Lords Sitting of 17 March 1960

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Liverpool

SAFETY OF NUCLEAR-POWERED SHIPS
3.5 p.m.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, I beg leave 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 their attention has been drawn to the Report of the Committee on the Safety of Nuclear-powered Merchant Ships; whether they concur with its findings, and what steps it is proposed to take as a result; and whether it is proposed to endeavour to deal with the question by international agreement of a stringent character.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport has recently stated in another place, this Report contains a comprehensive survey of the measures required nationally and internationally to enable nuclear-powered merchant ships to be operated with safety, particularly in the initial stages of development. In the view of Her Majesty's Government, the Committee's recommendations will provide an excellent basis for legislation in due course and meanwhile for international discussion at the Conference on Safety of Life at Sea, which is to be held in London in May. They will also be discussed fully by my right honourable friend with the interests and authorities in this country who are concerned.
In their Report the Committee have made proposals in the form of draft recommendations to Governments. These proposals will be placed before the International Conference. The Committee took the view, with which my right honourable friend agrees, that it would
1264
be premature at this stage to seek to lay down firm international regulations.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend very much for his comprehensive answer, can he assure me that full consideration will be given to paragraphs 36, 37, 38 and 39 of this Report? Will the Minister also bear in mind that at present a nuclear-engined ship wears no particular flag, nor has she any particular colour to indicate what she really is; that people going to the rescue of such a ship might themselves get into a position of the most serious danger in their endeavours to save life; and that it is of great importance to have adequate consideration of all these things before the first nuclear ship, apart from submarines and the like, puts to sea?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, the answer to the first part of my noble friend's question, is Yes. The answer to the second part is that there are recommendations in the Report for just the circumstances that my noble friend has suggested.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, may I ask whether it is appreciated that, in certain conditions, set out in the paragraphs to which I have already referred, there is an appalling danger from the point of view of the population on shore, and that places having concentrations of hundreds of thousands of people or more may be jeopardised by an accident, collision, grounding or similar trouble?
LORD CHESHAM: Yes, my Lords, that is appreciated. That is why I said that we considered that this Report was an excellent basis on which to start.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in view of the obvious importance of this matter, which I am glad to see has been fully recognised by the Government—I am not complaining in any way—may I ask whether there have been any direct conversations with the United States of America, in view of the advanced stage of their preparation for nuclear-propelled merchant ships? I assume that the Admiralty are already fully informed and in touch with the United States as regards naval ships.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I understand it, there has been a certain amount of conversation, but undoubtedly

1265
before the "Savannah"—which no doubt the noble Viscount has in mind—is likely to seek to enter our waters there will be further conversations which will have to lead to agreement.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, will the noble Lord elucidate a point in his original Answer, when he said that it was not contemplated that there would be firm international regulations? What kind of regulations will they be if they are not firm?
LORD CHESHAM: It is envisaged, my Lords, that they would be recommendations which would be adopted internationally—that people would, so to speak, agree to play to these regulations, which would then require bilateral negotiations between Governments as they operated their ships in and out of each other's waters. The general feeling, which is strongly held by the Committee—the noble Lord will see this if he has read the Report, as no doubt he has—is that to lay down an International Convention binding the development of nuclear ships and their operation would, so far as we have got at the moment, be likely to have a hampering effect on what is a most important development in shipping; and to do so now might well lead to the difficulty of having to make later amendments to an internationally agreed World Convention. It is better to learn a little more before the Convention is laid down firmly.
EARL HOWE: My Lords, with apologies to the House for putting yet another supplementary question, may I ask whether the noble Lord's answer means that there is nothing whatever to prevent a country from sending a nuclear-propelled ship to sea? What happens in the event of a disaster, which may involve hundreds of thousands of people, as is stated in the Report?
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, and following what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, could I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether he is satisfied that adequate safeguards can be provided with regard to the containment structure and its solidity in the event of collision
1266
or of a ship breaking its back, to avoid any of the radioactive fission products seeping out from the containment area into the atmosphere?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I trust that my noble friend is not seeking to lead me off into technical questions on this subject at the present time. It would appear that if these safeguards are sufficiently thought out and adhered to internationally, dangers such as my noble friend Lord Merrivale has mentioned can be greatly reduced. In answer to the question of my noble friend Lord Howe, it would be possible as matters stand at the moment for someone to sail a nuclear ship, say into our waters; but we are talking a little ahead because at the moment—and I stress "at the moment"—nobody has one to sail. By the time someone is ready to sail one into our waters Her Majesty's Government most sincerely hope that this matter will be properly regulated, to minimise every possible risk that could arise from such ships.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am very much obliged for that answer. I think, on the whole, it is a very good one. But we in this country are always anxious to maintain the tradition—our greet tradition, at any rate—of the brothel hood of the sea, and I hope that the inquiries and consultations which will take pl ice may perhaps lead to a general international regulation which will require ill non-nuclear-propelled ships to carry all the equipment necessary to support sailors of all classes of ships in keeping up the tradition of rescue at sea.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, for saying that, because it is very much the view of Her Majesty's Government that this should be done in a proper way, as we have always tried to conduct our shipping policy. That is why we hope to be able to take a leading part in bringing about a satisfactory international Convention in due course, with reasonable arrangements in the meantime.

