Lords Sitting of 13 June 1961

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield

THE SITUATION IN KENYA
2.35 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: 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 they have any statement to make on the present political and economic situation in Kenya, in the light of any report that may have been made by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for the Colonies, and with particular reference to the security position.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF PERTH): My Lords, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary did not make a report after his visit to Kenya and Uganda which would call for a Government statement, but, in the light of his visit and other day-to-day information we regularly get from Kenya, I am glad to try, as the noble Marquess asks, to outline the present position there in the political, economic and security fields.
Taking the security situation first, to which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary paid particular attention, he has described it as fundamentally sound, but drew attention to three disturbing features—a general increase in crime, on which I would comment that it has not been directed to any one race; the theft of firearms; and the increase in two areas of illegal oath taking.
Security operations have been taking place in Meru, where the largest oath-taking ceremony occurred. The Governor has been assured of the fullest support from Her Majesty's Government in any measures which he may consider necessary to maintain security. He has a large and efficient police force at his dis-
90
posal, and the determination of the mass of the people of all communities in Kenya to avoid the violence of the past.
With regard to the political situation in Kenya during the month in which the new Legislative Council has been sitting, the new Kenya Government has demonstrated its ability to govern and to maintain its majority. As to the economic situation, the Colony has unhappily this year suffered from an unparalleled drought, causing great hardship, and even famine, but the restoration of confidence remains the crux of the matter. Security, on which I have already touched, and the energetic tackling of the land problem are recognised by the Kenya Government as basic to the restoration of this confidence. For their part, Her Majesty's Government are giving very substantial support to help the Kenya Government carry out its policy. In the present financial year alone, £18½ million is being made available in grants and loans to support the current budget and the capital and agricultural development programme.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for the trouble he has taken to give the House all the information he can with regard to the present position in Kenya. I am sure the House will be glad to know that Her Majesty's Government have, as I understand it, assured the Governor of Kenya that he may expect the support of Her Majesty's Government in any security measures that he thinks it necessary to make. I think that that will be very well received by everybody in all pants of the House.
The noble Earl said nothing about the future policy. Perhaps that was impossible, but I hope he will be able to assure the House that the Government, in all their policy, will act in full conformity with the recent declaration of the Colonial Secretary that the right course is to take constitutional advance at a pace appropriate to the economic circumstances of the country and to the needs of all races in it, and, I would add, to the essential requirements of Imperial and Western defence. Your Lordships may have seen the statement by Mr. Mboya within the last few days that if British military bases still existed when Kenya attained its independence, the Africans would break them up. If that be the

91
attitude of the African leaders, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear at the appropriate moment (I have not given the noble Earl notice of this question) that in any settlement either the present bases or other necessary bases must remain under British sovereignty as in the Cyprus settlement.
THE EARL OF PERTH: My Lords, as regards the first part of the noble Marquess's question, I can assure him that what my right honourable friend said in another place is the policy of Her Majesty's Government and in that respect there has been no change in the years that I can remember. As regards the second part of his question, I should like to look at it and remember what he has said against the appropriate time.

PRESIDENT TSCHOMBE
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will use their influence with the United Nations to ensure that President Tschombe is released from detention and allowed to return to Katanga with all possible speed.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE): My Lords, on May 1, six days after the detention of Mr. Tschombe, at Coquilhatville, when it was not clear on whose authority he had been detained, or whether he was in fact formally under arrest, Her Majesty's Representative at the United Nations was instructed to urge the United Nations authorities to use their good offices to secure the release of Mr. Tschombe and his return to the conference table. Subsequently, Mr. Bomboko, Congolese Foreign Minister, formally declared that Mr. Tschombe was held under arrest on the authority of the Congolese Government.
It was the opinion of the United Nations authorities that this matter involved a question of internal Congolese jurisdiction, in which it would not be proper for the United Nations to inter-
92
vene. The United Nations authorities have, however, informed us that they are trying to ensure that Mr. Tschombe is accorded proper treatment, and I understand that they have made representations to the Congolese Government in this sense.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I ask whether, if it is not proper for the United Nations to intervene—although they seem to have intervened on a great many other occasions with little success—we have not either a Consul General or a Minister in Leopoldville, and whether it would not be competent, right and proper for him to intervene and try to secure Mr. Tschombe's release?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I appreciate the point that the noble Earl is making, but the answer must be, No; it would not be proper. One of our principal objects in the Congo is to see that interference from outside does not come into the life of the Congolese. That, surely, is the purpose of the United Nations. This is an internal domestic matter. When we were unclear about the position of Mr. Tschombe—whether he was under arrest by order of the authorities—we did approach the Secretary-General; but when it was declared that he was formally under arrest by the Government, then it became an internal matter for the Congolese authorities.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I am sorry to question the noble Marquess further, but he keeps on saying that as this is an internal matter in the Congo it would not be proper for the Secretary-General of the United Nations to make representations. What I have asked is whether it would not be proper for other diplomatic representatives to make representations, as is always done. If a Britisher is arrested in a foreign country, that is a matter of internal domestic affairs, but it does not prevent the British representative from making representations.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: Surely, my Lords, this is a quite different matter. The arrest of a British citizen in a foreign country would certainly be a question for the British authorities. But we are not here dealing with a British subject.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, in view of the statement of the Secretary-General in New York yesterday, in which he said that the position in the Congo had greatly improved, and when, indeed, he hinted that it might be possible for Parliament to be convened in July, would it not be the height of folly at this moment to accede to the noble Earl's request?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, if it is indeed a fixed principle of Her Majesty's Government and the United Nations that there must be no interference in the internal affairs or countries, why is it that they do not apply the same principle to Angola as they apply to the Congo?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I think we are risking branching off on to a matter which may well be a subject of debate. I am sure the noble Marquess will appreciate that I have tried to answer the Question put down by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard, and I should prefer not to be dragged into these realms by the noble Marquess.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I give notice that I will put down a Question on that specific point.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Marquess for his extremely well-spoken reply, but may I ask Her Majesty's Government, if Mr. Tschombe is not returned to his people, who I understand require him, whether they can view with equanimity the likelihood that Katanga will fall under Communist domination, with serious consequences to Northern Rhodesia?
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, all along I think we have made it perfectly clear that we wish to see conditions of stability maintained and that in the Province of Katanga this stability should continue. The information that I have is that the situation in Katanga at the moment does not give grounds for great alarm. I hope that my noble friend may be assured by that information.

B.B.C. BROADCAST OF AFRICAN OPINION
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
?[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will enquire as to why Mr. Chad Chipunza, Federal Rhodesian M.P., during his recent visit to the United Kingdom was not invited by the B.B.C. either through the medium of television or broadcasting to state the views of moderate African opinion in the Rhodesias whereas members of other African parties have been invited to do so.]
EARL JELLICOE: My Lords, I would remind my noble friend that programme content is entirely a matter for the B.B.C. and, accordingly, it would not be proper for Her Majesty's Government to suggest what subjects should or should not be dealt with, or indeed what speakers should or should not be invited to speak on them. At the same time I should like to make it clear that Her Majesty's Government expect the B.B.C. to treat controversial subjects with impartiality, and to choose their speakers accordingly.
VISCOUNT MASSEREENE AND FERRARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his answer. I am extremely pleased to hear him use the word "impartiality".

THE COMMON MARKET AND AGRICULTURE
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: 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 changes joining the Common Market would require in the present system of subsidies for the support of agriculture and what estimates they have made of the effect of these changes on (a) farm incomes; and (b) food prices.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD (EARL WALDEGRAVE): My Lords, if the United Kingdom were to join the Common Market, it must be assumed that we should be required to move gradually from the present system of guaranteed prices and Exchequer deficiency payments to the Common Market system, under which prices to the farmers will be maintained by the common tariff, variable import levies, and internal measures for the support of market prices. The present system of production grants and subsidies would not necessarily be materially affected. It is impossible to estimate the effect which these changes might have on farm incomes, but the noble Lord will be aware that one of the objectives of the common agricultural policy of the Six, as set out in the Treaty of Rome, Article 39, is:
"To ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural population, particularly by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture."
It is equally impossible to make a firm estimate of the likely effect on food prices, since the eventual level of prices in the Common Market cannot be forecast. The working out of the common agricultural policy will be a gradual process of development and, if the United Kingdom were to join, that in itself would affect the development of policy.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, while thanking the noble Earl for the Answer that he has given, may I ask whether, if there have to be changes from our present agricultural position, it would not be far better, instead of leaving figures and estimates to outsiders, individuals and bodies, if Her Majesty's Government made their own estimates, so that people engaged in agriculture in particular would be able to get a fair understanding of what the future holds out for them?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think any good purpose can be served by making public guesses about this hypothetical situation. We do not know yet what the Common Market policy is, and, of course, no decision has yet been made even to open negotiations for our joining the Common Market.
LORD WILLIAMS OF BARNBURGH: My Lords, while I agree with the noble Earl that there ought to be less guesswork than there has been over the past weeks and months, if there has to be a guess, ought it not to be an estimate made by Her Majesty's Government, and not outsiders?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, I do not think that this question of competition in guesswork is a very profitable subject to pursue. A large number of assumptions have to be made. While we do not in any way detract from the valuable work that various economists and organisations have done in trying to make assessments based on various assumptions, it is not for the Government at this stage to comment on those assumptions.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may we take it from the Minister's statement that the estimate which has been so widely circulated on behalf of P.E.P., that food prices would not rise more than 1½ per cent. over a given number of years is not trustworthy at all, and that they are trying to estimate on what is at present quite an incalculable basis?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, the noble Viscount and others will make their own judgment as to how much they should follow private estimates that have been given. We do not for a moment deny that the price of food would go up to some extent under this system. The process would be gradual, and we should not expect the increase to be substantial.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, whilst it is likely on such a matter that there will be all kinds of opinions in all kinds of places—industry, Parties and so on—is the noble Earl not aware that there has been an extraordinary increase in the number of farms put on the market for sale because of the present uncertainty in the minds of the industry?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I am not aware of that fact.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: It is in the papers. The noble Earl ought to study the agricultural papers.
EARL WALDEGRAVE: I study the agricultural papers as much as the next man, but I am not aware that there have been a large number of farms put upon the market because of anxiety about the Common Market.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, does not the Minister appreciate that there is a great deal of anxiety about the effects, or possible effects, of this momentous decision which the Government have to take, and that the Government, in pursuit of their inquiries into this policy, must be making estimates of the effects of this step upon various industries and upon agriculture? Cannot the results of those inquiries be made public?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: No, my Lords. I would refer to the very careful and full statement made by my right honourable friend in another place only yesterday, in which these matters were fully gone into. Questions of agricultural estimates and agricultural prices are not the only matters that have to be taken into consideration, and I think my right honourable friend said that it was broad political and economic matters that would be the deciding factors.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, would the noble Earl agree, as I suggested to him some months ago, that British farmers would not necessarily be worse off if we switched to tariffs and import levies on food as a means of price support? Could he further say if it is the Government's intention, in the event of any change, to try to ensure so far as possible that farmers are not worse off than they are now?
EARL WALDEGRAVE: My Lords, to answer the second part of the question first, the objective of a thriving agriculture in this country is (as my right honourable friend mentioned yesterday) sacrosanct—I think that was the word he used. That is our agreed objective. I will not venture to suggest to-day whether, in my personal opinion—which is of little value to your Lordships—one system or another would be likely to make us better off.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, I should like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable time after half past three there will be two statements. My noble friend the Leader of the House will be making a statement about consultations with the Commonwealth about the Common Market, and, secondly, my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty will be making a statement about the Report of the Romer Committee on Security.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
3.57 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER FOR SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty The Queen to signify to the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Road Traffic Bill, has consented to place Her Majesty's interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purpose of the Bill.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord,Chesham, moves the Third Reading, may I say that your Lordships have often found it convenient to take the Third Reading formally, then to consider the Amendment, in this case of the noble Lord, Lord Molson, and then have the discussion on the Bill on the Motion that the Bill do now pass. It is entirely a matter for your Lordships, but you might find that a convenient course in this case.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, your Lordships will expect some explanation of why I have put down an Amendment on the Third Reading when there have been three days on the Committee stage when it would have been far more

99
appropriate for this Amendment to be moved. It arose out of a conversation that I had about road traffic problems with one of the London stipendiary magistrates, who drew my attention to a strange anomaly that would not have been corrected by the Bill as it emerged from the Committee stage. He told me that, whereas in the case of roads where there is no restriction on waiting the offence of obstruction may be penalised by a fine of £20, in the case of a road where "No waiting" restrictions apply the maximum penalty is £5.
It therefore appears that, in the case of those special roads and streets where it has been considered by the Minister of Transport necessary to impose special restrictions in order to promote the free movement of traffic, the maximum penalty for an infringement of the regulations is only a quarter of the penalty that may be imposed in the case of ordinary streets where those special considerations do not apply. I was very surprised to hear of this, and got in touch with my noble friend the Parliamentary Secretary. It was found that as a result of the maximum penalty which had been put into regulations made by the Minister of Transport, this anomalous situation did in fact exist. It is for that reason and this anomaly, which I think has come to light only through the specialist experience of stipendiary magistrates, that I have ventured to put down this Amendment on the Third Reading of the Bill.
I have tried to explain in reasonably intelligible words what is the purpose and the effect of this Amendment, and I think it is now my duty to explain exactly how it operates; and should any of my Lordships not be interested in these technicalities, I beg him not to listen. I should not have been capable of doing the drafting myself but I have been greatly helped by the Ministry of Transport. This Amendment will alter paragraph 28 of Part III of the First Schedule which itself alters the maximum penalty for offences under Section 34 of the 1960 Act. It is under that section that the Minister makes traffic regulations for the London Traffic Area. Section 34 now provides that the penalty for contravening any regulations may be specified in the regulations themselves. The section also provides for a fine of
100
£5 for every day the offence continues after notice of it has been given.
Paragraph 28 of the Schedule to this Bill at present provides that in place of the above provisions there shall be prescribed a fine not exceeding £50 in the case of any offence in respect of a motor vehicle by failure to comply with a requirement to proceed, or not to proceed, in a specified direction or along a specified part of the carriageway, and for a prescribed fine not exceeding £20 in any other case. These are still maxima, and the actual penalties will have to be written into the regulations. My Amendment would not affect the maximum size of the penalties but would provide that they should apply in the case of any offence against the regulations made under Section 34, and the maximum penalties would no longer have to be written into the indivdual regulations. That is the way in which the draftsman gives effect to the simple proposition which I have ventured to put forward. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 26, line 2, column 2, leave out from beginning to ("in") in line 6 and insert ("For subsection (4) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—
'(4) If a person acts in contravention of or fails to comply with any regulations under this section he shall be liable on sununary conviction to a fine not exceeding,").—(Lord Molson.)
3.3 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, my noble friend Lord Molson is, of course, perfectly right: there is here an anomaly which requires putting right. It is unfortunate that so simple a matter is so extremely technical, and I congratulate him on the way he has explained it. I have not thought of trying to add any explanation of my own, except to say that as the Amendment to put right this anomaly does not increase the maximum penalties which can be set under the law and under the Bill as it now stands. But as those maximum penalties, in the case of the London Traffic Area have to be individually specified by each regulation that is made; and as we think that these have usually been set too low within the maximum permitted; and as it makes for considerably easier administration; and finally, as it ties in with the

101
general policy of penalties, I am very happy to accept it and I hope your Lordships will.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I have listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, but unfortunately this particular Amendment was circulated comparatively late, and I have not had time to consider it in detail. It is always a little difficult, of course, for a layman to deal with an Amendment of the kind, which deals with other legislation by reference. I think it is rather unhappy that we should have to accept an Amendment of this kind after the Third Reading of the Bill, which has yet to go to another place. There is plenty of time for this matter to be considered and dealt with in another place, and I do not therefore understand why there is such a rush to get an Amendment of this kind, which has not been fully considered, accepted before the Bill goes to another place. There is plenty of time for it to be done there.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, all I would say to the noble Viscount, Leader of the Opposition, is that the purpose of this Road Traffic Bill is to amend the existing law upon the subject. We have an opportunity to correct an anomaly which has only just recently come to light. I have tried to explain that at the present time the maximum penalty for obstruction of a road which is not considered to be of sufficient importance to warrant "No waiting" regulations is four times as great as the maximum penalty for infringing a regulation made by the Minister in order to deal with a road where the traffic problem is very serious. I should have thought that perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, would be prepared to accept such an Amendment, as this is the last opportunity for it to be made in this House. It is, moreover, an anomaly which the Government desire to rectify, and I should have thought that it would commend itself to everybody who desires to bring order and logic into our traffic legislation.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER of HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I say that we do not propose to vote on this matter? I am still not quite satisfied, but I am quite content, having drawn atten-
102
tion to the matter so that it may be considered by other friends in another place.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHESHAM: I beg to move that the privilege Amendrnent be agreed to.
Moved that the privilege Amendment be agreed to.—(Lord Chesham.)
On Question, Amendment (privilege) agreed to.
3.7 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, as I come to move that this Bill do now pass, perhaps I may be allowed a few minutes to look back briefly at its course through your Lordships' House. As your Lordships will recall, we had a most useful and constructive Second Reading debate in April, and then we spent four days in Committee. Your Lordships made a number of constructive and useful criticisms of the Bill during the Committee stage, some of which were accepted at the time, while other points were met by Amendments moved by the Government on Report stage. I think I may justly claim, my Lords, that my words on the Second Reading were right when I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 230 (No. 64), Col. 353]:
"I can only say that we shall listen to and consider most carefully everything your Lordships have to say now and at the later stages of the Bill, because our one desire is to produce as effective a measure as possible to save lives and injury. I well know your Lordships want the same thing".
That is what I said; and so it has proved, because I do not think anyone could accuse the Government of a closed mind or dogmatic resistance to your Lordships' ideas in the matters we have been debating.
Nor could anyone say that your Lordships have done otherwise than amply demonstrate your desire to improve the Bill as a road safety measure. This has truly been done, my Lords, as I hope to point out in the course of what little I have to say. I think it is also true to say that, in spite of the changes that we have made, the main principles underlying the provisions in the Bill remain unaltered. Some of the changes, however, are extremely important, and I am grateful to your Lordships for the fact that they make the Bill a much more efficient and serviceable weapon.

