcome, too, Clause 6, which, from the Army's point of view, seems a most valuable measure and one that will permit small local exercises to be held frequently and at comparatively short notice. In my opinion that is certainly the form of training most suited to conditions in these Islands, and, moreover, most useful for the officers and men of the Army.
  Coming to the Manœuvres provisions, I would remark that the noble Earl has explained that ample time will be allowed for objections to any proposal to apply an Order in Council for Army manœuvres on a big scale. We note the composition

  125
  of the Manœuvres Commission, which will be thoroughly representative of all interests. Incidentally, I have not seen it explained very clearly why a new Commission of different composition is now required. The idea that before 1951 all Army Manœuvres could be confined within the boundaries of one county is not quite accurate. Army Manœuvres were held at interevals between the wars and they certainly covered larger areas. The Military Manœuvres Act, as it was then, was certainly applied to areas of three or four counties or more, so I do not quite see why the former Commission, which apparently dealt adequately with those situations, is no longer suitable for, admittedly, the larger Manœuvres that are necessary now.
  I should like to say a word more about the question of land forces Manœuvres in this country. The mere fact that it is considered necessary to have such an elaborate procedure, covering so much time, before you can carry out Army Manœuvres surely shows that this country is no longer a suitable place for exercising Armies under modern conditions. The fact that you have to give twelve months' notice, nine months' notice and so on, in order to ensure that everybody who might be prejudiced can object, and to make your arrangements for compensation and avoidance of damage and so on, merely brings into focus the fact that this Island is so closely inhabited and so highly developed agriculturally that to exercise troops in accordance with the latest tactical ideas is bound to cause damage; and to confine the troops within such conditions and restrictions as will avoid or minimise damage is only going to make the training thoroughly unreal.
  That was a point which was beginning to be appreciated before the last war, when it was often a criticism of Army training that the troops had been so conditioned in England to avoid breaking through fences, or had been so conditioned to avoid damage, that when war came they would be at a serious disadvantage compared with their enemy. More than ever now, when armies are entirely mechanised and operations involve great dispersal and quick movement, it cannot be realistic to exercise armies in the close country of this Island. Indeed, the only possible theatre of war that resembles this Island is north-west Europe. We believe that the most probable role of the Army
  126
  overseas is in tropical or semi-tropical countries, fighting guerrilla or semi-guerrilla wars; and what could be more unsuitable as a training area in the preparation for that kind of war than the English countryside?
  So the more one thinks of it the more it seems that large-scale Army Manœuvres ought never to take place in this country again. Oversea training areas can be found, and with air transport making movement of troops so rapid and comparatively so cheap, and indeed part of the training itself, I would suggest that the higher-formation training of the Army ought to take place overseas and not in this country. Moreover, I speak as one who has, so to speak, changed sides in the contest between the Services and the civilian population, because it was at one time one of my military duties to find suitable areas for training and to circumvent those local interests who would have tried to stop it. Since then I have changed sides, and I realise that this Island is too precious to be allowed to be used for Service purposes except where absolutely necessary.
  4.36 p.m.
  LORD WINSTER: My Lords, if the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, will allow me, I should like to congratulate him upon the lucid and compact manner in which he explained a lengthy and a very complicated Bill. I feel that it is essentially a Bill which will have to be debated and threshed out in Committee, and that there is a limit to what can be usefully said on it in a Second Reading debate. I am particularly interested in it because I have for some time served on the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, although this afternoon I am speaking entirely on my own behalf and not on behalf of the Committee; but I feel it very likely indeed that the Council will have a good deal to say on the matter when we reach the Committee stage.
  This question of the acquisition of land by the Services is one which comes up before us with unfailing regularity at every meeting of the Council. My own view, for what it is worth, is that while I fully recognise that training and experiment must go on they must go on in the interests of the safety and the security of this country—there are times when the Service representatives who handle these matters are a little bit impatient of any

  127
  considerations than those which actuate their own requirements. I must say, as against that, however, that I was immensely impressed by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord De L'Isle, in our debate yesterday, when he happened to mention this question of acquisition of land by the Services; and it was impossible to doubt his sincerity when he spoke of the anxiety it caused him and of the great care which, when he was Secretary of State for Air, he always gave to the matter. However, I think that the noble Earl will agree that, while the Council for the Preservation of Rural England may be tiresome at times in their opposition to certain proposals, yet this country would perhaps not be even as beautiful a place as it is to-day but for the work and solicitude of that Council in endeavouring to preserve as much of the beauty spots of this country as is possible.
  I have only one other matter to mention—I am not sure that it is entirely relevant to this Bill, but I think that if it is not absolutely relevant at any rate it is related to it. The Services not only take over land, but on occasion give up land. They give up land when they no longer require it—they give up camps, bases and stations. I would ask the noble Earl whether he would impress upon his noble and right honourable friends who are concerned with this matter that, when they do that, they might give a great deal more attention than they do to clearing up afterwards. The state in which they leave land for which they have no further use really causes very great indignation and resentment on the part of people concerned in the neighbourhood.
  I would mention only one case which has come under my own notice, and I agree that it is some time back now. During the war the Royal Air Force had many stations on the coast of Pembroke-shire, and when the time came for them to go—and they were warmly thanked for what they had done for the country while they were there—they simply hove all the rubbish and wreckage straight over the cliffs, defiling and disfiguring some of the most beautiful scenery to be found on the shores of this country. It is on that account that I venture to ask the noble Earl whether he would call attention to the necessity of cleaning up decently and properly after the Services give up land.
  4.41 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for more than a few minutes, but I should like to support the plea made by my noble friends, Lord Lucan and Lord Winster, that the Government will insist that Service Departments throughly satisfy themselves that the land they take over is necessary for them. Last summer I had the privilege of going down to the R.A.C. School at Bovington which, as your Lordships will know, is one of the most beautiful spots in our countryside and a holiday centre—and we have not so many holiday centres in this country. I should have thought that a school of this sort could well have been located in Scotland, where there are considerable areas of barren land of no use to anybody other than a few sheep. Therefore, I would ask the Government whether the Army and the Royal Air Force would fully satisfy themselves that the land they require is necessary and that it is in the most suitable place.
  4.43 p.m.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lucan, for directing attention to the serious matter of petitioning which I have brought before your Lordships to-day. I had asked my noble friend the Lord Chairman of Committees how this question could best be approached. It is to the credit of my noble friend and his staff that the existence of this question should have been noticed at all, and I am most grateful to them. I beg your Lordships to accept the proposal which I made, because I feel that ample protection is given through the Manœuvres Commission and the measures which my noble and learned friend who sits on the Woolsack has taken to cover this controversial question.
  LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I take it that there will be ample opportunity for us not only to discuss this matter but to inform ourselves of the justification for a change in Standing Orders.
  EARL BATHURST: My Lords, perhaps we could ask my noble friend to explain this matter in detail at a more convenient time. The noble Earl has given me an opportunity to inform your Lordships of the amount of damage incurred. I think that it is small when the scope of the Manœuvres is considered. The large-scale Manœuvres in 1951