CYCLONE DAMAGE IN MAURITIUS
3.16 p.m.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the latest information that they have received of the extent of the devastation in Mauritius and, in particular, how many houses and how many huts have been destroyed, and what percentage of the sugar crop and of the tea crop, and whether the damage to the tea factory will render it inoperative during this season and finally what is the estimated value of the losses suffered.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, cyclone "Carol" which struck Mauritius on the 27th and 28th February was the most severe ever recorded in the island's history. There were over 1,700 casualties; 42 people were killed and 95 seriously injured. Over 100,000 buildings and huts were destroyed or seriously damaged. Nearly 70,000 of the island's total population of 600,000 are now in refugee centres. The House will recall that cyclone "Carol" was preceded in January by cyclone "Alix", which killed eight people, injured over a hundred and destroyed over 20,000 buildings and huts.
It is estimated that as much as 60 per cent. of the year's sugar crop may prove to have been lost, though the size of the final crop will naturally depend on the weather during the remainder of the season. About 30 per cent. of this season's tea crop has been lost, but I am advised that no serious damage has been suffered by mature tea bushes. The Government's tea factory is likely to be out of action for some months, but the remaining factory capacity of the island will be able to handle this season's reduced tea crop.
1268
It is not yet possible to give any estimate of the total value of the losses suffered, though it runs into many millions of pounds. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has made arrangements for a team of his advisers to visit Mauritius to look into the cyclone damage and measures for reconstruction, this in consultation with an economic survey mission which is now visiting the Island to consider a long-term development programme.
As my right honourable friend has announced in another place, he has arranged to pay a short visit to Mauritius between the 9th and 12th April after his forthcoming tour of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. Finally, I should like to take this opportunity of again expressing the gratitude of Her Majesty's Government to the French Government and to all the other Governments and organisations, such as the Red Cross, which gave such generous help to the people of Mauritius in the disaster they have suffered.
LORD FARINGDON: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl very much for that extensive answer. I wonder whether he would agree that the second cyclone has now rendered quite inadequate the £2 million which Her Majesty's Government, after the first cyclone, said they would make available. Have Her Majesty's Government any plans for the provision of additional aid?
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, the answer is Yes. Clearly, the help which it was originally announced, after the first cyclone, we were planning to give, subject to Parliamentary approval, in the form of loans and grants is not now going to be sufficient. A mission has now been arranged and has gone out to see the extent of the damage, and Her Majesty's Government have in mind to talk to the Government of Mauritius about what we can do to put things right.