103
On the major problem of drink and driving, your Lordships came to the conclusion, despite the calling in aid of Shakespearean quotations by my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House, that it was right to say "urine" and not "water". What was perhaps rather more important, we have put in considerable additional safeguards for any person accused of the offence of driving while under the influence of drink. A blood sample can now be taken only by a medical practitioner; a test can be formally requested only by a police constable, and the accused has a right to ask for a specimen which he can have tested himself, as a check, by his own analyst.
Your Lordships also decided, against the advice of my noble friend Lord Dundee, to accept an Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, that the Secretary of State should make regulations to prescribe the methods of collection of specimens and the training of persons using breathalysers. As my noble friend said during the Report stage the Government have been carefully studying the problems that arise from this, and I must be frank and honest and say that we are still not satisfied that it would be right to be forced to prescribe methods of collection and analysis of specimens as is now provided. The study of this question, which is a difficult and complicated question is not yet completed, and therefore there is nothing definite that I can say at this stage. But I think I ought to emphasise that the Government may feel forced to move some further Amendment on this at a later stage, although, of course, if they do the matter will come before your Lordships again.
A large part of our debates on this Bill has been concentrated on the questions raised by Clause 3, dealing with disqualification. I am sure that it is right that it has been so, because it is the provision which appears to impinge most directly on the average driver, and it is also the one to which we attach the greatest importance, since we believe that great good for safety on the roads will come from it. Following the debates in Committee, my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House moved a series of Amendments last week which were designed to ensure that disqualification was imposed only where it was
104
really deserved and that there was little or no chance that it would be imposed for what have been called "technical" offences. I will not go again into all the details, but I think at least the majority of your Lordships were satisfied that the new Amendments represented a major improvement on the provisions we had originally put forward.
On Report the House accepted our proposal that there should be a complete recasting of the provisions whereby a person who has been disqualified can apply for the removal of his disqualification. I realise that these provisions do not go quite so far as some noble Lords might have wished, but again I think they meet the views of most of your Lordships. In future whilst the great majority of those who are disqualified will not be entitled to apply for removal of their disqualification, and disqualification will therefore, as we intended, bite harder and wider, we have still retained provision whereby the more severe orders will be subject to review after a statutory minimum period. On the advice of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, we also put in an important new provision whereby courts that find special reasons for not disqualifying will in future be required to state the special reasons in open court, and in the case of magistrates' courts to record them. I believe that that will be of considerable help to those whose duty it is to administer our laws.
Your Lordships will also recall that we included a number of other minor but useful new clauses, which you will not want me to go over again at length now. We also accepted a number of Amendments to the First Schedule, some designed to remove from Part II those offences which were of such a kind that in certain circumstances they could reasonably be classified as trivial. Others, on the other hand, were designed to include in that Part of the Schedule a number of offences which were such that your Lordships thought a court should have power to disqualify in respect of them.
Again during the Report stage, my noble friend Lord Dundee promised that the Government would give further consideration and make a further statement about the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, who was concerned about the fact that

105
we had not yet brought into effect Section 102 (4) of the principal Act, which relates to having a string of provisional licences and not taking a test. I have discussed this matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and he, as your Lordships have already been informed, is determined to bring this important provision into effect at the earliest practicable date. He is certainly most anxious not to overload the existing testing organisation, but on reflection he feels that it should be possible to proceed on the gradual basis outlined by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu on a previous occasion.
He has therefore taken steps to summon a meeting of representatives of the licensing authorities concerned, in order that the details can be fully discussed and a final date fixed for bringing the section into force. While I cannot tell your Lordships at the moment exactly what that date will be, pending the discussions, I can assure you quite clearly that it will not be later than the date which would have followed from the Amendment proposed by my noble friend Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. We already have power to do this by order, and I have not therefore proposed to put down any further Amendment to this Bill at this stage. I certainly hope that that assurance will be sufficient for my noble friend and your Lordships.
Last week, on Report stage, the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, asked what was to happen to this Bill during this Session, and the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, also inquired what its prospects were. I think I should perhaps say a word about this, in order to help your Lordships as best I can. This Bill, being a complex measure and of wide application, has, of course, aroused considerable public interest and comment, and, as I have said, it has had the benefit of detailed constructive criticism in your Lordships' House. The Session is now far advanced, and it may be that pressure of other business in another place may prevent the allocation of sufficient time to the Road Traffic Bill. If this Should prove to be the case, Her Majesty's Government would be able to study further the criticisms already made and to introduce a new Bill based on that study. If it is in fact found impossible
106
to complete the Bill this Session, a further statement will be made about it.
Therefore, as your Lordships efforts will not be wasted, I should like to take this opportunity of expressing my appreciation and gratitude to the many noble Lords who have worked so hard and constructively on the Bill. I am particularly grateful to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the House and to my noble friend Lord Dundee, who have done so much hard work in piloting the Bill through your Lordships' House. I am also most grateful to noble Lords opposite who have approached this Bill in a most helpful and constructive spirit. It would perhaps be invidious to mention names, but I am very grateful indeed to all those Members of your Lordships' House who have worked so hard to ensure proper discussion of the Bill and to do their utmost to improve it. Certainly, as I forecast originally, it is a controversial measure, but all your Lordships have approached it in such a helpful and practical way that I feel confident that in its present form it will have a real effect on the problems of road safety. Having said that, I think that there is nothing more for me to do except to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Chesham.)
3.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I shall not detain the House for more than a moment or two, but in view of the speech to which we have just listened, which has already been likened to me to a funeral oration—or it might be described as, "I come to bury Caesar, but remain to praise his friends" (and we thank you for the praise you have given to the friends who have worked so hard on the Bill)—I feel that it is a most serious matter that the business of the Government cannot be a little better managed than it has been. No possible blame can be attached to the leaders of the Government up here—I am not suggesting that for a moment. But there it is. We have two important Bills which will have passed through your Lordships' House after a good deal of work. I should think that, putting the whole thing together, one can say that between the two Bills we have spent three and a half months: and both Bills are being

107
buried. There it is. We shall have to accept the fact for what it is worth. I think that any tears shed about it will do no good, but I do beg that in the consideration of how business is to be allocated, first consideration in the future will be given to these facts.
I am much indebted to my own friends on these Benches for the way they have done their best to help in regard to both of these important Bills which are now being dropped. I should like to say, while many of them are here, how grateful I am for the amount of work they have taken off the shoulders of the rest of us. When these technical Bills are sent to us and we put in this amount of work upon them, they ought to reach their final destination.
3.24 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, last week when my noble Leader had something to say on this point I supported him, and I should like to say just one word more in regard to how frustrated we all feel at the news we have just heard, which I am afraid does not come altogether as a surprise. There can be no real excuse for this. This Bill was introduced in this House, and no difficulties have been put in the way by noble Lords on any side of the House. There has been no unnecessary talk about it; I think every Amendment that has been put down has been discussed in a rational manner. Yet we find that a Bill that has taken its normal course in this House and has gone through—the noble Lord opposite has paid tribute to the great improvement that has been made to it—cannot now pass into law.
Apparently, what has gone wrong is that it was introduced into this House too late. There has been a suggestion that as regards other measures there has been delay in another place. But that cannot be attributed to this particular Bill. I have not the dates clearly in front of me, but so far as I can recollect there has been no undue delay at all in any part of the House in dealing with this measure. How, then, does it come about that, having gone through this House, it cannot go through another place?
The noble Lord also spoke about introducing a fresh Bill next Session—I thought those were his words. Perhaps
108
he will refresh his memory, because that was the impression he gave. Is there not some machinery by which this same Bill can be carried forward into another Session in exactly the same form as it leaves this House, so that we do not have to go through the painful process of discussing it once more in all its stages? If that were possible, I think it would be a great help. If we are to have another Bill introduced, and have to go through all its stages once more, as we have done with this one, I can see little likelihood of its going through even in another Session, unless it is introduced at the earliest possible date.
I should like some explanation about what is going to happen to this Bill and to all the work that has been put into it. Is it to be thrown away? Are we to have another Bill? The noble Lord said that the Government would give consideration to everything that was raised on this Bill. To me, that sounds very much as if we are not going to get this same Bill but something which is going to be based on the Bill and on the discussions in the course of getting it through. I hope that that is not so. Perhaps the noble and learned Viscount who leads the House can give us some explanation as to what is to be the future of this Bill, if it is not to go through this Session.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, I am sorry to continue this discussion, but this is a case of bad Parliamentary management. As my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, this Bill came here late, and a lot of time has been spent and wasted. Might I ask whoever is going to reply whether, if this or a substantially similar Bill is to be introduced next Session, it will be introduced in this House or in another place? It may be that as this House has wasted a lot of time we ought not to run the risk for a second time, and perhaps it would be better if the Bill were introduced in another place, where the risk would pass to another place, which I am sure would not take it as well as this House is taking it. Perhaps we could have an indication of the Government's intentions in this respect.
3.27 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think we should speculate to see what is the state of Government Business

109
in another place. Of course, noble Lords realise that this is a matter which, in part, is hotly contested between the Parties in another place. It would be easy to excite controversy between the Parties here, but I think that, on the whole, we have carried this Bill through here very well. I do not think it was introduced too late. I do not think I should enter into too many details, but it is quite cleat that another place has been discussing a number of matters which were not anticipated at the beginning of the Session, some of which at any rate were not the fault of either Party, and I do not think therefore that one should plead guilty to bad Parliamentary management as the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, suggested. To be frank, I would far rather have it said against us that we had attempted more than we were able, with proper Parliamentary discussion, to achieve than that we had attempted too little.
This is a highly desirable measure. I will not accept for an instant that we have wasted our time here. If I may just give my own experience of the matter, we did, of course, discuss this Bill in the Government, as all Bills are discussed before they are ultimately brought to Parliament. It is a matter about which, at any rate, in my experience, no two intelligent people have exactly the same point of view. I myself could not have predicted in advance of the Committee and Report discussions, exactly the form in which this Bill would emerge, and I am quite certain, as my noble friend has stated, that we have performed an absolutely indispensible public service in carrying the Bill through this Chamber, as I hope we are about to do.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has raised a perfectly legitimate question, but he must know with his vast experience, as well as I know with certainly not very much more experience than he has, that there is a general rule that, if it does not pass both Houses during the course of a Session, public legislation falls and must be introduced again if it is to pass. This is the law of Parliament, and it would require a general change in the law of Parliament to alter it.
There probably is a very great deal to be said from every point of view, although I do not want to give any undertakings to-day (I am not authorised
110
to do so), for introducing substantially this Bill into another place rather than into this House again, because naturally one would want to know what another place thought about the Amendments and policies we have passed. That would probably save a great deal of Parliamentary time to both Houses. I am absolutely in no doubt that, after the discussions we have had, whatever may be the future of this Bill in this Session, any future Bill will be vastly better when it is introduced and will take up a very great deal less Parliamentary time.
I certainly do not want to enter into any acrimonious discussion. I should like only to reiterate the thanks which we on the Government Benches in this House feel to the Opposition in this House for the way they have carried on our debates and contributed to what I believe to have been a great improvement to the Bill. I shall certainly try to keep noble Lords opposite apprised of the plans of the Government. The state of Business in another place has not, I think, resulted in firm decisions being announced there, and we must await a firm announcement in another place as to the state of their Business before we can discuss the matter further here. I think that the best course is to hand this measure on, as I hope we are about to do, in the knowledge that we have conducted our Business expeditiously and have performed a useful public service.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Viscount. I do not want to debate the matter further, but I think that your Lordships in all parts of the House have worked very hard upon this Bill, and that was done because they believed that it was going to be a contribution to saving life on the roads. Therefore I hope that the Government will in the future regard this as a matter of very great urgency.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I had hoped that the noble Viscount was going to say that there is a great deal to be said for changing a Parliamentary procedure which results in this sort of thing. It has been criticised for as long as my memory of politics go back. It is an antediluvian procedure, and I should like the Government, and indeed the Parties generally, to look at it again. That a Bill cannot go through from one Session to

111
another in the way any common-sense person outside would expect, seems to me to be quite wrong.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think I want to comment on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, but I should like to say to the noble Lord who has just spoken that this is a matter of law which is for the protection of Oppositions rather than of Governments. Obviously it is to the advantage of a Government that a Bill should continue from Session to Session. But as we all from time to time spend some of our lives in Opposition, it has, I think, continued from generation to generation in the hope that freedom might be preserved. If there were any general feeling on the part of all Parties that the time had come to change the custom—I see noble Lords on the Front Bench shaking their heads—no doubt it would be conveyed to us through the usual channels and we might be prepared to consider it.
LORD AMWELL: My Lords, may I raise this point, a point I raised in another place year after year? We talk about the congestion of public business, which is likely to increase. Is it altogether out of place to raise the point about the length of the Recess? It would take about a week—if I am out of order I will not proceed.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think it really would be a little rough on the House to have to discuss the length of the Recess on a Motion that the Bill do now pass.
3.35 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I thought that there were a number of noble Lords who were going to speak on the Motion that the Bill do now pass, but, since none of them has risen, I wish to make a few observations. When this Bill was introduced and came before the House on Second Reading, although there was much good in the Bill, there were, I thought, a number of defects to which I considered it my duty then to call attention, and I attempted to deal with those defects on the Committee stage. From my experience, I must thank the Government and pay a tribute to them, and, in particular, to my noble and learned friend the Leader of the
112
House for the great ability and patience with which he has conducted this measure through the House.
I myself had the experience of moving more Amendments and having them accepted than I had done in the whole course of my Parliamentary life on any Bill, with the exception of those that it was my duty to introduce as a Minister. As a result, I believe that this Bill is a very much better Bill than it was; and I should share to the full the regrets that have been expressed from the Opposition Front Bench if this Bill were to go no further. I should not feel that, in any event, our efforts had been thrown away, because, even if they do not go further this Session, I cannot help thinking that the Bill substantially as it now leaves the House will be introduced in another place in a subsequent Session, though I share the regret that it should not pass into law this Session.
My Lords, there is one point on which I must put a question to Her Majesty's Government. I had every hope that it would be dealt with by the noble Lord who moved the Third Reading and the Motion that this Bill do now pass. It was the point to which I drew attention in the very last speech made on the Report stage of this Bill, when I drew attention to a case in the Court of Criminal Appeal which was reported on the very day that we last considered the Bill on the Report stage, namely, June 6. That was the case of Regina v. Smith. The Court of Criminal Appeal drew the urgent attention of Parliament to the need for an amendment of the law.
It may surprise the House to know that the maximum penalty for driving while disqualified is six months' imprisonment. This was a very terrible case in which a man had on his last previous conviction been disqualified for life. His habit was constantly to drive motor cars when drunk. He was in every respect a serious public menace. So great a menace was he that in the court of first instance in the case that came before the Court of Criminal Appeal he had been sentenced to the maximum sentence of six months for driving while disqualified, and for his driving while under the influence of drink they had imposed a sentence of eight years' preventive detention.
For reasons that will be clear, I think, both to the House and to all lawyers,