  129
  covered 3,500 square miles. Two infantry divisions and an armoured division, comprising 35,000 men, took part. In spite of the enormous area and number of troops, the total compensation for damage to land and property was only £100,000—£62,000 for roads, paid to local authorities, and the remainder of £37,000 paid to private landowners and occupiers. In the main, this latter kind of damage was clue to minor incidents such as gate posts being knocked down.
  I should like to draw attention to the fact that the Manœuvres were held under Defence Regulations and that no Commission was appointed. The Army looked after this by seeing to it that damage repair squads were available on the site immediately any damage had been done. I know from my personal knowledge what a great help these squads were, and they were greatly appreciated by local owners. The last large-scale Manœuvres to be held in this country under the old Act took place in 1936 and, of course, nothing like an area of 3,500 square miles was involved. A Commission was appointed for those manœuvres. Since 1939, when the enormous war-time exercises were held, manœuvres have been held under the Defence Regulations.
  I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, with regard to amenity. I only wish that I could tell him that this Bill dealt with acquisition and handing back of property in the hands of the Services. I think I have made it clear that it does not and that I have made it clear also that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War intends to do something about the Defence Acts, as stated in the White Paper. I will collect my copy of the OFFICIAL REPORT to-morrow morning, put a red line along the noble Lord's remarks and see that it goes to my right honourable friend.
  With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said about Bovington Heath, I would agree that that is an
  130
  eyesore in the most beautiful part of the country. But Bovington Camp has been established for some forty years and it would be almost impossible to move the vast amount of equipment, installations and housing into the wilds of Scotland. In any case, my noble friend Lord Lansdowne, sitting beside me, tells me that his part of Scotland would not be suitable for manœuvres as it is very boggy. I should say that the Bovington training area can be covered in the space of five minutes in a modern tank, so that in these days it is not so large as it would appear to be.
  4.49 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, since my name has been mentioned during the course of the debate, perhaps I may intervene for a moment to say that, as I understand it, the present position is that any landowner or farmer who is aggrieved in any way in connection with manœuvres is entitled to come to your Lordships' House and to appear before the Special Orders Committee and make a protest against an Order which is about to come before the House. That is the current procedure. However, it is now thought that under Clause 5 of this Bill a more easy way of making a protest is provided. It is thought that this duplication of that procedure is unnecessary. Therefore it is suggested that an Amendment should be made to the Standing Orders of the House to exempt from Standing Order No. 216 matters connected with manœuvres, in the same way as matters connected with the Sunday Entertainments Act are exempted. Naturally, nothing will be done until this Bill becomes law. In that event, no doubt a Motion will be put down in your Lordships' House to amend the Standing Orders. If and when that is done it will be open to the House to debate the Motion that the Standing Order be altered in that way.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  MAINTENANCE ORDERS BILL
  4.51 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]
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2 [Registration of orders]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT KILMUIR): I will not detain your Lordships long on this Amendment and the next one, because they are really drafting Amendments applying to this Bill the provisions for registration and enforcement in one part of the United Kingdom of maintenance orders made in another part of the United Kingdom which are already in force in other legislation. If any of your Lordships have any points and would like the details I will give them, but I think the general purpose is sufficient. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 41, after ("Part II") insert ("and a maintenance order ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, at end insert (" and a maintenance order to which this Part of this Act applies.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Enforcement of registered orders]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, too, is little more than drafting; in fact, I wondered whether the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, would say that we were being too puristic in making it. However, I think he understands that the Amendment brings the drafting into line with Section 18 (6) of the Maintenance Orders Act, 1950, and it was desired that there should be no difficulties raised by this clause. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 20, leave out (" regard") and insert (" respect ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 4 and 5 agreed to.
  Clause 6:
  Powers of courts to make orders attaching the earnings of defaulters under maintenance orders.
  (2) The court shall not make an attachment of earnings order if the defendant satisfies the court that the failure to make payments in accordance with the maintenance order in question was not due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect.
  (3) An attachment of earnings order shall—
  (a) specify the normal deduction rate, that is to say, the rate at which, after taking into account any right or liability of the defendant to deduct income tax from payments made under the related maintenance order, the court making or varying the attachment of earnings order thinks it reasonable that the earnings to which that order relates should be applied in meeting the defendant's liabilities under the maintenance order, not exceeding the rate appearing to that court to be necessary for the purpose of—

  (i) satisfying the requirements of the maintenance order (including the payment within a reasonable period of any arrears); and

  (ii) securing payment within a reasonable period of any costs incurred in proceedings relating to the maintenance order which are payable by the defendant;

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As noble Lords opposite will know, this Amendment was one which their colleagues in another place were anxious to put into the Bill, and, indeed, it would have appeared were it not for one of those occurrences which happen in the best regulated Houses of Parliament. But I believe that, apart from the fact that it was desired by both Parties in another place, your Lordships will think that on its merits it is entitled to some consideration. The words, it appears to the court that the failure of the defendant", are, of course, less strong than the original words, "the defendant satisfies the court that the failure". I think, broadly, it is equitable that the words should meet this situation where the defendant does not appear at court himself and it still appears in his favour that he has not committed the defaults which are set out in the clause. These words also meet the situation where the court might have directed