CIVIL DEFENCE (DISEASE) REGULATIONS, 1960
3.19 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD LORD ST. OSWALD rose to move, That the Draft Civil Defence (Disease) Regulations, 1960, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 9th instant, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, under the Civil Defence Designation Order, 1951, my right honourable friend was designated as Minister responsible for taking measures to deal with casualties and disease, for the purpose of the Civil Defence Act, 1948. In respect of casualties, the Ambulance Regulations of 1951 and the Casualty Collection Regulations of 1954 passed on to local authorities the duties of making plans and giving training. They enabled those authorities to incur expenditure and receive grants for training both members of the Civil Defence Corps and members of their own staff.
Until now, similar duties in respect of disease under war-time conditions have not been passed on to local authorities. It is important that they should be, and the power to do so is now being sought under these Regulations. They allow grants to be made to local authorities towards their expenses in sending personnel to centrally-organised courses under the Ministry and towards training arrangements of their own. The Regulations now before your Lordships' House, if agreed to, will make it immediately possible to hold Civil Defence courses specifically related to the problems of disease in war for the public health staff of local authorities. These Regulations, being made under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, are subject to the Affirmative Resolution procedure, and I hope they will have your Lordships' approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Civil Defence (Disease) Regulations, 1960, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday the 9th instant, be approved.—(Lord St. Oswald.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HORTICULTURE BILL
Read 3a (according to Order) with the Amendments.
Clause 12 [Offences in relation to schemes]:
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection (1) of this section shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, and a person guilty of any other offence under this section shall be liable—
3.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved in subsection (4) to leave out "one hundred pounds" (where those words occur a first time) and insert:
"fifty pounds in the case of a first offence or one hundred pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend Lord Wise and myself, I hope it will not be regarded as necessary for me again to deploy the arguments which I used in support of the two rather similar Amendments which I moved in Committee on Tuesday. As your Lordships will be aware, in the Bill then are three different grades of penalty for offences of different gravity, and on Tuesday I moved two Amendments to reduce the maximum penalties in the case of the two lesser offences. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, in considering the arguments which were then put forward, suggested, without giving any undertaking, that it might be of advantage if he had time to consider them, and that is why the Amendment has been put down to-day.
Meanwhile, however, I also have considered what was said, in particular by noble Lords opposite, who, although generally supporting the idea that there should be lesser penalties, nevertheless suggested that my Amendments did not quite meet the case. In particular, the noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, suggested that there should be a smaller maximum fine for a first offence, but for a second or subsequent offence the maximum fine should be greater, otherwise it might profit a person to keep on committing the offence for a small fine. The noble Earl, Lord Waldegrave, agreed with me

1271
that offences under the particular subsection with which this Amendment deals would generally be offences of ignorance, which he said, of course, was no defence, but the offences under the next subsection would usually be deliberate. I accept that argument and I am no longer trying to press the point of my second Amendment on Tuesday, which was to remove the possibility of imprisonment for that offence. But I feel that the Amendment as it now stands, with a lower penalty for the first offence and a higher one for subsequent offences, meets the point and the general argument put forward on Tuesday; and I also believe would more nearly do justice to people who, as we recognise in many cases, do not keep books and who, in filling up forms, might possibly commit an offence of this kind, at least the first time, from inadvertence. I hope, therefore, that in this amended form the Government will welcome the Amendment and accept it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 3, leave out ("one hundred pounds") and insert ("fifty pounds in the case of a first offence or one hundred pounds in the case of a second or subsequent offence.")—(Lord Stonham.)
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, has put down this Amendment in this way, because to my mind it still leaves us with the disadvantage to which I drew attention during the Committee stage; that is, that it may well be that a person will find it to his advantage not to keep books, even if he has to pay an annual fine of £100 for not doing so. I think it would be no bad thing that for a second or subsequent offence the power of imprisonment should be held in reserve. On the other hand, for the offences under summary conviction I still feel that a sentence of imprisonment for a first offence is one which should not be prescribed. I wish, therefore, that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, had put down his Amendment in a different fashion.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, I said during the discussion on the penalty provisions of this clause during the Committee stage that I had some sympathy
1272
with the views that were expressed not only by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, but by my noble friends Lord Brocket and Lord Mansfield. The views, as I understood them then, were broadly that the penalties for the less serious offences—that is to say, those under Clause 12 (1), of failing to register and failing to keep records, and so on—might be thought excessive. I undertook to discuss this matter with my right honourable friend. I have done so and I can say that he is also sympathetic to this view. We have now before us—and I think we really must confine our attention to the Amendment that is before us in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham—an Amendment which is designed to reduce the maximum penalty for a first offence under subsection (1) of Clause 12 from £100 to £50, but which would leave the maximum of £100 for subsequent offences. If it is your Lordships' wish that this Amendment should be made to the Bill, I am prepared to accept it. I can say that, in our opinion, it is correctly drafted and can be accepted into the Bill as it stands.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Earl Waldegrave.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I rise not for the purpose of obstructing the passage of this Bill but to raise a question of procedure. I have from time to time had occasion to make representations to your Lordships about the manner in which Bills come here and are disposed of without this House being given a reasonable opportunity of dealing with them and of carrying out its proper functions of going through the Bill, suggesting reasonable Amendments and having them properly discussed.
In the case of this Bill we had the Second Reading on March 7 and the Committee stage on March 15. I make no complaint about that: it allowed eight days in which to consider Amendments on the Committee stage. We had a fairly long and exhausting Committee stage. There were nine or ten Amendments, which were dealt with by the noble Earl, with his usual efficiency, ability and