113
the Court thought that that penalty of preventive detention was not appropriate because he never had had previously any sentence at all approaching it. But they did express themselves in these words as regards the need to alter the penalty for driving while disqualified. Let me read a short passage from the report in The Times, under the heading "Call to Westminster":
"The maximum sentence for the offence of driving while under the influence of drink was two years, and for driving while disqualified six months. In the view of the Court, that second maximum sentence was one which on the facts of the present case called and called loudly for the consideration of those responsible for dealing with such matters. If ever a man deserved more than six months Smith was that mart."
My Lords, really, when observations of that strength are made by the Court of Criminal Appeal, some notice should be taken by Her Majesty's Government. In the hope that some notice would be taken, I intervened on the last Amendment on Report to say that I hoped that, when the Bill next came before the House, there would be a Government Amendment to deal with the matter. I thought of putting down such an Amendment myself, but refrained from doing so because I should much rather have the Amendment moved as a Government.Amendment in the form which they themselves desire. I should have no criticism of Her Majesty's Government for not doing it on this occasion, on Third Reading, provided that they are good enough to give an undertaking that the point will be met in another place. The noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition has pointed out, in another connection, that another place will have the opportunity. Whether it does so on this Bill or when a new Bill is introduced, I do not know; but I think that, as there is going to be another Government speech winding up the debate on this Motion that the Bill do now pass, the House really has a right to expect the Government to say that the point so emphatically made by the Court of Criminal Appeal will receive their attention, and that of Parliament.
3.42 p.m.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for not speaking in my proper place on the list. I had supposed that the noble Lord, Lord Latham, whose name appears on the
114
list immediately above mine, was going to speak. There is only one matter I desire to deal with, and that quite shortly. At the Report stage my noble friend Lord Swaythling drew attention to the fact that there appears to be nothing to prevent a car from being driven on the roads displaying "L" plates when there is no learner driver present in the car, and the noble Lord introduced an Amendment to make the practice of such an improper use of "L" plates an offence.
It was said, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that this practice did not seem to be a prevalent one, and that it was not serious enough to justify legislation. I venture to doubt whether that is so. I am thinking of the case of the family car which is used upon occasions, probably at week-ends, to teach a member of the family to drive. For the rest of the week that car is quite likely driven by an experienced driver, another member of the family, and because of the slight inconvenience and bother of removing the "L" plates and fitting them on again they are not removed. It may happen that, by the time the first, the eldest, child has passed the test, the next member of the family is ready to take driving lessons, and so it will go on. It may well be that that family cat will spend most of its life on the road displaying "L" plates, but that for most of the time is will in fact be driven by an experienced driver who is really using those "L" plates quite improperly.
If that is so, and if that comes to be generally recognised by road-users, surely the result is a debasing of the coinage, as it were. People will get the impression that the chances are, probably, that a car fitted with "L" plates is not in fact being driven by a learner driver, and people will cease to give that special consideration to learner drivers which Parliament has said that they must give. It was said by the noble Lord the Parliamentary Secretary during the debate on this matter on the Report stage that it would be inappropriate to introduce into the Bill any new offence which did not materially contribute to road safety. All I can say is that I should have thought that any measure which ensured that road-users gave the fullest consideration to learner drivers upon the roads would materially contribute towards road safety.

115
The noble Lord, Lord Chesham, went on to say that the Home Office figures did not appear to show that this was at all a serious problem. I am not at all surprised to hear that. If the police do not have the power to prevent the improper use of "L" plates on cars, I do not suppose they try very hard to do the impossible. They have a great many other duties in connection with traffic, to say nothing of the crime wave that we are suffering from at the present time; and of course, if the police do not bend their energies in this direction, it is understandable that no figures about this problem arrive in the files of the Home Office.
The Amendment set down by my noble friend Lord Swaythling would have enabled the police to tackle this problem and to ensure that "L" plates on motor vehicles were properly used and only properly used. Under it, every time a police constable saw a driver alone in a car on which there were "L" plates he would know that an offence was being committed: either a learner driver was driving it unaccompanied, or an experienced driver was improperly driving it using "L" plates. Furthermore, if the police saw a particular car continually being driven with "L" plates, under this Amendment they could have stopped the car and inquired whether any of the occupants were holders of a provisional licence; and, if no occupant was, then the appropriate action could have been taken.
I should not have expected a great flood of prosecutions to arise if Lord Swaythling's Amendment had been accepted. The police would no doubt begin by means of cautions, and it would quickly become known that it was no longer countenanced for experienced drivers to drive using "L" plates. If there were a few who continued to snap their fingers at the Statute, they would deserve to be prosecuted and they could be. It may be a little tiresome to remove an "L" plate and replace it again every time a learner driver is having a lesson, but in my submission it would not be in the least difficult to cover an "L" plate; and I should have thought that road-users might well be expected, in the interests of road safety, at least, to cover up an "L" plate when the car was being used other
116
than for the purpose of giving a driving lesson.
My Lords, may I say one word upon the Bill in general? I suppose we are none of us daring to hope that this Bill, if it goes through as it stands, will very materially affect road safety, but, from the attention and time that it has been given in your Lordships' House, undoubtedly some good will come from it. I wish it well on its way through the remaining stages of its journey into the Statute Book.
3.48 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I certainly join with the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, in saying that this Bill has been greatly improved since it was introduced in your Lordships' House, and I much appreciate the Amendments that Her Majesty's Government have put into the Bill. On the other hand, I do not think it will have very much effect in reducing road accidents, because they are frequently due to many causes that are not covered by the Bill. But, of course, if it is instrumental in saving a few lives, then this Bill will have done a good job.
It is easy to have second thoughts on a Bill of this nature when it is passing through its final stages in the House, and I trust I shall not be out of place if I mention one of them. I would refer to the danger caused, not only to health but to traffic, by the emission of black smoke by diesel-engined vehicles. I am sure many of your Lordships have found difficulty in passing slow-moving lorries on hills when they have been emitting black smoke. Sometimes the smoke is so black that oncoming vehicles cannot be seen at all, and it really produces great danger to traffic generally. I thought it might be necessary to set down an Amendment to the Bill, but I understand that the Ministry of Transport already have full powers to deal with this matter of black smoke. In the past, very few convictions have been obtained, owing, I believe, to the difficulty of determining the degree of black smoke which is in fact issuing from a vehicle, but I understand that there are now suitable black smoke meters which can determine the matter.
I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply on behalf of Her Majesty's

117
Government whether he would now consider enforcing the prohibition of the emission of black smoke in a more rigorous manner, not only in the interests of health, but also in the reduction of the great element of danger. I am fully aware of the difficulties of application of the smoke meter, but surely it is now possible to make use of this instrument as contributory evidence toward a conviction. I cannot help feeling that if it became known that the Ministry of Transport intended to enforce the law with regard to this matter, we should find that no false economies would be made by not providing adequate power to deal with excessive loads, and that transport operators generally would ensure that they had an adequate and practical maintenance programme for their fuel injection equipment. I also suggest that it might be advisable for Her Majesty's Government to initiate a publicity campaign showing that smoke is simply wastage, and wastage which it is equally important in the interests of the operators to curb, as it is also in the interests of the public. I hope that the Minister who will reply for Her Majesty's Government to-day will be able to say something on this really important matter.

THE COMMONWEALTH AND THE COMMON MARKET
3.51 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not want to intervene in this interesting debate, but I know that some noble Lords would desire the two statements to be made as soon as possible. I am in the hands of the House in this matter, but both my noble friend the First Lord of the Admiralty and I are now in a position to make the statements. I would, therefore, with permission, repeat a statement made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister in another place relative to the Common Market. The statement is as follows:
"I have informed the House on a number of occasions that we have been in touch for some time in the normal way with other Commonwealth Governments about the problems of the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Economic Community, and the possible arrangements which might meet the needs of
118
ourselves and our partners in the Commonwealth, as well as in the European Free Trade Association.
"Her Majesty's Government have not reached decisions on this important question. Before doing so, we regard it as essential for there to be further discussions with all the Commonwealth countries. For this purpose. I have proposed to the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth countries that I should arrange for my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and two other senior Ministers between them to visit Commonwealth capitals in the near future.
"In the light of these consultations and of the discussions which we shall be having with European Free Trade Association Ministers, Her Majesty's Government will further consider their policy. So far, my proposals have been generally welcomed. Arrangements for these visits are in hand, and an announcement about the dates will be made as soon as possible. I hope that it will be possible for a start to be made towards the end of this month."
My Lords, that concludes the statement.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for giving us a copy of the statement before repeating the statement in this House, but I must Say it leaves the Opposition here still unhappy about the situation. The first thing I should like to ask the noble Viscount is whether he could tell us when the invitations were sent to the Commonwealth Premiers about the proposed visit. On what date were they sent? Secondly, I would ask him who are the visiting Ministers to the Commonwealth capitals. We know that the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is going, but who are the other two? What is their status? With whom are they nominated to negotiate?
The third thing I am concerned about in the statement is this. Apparently, when these conversations—individual conversations—have taken place, from what the Prime Minister says he will proceed, with his Government., to settle their policy. Is there to be no prior consultation to ascertain, on this very difficult and complex matter, the views

119
of Parliament? Are the Cabinet going straight in on these reports to formulate a policy without consultation with the public representatives of the people, in another place as well as in this House, on a matter which has never been officially put before them in any detail whatsoever, either at an election or at any other time? This seems to me the most extraordinary, inadequate and inane statement, on a position as serious as that we are now facing to-day in making up our minds on this matter, that I can remember.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think there has been anything in this statement which really supports the suggestion by the noble Viscount that the Government propose in any way to proceed without consulting Parliament. I do not see how it could be possible to do that. In the first part of his supplementary question the noble Viscount asked about the invitation. What in fact I think he refers to is the proposal made to the Prime Ministers that the Commonwealth Secretary and two other senior Ministers should go there. As regards that, I cannot give him the exact date that this proposal was made. It is, of course, recently, but I cannot give him the exact date. If I had known that he was going to ask for that, I would, of course, have made inquiries. I cannot give the names of the other two senior Ministers yet, but, naturally, they will go as representatives of the Government.
LORD REA: My Lords, may I, from these Benches, also thank the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for the statement, and couple with it a sense of some bewilderment? These negotiations surely must have been proceeding for a very long time. It is over a year ago since I asked in the House what was the attitude of the Government toward Commonwealth interests, and we have had evasive answers most of the time. Surely some knowledge of the attitude of the Commonwealth Ministers is by now known. Are we only now trying to find out what it is, and, if so, is there anything to say that these negotiations may not go on for years and years till we have found out what they think?
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I am sorry the
120
noble Viscount cannot give me the date of the invitation, because it leaves another question in my mind unanswered. Do I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada has accepted this proposed procedure to receive, say, the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, instead of our acceding to his request for a meeting of the Premiers of the Commonwealth?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, of course my right honourable friend has seen what the Canadian Prime Minister, who has been in touch with the Government throughout, has said. I understand that Mr. Diefenbaker recognised the value of discussions with individual countries because of the pressure of special interests, but he also expressed the view that consideration should be given to collective Ministerial discussion, if necessary by a meeting of Prime Ministers. I feel certain that the best course at this stage is for us to have the individual discussions which my right honourable friend has described; but, of course, that does not rule out the possibility that it will be necessary and proper to arrange for collective discussions In due course. Those two courses are not exclusive. Meanwhile, we feel sure that these visits are the best way to proceed at the present time.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, we are very anxious about this point. I do not gather from the noble Viscount's reply that Mr. Diefenbaker is satisfied in his mind that his proposal is not the better one to make—that we should have a discussion by all the Premiers of the Commonwealth now. I am not satisfied by the nature of the noble Viscount's answer. And I must say that we put to the noble Viscount last week—and perhaps he will keep it in mind—that we want it made perfectly clear (and the last statement made this afternoon is not clear) that we do not think any- thing of this kind should be put finally to the Common Market countries until it has been agreed in a proper conference of Prime Ministers from all the countries of the Commonwealth. We ought to have that pledge and have it now.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, clearly this question of a meeting of the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth

121
is not a matter either for this country alone or for Mr. Diefenbaker alone to decide. It is something which has to be undertaken after careful consideration. The Prime Ministers of the independent Commonwealth countries are busy and prominent people in the world, and to arrange a meeting of them all at short notice is not by any means a light undertaking. Our view is that the next stage is that which my right honourable friend has described, but, of course, the view which the noble Viscount expressed in the latter part of his supplementary question is one which is widely shared and which obviously will have to be taken into account.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I should like to put two questions to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. The first one is with regard to consultation with the Commonwealth Prime Ministers. Is it not a fact that while Mr. Diefenbaker has said he would like to have a Prime Ministers' Conference now, the Prime Minister of Australia said only this morning that it would be impossible for him to attend a conference for a large number of months? We have been told that we must work out a policy with the Commonwealth. With that, I am fully in agreement. Speaking as a former Commonwealth Secretary, may I ask whether there are not ample precedents for individual consultation? Has it not been a regular and common method to consult with the Prime Ministers and other Ministers in the Commonwealth countries individually, particularly on matters of enormous detail and with a variety of separate interests?
The second question I should like to put to the noble Viscount is a different one. While the Government are making up their minds, we all wish to try to make up ours, but the difficulty is that of having material before us. Would it be possible—and I ask it particularly in view of what was said by the Under-Secretary for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food earlier to-day—to have a White Paper published which would set out the provisions of the Treaty of Rome and what, following upon the signature of that Treaty, has been done, or has been undertaken to be done, as an agreed programme by the six countries of the Treaty? It may be that that can be found in some Blue
122
Book or Pink Book of some foreign country, but it is very difficult for members of Parliament to get that information. If we could have this information, which does not commit the Government in the least, put in simple language in a White Paper, then I believe that we should all be in a much better position to know what to do in the matter.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend for his first supplementary question, with which I am in agreement, although I have not yet seen any public statement by the Prime Minister of Australia. I am very conscious of the need for further information. The Treaty of Rome has been published. I am sorry to say that it is a very large document of nearly 400 pages. Whether it would be possible to summarise it in a White Paper without misleading anybody, I am not sure, but I will certainly convey my noble friend's suggestion to those who will consider it further.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Viscount for further elucidation of two points in his reply to my noble Leader, and also ask him, on behalf of the Opposition, to consider very seriously the request made by the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, for more information to be made available to Parliament and the public about the present structure of the European Economic Community and about what has been done since this Community was set up? That is a request which comes from both sides of the House.
The two points about whirl I should like further information are these. Two senior Ministers, the noble Viscount says, are going to visit other Commonwealth countries. Even if he cannot give the names of these Ministers at the moment, does he not agree that they should be members of the Cabinet, because otherwise they would not be familiar with the thought of the Cabinet on this vital matter? My second question is this. Would the noble Viscount not agree that there is some force in the precedent of India, as he will remember, we dealt with first of all by discussions between senior Ministers, followed by a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Would he not agree that unless

123
it should prove that all Commonwealth countries are agreed about the terms and conditions on which the United Kingdom should enter the Common Market—and, as the noble Viscount will realise, agreement is unlikely because the Commonwealth countries have such different interests in the matter—there will be the strongest possible case for a Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference to iron out the differences between the Commonwealth Governments on this matter?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I have already said that I am conscious of the need for more information. I think that the noble Earl slightly underestimates the extreme complexity of the documents and of the structure of the organisations which have been formed under the Treaty of Rome. I am a little doubtful about how easily they can be summarised without misleading. After all, it is the function of public prints to inform the public on a matter so widespread and complex, and I am not sure that the White Paper could do so as effectively; but I will certainly carry the noble Earl's suggestion to my right honourable friend. Obviously, the Ministers to be selected must be agreeable to and able to carry conviction with the countries they visit, and that must be taken into account. As regards the Prime Ministers' Conference, that is not a matter for Her Majesty's Government alone to determine.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, could I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House to clear up one point which seems to me a little ambiguous? In his statement the Prime Minister used the words,
"My proposals have been generally welcomed."
Do those words refer to the Prime Minister's proposals to the Dominion Premiers or do they refer to the Prime Minister's views of this country's association with the Common Market; because if the former, I can welcome them, but if the latter, they would seem rather to prejudge the views of Parliament.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I do not think that there was any intention to prejudge the view of Parliament.
124
I think it means, in the context, the proposals as regards the future of the discussions which are contained in the statement.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, all the questions that have been asked so far have most properly been related to the question of the Commonwealth countries that will be consulted in this matter. It is also a statement regarding the treatment of members of European countries which form the European Free Trade Association. Do I understand that consultations with them will proceed simultaneously with those with the Commonwealth countries? Further, with regard to that point, will Parliament be informed about the decisions and expressions of opinion of these European countries as we go along?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, as the statement says, we have all along been in consultation with our partners in the European Free Trade Association. I think we should be able to carry this consultation a step further in the conference of members of E.F.T.A. which is taking place in London at ministerial level on June 27 and 28. I am sure that we should wish to inform Parliament, and if the noble Lord desires to put down a Question should we fail to do so, I should be glad to convey that information.
LORD REA: My Lords, the noble Viscount has indicated the difficulty of getting a Conference of Prime Ministers together, and that is appreciated. But it is only fairly recently that we had a Conference of Prime Ministers. Does the noble Viscount really say that this matter was not put to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers at that Conference?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, I think the noble Lord will remember that I dealt with that question yesterday in the original statement I made to the noble Viscount, Lord Alexander of Hillsborough. The point is that it was not one of the specific matters dealt with formally, but the opportunity was taken to have various private discussions.