  133
  a probation officer, under Section 60 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, to report an investigation into the means of the party, and the probation officer's report might clearly show the absence of wilful and culpable neglect. For all these reasons, I think it is the better form of words, and I hope your Lordships agree. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 5, leave out (" the defendant satisfies the court that the failure") and insert ("it appears to the court that the failure of the defendant").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Perhaps, for the convenience of your Lordships, I might address the Committee on Amendments 5, 6 and 7, and then they can be put separately. They are drafting Amendments with the purpose of removing any possible doubt that an attachment of earnings order is designed to cover not only the liabilities under the maintenance order when the attachment order is made but also the future liabilities; that is, the current payments as they arise. We wanted this point to be perfectly clear, and the paragraph, as amended, will refer to "from time to time in satisfying the requirements of the maintenance order" and securing payment of the sums falling due from time to time under the maintenance order". I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 15, leave out ("in meeting the defendant's liabilities under") and insert ("from time to time in satisfying the requirements of").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 21 and insert—
  ("(i) securing payment of the sums falling due from time to time under the maintenance order;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 7, line 23, after ("of") insert ("any sums already due and unpaid tinder the maintenance order and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 6, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  5.0 p.m.
  LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: I should like to say one or two words on the question that this clause stand part. The clause places a heavy obligation on employers. I would not suggest for one moment, however, that, in general, employers of all sections and classes are not in favour of the principles of the Bill and hope to see them carried out successfully, and the objects we all have at heart attained. But it does behove us, I think, to see that these obligations are made both easy to understand and also simple to operate.
  The word "employer" tends to conjure up the picture of large establishments and many hundreds of employees, and of complete sections or departments for calculating wages. In actual fact, however, the vast majority of employers in this country are very small employers. There is the working farmer, with one or two hands; there is the small shop, with one or two assistants; there is the small factory, where the employer is his own salesman, his own manager, his own payer and worker-out of the wages of the half-a-dozen or fewer employees in his establishment. On all these the heavy obligation rests to calculate what we are setting forth in this clause. I suggest that if we asked employers of that sort even to read this clause and the Schedule that goes with it, let alone to understand it, we might get some quite caustic remarks. After all, these men have had considerable headaches in understanding and filling in the necessary forms for P.A.Y.E., and we are now laying upon them the duty of understanding the difference between protected earnings, attachment orders and the like.
  Under the Bill as it now stands, and assuming that only one attachment is made in respect of a single man—and there is always the possibility that more than one attachment order may be made; and that is provided for in this Bill—a system of appropriate charges is set up in regard to the earnings of the man in question. I wonder whether, just for one moment, I might go through these charges to show your Lordships what I mean. First of all, income tax, through P.A.Y.E., has to be paid to the State, and National Insurance contributions and superannuation contributions paid also to the State by means of stamps;

  135
  secondly, the amount of so-called protected earnings has to be paid to the defendant; thirdly, any arrears of protected earnings have to be calculated and paid to the defendant; fourthly, the normal deductions under the attachment order in this clause have to be paid over to the court officer; fifthly, any arrears of deductions under the attachment order, provided the protected earnings are secured, have also to be paid over to the court officer and, lastly, anything that is left over out of the man's earnings is paid over to the defendant. Those are some of the obligations we are laying upon these small employers.
  Protected earnings are supposed to cover the man's ordinary needs, but there are certain other things that may be legally deducted from him under the Truck Act, Sections 1, 2 and 3, which lay down that certain deductions may be made from a man's earnings. Those may well have to be taken into account, although I am not going to consider them at the moment. Furthermore, the earnings of the man may fluctuate greatly, and that will lead to endless complications. The man may change his job frequently, if he is in the building trade or something of that sort, and more calculations have to be made, especially if he is out of work for a short time. It is interesting to note that if he is out of work and drawing unemployment pay or sickness benefit, neither of those come under the jurisdiction of this Act. Indeed, exemption of such benefits might well mean that while the man is getting sickness benefit he would be better off—and his wife certainly worse off—than if he was in work. I go through those items only to show that we are placing on the small employer considerable obligations, and we should do all we can—and I hope the Lord Chancellor and his Department will do all they can—to make these obligations work as easily as possible, for unless that is done the Bill will fail.
  I would suggest, first of all, that there should be the closest co-operation between the court officer and the employer. I think we might go even further—and I would put this, if I may. to the Lord Chancellor—that definite guidance should be given by the court officer to the employer, and especially to the small employer, on what should be paid to him (the court officer) and what should be paid
  136
  to the defendant. It seems to me that under the Bill the court officer will know the approximate earnings of the man—that is laid down. I should like to ask that arrangements should be made so that the employer, and especially the small employer, could go to the court and be told what he has to do, and the sums of money to be paid over should be worked out for him. Most courts—indeed, I think, all courts—have court officers who are versed in this type of work, and it would seem to me that some arrangement of that sort is absolutely necessary if we are to get everybody working and to make this Bill the success we hope it will be.
  5.8 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: May I preface what I have to say by thanking my noble friend Lord McCorquodale of Newton for coming and putting this point to us. I am conscious of the co-operation which the employers of this country have given in the initiation of this Bill. I hope my noble friend will convey to his colleagues in the Employers' Federation my gratitude for the attitude that they have taken. There is one consolation which I tried to bring out on Second Reading, and that is that in the immortal words of Captain Marryat, "the baby is only a little one". When compared with the number of 23 million people who are now in work, the number of attachment orders likely to be made is a very small one and relatively infinitesimal. But that does not meet my noble friend's point, and I put it only as a consolation.
  I want to make clear that the employer will first of all receive the order, but when he receives it he will also receive an explanatory pamphlet explaining in simple terms what he has to do. If he still has difficulties, the officer designated as the officer required to receive the money will, I am sure, do his utmost to assist him. I believe that this is a subject on which everyone will think it right that I should ask the magistrates and their clerks to do their utmost to help. It is not an interference; it is just making the will of Parliament work smoothly, and I shall certainly do that. So I hope by those two methods, by the pamphlet and by the special assistance which I shall ask the magistrates' courts to give, that my noble friend's point will be met. I hope that he and anyone