1273
courtesy, and I make no complaint about the Committee stage of the Bill. But on the following day, when a number of matters were left over for consideration, certainly by my noble friends on this side of the House, we had the Report stage. And to-day, the day following, we have the Third Reading. That is not treating this House with proper consideration. If we are to have a Report stage at all, some time ought to elapse between the Committee stage and the Report stage. Likewise, in this House, where we are entitled to put down Amendments on Third Reading, there ought to be a reasonable time allowed before the Third Reading.
I do not know whether there is any great urgency about this Bill. I understand that the Government are anxious to get it passed in time to put it into operation on April 1. But, without going into the Bill in great detail, I do not understand why it is so important that it should come into operation on April 1. It might equally come into operation on May 1, without, I imagine, hurting anybody at all: and if we had had this extra month it would have enabled this House to perform its functions in a proper and seemly way. As it is, it is really making a mockery of these deliberations and, may I say, putting a very unfair burden on the limited number of individuals on this side of the House who have taken an interest in the Bill. The Committee stage was quite an arduous business, and to have the two following stages on succeeding days is really too much. I enter this protest in the hope that the Government will do everything they possibly can to enable this House to do its job properly, and to give adequate time for the various stages. I am not complaining of the outcome of this particular Bill, but I am using this as a case in point, where there ought to be more time. I hope that in future we shall not have occasion to complain of this sort of thing.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will realise, it is not my personal responsibility, and he was generous enough to say that. I should not like to express any opinion about this matter as an individual. The remarks which he has made and put so fairly, if I may say so, I will, of course, bring to the attention of my noble
1274
Leader, and I am very sorry that this difficult Bill has had to be hurried in these last days. I should like to say that we have done what we could within the programme set for us by higher authority, because we have even taken an Amendment on Third Reading to-day, and we have been able to discuss these matters fully. The point of April 1 is, of course, that it has been widely and for a long time publicised that my right honourable friends wanted to be able to receive applications for this new scheme as from April 1, when the Spring is beginning and the horticultural growing season is starting. I think that it is a suitable date to start a horticultural Bill. I will not say more about that, except that of course everything that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has said will certainly be taken into consideration.
However, as this is the last opportunity for me to say anything about this Bill in your Lordships' House, I wonder if I may, with your permission, thank your Lordships for the most useful discussions that we have had in all stages of this Bill, short though they have been. We have not been able to go in some directions quite so far as some noble Lords opposite would have wished us to go, but I think I can fairly say that our differences, at any rate in the great majority of cases, have been differences only on points of detail. I hope—indeed, I believe—that I am not overstating the case if I say that this Bill will leave your Lordships' House as basically an agreed measure, which we hope and believe will not only afford real assistance to growers of horticultural crops in this country, but also help to lay the foundations for improved marketing and presentation of all horticultural products, whatever their origin, which are sold in this country. If our hopes are fulfilled, as I have every confidence they will be, this will surely come to be considered as a most important Statute.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

REQUISITIONED HOUSES BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.
WAGES ARRESTMENT LIMITATION (AMENDMENT) (SCOTLAND), BILL
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment.