NAVAL SECURITY: ROMER COMMITTEE'S REPORT
4.11 p.m.
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (LORD CARRINGTON): My Lords, for the convenience of your Lordships I will, with your permission, repeat a statement which the Prime Minister has made in another place on the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Breaches of Security at the Underwater Detection Establishment at Portland. It is as follows:
"The Government are greatly indebted to Sir Charles Romer and his colleagues for the speed and thoroughness with which they have investigated the circumstances of this case. Their Report is based on an exhaustive examination of a very considerable body of evidence; and its conclusions are unanimous. In view of the special secrecy of some of the matters which the Committee had to investigate, I am satisfied that it would not be in the public interest to publish the full text of their Report. I am, however, arranging for a summary of their findings, which the Government accept, to be circulated in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
"Those findings fall broadly into three groups. First, the Committee criticise, in general terms, certain defects in the Admiralty organisation for implementing security policy and procedures. Second, they criticise certain individuals at Portland for specific shortcomings in maintaining adequate security. Think they find that no blame attaches to the immigration authorities and that the counter-espionage operations of the Security Service in this case were carried out with efficiency.
"The first group of these findings is of special relevance to the current examination by the Radcliffe Committee of security procedures in the public service as a whole, and the Romer Report has therefore been referred to that Committee, who will, I am sure, take full account of it in their inquiry. Without prejudice to any recommendations which may be made by the Radcliffe Committee, the Board of Admiralty are taking steps first to review their internal organisation for implementing security
126
policy in the light of the criticisms of the Romer Committee, and secondly to impress upon all their staffs the need for strict compliance with security instructions.
"The Admiralty are also considering what action should be taken as regards the individuals specifically blamed by the Romer Report."
Following is the summary of the main findings of the Romer Committee referred to:
"No criticism can be made of Houghton's appointment in 1951 as Clerk to the Naval Attaché in Warsaw. Nor can any criticism be made of want of action by the Naval Attaché or the Admiralty in the events leading up to his recall to London, before the expiration of his appointment, on account of his drinking habits.
"2. Given the security criteria of the time no legitimate criticism can be made of Houghton's subsequent appointment in 1952 to a post in the Underwater Detection Establishment at Portland which did not in itself involve access to secret material. It is regrettable however that the authorities at Portland were not informed about the reason for Houghton's recall from Warsaw.
"3. No criticism can be made of Miss Gee's appointment to and subsequent retention at the Underwater Detection Establishment. At no time before the opening of the Security Service investigation in the middle of 1960 was there any ground for regarding Miss Gee with suspicion.
"4. In 1954 an allegation was made to a junior official who was Houghton's immediate superior in the small section of the Underwater Detection Establishment in which Houghton worked that the latter was taking secret papers out of the Establishment. This official did not report the matter or take any other steps in, regard to it apart from advising his informant to see the Security Officer or the police, and he is very much to blame for his inaction.
"5. In 1956 Houghton was twice brought to the notice of the authorities in the Underwater Detection Establishment as a probable security risk. Insufficient investigations were made and a report which was both incomplete and misleading was submitted to the Admiralty. The Security Officer at the Establishment is gravely to blame for the casual way in which he dealt with this matter. Even so the Captain of the Establishment should personally have ensured that proper enquiries were conducted and that the matter was fully reported to the Admiralty.
"6. The main responsibility for the failure to make a proper investigation of Houghton in 1956 rests therefore with the authorities in the Underwater Detection Establishment at that time. The evidence discloses that there was a general want of "security mindedness" in the Establishment; and responsibility for this must rest with the Captain of the Establishment. But the Admiralty, and the Security

127
Service, although they received only an incomplete and misleading report from Portland, cannot escape criticism for failing to press the matter to a positive conclusion.
"7. With one minor exception the Committee found no inconsistency between Government security policy and the security rules issued by the Admiralty.
"8. The Committee consider however that, apart altogether from the incidents in 1956, the Admiralty are to blame for the manner in which they discharged their responsibilities for security, particularly in regard to supervising security arrangements at Portland. In particular, the method of keeping the personal records of Admiralty civilian staff gave no certain means of ensuring that all the available information about the conduct and capabilities of individuals was to hand when they were considered for particular posts or when security doubts about them arose.
"9. Lonsdale and the Krogers were in possession of genuine Commonwealth passports when they entered this country and no blames attaches to the immigration authorities, who had no grounds for supposing that these passports were fraudulently obtained and could not at that time have been warned by either the United States or the Canadian security authorities that either Lonsdale or the Krogers were spies.
"10. There was subsequently no failure of liaison between the Security Service and the security authorities in the United States or any other country. Indeed, the circumstances in which Lonsdale and the Krogers were eventually detected and brought to justice are in themselves a convincing example of close and effective international security liaison.
"11. The Committee do not believe that the Security Service or any agency acting on their behalf received or overlooked any possible "lead" which might have resulted in earlier identification of Lonsdale and the Krogers as spies while they were in this country: indeed, they consider that professional skill of a high order was shown in establishing the necessary evidence against them once such a "lead" had been received.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: My Lords, we are much obliged to the noble Lord for the statement he has just made, repeating the observations of the Prime Minister in another place. The Government were good enough to send to my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition in advance a copy of the statement. I should like to make a suggestion about such civilities and courtesies; that is to say, that the civility and the courtesy would be more effective if the statements were decently typed. Page 2 of this copy is dreadful—in fact, I am a little doubtful whether any foreign spy could understand it; but maybe that is too optimistic. The noble Lord might look into that point.
128
Personally, I think the Government are right in coming to the conclusion that they cannot publish the whole of the Report if, in their judgment, it would give things away to a possible enemy. Therefore I do not complain about that, though I am sure the Government will publish all they can. They are to publish a summary of the findings of the Romer Committee. Could the noble Lord say whether they are so long that they could not have been summarised or recapitulated in the statement he has made; or does he think it would be difficult otherwise?—because it would have been more convenient if we had had some indication of what those findings were.
The statement says that
"the Committee criticise…certain individuals at Portland for specific shortcoming in maintaining adequate security"
and I have no doubt that they are justified in so doing. Could the First Lord tell us, in these circumstances, whether the Government propose to transfer to less dangerous employment the individuals who have failed in their provision of security, or even to dismiss them from the Service, if they have proved to be incompetent? This was a very serious affair, with a number of most unsatisfactory circumstances. I think it is right that the Report should be referred to the other Committee covering the whole field of security, so that they can consider it. We are much obliged to the First Lord for the statement, and I hope that he will be able to make some observations on the points that I have raised.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth. I must apologise for the typing.
LORD MORRISON OF LAMBETH: It is quite common.
LORD CARRINGTON: I will see that on the next occasion the noble Lord gets a copy nearer the top. The summary of the findings is rather long and occupies two foolscap pages; and I understand it was thought right that it should be included in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have, however, arranged for the convenience of your Lordships, that copies of the summary should be available in the Library after the statement is made if your Lordships would wish to read it before the OFFICIAL REPORT comes out

129
to-morrow morning. As regards the last question the noble Lord asked, I would rather not say too much about the individuals concerned. It was included in the Prime Minister's statement that the Admiralty are considering what action should be taken against these individuals. But in point of fact, two of the individuals concerned are no longer at Portland, one having retired and one having gone somewhere else and therefore only one individual would be affected by this question of transfer.

ROAD TRAFFIC BILL [H.L.]
4.17 p.m.
Debate resumed.
VISCOUNT BRENTFORD: My Lords, if I may detain your Lordships for a few moments longer on the Motion that this Bill do now pass, there are two observations that I should like to address to your Lordships. The first is an expression of appreciation to the Government for their courtesy and constructive reception of the criticisms which were made of the Bill, to a certain extent by myself. They were intended to be helpful, and were, I think, received in that spirit, and they were to a great extent incorporated into the Bill so as to make it a vastly improved measure from what it was originally.
The second observation I make with great trepidation, particularly in your Lordships' House, because it is a reflection more of a legal character than of a transport matter character, and in your Lordships' House, where there are so many noble Lords who are not only technically but also very practically exceedingly learned in the law, I approach the subject with grave apprehension. It arises out of Clause 2 (1) and this introduction which we have included there of what to me has always been a rather fearful and, as I think, a novel principle—namely, the provision that a person who refuses to provide a specimen for analysis or measure may find that his refusal, unless reasonable cause therefor is shown, is treated as supporting any evidence given on behalf of the prosecution or as rebutting any evidence given on behalf of defence with regard to his condition at that time.
From time to time during the Committee stage of this Bill we debated the
130
immediate and practical effect of that provision. But what worries me rather more is the fundamental or underlying effect of that provision upon the Constitution of our country as a whole, and upon the basic acceptance of the principle that a person is not guilty until his guilt has been proved. Flowing from that basic principle, I have always understood it to be fundamental to our legal Constitution that, having regard to what I believe is called an accusatorial system of law, as opposed to an inquisitorial one, it is fundamentally improper for the prosecution or any of its agents to seek to cause an accused person to convict himself or to assist towards his own conviction by anything that he himself says.
So much is that so that if there has been an accident and a police constable is taking a statement from a witness who may himself have been involved in the accident, and may possibly be liable to prosecution, he is immediately warned of the circumstances which may arise in the event of his giving a statement. I think that has been laid down in one way or another by many noble Lords who have held legal positions in this House. There is a quotation going back some years, in which it was stated in the speech of a judge—which I think has since become tradition in this country—that by the law of this country no person ought to be made to incriminate himself. A more recent and up-to-date statement, which I think is exceedingly well known, was made by Mr. Justice Devlin (as he then was) in 1956, when on this question of the freedom of silence of an accused person he said:
"So great is our horror at the idea that a man might be forced to speak and perhaps codemn himself out of his own mouth that we grant everyone suspected of crime that benefit at every stage and until the very end the right to say Ask me no questions. I shall answer none. Prove your case'. The law in this matter reflects the natural thought of England."
My Lords, in applying that principle to what we are proposing should go into this Bill, it appears to me there is a very close analogy indeed; we are asking the individual, instead of making a statement which may incriminate an individual, to give a specimen which may incriminate him. We are not stating that if he does so he does so at his free option, and with the warning that if he does so it may be used in evidence, but we are saying at the same time that if

131
in fact he refuses to do so, his refusal may be treated as supporting any evidence given on behalf of the prosecution. That seems to me to be a distinct diversion from the fundamental principles upon which our law has progressed in the past.
I am raising the matter now in your Lordships' House because we understand that Her Majesty's Government are to have the opportunity of a somewhat prolonged, or more prolonged, consideration or reconsideration of this Bill than they had originally anticipated having at this stage, and in the hope that, if and when the Bill reappears, in this or another form, in this or another place, they may have given further consideration to this point along the lines which I have endeavoured, I fear in all too amateur a way, to lay before your Lordships.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether he would be good enough, in the course of his remarks, to say whether it is the case, in connection with the emission of black smoke, that there are injection means of avoiding that.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: There are.
4.25 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, may I be allowed another moment or so to take up one or two points your Lordships have made? I should like to deal first with the point raised by my noble friend Lord Conesford at the end of the Report stage, land repeated to-day. He reminded us that a report of the observations made by the Court of Criminal Appeal appeared in The Times on June 6, I think it was. To-day is June 13, and I think it is a little much to expect that anything that arrives on the scene quite so late as it is in relation to consideration of this Bill could be included. I think the noble Lord would agree with that. But I should like to point out to him that if he will look at paragraph 6 in Part I of the Schedule his point would be met by a provision under the Bill whereby the maximum period of imprisonment which may be given for the offence concerned would go up to twelve months. I do not know what he would think about that, but I can certainly tell him that Her Majesty's Government will look at the
132
point again in the light of the observations that he has made to-day.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for what he has said. It was not really that I wanted the details to-day, but the promise to deal with the matter. I may say that, when I consulted a most learned noble Lord with great judicial experience on this subject, he expressed the view that the minimum amendment required would make two years the maximum penalty for this offence.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, naturally I am not in a position to give my noble friend any kind of assurance to-day beyond what I have already said: that we shall look at the matter very carefully in the light of what he has said.
The noble Lord, Lord Airedale, again raised in some detail the question of fully licensed drivers who drive cars with L-plates exposed, and I listened carefully to what he said. We discussed this very fully at an earlier stage and while I think now, as I thought then, that there is some force in what the noble Lord said, I still do not feel that there is sufficient in it Ito warrant legislation and the creation of another offence. However, I am quite prepared to say to the noble Lord that we will watch this situation carefully and see if it seems to be anything like what he said. I think it is more a point to watch than a point to do something about at the moment; and we certainly will watch it.
My noble friend Lord Teynham dealt briefly with the question of diesel smoke, the emission of which, as your Lordships know, is already an offence. It is the enforcement which is the difficulty. My noble friend is right to the extent that there is a type of meter—indeed, there are two types, employing different principles, neither of which I can say to your Lordships is fully effective for its purpose at the present time. What I can say is that certainly one is showing considerable promise in this field—and probably both are—and it is our intention in the Ministry shortly to start making some tests under field conditions to see whether, with improvement to the meters, we can come to some satisfactory system of measuring smoke emitted and thereby be able to enforce the law.
LORD LATHAM: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will pardon me. That is not the point I was on. I was not on the point of meters capable of measuring black smoke emitted, but on methods of injection of the diesel oil which avoids, or largely reduces, the emission itself.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: Perhaps I may help the noble Lord: it is always a question of bad maintenance.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Latham heard—it is a question of bad maintenance. A properly maintained diesel vehicle does not emit smoke. It is really as simple as that. The device I mentioned is intended to help with the enforcement of the law against not emitting smoke; smoke which is not necessary anyway.
May I turn for a moment very quickly to what my noble friend Lord Brentford said regarding refusal of the test? I am not in a position to argue law with him, neither do I wish to do so at the present time, but I can, and think must, say this: I am advised that this provision makes no difference to the present accepted position in our own law whereby you remain innocent until proved guilty. I am advised that it does not even infringe that position. It is a matter of treatment of evidence and it does not, I am again advised, even infringe the principle of the undesirability of self-conviction. It seems to me that it is no more than an extension of being asked to walk along a straight line or say, "The Leith police dismisseth us," or whatever it is you are asked to say. I do not want to go further into that to-day, but I shall certainly consider what the noble Viscount has said. I do not think I can add anything, either, to what the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House has said about the Bill, except that I think I may personally join with noble Lords who hope, as we do, that the Bill will become effective for its intended purpose and will begin to make its contribution to road safety as soon as possible.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL
4.34 p.m.
Further considered on Report (according to Order).
Clause 15:
Temporary removal from approved school
15.—(1) If on information on oath laid by or on behalf of the managers of an approved school it appears to a justice of the peace on whom jurisdiction is hereinafter conferred that any person not less than fifteen years of age who is detained in the school is so seriously unruly or subversive that it is necessary for maintaining the discipline of the school that he should forthwith be removed therefrom pending inquiry as to the best means of dealing with him, the justice may issue a warrant directing him to be removed by a constable from the school to another approved school or to a remand centre or remand home, and there detained for a period of twenty-eight days unless sooner dealt with according to law.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "not less than fifteen years of age". The noble Lord said: I am moving this Amendment rather more in a spirit of exploration than with the intention of forcing it to a Division, at any rate as at present advised. I had it down at the Committee stage when, with one or two other Amendments of a somewhat similar character, it was found convenient to withdraw it. Therefore, I felt it might be useful to put it down again. As your Lordships are aware, Clause 15 of the Bill makes provision for the temporary removal from approved schools of boys whose subversive or unruly behaviour has made it impossible for the manager to control them, whether to another approved school, or a remand centre or remand home, or on lines of that sort.
But this is restricted to boys who are not less than 15 years of age, and it is because of that that I am a little worried and felt that I should like to know why the Government feel that this provision should be restricted in this way. From time to time in quarter sessions I have myself had before me boys under 15 who obviously were having an exceedingly bad effect on the approved school in which they had been placed—from which they eventually had, in fact, absconded—and it seemed to me obvious from that experience (I agree it is a somewhat limited one) that