  137
  who finds that there are any teething troubles of any kind will not hesitate to mention them to me, and I will do my utmost to see they are put right.
  LORD CRAIGMYLE: Before we leave this point, I would point out that there is, or used to be, some limitation of the power of the court to attach the wages of a merchant seaman for debt. Is there any such protection in this clause?
  The LORD CHANCELLOR: I am not absolutely certain what my noble friend Lord Craigmyle has in mind, but I used to be very familiar in my early days with the position at the outset of a voyage when the seaman signed the Articles and there were various provisions (I think arranged with the Ministry of Transport, not with the Ministry of Labour) by which it was made difficult for what we used to call (in unparliamentary language) "crimps" and the like, to get the money out of the seamen. I can assure my noble friend Lord Craigmyle that these provisions are not affected by the Bill, which is limited to the question of the person who does not pay under a maintenance order made against him. I think my noble friend can rest content that the merchant seamen, in whom, on both sides of his family, he has such a great interest, apart from his own, will not suffer under the position created by the Bill. I can tell him that the Bill will not apply attachment to merchant seamen.
  LORD McCOROUODALE OF NEWTON: May I, by leave of the House, thank the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the assurance he has given? There is very real anxiety, as I know, over this matter amongst many people, and the points he has made will give great satisfaction. We will certainly avail ourselves, if we may, of his invitation to keep in close touch with his Department when this Bill becomes law.
  LORD SILKIN: Before we part with this clause, I should like to express my appreciation of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton. I am very glad indeed to hear that the employers are anxious to co-operate and that they will do their best to make the Bill a success. As the noble Lord knows, fears were expressed, not that they would not co-operate, but that the man against whom the attachment order was made
  138
  might be penalised by the employers. I was therefore delighted to hear from the noble Lord, by implication, that that will not be the case. If it were so to any extent, the magistrates might well hesitate to make an attachment order, in so far as they had the power to exercise discretion.
  I did not quite agree about the difficulty in which employers, and particularly small employers, are going to find themselves. I have found that the small man is quite intelligent and quite able to grasp even complicated points of this kind. One would have expected that they would have found themselves in great difficulty about "Pay-as-you-earn", but in fact they have taken it all in their stride. I suggest that this will be a good education for the small employers, getting them to take an intelligent interest in these matters and to understand them; and I am sure they will respond. I do not myself anticipate any difficulty at all on the part of the employers, especially as they do not have to understand every word of Clause 6 of this Bill; they will get the explanation, and if they are in any difficulty they always have their lawyers to fall back on. May I also express my gratitude to the noble and learned Viscount for the Amendment he has moved and which was, in fact, intended to have been accepted in another place. I hope that he will be equally kind to a later Amendment when I come to move it.
  Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Powers of courts to make attachment of earnings orders in proceedings under other Acts]:
  5.18 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The purpose of this Amendment makes clear what Clause 7 is designed to do; that is, to enable a court to make an attachment of earnings order when general enforcement proceedings are brought under the existing law. Your Lordships will remember that, so far as magistrates' courts are concerned, those proceedings are described in paragraph (b) as proceedings
  "… to enforce payment of any sum ordered to be paid by a maintenance order which is, or is enforceable as, an affiliation order."
  Practically all maintenance orders are enforceable as an affiliation order, hut there are a small number which are not.

  139
  and the Amendment is designed to catch these up. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 26, leave out from ("order") to end of line 27.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Before a court can make an attachment of earnings order under the general provisions of Clause 6, it has to appear to it that the defendant has earnings which can be attached. I am sure your Lordships will all see the sense of that, and this Amendment inserts a similar provision in Clause 7, under which an attachment of earnings order can be made in ordinary enforcement proceedings. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 8, line 31, after ("unpaid") insert ("and that the defendant is a person to whom earnings fall to be paid,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  5.20 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, after Clause 7, to insert the following new clause:
  Discharge of committal orders by magistrates' courts
  ". Notwithstanding anything in any other enactment, a magistrates' court may at any time discharge an order which it has made for the committal of any person to prison for failure to comply with a maintenance order."
  The noble Lord said: I beg to move the new clause standing in my name. I think I can do so quite shortly, because the noble and learned Viscount will be aware of the case that I want to try to make. An Amendment in identical terms was moved, I think, in another place, and was rejected.
  The short point is simply that in the view of myself and of my friends in another place and here, magistrates ought to be in a position, having made a committal order, to revoke it at any time if circumstances change before the committal order has been enforced. That seems to me plain common sense. All kinds of things might happen between the time of the committal order being made and the time when it is actually put into force. The whole of the circumstances may have changed; they may have become such that, if the new circumstances had been before the magistrates,
  140
  they would never have made an order at all. Yet, by some trick of the law—I can only think of it as that—once the committal order has been made magistrates have no power to revoke it: the heavens may fall but the order has to be carried out. That seems to me to be an absurdity.
  I am not quite sure, but I believe that the reason given in another place was not that the Amendment has not merits but that it would involve the amendment of the Magistrates' Courts Act (it is of general application) and that while it might be appropriate in another context it is not appropriate in this Bill. That is a good legalistic argument, if that is the argument; it involves a desire to tidy our legislation. But if we fail to do this in this Bill it means that some men will go to prison because an order will have been made against them which would not otherwise have been made. I do not want to exaggerate the case, but we should find some men in prison who ought not to be there. So I appeal to the noble and learned Viscount, if I am right in my view as to the objection to the Amendment, to set aside these legalistic niceties. By all means amend the general law, but at any rate put in this clause or something like it. Probably my wording is all wrong, but let us put in some words that meet the case, so that magistrates will have the power, if circumstances change, to revoke a committal order which they have already made. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 7 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Silkin.)
  LORD MERRIMAN: I should like to say a word in support of Lord Silkin's new clause. Like him, I have read the debates in another place. So far as I know, nobody disputed the merits of magistrates' having power to set aside a commitment order that they had made. But it appears that it was felt that by doing this—and I quote
  "we would be leaving still outstanding commitments for other kinds of debts by the magisstrates' courts."
  With the greatest respect, that is really nonsense. In the Magistrates' Courts Act itself civil debts are dealt with in one set of sections, and maintenance orders (included, as the Lord Chancellor has already said, in the category of orders enforceable as if they were affiliation