FIRST OFFENDERS (SCOTLAND) BILL
3.37 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, this is a Private Member's Bill promoted by my honourable friend Mr. William Small, Member of Parliament for the Scotstoun Division of Glasgow. I should like, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, to offer my sincere congratulations to him upon his success in the ballot; on achieving this success in his first Session as a Member of Parliament; on his choice of the Bill to be promoted; on his presentation of the case, which was both modest and thorough; and on the unanimous support he received in another place—where, with the blessing of the Government, the Bill passed without amendment through all its stages on February 26. By a fortunate coincidence, copies of the Report issued by the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders were placed at the disposal of Members of the other place, one of the recommendations of that Report being implemented in the present Bill. As I have already said, it had the blessing of the Government. Indeed, the promoter had been wise enough to consult both the Lord Advocate and the Joint Under-Secretary about the Bill. It also meets with the approval of my honourable and learned friend Mr. Douglas Johnston, who participated in the debate on this Bill in another place.
The Bill is similar in purpose to the English First Offenders Act, 1958, which in itself was promoted originally as a Private Member's Bill, and is part of what might be described as the humanising legislation characteristic of the current climate of public opinion. Clause 1 has four subsections. Subsection (1) restricts the power of courts of summary jurisdiction to impose sentences of imprisonment on first offenders who are
1276
of or over the age of 21. It applies the same test for those over 21 years as does the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949. Subsection (2) extends the practice which I understand appears in the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, of requiring reasons for the court's opinion that there was no other method of dealing with an accused person, even though the accused as a first offender is over the age of 21, than to impose a prison sentence. Subsection (3) defines what is a first offender.
Subsection (4) is peculiar to Scotland and has no equivalent provision in the English Act. I am told that this is because subsection (4) deals with a breach of Scottish legal principle that has to do with what, in legal terminology, is called cognate offences. But it is acceptable to the Government, I gather, partly because it is only a tiny breach, partly because that particular principle has been breached before, under. I am told, a 1941 Act with regard to young offenders under 21, but mainly because it would help rather than hinder those accused persons who are charged. Perhaps the most convincing argument I can submit, in the circumstances, is to quote from what the Solicitor General for Scotland said in the course of the debate as follows [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 618 (No. 60), col. 1605]:
"… we must have this machinery under subsection (4), so that if a man claims to be a first offender when, in fact, he is not, the procurator fiscal may bring him to the notice of the court and prove, if need be, that there were other previous convictions, even though they were not cognate."
Those are the whole contents of this simple Bill. As I have already said, it follows the example of the English Act of 1958. Some perhaps would prefer that the Scottish Act should come first, but we are prepared to learn from the wisdom of the English, and to-day we submit to your Lordships this Bill, which I hope will receive your approval. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Greenhill.)
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, the Government are glad to support this Bill which implements a recommendation of the Scottish Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders in their Report on Short Terms of Imprisonment. As the noble

1277
Lord, Lord Greenhill has said, this report gives impressive arguments for the view that the short sentence is too widely used in present practice. In any legislation on criminal justice at the present time we must bear in mind the regrettably high rate of crime, which is a matter of great concern to the Government, as it is to your Lordships and to the public. This Bill does not in any way reduce the powers of the courts to impose imprisonment if ultimately they consider that this course is the appropriate one. All it does is to require the courts, before they impose imprisonment on first offenders, to satisfy themselves by inquiry that no other method of disposal is more suitable. In other words, the Bill accepts the prima facie evidence in the Advisory Council's Report that in some cases imprisonment is now imposed when it is neither necessary nor helpful for the prevention of future crime.
I do not think I need say anything about subsection (4) of Clause 1, which presents a certain legal innovation, because it has been fully covered by the noble Lord in his references to it and in
1278
his quotation from what the Solicitor General for Scotland said in another place. The Government accept the necessity for this departure.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Orders made on the 16th and 18th February last discharged, and Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.

LONDON AND SURREY (RIVER WANDLE AND RIVER GRAVENEY) (JURISDICTION) BILL [H.L.]
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before four o'clock.