135
there may from time to time be in approved schools boys beneath the age of fifteen who might very well be removed to some other place where their bad influence on the other boys would not be felt.
The boys I have had before me have invariably been boys who have absconded, and the one to whom I referred in my speech on the Second Reading of the Bill was a particularly bad case of a boy under 15 who had persuaded another boy to go off with him—a boy of over 14, but there was no question at all that the one I had before me was the ringleader, much the worse of the two. They had not been out very long before they had broken into a number of homes where they did a great deal of wanton damage—amounting to something like £100 in one of these homes alone—and the manager of the approved school from which they had absconded said. "I am just not going to have them back, certainly not this ringleader, because he has an extraordinarily bad influence on my school."
I say that the manager ought to have been given the right, which is going to be conferred by this clause, of making an information on oath to have a boy of this kind removed, and it would be in my view most unfortunate if, because the boy happened to be under 15, this procedure would not be open to him. This business of boys absconding from approved schools is a very serious one. We have heard a great deal about it from time to time in relation to borstal, but there are, of course, security borstals from which it is at any rate made much more difficult for lads to abscond. I am not myself aware—maybe it is just a lack of knowledge on my part—that there are any similar arrangements in regard to these approved schools.
The approved school, of course, is a local authority affair, although not entirely because there are other sorts of approved schools. Therefore, the Government are not involved in the way they are with borstal institutions. Yet, as a matter of common sense, I think most people would agree there ought to be security arrangements, at any rate at some of the approved schools, so that boys are not able to get away and go up and down the countryside destroying people's
136
homes in the way I have tried to describe. Particularly, I should like to know what arrangements the Home Office are making, or have made, and what their proposals are for dealing with the situation, which, I hope the noble Lords speaking for the Government will take from me, is really quite a serious one. For this purpose I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 15, leave out ("not less than fifteen years of age").—(Lord Chorley.)
4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, the clause as drafted provides a procedure whereby a constable may on a certain procedure being adopted remove a boy not less than 15 years of age from an approved school. It was based on a recommendation by Mr. Durand in paragraphs 159 and 160 of his Report on the particular disturbances at the Carlton School. Mr. Durand himself did not restrict his proposal to any particular age group. What he clearly had in mind were conditions at approved schools for senior boys and the need for what he called "an adequate sanction for the type of senior boy whose conduct disrupts the balance and discipline of an approved school." The Ingleby Committee considered that the power of removal might be needed for dealing with girls as well as boys, but said nothing to imply that it would be needed for younger boys than Mr. Durand had in mind. My right honourable friend considers it unnecessary for the clause to apply to boys and girls under the age of fifteen. They can be dealt with adequately under existing powers, and for this reason I would advise the House that there is no point in extending the scope of the clause further than experience has shown to be necessary.
The noble Lord opposite gave my noble friend, Lord Bathurst, notice that he was going to raise under this Amendment the question of absconding, which is a slightly different one from that with which the clause is designed to deal. My right honourable friend, naturally enough, fully shares the concern expressed by the noble and learned Lord with the problem which is presented by a minority of difficult boys who persistently abscond from approved schools. The provisions of the Bill will enable

137
such boys aged 15 or over, to be brought before the court with a view to transfer to borstal, either under Clause 15 of the Bill or under Section 72 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, as amended by this Bill. But some persistent absconders are, as the noble Lord pointed out, under 15. Approved schools are traditionally open institutions, and in general there are no physical restraints on movement beyond those which are found in most boarding schools. To prevent absconding, reliance is placed mainly on supervision by the staff and the creation of a tone in the school unfavourable to absconding. But, of course, it is clear that in the present situation some increase in the security of approved schools is required, and my right honourable friend thinks that this can be clone without altering the general character of the system.
In order to deal with boys under fifteen who persistently abscond or are otherwise difficult, as well as with similarly troublesome boys of 15 or over, for whom the approved school system can, it is thought, still usefully provide, my right honourable friend is seeking to arrange for the establishment of closed units at certain existing boys' approved schools. This is in accordance with the recommendations of the Ingleby Report. The managers of two of the classified schools—the Royal Philanthropic Society's School at Redhill, and the Kingswood School, near Bristol—have agreed to the setting up of such units, and detailed plans are being drawn up. In addition, my right honourable friend is about to send managers of boys' schools advice about the provision of secure rooms for the temporary segregation of boys who suddenly become difficult to handle in what appears to be only a transient phase of conduct, or for holding temporarily a boy thought likely to abscond until it can be decided what should be done with him. These rooms, although primarily for boys of fifteen or over, would also be available, if the managers so decided, for younger boys. With that explanation, I would ask whether the noble and learned Lord would agree to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for the careful reply which he has made. I am not altogether satisfied
138
with regard to what he said about satisfactory arrangements already existing for dealing with boys under 15, because he did not explain what they were. If they are satisfactory, I wonder why they have not applied in the various cases which have come to my notice in practice. So far as my main point is concerned, about the absconders, I am glad to hear of the arrangements which are being made by the Home Office, and it looks as if they will provide a solution for this problem, which is a very real one. In all the circumstances, I do not propose to press the Amendment, and I would beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.45 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (3) to leave out "forty-eight" and insert "twenty-four". The noble Lord said: My Lords, by this Amendment we propose to reduce from 48 hours to 24 hours the maximum period that a boy who is to be removed from one approved school to another may be detained in a police station. The noble and learned Viscount will recall that when we discussed this Amendment in Committee he shared our anxiety that a boy should not be kept in a police station longer than was absolutely necessary. But he was particularly concerned that the Amendment might create a difficulty if it happened that a place was not readily available for a boy who had to be removed, perhaps at short notice, from one approved school to another. He promised to see if there was some way of meeting our point so that 24 hours might be the normal maximum, though with power to apply, in exceptional circumstances, for an extension.
Our concern, quite apart from the natural feeling that a boy should not be kept in a police station for as long as 48 hours, is that this 48-hour margin may well be exploited by inefficient managers, because it will be encouragement to them to have unruly boys carted off to police cells. I would remind your Lordships that under existing regulations approved schools can, where necessary, call in the police or the aid of mental hospitals, and this clause in fact encourages them to call them in in circumstances which might well be unwarranted. Therefore we feel it is surely wise to limit this power so far as possible.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor quite rightly referred to the improvements in some police stations in recent years, but it is equally true that many police stations are utterly unsuitable for detaining anyone, let alone young boys, for even as long as 24 hours; and certainly they are the last place to keep an obstreperous and disturbed boy for any length of time. According to my information, the police themselves agree with this, as, indeed, does everyone who has any experience of "tough" boys from approved schools. For this reason, I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, after the reflection he has given to the matter, will accept the Amendment, or, as was foreshadowed when we discussed this matter before, suggest his own solution for achieving our objective or something near to it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 38, leave out ("forty-eight") and insert ("twenty-four").—(Lord Stonham.)
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords, may I first introduce the context in which this Amendment is moved? The boy to whom Clause 15 is applied, having been removed from the school from which he is to go, goes to a police station until they can make other arrangements for him. When we debated the same Amendment on the Committee stage my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said that the reason for enabling a person who is removed under subsection (1) of the clause to be taken first to a police station is that in the kind of emergency in which the clause is likely to be invoked it might well be necessary to remove an unruly or subversive pupil from a school before there was time to find a vacancy for him in another institution. That is really the point, because in the interval until that time he would need to be kept in secure custody. Everyone concerned, if I may say so without appearing to be ill-natured, would be naturally anxious to get rid of him as quickly as possible, to get him sent on to the other institution; and in the ordinary way 24 hours would no doubt give time enough for this to happen. Nevertheless, there is no certainty that it will always be long enough to get him a vacancy. It might well be the case that the emergency
140
arose at a week-end. That, in fact, is what happened in the Carlton case. We therefore think it is necessary to allow more than 24 hours for the process, and 48 hours is the figure we have arrived at.
My noble and learned friend undertook to consider whether it would be possible to provide for a first period of 24 hours' detention, with provision for an extension on an application to a justice for a further 24 hours in case of need. That would hardly be justified for such a short extension, and the grounds of the application, namely, the availability of an alternative vacancy, would hardly be of a kind that it would be easy for a justice to assess. Therefore, on balance, we feel that we should stick to the clause as drafted.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House has had to take that view. There is really no substance at all in the objection that he raised with regard to week-ends because approved schools to which an obstreperous boy would have to be removed are not closed at weekends; so that point really does not arise. Of course, the only point at issue is the one which, as I myself indicated, was discussed earlier: whether it would be possible to have a normal period of 24 hours and then apply for an extension, which he has now told us the Government do not think is possible. In my own view, and I think in the view of everyone who has considered this matter, it is wholly undesirable that the boy might be kept there for as long as 48 hours. In my view it is entirely unnecessary. However, I believe that it will be the wish of everyone to get the boy moved as quickly as possible, and I only hope that the Government will achieve administratively what I should like to see them do by legislation. I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer on this particular Amendment and, with your Lordships' permission, I ask leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19:
Constitution of managers
19.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make provision for regulating the constitution and proceedings of the managers of any approved school other than a school provided by a local authority or by a joint

141
committee representing two or more local authorities; and any such order shall have effect notwithstanding anything in any trust deed relating to the school.
4.53 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved, in subsection (1), to leave out
"other than a school provided by a local authority or by a joint committee representing two or more local authorities".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment seeks to ensure that the provisions which the Bill makes in respect of voluntary approved schools should apply also to schools provided by a local authority or by a joint committee representing two or more local authorities. The Amendment seeks to give power to the Home Secretary when necessary to make regulation for, and to appoint additional managers for, schools run by local authorities.
When the Amendment was moved in Committee two speeches were made against it. They only reiterated two local authority objections which I myself voiced in moving the Amendment. The first of the two local authority objections was that it might lead to interference with local authorities in running their schools, and might even mean that a school could be taken over by the Home Secretary. That objection entirely makes the case for the Amendment, since no Home Secretary would interfere unless it was absolutely necessary in the interests of the boys or girls in the school—that is, if the school was badly run. If it is argued that a local authority school cannot possibly be badly run, then the powers asked for in this Amendment would never be used. But the fact is that if they are there, they will certainly help.
The other argument advanced was that the local authorities are democratically elected bodies and, as such, are answerable to the public for their errors—in other words, they can be thrown out. That is small comfort when we are thinking of boys and girls in approved schools, because in any case the process is an extremely lengthy one, and in some areas representation on the governing body of the approved schools is confined virtually to one political Party, and it therefore prevents the co-option of non-politicians who may have a keen interest in, and knowledge of, this particular class of work. My views, supported as they were
142
by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and by my noble friend Lord Silkin, apparently had some effect on the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, because he promised to ask the Home Secretary to look at the matter. I hope that he is now in a position to tell us that his right honourable friend is prepared to brave what I regard as the ill-founded and unnecessary displeasure of the Association of Municipal Corporations and, in the interests of better and more uniform management of approved schools, to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 46, leave out ("other than a school provided by a local authority or by a joint committee representing two or more local authorities").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (EARL BATHURST): My Lords, at first glance anybody, especially those who have dealings with the voluntary approved schools, might have some considerable sympathy with the noble Lord and his Amendment. But I hope to show your Lordships that this Amendment is not necessary, and I shall ask the noble Lord to withdraw it. I want to assure him (though I know that he knows this well) that if, in fact, there is inefficiency in a local authority school or in a voluntary school, if there is anything that has gone wrong, my right honourable friend has the right of inspection and Clause 18 will give him power to give directions to both kinds of approved schools. As I explained to the noble Lord, the ultimate sanction, which is not pleaded, is of course the withdrawal of the certificate of approval which means, of course, the withdrawal of the essential Government grant.
The noble Lord's Amendment deals with the constitution of local authority schools and the appointment of managers to those schools. The constitutions and the method by which managers of voluntary schools are appointed, as noble Lords know very well, vary greatly from school to school. The object of Clause 19 is to get some sort of unification with regard to the constitutions of the voluntary school. That is why these powers are being taken. My right honourable friend is seeking for voluntary

143
schools similar powers to those which already exist within the local authority schools; and, as I explained to the noble Lord, the constitution and the appointment of managers of local authority schools are covered by various measures, of which Section 107 (1) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933 is one. When joint committees and sub-committees are responsible for local authority schools they are covered by Section 39 of the 1933 Act.
So, my Lords, the managers, their methods of meeting, how they meet, the sort of decisions they make and the records they keep, and so forth, are in fact controlled and covered by these Statutes. I hope that I have made it clear to the noble Lord that in fact his Amendment would not be necessary to cover these local authority schools, although we require provisions to unify the types of constitutions and the methods by which managers can handle their affairs in the voluntary schools.
I took special trouble, having heard what the noble Earl, Lord Iddlesleigh, said, and what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Earl, Lord Longford, to ask how this will affect schools of particular religious bodies. I must say that I can only pay great credit to those religious bodies, of all denominations, who run approved schools. They certainly carry out a very fine job indeed. I had the pleasure of meeting some of both the masters and managers only a little while ago. I give this assurance to those noble Lords: that should anything have to be done with regard to schools of this particular type, every consideration and sympathy with regard to their religious aspect will most certainly be accorded. I hope that that will satisfy those noble Lords and that, in the light of the assurances I have given to Lord Stonham with regard to the 1933 Act and local authority schools, he may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Earl for what he has said. I accept his assurances.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Bathurst, for making clear to me now what (no doubt it was my fault) he did
144
not make clear on the Committee stage. In effect, it means that the powers which this Amendment seeks to give to the Home Secretary under this Bill he already possesses under existing legislation.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, I do not know about my right honourable friend having that power, but it is there under the Children and Young Persons Act. It would be wrong to say that my right honourable friend has that power.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, shall we say "the powers-that-be"? Perhaps there will be other personnel for the powers-that-be later on. But on that understanding I ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 20 [Supervision of certain prisoners after release]:
5.3 p.m.
LORD STONHAM LORD STONHAM moved to add to the clause:
"() The foregoing provisions of this section shall not become operative until the Secretary of State has appointed a Director of After-Care, who shall have the status of a Prison Commissioner, and shall be responsible for co-ordinating official after-care work, both statutory and voluntary, and who shall have under his control a sufficient number of after-care officers for work outside prisons, and a sufficient number of prison welfare officers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, yesterday I gave the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack an indication when I moved an Amendment that we regarded it as of major importance, and I do so again with this Amendment, as my noble friends and I feel that this question of after-care is perhaps the most neglected and yet one of the most important questions in our penal system. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given an assurance already at an earlier stage of the Bill that the Government will not implement the provisions of this clause until the probation service has been sufficiently strengthened to enable it to cope satisfactorily with the extra burden of work. We feel, however, that urgent steps must be taken if the service is to deal adequately with the very heavy burden it is already carrying.
The Morison Committee has now been sitting for two years, and this delay has brought strong pressure from probation

145
officers for the submission of a further salary claim. Although it is felt by some that this would be unwise, it will not be possible to resist the pressure unless there is some indication that the Committee will issue an Interim Report on the probation service or, alternatively, an indication that when it does report it may make recommendations about retrospection of any salary scales it proposes. I hope, therefore, that either to-day or on Third Reading the Lord Chancellor will be able to tell us something about the prospects.
This Amendment goes much further than asking for a simple assurance, because it requires that the proposals for extended after-care in the Bill shall not be implemented until a Director of After-Care is in post with an adequate trained staff of welfare officers inside prisons and after-care officers outside. We regard this as imperative because—and I say this in all seriousness—for all practical purposes after-care just does not exist. On May 18, in the Committee stage, I stated the case for an improved after-care service on general grounds, and I described the present arrangements as ramshackle, under-financed, haphazard, short-term, insufficiently explained, unco-ordinated, intolerable on human grounds and ridiculous on financial grounds. My Lords, that is how it appeared to me.
I now want to demonstrate how it appears to ex-prisoners. I regard this "worm's eye view" as important, because it proves beyond doubt that in the Welfare State there is no helping hand for the ex-prisoner. On the contrary, every hand, particularly every official hand, is against him. I base my case on the very large number of letters I have received during the last two weeks, more than I have received on any subject for a good many years, and from which I will quote just three extracts. The first is from a woman. It was written from an hotel in the West Central district last week. It says:
"I myself have just served six months in Holloway, and prior to my release I didn't see a board. No one seemed to care very much or appeared in the least bit interested. As I had £3 9s. 6d. of my own money, this was deemed sufficient to start life on. Because of my trial, etc., last November I lost my home, and many of my possessions were sold to settle debts. Thanks to a journalist friend who arranged this accommodation"—
146
that is the hotel—
"I am here until Saturday. Otherwise I would have had literally nowhere to go. Again through the kindness of another friend, I leave for Deal to-morrow to find temporary accommodation. I am considered intelligent and capable and yet I don't know where to begin to make a fresh start. I am an ex-social worker and I have yet to find a job, and am apprehensive as I shall have to state where I have been the last six months.
"During my sojourn in Holloway I saw many women come back. I can well understand why. They were alone and defeated the minute they stepped through the gates. If the problem is under consideration I sincerely hope that it will be done rapidly and thus stop this senseless demoralisation. It would also save the Government and courts a great deal of … money."
The second quotation that I want to make is from a letter from a young man who even now is only 24. It was written last Monday from Leicester Prison. He says:
"I was released from Wakefield Prison in October, 1959, after being detained for three years. I had no money, nowhere to live and no clothes, except what I was wearing … When leaving the prison I was given a train warrant to London, a letter for the National Assistance Board and 2s. 9d.
"Arriving at London I went straight to the N.A.B. and produced the letter to confirm I had just been released from prison. They kept me waiting for six hours before finally telling me that … the only thing they could do for me was to give me one week's voucher for the Rowton House. I refused it. I am not a tramp, a dosser, a meth drinker, a pimp, or a general layabout, but a young man of 24 … who challenged the law, did not succeed, took the punishment, and was released with every intention of not crossing the path of the law again. If I had been given an opportunity to make good, I would not have abused it. … I have nearly finished my sentence of two-and-a-half years now."
That is, his second sentence.
"Although it is understanctable that I shall be glad to get out, I am not really looking forward to it, as I fear a repeat performance of the last time. If it is the case, I shall be released to be arrested again, as I am in exactly the same position. No money, no clothes, nowhere to live.
"The Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, is alarmed with the increase of crime, M.P.'s and different societies never stop debating the point. Everybody is talking about it, but nobody is doing anything. Hasn't someone got the initiative to see that the crime-wave could be cut by giving ex-prisoners a fair chance to rehabilitate …?"
Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, the Chairman of the National Assistance Board, which appears to be the only official body which is doing anything at all for prisoners, has been good enough to check on this