  141
  orders) are dealt with in a separate set of sections, beginning with Section 74. I do not propose to go through the details. Suffice it to say that in this particular Bill and in the next Amendment which is to be moved by the Lord Chancellor, the whole of Section 74 is being revised in two extremely important particulars. The first is that magistrates shall not make a commitment order in respect of a wife's maintenance order if the proper remedy is the new method of the attachment of earnings. There is nothing like that in connection with civil debts, which are dealt with in the other category, or in the Magistrates' Courts Act as it now stands.
  The second important Amendment which is being made is that whereas, as the law stands, when a man goes to prison in respect of arrears of maintenance the imprisonment wipes out the arrears, that situation is being expressly abolished by an Amendment about to be moved by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. In future, if this Bill becomes law, imprisonment will not—as, indeed, it ought not to—wipe out the arrears. That is an absurdity which has prevailed for a long time. It is, of course, entirely contrary to the rule under the Debtors Act, which expressly says that commitment shall not wipe out the debt, with the result that at this moment the Divorce Division may make an order for £5 a week maintenance, the man may be committed and serve his sentence, yet the debt still remains. If, on the other hand, the magistrates make an order for the sane amount and the man serves his committal period, the debt is cancelled. That cannot be right. It certainly cannot be right in connection with a Bill which is drastically revising the whole method of benefiting wives under maintenance orders by attaching earnings and making the registration of attachment transferable from the High Court to the magistrates' court, and vice versa.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, I do not attach great importance to the wording of the Amendment as it stands, but if the Lord Chancellor could see his way to saying that further consideration of this matter would be given before the Report stage, I suggest that the tidiest way in which to do this would be to insert in the new clause which the Lord Chancellor is about to propose a provision
  142
  to the desired effect. When one considers that magistrates at any time have power to remit arrears when a complaint is brought before them, that alone would illustrate one set of circumstances in which it is absurd to leave the commitment order standing if the arrears themselves are wiped out. I suggest that this particular reform would tidy up the whole thing, and that the proper place for it is in the clause which the Lord Chancellor is about to move.
  5.29 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The soul of a Lord Chancellor would have to be very dead if he disregarded an appeal from the noble Lord opposite and from my noble and learned friend the President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, with his great experience of these matters. I should like both noble Lords to appreciate that great consideration has been given to this point, and if I state the difficulties that we have seen it is not because I will not consider it again—I shall be pleased to do what both noble Lords have asked me to do, and discuss it again with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. I thought, however, that it would be useful if on the Committee stage I stated our difficulties so that both noble Lords could see them in print as they appear to me, and perhaps help us on some of those that have given us most trouble.
  I believe that the main argument made below by the honourable and right honourable friends of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin—and one which he has implicitly blessed—is a very strong one in the context of this Bill, for they say that since one of the main objects of the Bill is to keep men out of prison, it is logical that magistrates' courts should have power to discharge an order that has been made committing a person to prison. Examples were then shown of where that could be done. It is undoubtedly right that as many defaulters as possible should be kept out of prison, but the difficulty which has been found is that where that involves giving to a court a completely open discretion they might be concerned to discharge a warrant of commitment.
  On the question of those affected, I should like to put this to noble Lords: cases which involve the fact that when

  143
  Part II of the Bill comes into operation there may be defaulters in prison with attachable earnings and that the proposed new Bill will enable a court to get them out and make an attachment of earnings order, will surely be held up till the Bill comes into operation; because, as your Lordships will see from Clause 19 (3), the Bill comes into operation on a day to be appointed by the Secretary of State. And after the publicity which has been given and the various points which will be drawn to the attention of justices, it seems inconceivable that where a man is in regular employment, and therefore amenable to attachment, a court would not either adjourn the case or make a suspended commitment. If the commitment has been suspended before the appointed day, there need be no difficulty about making a subsequent attachment to earnings order which, by Clause 8 of the Bill, would have the effect of cancelling the suspended commitment.
  The Home Office have considered this point and I am told that the class of case upon which this argument depends will be very small. Not only that; there is an existing method of dealing with them. It is the practice of the Secretary of State to give instructions for a defaulter to be released from prison if it is established that the woman wants that done and the court agrees. Such instructions are already given from time to time where a woman "forgives" the debt, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary says that in cases where the woman so wishes and the court agrees, the necessary instructions will be given.
  Your Lordships might say that while that is all very well, it is an extra-statutory procedure and that you would prefer to see it in the Act. Again, as your Lordships will have seen from the debates in another place, the Home Office are anxious that the provisions should apply not only to maintenance default but also to civil debt and existing provisions relating to imprisonment for non-payment of fines, which would be affected as well. As your Lordships will know and as the two noble Lords who have spoken on this Amendment know very well, the reasons are complex and technical and stem from the need for any power to discharge a warrant of commitment to include a power to discharge a suspended commitment
  144
  as well; and if it is right to be able to get a man out of prison it is also right to remove from over his head the threat of prison.
  It seemed very difficult to accept that if a discretionary power to discharge were simply added to the present power to issue a warrant after a suspended commitment—which in a sense is also discretionary—one would have the extremely odd result that a court would be given a discretion to interfere with something which is already discretionary. Before a new power of the kind suggested could be given, the present power to suspend the issue of a warrant of commitment (which in any event is not drafted in entirely satisfactory terms) would require careful reconsideration and almost certainly would have to be recast in different terms.
  For these reasons my right honourable friend the Home Secretary was anxious to approach the matter in the other way: to begin with Section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act and to make the Amendment fit all the cases dealt with in that Act. If any alteration were to be made in the existing arrangements to replace section 65 by some new and different provision which would deal, though not necessarily in the same way, with all warrants of commitment, whether for maintenance, civil debts or fine default, that could properly be done only in a general Magistrates' Courts Bill.
  I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman would consider this difficulty which is put to me—not to-night but between now and the Report stage: that owing to the way in which the existing Section 65 is drafted, it would be difficult to amend it satisfactorily in respect of maintenance default only because (and this is a real practical point) the result might be to produce a statutory framework confusing to the lay justices who have to administer this branch of the law. Those who have considered this matter in the Home Office and elsewhere would therefore prefer to prepare the ground, first, by making an amendment to the existing general provisions in Section 65 of the Magistrates' Courts Act relating to the suspension of warrants of commitment; and, secondly, by providing for discharge out of custody by a magistrates' court not only in cases of maintenance orders but also in civil debt cases generally. They felt that the