147
man's story. It must be a most remarkable organisation, because, although that is nearly two years ago, within ten days he was able to give me all the details of this young man's case, including many that the young man had not given himself. Sir Geoffrey confirms the story, except that he tells me that when this man arrived at the National Assistance Board he had £1 left out of the £3 of his own money which was in his possession when he left prison. But the damnable thing is that, according to Sir Geoffrey, when the man came to the Board's offices his form had already been stamped by the Ministry of Labour to the effect that a claim for benefit was not established until he had established residence. My Lords, how is a man with an unstamped card going to get a job, and how can he live if he has no home and cannot benefit until he has got a home? This is not my imagination: this is what Sir Geoffrey says. I am quoting from his letter:
"No doubt our officer thought it hardly necessary to give him cash as well as a voucher when he still had £1 in hand, and I cannot say that it seems to me unreasonable of the officer to have deferred any cash payment in the circumstances."
My Lords, listen to these next two paragraphs:
"If a man who has just come out of prison can give an address where he can get lodgings our officer will put him in a position to pay the landlady's charge and to carry on for a few days until the usual visit can be made. If, however, he has nowhere to stay at all, you will appreciate that our officers can do no more than suggest a place where he may find a bed; in some areas this may have to be a lodging house. On the other hand, if the lodging house is not really suitable for the particular individual concerned, our officers are now under instructions to help the man to move into better accommodation as soon as it can be found. In view of the shortage of suitable lodgings for ex-prisoners in some areas, I am doubtful whether we can improve on these arrangements at present.
"I understand that Mr. …"
I will not mention his name—
"is not due for release from Leicester Prison until early next year, but we will certainly do all we can to help him to re-establish himself when the time comes".
My Lords, that is very kind, but will it be in any way different unless this Amendment is accepted? And does it need the intervention of a Peer and of the Chairman of the National Assistance Board to see that a man coming out of
148
prison like that gets the barest, basic necessities of shelter and food? There is not one of these cases that I am quoting that I have not checked on.
The last letter I wish to quote will take a little longer, but it is a story that must be told because it involves four Govenment Departments and the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, and it conclusively proves my contention that not one of them helps a man. Most of them do all they can to harm him—I am saying this responsibly—and to ensure that he goes back to prison as quickly as possible. This is the letter:
"You have spoken of the farce of discharging people from prison with employment cards that have no stamps, but when I was discharged from Her Majesty's Prison, Norwich, on the 22nd February of this year I had no employment cards. When I pointed out that fact I was told that I had only to make application to the National Insurance Office to get a set of cards or at least to get a temporary card. I went to London and on arrival I went to the N.I. Office. I filled in a form and waited for a card of some description. I was told that no card would be issued until such times as they were satisfied as to my identity."
This is the first Government Department, my Lords.
"I produced my discharged papers, etc., and asked if they were proof enough. But no, they were not satisfied. I then asked if it were possible to have a letter or document to certify that I had made such an application so that I could show it to any prospective employer in order to get work. Believe it or not, they even refused that simple request. … I then went to the National Assistance people who gave me 12s. until such times as I got an address to live at. I have no animosity against these people. They tried to be helpful, I think, and advised me to go to Rowton House, Camden Town, for a night's lodging. …"
This is the Rowton House where Christie, the murderer, lived for some days until he was arrested.
"At Rowton House the desk clerk pointed out that a casual applicant must wait till 7.30 p.m. So I waited until 7.30. I was second in a large queue. When I stepped forward the clerk asked my name and I gave it to him. Then he asked for some document as proof of my identity."
You obviously need influence to get into these places!
"I explained my position and produced my discharge papers. These were not accepted I asked if it would be enough for the police to vouch for me. 'Yes, that would do' was the answer. I walked to Albany Street police station and once again explained my predicament. The officer I saw was most helpful and

149
'phoned Rowton, House to substantiate my story. The people at Rowton House told the police they would give me lodgings. As I came away from the station I felt my trouble was over. But when I got back to Rowton House I was calmly told that all beds were booked and that I was too late. Well, Sir, you can guess what I felt like. The time was now about 10 p.m. In desperation I 'phoned various hostels and lodging places. Nearly all were full up and the others would only book you far a week."
This is a man's first night out of prison.
"At about 12.30 a.m. on the next day, after making a futile attempt to obtain lodgings in Middlesex Street, I was ordered by a policeman to go to the Institution at Gordon Road, Peckham. I was absolutely fed up but I went. I got a bed of sorts there. For the next two or three days I went round trying to get a job without cards."
He had not got an insurance card or an employment card.
"It was futile. In the end, after resorting to subterfuge, I was given a further couple of pounds by the Assistance people. I decided to go to Birmingham. I hitch-hiked it, and in the process was detained for questioning by the Northampton Police. No documents—a suspicious person. I went to all kinds of people for advice—probation officers, the Discharged Prisoners people, in fact nearly all people you would think would help. I got plenty of verbal advice, but when it came to rock bottom, it was useless. In the end, after two visits to the Birmingham insurance people they very reluctantly gave me a document to certify that I had made application for employment cards. I am not sure, but I believe this was on the ninth day after I was discharged. With this document I now had to find a job I won't bore you with irrelevant details, but in the end I came to my present address. I went to my local labour exchange and explained my position. The manager was polite enough but before he would offer me work I would have to sign a document giving him the power to inform any prospective employer of my background".—
That is the second charitably disposed Government Department! The letter goes on:
"I was in no position to argue. Having signed the document, and it is legal, I was finally found employment as a labourer in a cement factory. This, sir, was fourteen days after my discharge. Having obtained the job, I wrote to the D.P.A."—
that is, the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Society—
"asking for some working clothes. I wrote three times, and on each occasion was told that the letter would be 'passed on'. Finally, on the 18th of this month"—
that is May, three months after he was discharged from prison—
"I got a letter answering my question. I am now in possession of a letter from the D.P.A. asking the W.V.S. to give me aid,
150
Oh! —and the master touch: it is for the Birmingham W.V.S., and that's fourteen or fifteen miles away. I give in. What can you do with such people? I think that what I have said should interest you. I am trying honestly to leave behind me all that life. I have served four major sentences of three years and over, so I can speak with some authority, I am now working in a steelworks as a weighbridge clerk, and to get it I forgot all about rules, regulations and laws. All I have gone through merely confirms my opinion of years: never, never, tell the truth about coming out of prison.
"One more thing. To-day, over three months after coming out, I believe that my present employers still have not got any employment cards for me. I can't say for certain because I do not want to make embarrassing enquiries. Well, that is my story. If you require any proofs, I will gladly send names, letters, etc."
So, my Lords, I asked him for the proofs, and I also wrote to the Home Secretary, to the Minister of National Insurance, to the Minister of Labour, and to Sir Geoffrey Hutchinson, to check up on their parts in this unhappy story. I have not disclosed this man's name and address, because I do not want him to lose his job. Only Sir Geoffrey has so far replied, and his organisation is so remarkable that, even without the name, they have been able roughly to confirm the facts relating to his Department. Here in my hand are the documents confirming his treatment at the hands of the National Association of Discharged Prisoners Aid Societies. First, a letter dated March 9, printed with the signature of the General Secretary. It says:
"Dear Sir,
I write to acknowledge with thanks your recent letter, and send herewith the usual documents for you to return in due course.
Best wishes,
Yours sincerely,"—
and then at the bottom, in writing:
"P.S. I have passed your letter on to Mr. Spurling."
The next letter is dated April 14, the same printed letter, the same words. There is a P.S.:
"Have passed your letter on to Mr. Spurling."
The next letter is dated May 15, the same words, but at the bottom a note of urgency creeps in:
"P.S. Will leave a reminder message for Mr. Spurling."
Finally, on May 18, here is the letter from Mr. Spurling:
"Dear Benjamin"—

151
That is a nice touch! It shows all the difference between a voluntary organisation and the cold civil service of a Government Department—the Christian name!—
"Thank you for the reminder about my not having arranged for you to be supplied with working clothes."—
This is three months after he had asked for them, with three reminders—
"The truth of the matter is that I have not been able to determine how I could arrange this for you. I see, however, from your official record that your mother lives in Birmingham, and I am wondering whether she could see the local Discharged Prisoners Aid Society or go to the W.V.S. on your behalf. I enclose a letter addressed to the W.V.S., and perhaps you will find it practicable either yourself to go into town or get your mother to call there on your behalf.
Every good wish,
Yours sincerely,
W. F. Spurling,
Prison Welfare Officer—London Area."
"Every good wish" my Lords—three months after a man has been out of prison! And his only humble request was that he should have help to get some working clothes to work in a cement factory. My Lords, this Association is under the gracious patronage of Her Majesty The Queen. The President is the Secretary of State for the Home Department. Although it is a voluntary organisation, the whole of the expenses of its offices are paid by the taxpayers by way of a Treasury grant. These are the facts.
Finally, in sending those documents to me the man also told me this:
"Since last writing to you, my employers have again asked for my employment cards. That was on Wednesday last. So it would appear that I still have no cards. I am greatly contented in my present position, but I feel I am in grave peril of losing it.
"With regard to my application for cards I made a first application at the National Insurance Office, Bournemouth Road, Peckham. A gentleman there requested that I fill in a form and a card would be sent in due course. I pointed out my need for at least a temporary document but was told 'Oh, we don't do that here!'
"On my arrival in Birmingham, I went to the National Insurance Office at Five Ways. Same form of procedure there. I filled in a form to a woman clerk. But try as I might, I could not convince her of my dire need for this simple document. Just something to prove I have applied for employment cards. In desperation I went to the probation offices. I there saw a young woman who very
152
promptly rang up to the insurance office, and lo! I got the letter.
"But why should it have been such a job to get it? Why should I have had to waste many hours walking round chasing these people? Above all, why should I have been discharged from prison with no cards? I almost hear the glib excuses now! 'A clerical error … the system broke down … a most unfortunate incident … and so on'.
"The real truth is that 'nobody wanted to know'. I wonder how many more have found themselves in the same predicament? And how many of those gave up and went back to crime? If I had done so and ended up in court what judge would believe it, or rather want to believe it?
"There is one simple thing I would stress. At the moment I am in no need of aid in any form. Although I was in need, that time has gone. But I just had to find out just how long the C.A.C.A."—
that is, the Central After-Care Association—
"and the D.P.A. would go on 'stonewalling'. You have the answer in the enclosed documents."
My Lords, that is a true but terrible story. It is a story which, from my own knowledge, can be duplicated many times over. The only thing exceptional about it is the man's extraordinary determination to overcome apparently insurmountable obstacles and senseless obstruction. If, as so many do, he had fallen down again, then those whose official callousness and indifference pushed him down should be in the dock with him. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor declined to accept a somewhat similar Amendment in Committee because he said it was only fair to see what the Advisory Council had to say. But this matter cannot wait. Eight years ago, the Maxwell Committee made recommendations somewhat similar to those we are making in this Amendment, Four years afterwards, the Advisory Council had another look at the matter. Now we are told that we must wait again. For how many more years? And still there is no after-care. This year, next year, and every year, thousands of men and women are coming out of prison to face the conditions I have described. There is no money for them and no jobs ready for them to go to. Many of them will go back to prison, There is no continuity between the welfare officer in prison and outside. There are not enough welfare officers in prison and no enough after-care officers outside, only over-worked probation officers

153
There is no direction or co-ordination of after-care.
I am conscious of the fact that I have not the noble and learned Viscount's great abilities or his power. If I possess anything, it is a modest ability in administration and management. But I have the will, and if I had the power, in six months I know that I would clear up this shambles, this utterly disgraceful un-Christian blot on our society. Virtually nothing is done for these men and women who have committed crimes and who have paid the price that society demands and then come out of prison. Every official hand is against them. Nobody believes them. Would I have dared to come to this Box and give their story if I had not indisputable proof in the documents themselves and in the follow-ups by the Chairman of the National Assistance Board? It is difficult for an ex-prisoner to be heard because he is not normally believed, but this is the truth and cannot be got round. This Bill may be our last opportunity. That is why my noble friends and I regard it as supremely important. And I appeal to noble Lords opposite. It is important to all of them who have heard these facts. We cannot, without hypocrisy, go on deploring the crime wave unless we are prepared to do something, when men come out of prison, to ensure that they do net go back. That is what I am asking for.
I think that the noble and learned Viscount knows just how highly I regard all that he does and the extremely courteous, careful and painstaking consideration he gives, in a manner unexampled, and certainly unsurpassed, to all matters we put to him. I say to him, with the greatest respect, that we cannot be satisfied to-day with soothing words, however kindly meant. We ask for action or the definite promise of action; and the biggest surety we can have of that action would be the acceptance of this Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 16, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am sure that every noble Lord who has heard the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, accepts the complete sincerity and depth of feeling with which he spoke, but when we come to
154
the Amendment which he asks your Lordships to accept, I really do not see how the Amendment helps in regard to the thesis which he has propounded. The Amendment is simply a different expression of the Amendment moved during Committee stage to secure that all aftercare should be brought under the control of a Government Department responsible to the Secretary of State and placed in charge of a Director of After-Care with the status of a Prison Commissioner. The present Amendment would simply defer the coming into operation of Clause 20 of the Bill, which deals with the supervision of prisoners after release, until the Director of After-Care has been appointed.
On Committee stage we had a full debate on after-care, and I am afraid that I dealt with the subject at considerable length. I do not want to repeat what I said then, but I think it is important to have in mind the lines on which after-care has been dealt with during past years. After-care is divided into two kinds—voluntary after-care and statutory after-care. By "voluntary" care is meant aid after discharge granted to a person released absolutely, with no condition requiring him to accept help and no sanction, other than the normal process of the courts, if he misbehaves after discharge. Statutory after-care is a form of obligatory acceptance of supervision as a condition of discharge and carries with it a liability to recall to confinement for a breach of any condition of the supervision.
One of the objects of the Bill is to extend statutory after-care, and that is something with which neither the Amendment nor the noble Lord has really dealt. The noble Lord's speech was a criticism of voluntary after-care, which is the responsibility of 37 local discharged prisoners' aid societies and the National Association of these societies. As the noble Lord indicated, although he did not give the full details, half the approved administrative expenditure of local societies and the whole of that of the National Association is borne by the Exchequer, as is half the cost of the clothing which is given to prisoners on their discharge.
I do not want to get into a controversy on the results of individual cases. I am not going to dispute the facts. I would not dispute them until

155
I had investigated them myself. But I can say this. For years I was the president of a local discharged prisoners' aid society. True, that was 30 years ago or thereabouts, but I knew the work of my own society. In addition, I secured a full description of the National Society before I made an appeal for it over the B.B.C. on The Week's Good Cause, not when I was Home Secretary but when I was out of office, some twelve or fifteen years ago.
I want to use the utmost moderation, but I can say that I have seen letter after letter thanking my own society, and I have been told of case after case by the National Society where the greatest gratitude has been shown and the deepest concern by the officers of societies in doing this work for discharged prisoners. Therefore I think it would be unfortunate if it went out from your Lordships' House, unchallenged and uncontradicted, that the effect of that work is as the noble Lord said: that this Association, with the other people concerned, did all that they could to harm the discharged prisoner. I know the noble Lord feels strongly about this, and I do not want to put it in an argumentative way, but I say definitely, from my experience, that it is an over-statement, and I am sorry that he put the case as high as that.
LORD STONHAM: I think the comment of the noble and learned Viscount is justified in so far as the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies is concerned. I should not have said—it is not true—that they did everything possible to harm the man. But certainly in the case about which I spoke (the documents support it beyond dispute) they did nothing effective to help him. I will withdraw the first statement that I made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If the noble Lord withdraws the statement, I say nothing more about it; but I felt that I ought to say what I have said, speaking with all the moderation that I can. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Lord will agree that I could not say less than I have said.
I want to say only a word or two on the general question, and if I repeat what I have already put before your
156
Lordships, I hope that your Lordships will bear with me. The Government's interest in problems of discharged offenders has steadily increased, as I have said, since the passing of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948. The Committee on the Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies (commonly known as the Maxwell Committee) was set up in 1951 by my predecessor, Mr. Chuter Ede, the Home Secretary in the Labour Government, and the recommendations of that Committee were accepted by me in 1951, when I became Home Secretary, a position I held until 1954. It is now seven years since I was at the Home Office, but I have made inquiries and have been told that the recommendations were gradually implemented.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, referred to the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Young Offenders. It is quite correct that in 1957 they were asked to consider whether statutory after-care should be extended to more persons released from prison, and the following year, 1958, the Committee reported in favour of the gradual extension of this system to certain categories of ex-prisoners. The Bill which your Lordships are now considering contains provision for this, and also for extension of the system to detention centre inmates, for which there has long been a demand. I do not think that is very bad.
One knows the difficulty of fitting into the legislative programme Bills dealing with various aspects of life. Here we have a Report in 1958, and this Bill produced in 1960, after consideration dealing with the recommendation. The rapid increase in the number of welfare officers, I am told, has already substantially increased the cost to the Exchequer of after-care, and this will be further increased by the proposed extention of after-care. This extension will also inevitably bring with it new problems of organisation, including the relationship between wholly voluntary workers and officials and the members of quasi official organisations.
These, my Lords, are the problems, and it was in view of these problems and developments impending that my right honourable friend announced during the debate on the Second Reading of the Bill in another place that he intended to invite the Advisory Council

157
on the Treatment of Young Offenders this time to undertake a review of the arrangements for the organisation of statutory and voluntary after-care. That will cover (I said this before) after-care for persons discharged from prisons, borstals, detention centres and approved schools. Again, I think it is reasonable that, if you have an Advisory Council to help you on these matters, you ought to take their advice and the benefit of their experience.
Those of us who take part in what my friend Oliver used to call
"the endless adventure of the government of men"
are always liable to two criticisms. If we do not ask advice, but rely on the knowledge of ourselves and our Departments, we are said to be bureaucrats without an eye outside Whitehall. On the other hand, if we have an Advisory Committee of people such as my noble friend Lady Elliot of Harwood, unconnected with the Department, who give us the advantage of their wide experience of the world, then we are accused of dodging decisions and fobbing them off with the excuse that we have referred them to an external body. I make no complaint about that. I am far too fond of the government of men to let such a complaint as that worry me or make me lose a minute's sleep. It is one of the burdens which everyone who likes this form of activity, as I do, is quite prepared to take, and I only say that it is a fair consideration I have given the circumstances in which my right honourable friend referred this matter to the Advisory Council, and I hope your Lordships, on consideration, will think that is a proper thing to do.
There has been great additional interest, and it is not confined to the Home Office. As I mentioned previously (I certainly intended to pay a tribute to them, and I hope I did), the gathering of those under the chairmanship of the noble Earl, Lord Longford, who produced a most interesting Report on problems of the ex-prisoner, did, if I may say so, an admirable work; and I also previously commended, and commend again, the work of Mrs. Pauline Morris, Prison After-Care; Charity or Public Responsibility?, which was issued as a Fabian Society pamphlet. I am quite certain (again I say it, but I have no reason to doubt) that my noble friend
158
Lady Elliot of Harwood and her colleagues have been greatly helped by both these works.
This Bill is a great step forward in statutory after-care. As the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, I have already made clear—and in that I was only repeating what my right honourable friend the Home Secretary said—that the proposals for the extension of compulsory after-care will not be implemented until sufficient probation officers are available to cope with the extra work involved. But the fact that we are going to see that the staff is adequate, and the fact that we are going to get the best advice we can from the Advisory Council does not, I assure you, mean that this work will be slowed down. It is one of the two vitally important aspects of this Bill, and my right honourable friend is determined that the work will continue and increase.
I should not have trespassed on your Lordships' time for so long on a matter which was fully discussed in Committee stage were it not that I felt it right, in view of the feeling shown by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, who has contributed so much to the debates on this Bill, that I should deal with the subject again. But as I said to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, before, if he feels as a gesture that he ought to divide I should not have any ill-will for it. But whether he divides or not will make no difference to the determination of my right honourable friend to see that this work is continued—and, indeed, is increased and bettered as time goes on.
5.52 p.m.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful, as the members of the Pakenham-Thompson Committee will be, for the kind words said about that Committee by the Lord Chancellor, and I echo also the tribute he paid to the special work done by Mrs. Morris who, as he is aware, is also a member of our own Committee. I am naturally very glad to hear that the work of developing after-care will not be slowed down. But perhaps I might just say one word on that subject and on the general point about handing a matter of this kind, in these circumstances, to the Advisory Council. I quite agree with him that a Government that goes outside its own ranks for advice is criticised

159
from one point of view, and if it confines itself to its own advisers is criticised from another. Anything I say on that matter will not cause the noble Viscount any loss of sleep, and I am glad of that because he is almost the only senior Member of this House whom I have not seen asleep in this Chamber, and I should be sorry to deprive him of his well-earned rest at night.
I feel that it is just worth pausing for a moment to consider whether the Advisory Council has been used in the right circumstances here. The arguments for having an Advisory Council are, of course, strong: you draw on the experience of the noble Lady, Baroness Elliot of Harwood, and others from all over the kingdom, so to speak, and you bring their dispassionate minds to bear. Arguments against are that it may, I will not say detract from the ultimate responsibility of the Minister, because in a sense nothing can do that; but it may rather impinge upon it. We have to face the fact that when an Advisory Council of this kind reports, the situation confronting the Minister is not the same as the one before it reports. That may work out for righteousness, as I feel it did in the case of corporal punishment. It may even work out that, certainly on the publication of a report of this sort, it undoubtedly leaves the Minister less unshackled than he would be otherwise. I am not complaining about that. I think, on the whole, in the world in which we live, the work of the Advisory Councils is of assistance rather than the opposite when we are dealing with penal reform.
But there are other points. I think it may cause delay, and that brings me to what the noble Viscount said: that the work would be pressed on with. But, in fact, as was said at an earlier stage, the Home Secretary announced in November that this was going to be handed to the Advisory Council. The Advisory Council did not meet until May. I cannot regard that as rapid progress. I must criticise clearly and emphatically the failure of the Home Secretary to mobilise the Advisory Council between November and May. It seems to me a signal failure, and I do not think any other words should fall from me—and the Home Secretary is well aware of my admiration for his penal work. It may be that the Advisory
160
Council were busy—one of them (not Lady Elliot of Harwood) said they were resting, I think, after their labours on corporal punishment, or words to that effect.
The disadvantage of an Advisory Council is that they are not like the Civil Service or politicians, in the sense of being always "on tap". They have to be mobilised, sometimes with difficulty. We were told yesterday by Lady Elliot of Harwood that it was not entirely a matter of hours before she could mobilise her sub-committee to deal with the Henriques Plan. There are, therefore, delays in this matter. I think it is a slower method. I think one must put that on the debit side. I would particularly suggest that the use of an Advisory Council in dealing with an important aspect of a Bill just passing through Parliament should be resorted to only with the greatest caution. I am not complaining here of the use of the Advisory Council in regard to the Henriques Plan, because that was a new proposition and I think that, in the circumstances, that was a proper use of it, even though I was unhappy that we could not put something in the Bill in advance. In the case of after-care there was really no such excuse.
The present distinguished Home Secretary embarked on his office at the beginning of 1957, and there was surely no need to wait until November, 1960, to announce that the matter was being handed to the Advisory Council before the Advisory Council was actually brought to bear on it. So I cannot feel that the delay was necessary before the introduction of the Bill, and I am afraid that the transfer of an issue of this kind to an Advisory Council during a Bill does tend to blanket discussion. We have not had a discussion on after-care in spite of all the courtesy of the noble and learned Viscount. May I say, with great respect, that while the noble Viscount has been able to tell us what was there, and to deal firmly with any exaggerations that he felt came from our side, he has not been able to argue for or against this proposition because he has had to leave that to the Advisory Council? That is not the position in which the noble Viscount usually finds himself. His hands have been tied for debating purposes by this resort to a particular method of consultation. I

161
think we must in future at any rate ask ourselves whether this is the right way of making use of an Advisory Council. I am bound to say that I hope the Council will not be used again in circumstances of this sort.
But now may we come to the issue itself? I do not want to repeat what I have said quite often in this House and a good many times outside. Where ex-prisoners are concerned it is very easy for hearts to become cold. Many who do not know anything about ex-prisoners do not want to know. They have an uneasy feeling that their consciences would be unpleasantly touched if they got close to the subject. Some who have worked in this field for many years have got weary and sometimes, also, their hearts, if not cold are at least a little tepid. Therefore it is undoubtedly a fine thing if somebody who has indeed worked greatly in this field, like the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, comes along and stirs the feelings of all of us with that heart-rending speech.
I must say clearly that I do not join in any condemnation of the individuals engaged in the work of after-care. There may be some duds among them; they would be a very unusual body if there were not one or two duds. But I should not like it to go out from me, at any rate, as I do know some of these gentlemen quite intimately, that I am critical of any individuals concerned. I paid a tribute last time to Commander Hague, who is the new Director of Men's After-Care and also the General Secretary of NADPAS. I repeat that tribute now. I know and think well of Mr. Spurling who was mentioned. I must say that much; it would be rather cowardly not to do so.
I think the well documented stories placed before us by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, require a great deal of answering, and if I seem able to assure your Lordships that the men concerned are excellent people we are bound to ask how these rather scandalous events are possible; and I would say, as is generally the case when you get perfectly good people seeming to be connected with very lamentable events, that the set-up is utterly wrong. I said last time that I felt that if the noble Viscount, Field-Marshal Lord Montgomery of Alamein, were with us and
162
knew this particular set-up he would describe it as "nonsense" or "a shambles" or "a mess". To-day we have the noble and gallant Field-Marshal here. May I take it from him he might be ready to apply those words? I know the noble Viscount has a great tradition for almost over-preparing before he wins his battles. I gather I am not to be allowed to draw him to his feet for the purpose of his maiden contribution this afternoon, but I think that if he knew the set-up he would agree with those words, which I learned from him incidentally during a time when he was very kind to me in the War Office.
Without dwelling too long on the setup, may I remind your Lordships how extraordinary it is? The Director of Men's After-Care, which is what might be called the Governmental body, is also the General Secretary of N.A.D.P.A.S., which is the voluntary body. He wears the two hats, the State hat and the voluntary hat. Without looking further, I think we can regard that as a lamentable arrangement. If, when we get to the unfortunate prisoners, there are some very distressing happenings, I think we find the cause easily enough on the organisational level, and that alone, it seems to me, justifies the strong Amendment put down by the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, in which he calls for a revolution in the arrangements.
I want to touch on only one other point, and I do not want to detain the House this afternoon, having spoken on these things often and no doubt I will speak on them often again. It seems to me that it is time we gave after-care a much better priority, a higher priority in our official thinking. Some people will say these official priorities do not matter, but I do not think the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, would use that argument, and I do not think the experienced administrators who are sitting around me to-day would use that argument.
Let us for one moment consult Whitaker's Almanack and try to find in Whitaker any official who is in any way described as being connected with aftercare. We cannot. I will not bet a large sum, but I have hunted high and low, and I cannot find Commander Hague in Whitaker. In half his capacity he would appear to be a Government official. Perhaps if you are only half a Govern-

163
ment official you do not get into Whitaker. however heavy your responsibilities. I cannot discover him here or in the British Imperial Calendar and Civil Service List. I find a D. B. Hague, but he deals with historical monuments, and I cannot think the Commander can deal with that, although of course many of the prisons would qualify under that heading; but it would seem rather a strange description. So he does not seem to be in any official list of civil servants at all. There is often said to be—indeed, I know as a matter of fact, to be candid, there is—an assistant commissioner who is concerned with after-care, but I think his connection is one of which no one seems, at any rate, to boast. To the best of my belief, it is Mr. Cape, and under the assistant commissioners you will see C. T. Cape, but he is described as "education and welfare". So even the assistant commissioner who has some link with after-care is not mentioned in that capacity. I think these facts show that the priority given to the after-care is of the minimal kind. I am sure that in our thinking we have to treat the whole subject in quite a different way altogether.
I do not mean to say more. I am sure that when the Government have had time to study the various proposals and various schemes they will reach the conclusion that a revolution is certainly necessary. I feel certain myself that they will reach the conclusion that the State must assume, for the first time, at any rate a minimum responsibility for all those who come out of prison. A certain minimum responsibility is assumed for those who are brought under statutory after-care, and I am glad that number is to be much increased; but the much larger number who will not come under statutory aftercare, of course, are not under this Bill being offered any new provision at all; and until we do that we shall, it seems to me, be treating our prisoners like hospital patients on whom we operate and then throw out of hospital next day. We begin the treatment and we leave it unfinished, and in many circumstances we leave it so that it will do more harm than good. I support the ideas of the noble Lord, Lord Stonham. I do not wish to condemn any individuals concerned with after-care. Those who go into this work need all the encouragement
164
they can receive. But I would say that the present set-up is absolutely shocking, and until we alter it totally we shall get only very un-Christian after-care, in so far as we get any at all.
6.18 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, I want to delay your Lordships for only a moment. Reference has been made by the noble Earl, quite rightly, to the Advisory Council, of which I am a member. He suggested that it was improper to ask the Advisory Council to give any advice about this very difficult subject. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, said, that there are terrible problems in tragic cases, but, as the noble Viscount has pointed out, there are many areas where after-care does work, and I think it would be hard to condemn the whole system, although it is undoubtedly very difficult to organise and needs a great deal of improvement.
THE EARL OF LONGFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt? I am afraid I did not make myself quite plain on that point. I do not say that in principle this is a subject which should not be handed to the Advisory Council for study, but I think, in the circumstances, when a Bill had already been introduced, transfer of this subject to the Advisory Council would in fact blanket discussion.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I follow the noble Earl's point. The fact is that we cannot come to decisions so readily as if we were all getting up and making speeches and saying what we thought should be done and then leaving it to the Home Secretary to take action. But, in fact, what is the right way to do this job? Neither of the two noble Lords opposite really knows. One has suggested that a Director of After-Care should be appointed on the staff of the Prison Commissioners. It might be a very good way; but it might, on the other hand, not be the best way. One does not know, because there are so many interests involved. The object of referring it to the sub-committee of the Council was in order that we should be able to get all the opinions from a variety of different people working in this field, up and down the country. This has been done before. The Advisory Council was set up by the noble Lord, Lord Morrison of Lambeth, when he was

165
Home Secretary, and the first job we did was to go carefully into every clause of the Criminal Justice Bill, 1948. I well remember working clause by clause on that Bill when Mr. Chuter Ede was the Home Secretary, and he was good enough, when the Bill finally went through, to make reference to the help he had received from the Advisory Council during the progress of the Bill.
Since then many subjects have been referred to the Advisory Council, to one of which the noble Lord has particularly referred—the question of corporal punishment. That was the last one we dealt with. I think it was because we worked fairly hard on the corporal punishment report that we were unable to take up these other two subjects as early as we might have done. In fact, we did fairly quick work on the corporal punishment report. When I note the time that is taken by other Commissions to report, some of them many years, I think that our nine months was not too bad at all. It was because of that that we could not start immediately on these new subjects, and not, as the noble Earl has said, because we wanted a rest. We finished one and we immediately began to start on three other subjects.
I think that what the noble Viscount has said on this subject is really wise advice. There are many different points of view. Nobody thinks that the system is by any means perfect. We want to see it much better. But there are a great many different points of view. I myself believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, who sits behind me, and who has been mentioned as referring to things as "shambles" and "a mess", would probably agree that to plan away from "shambles" and "a mess" takes a little time. Revolutions sometimes make more mess than reforms. We hope to reform this system rapidly as soon as we have a line to go on. I think it is premature to accept this Amendment now. I am sure I speak for my colleagues on the Council when I say that we will not delay in any way in making a plan which will come before the Home Secretary as soon as possible.
6.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am glad to hear from the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that there will
166
be no delay. If and when the plan of her sub-committee is published, we shall be pleased to see it and to study it. But I should like to make it clear—I do not know whether she thought this, but it seemed from her words that she did—that our Amendment was not put down casually on some superficial information; it was based on most carefully worked out conclusions, after a great deal of work by the Pakenham-Thompson Committee, which was mainly, although not entirely, composed of distinguished persons who are most experienced in this class of work. They included Frank Daltry, the General Secretary of the National Society of Probation Officers and Mr. E. H. Rolf; and even Lieutenant-Commander Hague was an adviser.
I do not wish to say any more except on two or three points to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred. He referred to the three cases and, quite rightly, said that he could not deal with special cases. They were not brought forward as such, but merely as examples of what happened. I could have quoted fifty cases in varying degrees. They were brought forward merely as examples of the way the system does not work. I have no intention whatever of condemning individuals in voluntary organisations; but I do condemn the organisations themselves because they are totally inadequate for the job, and I think we should be entirely wrong, because of any private personal feelings, to neglect to say what we know is so manifestly true.
Nor do I withdraw a single word of the observations I made with regard to local offices of the Government Departments. I do not know whether the situation I have described is in fact the policy of those Departments—I am asking the Ministers concerned—or whether what happens is the result of a particular official's application of what he thought was the policy. I do not know, but we shall find out.
The last point is that the noble and learned Viscount said once more, with his usual generosity, that he would not mind if, as a gesture, we should again divide the House. I assure him that we have no interest in gestures; we are not interested in scoring points on this issue. The only thing we are concerned with is trying to improve the appallingly bad,