  145
  proper vehicle for so far-reaching an amendment was a Magistrates' Courts Bill.
  I have put these difficulties to your Lordships only for consideration. Having done so, I should like to consider, on the other hand, what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and suggested by my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman, and I shall certainly do so. I hope noble Lords will not press this matter at the moment but will give me an opportunity of discussing it with my right honourable friend Mr. Butler before the Report stage.
  5.40 p.m.
  LORD SILKIN: The noble and learned Viscount has quite properly put the difficulties that confront him in accepting the principle of this Amendment. I hope I am not being impertinent or offensive if I say that it gives me the impression that he was not himself greatly impressed with these difficulties. Here we have a real grievance, and the noble and learned Viscount did not attempt to justify the anomaly that exists. A man has been committed to prison. He has been defiant and said, "I am jolly well not going to pay and I am going to prison", and a committal order is made. Perhaps he is in irregular work and finds himself in some difficulty. He then goes away and thinks it over, and possibly gets a regular job, and makes up his mind that he will pay and he is prepared to have an attachment order made against his wages. The law says, "Never mind about all that. You have got to go to prison and"—as it stood before the next Amendment—" that wipes out your debt. We insist on your going to prison and we insist on your wiping out the debt. "That is absurd, and I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will not allow this injustice to continue merely because he cannot find a way of dealing with it in this Bill.
  May I say, as I was going to say on the next Amendment, that I congratulate the Government on the ingenuity with which they have been able to find their way round the difficulties which confronted the other place in connection with the matters dealt with in the next series of Amendments. They have found a way Out, and, if my memory serves me well, I think they used all the same arguments used for this Amendment as a reason for
  146
  not being able to do anything in the matters dealt with in the next one. They have been exceedingly ingenious, when pushed to it, in finding a solution there, and I have no doubt at all that, with equal ingenuity, they will find a way of dealing with this difficulty. However, the noble and learned Viscount has agreed to consider the matter, and I therefore beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 8 to 15, agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15 to insert the following new clause:
  Amendment of 15 & 16 Geo. 6. and 1 Eliz. 2. c. 55. s. 74
  ".—(1) Section seventy-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952 (which relates to the enforcement of payments under affiliation orders and orders enforceable as affiliation orders) shall have effect, in relation to complaints under that section made on or after the date on which this section comes into operation and to proceedings in pursuance of such complaints, as if for subsections (3) to (7) thereof there were substituted the following subsections, that is to say—
  "(3) In relation to complaints under this section, section forty-seven of this Act shall not apply and section forty-eight thereof shall have effect as if the words 'if evidence has been received on a previous occasion were omitted.
  (4) Where at the time and place appointed for the hearing or adjourned hearing of a complaint under this section the complainant appears but the defendant does not, the court may proceed in his absence:
  Provided that the court shall not begin to hear the complaint in the absence of the defendant unless either it is proved to the satisfaction of the court, on oath, or in such other manner as may be prescribed, that the summons was served on him within what appears to the court to be a reasonable time before the hearing or adjourned hearing or the defendant has appeared on a previous occasion to answer the complaint,
  (5) If a complaint under this section is substantiated on oath, any justice of the peace acting for the same petty sessions area as a court having jurisdiction to hear the complaint may issue a warrant for the defendant's arrest, whether or not a summons has been previously issued.
  (6) A magistrates' court shall not impose imprisonment in respect of a default to which a complaint under this section relates unless the court has inquired in the presence of the defendant whether the default was due to the defendant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect, and shall not impose imprisonment as aforesaid if it is of opinion that the default was not so due; and, without prejudice to the foregoing provisions of

  147
  this subsection, a magistrates' court shall not impose imprisonment as aforesaid—

  (a) in a case in which the court has power to make an attachment of earnings order under the Maintenance Orders Act. 1958, unless the court is of opinion that it is inappropriate to make such an order;

  (b) in any case, in the absence of the defendant;

  (7) Notwithstanding anything in subsection (3) of section sixty-four of this Act, the period for which a defendant may be committed to prison under a warrant of commitment issued in pursuance of a complaint under this section shall not exceed six weeks.
  (8) The imprisonment or other detention of a defendant under a warrant of commitment issued as aforesaid shall not operate to discharge the defendant from his liability to pay the sum in respect of which the warrant was issued."
  (2) Subsections (7) and (8) of the said section seventy-four as amended by the foregoing subsection shall have effect in relation to a warrant of commitment issued on or after the date on which this section comes into operation in pursuance of a complaint under that section made before that date (not being a warrant of which the issue was postponed before that date by virtue of section sixty-five of the said Act of 1952) as those subsections have effect in relation to a warrant of commitment issued in pursuance of such a complaint made after that date."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment has already been spoken to by Lord Silkin in very generous terms. The history is that during the passage of the Bill through the Commons it was strongly represented that a logical consequence of Part I of the Bill was that imprisonment imposed by a magistrates' court in default of maintenance payments should be subject to a maximum term of six weeks and should not extinguish the liability to pay arrears. This would bring the magistrates' court provisions into line with the High Court and county court provisions. At present, imprisonment imposed by a magistrates' court is subject to a maximum term of three months if the amount of the default is more than £20, and wipes out the arrears. And it was said that it would be anomalous to have provisions applying to a High Court order in the High Court which were fundamentally different from those applying if an order were registered in a magistrates' court under Part I of the Bill.
  There are strong arguments in favour of bringing the provisions into line with those for the High Court and county court. I am not going to go through them in detail, but the Royal Commission on Marriage and Divorce recommended
  148
  that imprisonment should not wipe out arrears, subject to the man's not being committed more than once in respect of the same arrears. Strong arguments were advanced in another place, and strong arguments will now appeal to your Lordships from the consideration which you have been good enough to give to this Bill. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary, after careful consideration of the arguments of both sides, gave an undertaking in the Commons on Report that, after the necessary consultation, Government Amendments would be put down in your Lordships' House to reduce the maximum term to six weeks and to provide that imprisonment did not wipe out arrears. I mentioned that on the Second Reading when the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, raised the matter.
  The method to which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has referred has been by dealing with Section 74 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952; and I draw attention to the new subsection (6) only because some Amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, deal with that subject matter. The new subsection (6) precludes the imposing of imprisonment unless the court has inquired, in the defendant's presence, whether the default was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect and is of opinion that the default is so due. The new subsection also precludes the imposing of imprisonment where attachment of earnings order could be made and is appropriate, or in the absence of the defendant. The second new clause (if I might mention it now, and then I need not take up more of your Lordships' time) will have the effect of preventing a man from being imprisoned more than once in respect of the same arrears.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 15, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD SILKIN LORD SILKIN moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, in subsection (6) of the proposed new clause, to omit "in the presence of the defendant". The noble Lord said: I have already welcomed the new clause. Subsection (6) of the new clause provides that the magistrates shall not impose imprisonment unless they are satisfied that the person

  149
  is in a position to pay (I am paraphrasing) and unless they have made inquiries
  "in the presence of the defendant whether the default was due to the defendant's wilful refusal or culpable neglect,"
  and shall not impose imprisonment in the absence of the defendant. Earlier provisions of this clause lay down that the case may be dealt with in the absence of the defendant if there is evidence on oath that the order has been served on him and, therefore, that he has had ample notice. That evidence has to be on oath, and therefore there will he no doubt in the minds of the court that the defendant is aware of the proceedings.
  Then the new clause goes on to say that the defendant, being aware of the proceedings, shall not be committed to prison unless he is present. It seems to me that any defendant, wishing to avoid imprisonment, can take the simple expedient of not being present. There is nothing to make him attend: he is not committing any act of contempt of court if he does not attend. The proceedings may take place in his absence—this clause contemplates that—but they will be fruitless because he is not present. Unless there is something in the new clause which I have not followed, it seems to me that it is self-destructive in this respect. I realise that in the majority of cases it would not be necessary because attachment proceedings would be a satisfactory alternative, but I should be grateful if the noble and learned Viscount would explain how he gets over this dilemma. Although in certain circumstances The new clause contemplates imprisonment, nevertheless the order cannot be made except in the presence of the defendant; and, as I say, the defendant can simply not turn up and thereby avoid a committal order against him. Both this Amendment and my next cover the same point. I beg to move.
  Amendment to Amendment moved—
  In subsection (6), line 3 of the proposed new clause, leave out ("in the presence of the defendant.").—(Lord Silkin.)
  5.52 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think that it will be convenient, and I believe it was implicit in what the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, if I deal with both his Amendments to the Amendment together.
  150
  The effect of accepting them would be to dispense with the requirements of the new subsection (6), that the defendant should be present when the court inquires whether the default was due to his wilful refusal or culpable neglect, and that the court shall not impose imprisonment in the defendant's absence. The present subsection (3) of Section 74, the section which we are amending, requires the defendant's presence throughout the proceedings. The new subsection (6) is designed to restrict the need for the defendant's presence to those parts of the proceedings for which it is strictly necessary, now that there is to be power to make an attachment of earnings order in ordinary enforcement proceedings—namely, when the court is inquiring into the reasons for the default and when imprisonment is being imposed.
  We feel that the first point—that is, when the court inquires whether the fault was due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect—stems from the essentially inquisitorial nature of the proceedings. It is fundamental to them that a defaulter who has not been wilfully refusing or culpably neglectful should not be imprisoned for his default. To ensure this, it is essential to have the man there. Many defaulters are of such a type that, if it were left to them to go to court and explain that the arrears had accrued through no fault of their own, they would simply not be there to do so. I know very well from my experience in the Law Courts that that is so; and in such a case the difficulty is that when a defendant does not conic (I am sorry to use a double negative but it is the only way I can explain it) the court will almost certainly not be of the opinion that the default was not due to wilful refusal or culpable neglect. In other words, because he did not come they would probably think it was.
  If the noble Lord's first Amendment was accepted, the court would not be prevented from imposing imprisonment. As at present, the court should be required to inquire in the defendant's presence in every case. I feel that committal to prison is a more serious step than attaching earnings, and it has been thought right that, before this step was taken, the court should see the man and find out what explanation he has to give. The provision will operate primarily for the protection of the mart. The court

  151
  will have power under the new subsection (5) to have the man arrested, but the warrant of arrest can be endorsed for bail if the court sees fit and the court can, in suitable cases, issue a summons instead of a warrant. These are powers which the court has under the present section.
  The necessity for retaining paragraph (b) of the new subsection (6) stems from the general undesirability of a court's imposing imprisonment without first hearing what the man has to say by way of showing why he should not be deprived of his liberty. Here again, we feel that it would be insufficient to leave it to the man to turn up: the court should be obliged to have the man there, as I think the noble Lord had in mind. The first requirement will cover the point in many cases, since where the court has inquired into the reason for the default and not found it to be innocent, it may thereupon decide what action to take. But there may be cases where, after so finding, the court adjourns—for example, to hear evidence on a claim by the defendant that he has earnings which could be attached as an alternative to imprisonment. Therefore paragraph (b), which the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, proposes to leave out, is necessary to ensure that at the adjourned hearing imprisonment is not imposed in the defendant's absence. Where the court has not been satisfied immediately after the inquiry that imprisonment is unavoidable, it seems particularly desirable to ensure that the man should be able to say why it can still be avoided.
  There is another aspect which the noble Lord raised. He will see that where only paragraph (b) bites, the defendant need not be present in person, since by Section 99 of the Magistrates' Courts Act an absent party represented by counsel 07 solicitor is deemed not to be absent. But, of course, the difficulty, as I think the noble Lord will agree, is that in this type of case it is likely to be uncommon for the defendant to be represented. I have endeavoured to deal with these points, and again I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. It is difficult to hold the scales even on this point, but that is what we are trying to do. I will consider carefully what the noble Lord has said in his
  152
  speech, and I hope that he will not press the Amendment to the Amendment.
  LORD SILKIN: Of course, on the promise which the noble and learned Viscount gives, which he always carries out, to consider the matter again, I will gladly not press the Amendment. But the noble and learned Viscount appears not to have followed my point. It is a very simple one: if a man cannot be imprisoned unless he is present, if he does not turn up the court cannot imprison him, so that the sanction of imprisonment is valueless. There is no way of getting the defendant to the court. He certainly will not instruct solicitor or counsel to represent him, and he will not come himself if there is the slightest danger of his being imprisoned. Therefore, what is the point of all this?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I understand that a warrant can be issued and he can be brought before the court.
  LORD MERRIMAN: Subsection (5) says that he can be arrested and brought before the court.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the point. I think I did mention it in my speech, but I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, if I did not make it clear. As my noble and learned friend Lord Merriman says, it is covered by subsection (5).
  LORD SILKIN: I do think it needs looking at again: I am not altogether satisfied. However, I will look at it again. and if the noble and learned Viscount will do the same, maybe we can arrive at something satisfactory. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
  Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is the Amendment I mentioned as carrying out part of the purpose which we all had in mind. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause:
  Prohibi ion of committal more than once in respect of same arrears
  ".Where a defendant has been imprisoned or otherwise detained under an order or warrant of commitment issued in respect of his

  153
  failure to pay a sum due under a maintenance order, then, notwithstanding anything in this Act. no such order or warrant shall thereafter be issued in respect of that sum or any part thereof.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.2 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 15, to insert the following new clause:
  Revocation and variation of Orders in Council under 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 33, s. 12
  ". Her Majesty may by Order in Council revoke or vary any Order in Council made under section twelve of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920 (which provides for the extension of that Act by Order in Council to certain oversea territories), and an Order under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions as Her Majesty considers expedient for the purposes of that Act."
  The noble and learned Viscount said: It may he for the convenience of the Committee if I deal with Amendments Nos. 13, 16, 17 and 18 together. They all arise out of the position under the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, which provides for the registration and enforcement in this country of Commonwealth maintenance orders and for the sending for enforcement in a Commonwealth country of an English order. The Commonwealth countries concerned are those parts of Her Majesty's Dominions or those British Protectorates to which the Act is extended by an Order in Council under Section 12 of the Act; and Section 12 enables an Order in Council to be made where Her Majesty is satisfied that reciprocal provisions have been made by the Legislature of the country concerned. There are now forty-four such Orders in Council, and their total effect is not particularly easy to follow, especially where Orders relate to different parts of what is now one country, such as Ghana. Since there is no power to vary or revoke these Orders in Council, consolidation is not possible, although it is clearly desirable. The Amendments will give the necessary powers. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 15, insert the said new clause.—The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16 [Special provisions as to magistrates' courts]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
  Page 16, line 23, at end insert——
  ("() A complaint for an attachment of earnings order may be heard notwithstanding that the complaint was not made within the six months allowed by section one hundred and four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952.")— (The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is on a different point and not in the group which I mentioned. Your Lordships will see that this Amendment has been put down for the avoidance of doubt. It is to deal with the general rule of law, the principle of res judicata, that a court cannot re-hear a matter which it has already decided. It is just possible that this principle might be held to prevent an attachment of earnings order from recovering an amount for which a complaint has previously been dismissed; and yet, for instance, the defaulter might have subsequently found regular employment and an attachment of earnings order could appropriately be made. I think, in the circumstances, it is a reasonable step to take. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 16, line 23, at end insert—
  ("(6) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that a complaint may be made to enforce payment of a sum due and unpaid under a maintenance order notwithstanding that a previous complaint has been made in respect of that sum or a part thereof and whether or not an order was made in pursuance of the previous complaint.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 17 and 18 agreed to.
  Clause 19 [Short title, extent, commencement and repeals]:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 19, line 7, after ("except") insert ("section (Revocation and variation of Orders in Council under 10 & 11 Geo. 5. c. 33, s. 12) and").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
  Schedule agreed to.
  THE Title:
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move the first Amendment in the Title.
  Amendment moved—
  Line 5, after ("orders;") insert ("to make provision").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Line 8, after ("orders;") insert ("to amend section seventy-four of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and to enable Orders in Council under section twelve of the Maintenance Orders (Facilities for Enforcement) Act, 1920, to be revoked or varied;").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Title, as amended, agreed to.
  House resumed.

  HORSE BREEDING BILL [H.L.]
  6.8 p.m.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed, and sent to the Commons.

  DRAMATIC AND MUSICAL PERFORMERS' PROTECTION BILL [H.L.]
  An Amendment reported (according to Order).
  ROYAL SCHOOL FOR DEAF CHILDREN MARGATE BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
  BRAZILIAN TRACTION SUBSIDIARIES BILL [H.L.]
  Returned from the Commons, agreed to with Amendments: the said Amendments considered and agreed to.