167
inadequate and, as I think, non-existent after-care system, so that people coming out of prison who are at present liable either to go back or to go on to the scrap heap, can have the chance of becoming useful and decent citizens. That is the only thing that we have in mind.
I have noticed that although we have not a great number of noble Lords here, we have about four times the number now that we started with—a most unusual experience for me, at least. Your Lordships have stayed. To me, this is a sign that the question we are discussing is one of keen interest. I inform your Lordships of my intention now. So that these cases should be considered, so that the inquiries I have made to the respective Ministers should have a chance of bringing replies, and so that there can be no question whatever about what the system is before we part with this Bill, I propose, with the help of my noble friend, to table an Amendment to be considered on Third Reading.
By that time we hope that all members will have been able to consider what has been said to-day, and to have had the fullest possible investigation. We can then come to Third Reading and raise this point again, so that it can be considered without any question of doubt or any dubiety at all; we shall really know what we are talking about, to the extent that things cannot be challenged and there cannot be any doubt put on them. Then I feel we can come to a decision. I hope it will be a matter upon which this House can take an objective decision based on the facts, without any kind of question of Party politics, but on the basis of the facts and on what I am sure is your Lordships' intention, to help these people who so badly need help. With that, I ask your Lordships' leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Transfer to serve sentence]:
6.18 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the proviso to subsection (5):
"(b) where a person so sentenced at any time in Scotland or Northern Ireland is transferred to England and Wales, the period after his release during which, under subsections (3) and (4) of the said section forty-five, he remains under supervision and is liable to be recalled shall end not later than the date on
168
which he would have ceased to be under supervision under the law of the place where he was sentenced, if he had been released there."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, may I call the attention of the House to Amendments No. 18, 19 and 22. These are drafting Amendments, the purpose of which is to collect together in subsection (5) of Clause 26 all the special provisions relating to persons sentenced to borstal training who are subsequently transferred to another part of the United Kingdom. At present these provisions are partly in that subsection and partly in subsection (6). I could give a detailed exposition, but I assure your Lordships that this is a drafting Amendment and therefore I do not propose to go into it now unless any of your Lordships ask me to. I beg to move Amendment No. 18.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 16, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 19, line 17, at end insert (",not being a person sentenced to borstal training,").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I might again ask for the indulgence of the House, I would ask your Lordships to consider Amendments 20, 21 and 23 together. These are also drafting Amendments. The first two substitute references to the prisoner being subject to supervision, instead of under supervision, and thereby bring the drafting into line with that used elsewhere in subsection (6). The second Amendment improves the drafting of subsection (7) and removes doubt. In particular, the words after the semicolon make it clear that subsection (6) applies to prisoners who are under the age of 21 when sentenced and who, under Section 25 (2) of the Prison Act, 1952 (or the corresponding provisions of the Scottish and Northern Ireland Acts), may, at the discretion of the prison authorities, either be granted remission of sentence or be released under a young prisoner's licence. As a matter of practice they are invariably released on licence, but it could not be predicted whether, if they

169
had not been transferred, they would necessarily have been released on licence. Accordingly, there might be argument as to whether subsection (6) applied to young prisoners released on licence. I asked your Lordships to agree to these drafting Amendments.
Arnendment moved—
Page 19, line 32, leave out ("under such supervision") and insert ("so subject")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, may I move Amendments 21, 22 and 23 together? I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 19, line 34, leave out ("been under") and insert ("continued to be subject to")
Page 19, line 40, leave out ("borstal training")
Page 19, line 42, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
("(7) In subsection (6) of this section references to supervision include references to any obligation to comply with requirements or conditions imposed by a licence or otherwise imposed by law on or in connection with release from a prison or other institution, and any liability to be recalled or returned thereto; and for the purposes of that subsection it shall be assumed that a person who, if released in his place of sentence, could have been placed under supervision, would have been so placed.") —(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
6.23 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24. I do not propose to speak on it, because the point is clear and I made it clear on the Committee stage. My only reason for tabling it and moving it again is that the noble and learned Viscount the Leader of the House, when it was discussed in Committee, undertook to consider with his right honourable friend the Home Secretary some of the points I made in support of the Amendment, and to let me know something about it on Report. I am therefore moving it now in the hope that he may be able to give us some further information.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 33, insert the following new clause—
Supervision orders
(". Section seventy-one of the Magistrates Court Act, 1952 (which authorises a magistrates' court, on summary conviction, to make
170
a supervision order pending payment of a fine) shall apply to Courts of Quarter Sessions.").—(Lord Stonham.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right in his account of the facts. My noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham indicated that the Government sympathised with the object of the Amendment, but that it was not practicable to superimpose an effective system of supervision on the present procedure for the enforcement of fines in the superior courts, which was quite different from that in magistrates' courts. Your Lordships will remember that, in the absence in the superior courts of any means of inquiry before committal, or of any power to postpone committal once the offender is in default, supervision could not be made to work effectively, and it would really require revision of the procedure.
The noble Lord, Lord Stonham, understandably, asked that we should look at the point again, and my noble and learned friend said that he would refer it to the Home Secretary, although I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, would agree that he was not very hopeful. He did so, and the matter was considered again, although I should tell my noble friend that it had been considered on an undertaking when either this Amendment or a similar Amendment was moved in the Commons, so it was not a new subject. The conclusion was reached that it would be a mistake to attempt to deal piecemeal with the procedure for the enforcement of fines in the superior courts. We have considered it, and there is no convenient way of meeting the point in the Amendment short of a wholesale revision of the Levy of Fines Act, 1822, and the Queen's Remembrancer Act, 1859, as well as of the relevant provisions in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, which would be quite beyond the scope of the present Bill. And that is, of course, in addition to the two other difficulties which my noble and learned friend mentioned: that the Amendment does not apply to courts of assize and, of course, that it applies to offenders of all ages.
I should like again to assure the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, that one of the matters which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been most keen on is to try to sweep up the cobwebs of the

171
law. I think the noble Lord would concede that he has done a great deal of work in that way. He has asked me to tell the noble Lord that he will bear this point in mind, as I myself will, because I also have done a little work in this sphere of law reform, which I hope will continue. I am sorry that I cannot do any more for the noble Lord, but I do not see how we can get round these difficulties in this Bill.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Viscount. He has indeed done all I had hoped for, in that he has given rather more information and a further and more definite assurance, for which I am very grateful. I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the clause:
"() In accordance with subsections (1) and (2) of this section, but subject to subsection (3) thereof and to the repeal provided for by subsection (6) of section eighteen of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, the following enactments (which relate to borstal training) that is to say section twenty of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, section twenty-eight of the Magistrates' Courts Act. 1952, and section forty-five of the Prison Act, 1952, shall, after the commencement of all such provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Schedules to this Act as relate to those enactments, have effect as set out in the Schedule (Enactments relating to borstal training as they will have effect, subject to s. 41 (3) of this Act and to s. 18 (6) of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949, when all amendments made in them by this Act operate) to this Act."
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, this Amendment, which your Lordships will see is at page 27, line 37, inserts a new subsection and deals with the position created by subsections (1) and (2) and the repeal provided for by subsection (6) of Section 18 of the Legal Aid and Advice Act. It provides:
"… the following enactments (which relate to borstal training) that is to say Section 20 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, Section 28 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, and Section 45 of the Prison Act, 1952, shall, after the commencement of all such provisions of the Fourth and Fifth Schedules to this Act ֵ have effect as set out in the Sixth Schedule to this Act."
My Lords, the effect of that, if your Lordships would look at Amendments
172
25, 26 and 27, and then the new Schedule which is Amendment 37, is that this represents a form of Statute Law consolidation. It reproduces certain statutory provisions relating to borstal training which have been extensively amended by the Bill. These provisions are set out after taking into account amendments made by previous legislation, as well as amendments made by the Bill. The latter are printed in heavy type in the Bill so that the effect of the Bill on the provisions can be easily seen. We hope that this consolidation will make it much easier for practitioners and other persons concerned with borstal training to know what is the current law on the subject. I recollect (it is some time ago now) that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, suggested this method of dealing with another Bill; because, with the black printing, it makes the matter stand out and allows people to see the new law. There is no political content in these Amendments at all: it is simply a matter of arrangement. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 37, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Application to Scotland and Northern Ireland]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendments Nos. 26 and 27 together. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 28, line 1, leave out ("and Fifth") and insert (", Fifth and Sixth").
Page 28, line 12, leave out ("Schedule") and insert ("and Sixth Schedules").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Third Schedule [Supervision of certain discharged prisoners]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, perhaps I may take Amendments Nos. 30, 31, 32 and 33 together. They are drafting Amendments designed to simplify the various references to the period of supervision, and to avoid any confusion which might arise from the fact that, by reason of Clause 26, subsection (6), the period of supervision may, in the case of a prisoner transferred to England and Wales from elsewhere, be less than twelve months. As I say,

173
they are simply drafting Amendments for clarification purposes. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 32, line 13, after ("Schedule") insert ("(in this Schedule referred to as the period of supervision)").
Page 32, line 21, leave out from ("of") to end of line 22 and insert ("supervision").
Page 32, line 40, leave out from second ("of") to ("supervision") in line 42.
Page 33, line 36, leave out ("paragraph 1, 4 and 5") and insert ("paragraph 1").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
EARL BATHURST: My Lords, this is also a drafting Amendment, and I am glad to be able to tell the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, that the Bill now moans exactly what I said it meant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 34, line 36, leave out paragraph 17 and insert—
("17. In relation to anything falling to be done in Scotland under Part I of this Schedule, for the words 'an officer of the Society or a probation officer', wherever they occur, there shall be substituted the words 'an officer of the Society or any other person, including a probation officer in Scotland, authorised by the Society'.")—(Earl Bathurst.)
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: My Lords, may I thank the noble Earl very Touch for the redrafting of this clause?
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, this is the new Schedule to which I referred. I do not think I need detain your Lordships on it any longer. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After the Fifth Schedule to insert the following new Schedule—
[In this Schedule words inserted by the Bill are printed in heavy type.]
("ENACTMENTS RELATING TO BORSTAL TRAINING AS THEY WILL HAVE EFFECT, SUBJECT TO S. 41 (3) OF THIS ACT AND TO S. 18 (6) OF THE LEGAL AID AND ADVICE ACT, 1949, WHEN ALL AMENDMENTS MADE IN THEM BY THIS ACT OPERATE
CRIMINAL JUSTICE ACT, 1948, S. 20
[Borstal training]
20.—(1) Where a person is convicted on indictment of an offence punishable with imprisonment, then if on the day of his con-
174
viction he is not less than fifteen but under twenty-one years of age and a sentence of borstal training is available in his case under subsection (2) of section one of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, the court may, in lieu of any other sentence, pass a sentence of borstal training.
(4) An offender committed by a court of summary jurisdiction to quarter sessions for sentence under subsection (1) of section twenty-eight of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, shall be committed—

(a) where the court of summary jurisdiction acts for a county other than the County of London or for a borough not having a separate court of quarter sessions, to the appeal committee of the quarter sessions for that county or for the county in which that borough is situated, as the case may be;

(b) in any other case, to the next court of quarter sessions having jurisdiction in the county, borough or place for which the court of summary jurisdiction acts;

and where the offender is so committed to an appeal committee, the clerk to the court of summary jurisdiction shall notify the clerk of the peace, and the clerk of the peace shall give notice to the prosecutor and to the governor of the remand centre or prison to which the offender is committed of the date on which the ease will be dealt with by the appeal committee, being the next available sitting of a court consisting of members of that committee.
(5) Where an offender is so committed for sentence as aforesaid, the following provisions shall have effect, that is to say:—

(a) the appeal committee or court of quarter sessions shall inquire into the circumstances of the case and may—

(i) if a sentence of borstal training is available in his case under subsection (2) of section one of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, sentence him to borstal training; or

(ii) in any case, deal with him in any manner in which the court of summary jurisdiction might have dealt with him;

(b) the Poor Prisoners Defence Act, 1930, shall apply as if the offender were committed for trial for an indictable offence, subject to the modifications specified in subsections (4) and (5) of section eighteen of the Legal Aid and Advice Act, 1949;
(d) if the appeal committee or court of quarter sessions passes a sentence of borstal training, the offender may appeal against the sentence to the Court of Criminal Appeal as if he had been convicted on indictment, and the provisions of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, shall apply accordingly.
(6) References to a court of quarter sessions or a court in any enactment as applied by the last foregoing subsection, or in any other enactment relating to persons dealt with by quarter sessions (including any such enactment contained in this Act) shall be construed as including references to an anneal committee of quarter sessions by whom an offender is dealt with under that subsection.
MAGISTRATES' COURTS ACT, 1952, S. 28
[Committal to quarter sessions with a view to a borstal sentence]
28.—(1) Where a person is convicted by a magistrates' court of an offence punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment, then, if on the day of the conviction he is not less than fifteen but under twenty-one years old and is a person who, under subsections (2) and (4) of section one of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, may be committed for a sentence of borstal training, the court may commit him in custody to quarter sessions for sentence in accordance with the provisions of section twenty of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948.
(4) A person committed under subsection (1) of this section shall be committed—

(a) if the court has been notified by the Secretary of State that a remand centre is available for the reception, from that court, of persons of the class or description of the person committed, to a remand centre;

(b) if the court has not been so notified, to a prison.

PRISON ACT, 1952. s. 45 [Release of persons sentenced to borstal training]
45.—(1) A person sentenced to borstal training shall be detained in a borstal institution, and after his release therefrom shall be subject to supervision, in accordance with the following provisions of this section; subject, however, to the power of the Secretary of State under subsection (2) of the last preceding section to commute in certain cases the unexpired part of the term for which a person is liable to be so detained to a term of imprisonment.
(2) A person sentenced to borstal training shall be detained in a borstal institution for such period, not extending beyond two years after the date of his sentence, as the Prison Commissioners may determine, and shall then be released:
Provided that the Prison Commissioners shall not release any such person from a borstal institution before the expiration of six months from the date of his sentence unless required to do so by directions of the Secretary of State.
(3) A person shall, after his release from a borstal institution and until the expiration of two years from the date of his release, be under the supervision of such society or person as may be specified in a notice to be given to him by the Prison Commissioners on his release, and shall, while under that supervision, comply with such requirements as may be so specified:
Provided that the Prison Commissioners may at any time modify or cancel any of the said requirements to order that a person who is under supervision as aforesaid shall cease to be under supervision.
(4) If before the expiration of two years from the date of his release the Prison Commissioners are satisfied that a person who is under supervision after his release from a borstal institution under subsection (2) of this section has failed to comply with any requirement for the time being specified in the notice given to him under subsection (3) of this section, they may by order recall him to a borstal institution; and thereupon he shall be liable to be detained in the borstal institution until the expiration of two years from the date of his sentence, or the expiration of six months from the date of his being taken into custody under the order, whichever is the later, and, if at large, shall be deemed to be unlawfully at large:
Provided that—

(a) any such order shall, at the expiration of two years from the date of his release, cease to have effect unless the person to whom it relates is then in custody there-under; and

(b) the Prison Commissioners may at any time release a person who is detained in a borstal institution under this subsection; and the provisions of subsection (3) of this section and the preceding provisions of this subsection shall apply on his release under this paragraph as they apply in the case of his original release, except that the references to the period of two years from the date of his release shall be construed as references to the period of two years from the date of his original release.

(5) If any person while under supervision, or after his recall to a borstal institution, as aforesaid, or after being ordered to be returned to a borstal institution under section twelve of the Criminal Justice Act, 1960, is sentenced by a court in any part of Great Britain to corrective training or borstal training, his original sentence of borstal training shall cease to have effect.
(6) The Prison Commissioners in exercising their functions under this section shall consider any report made to them by a board of visitors on the advisability of releasing a person from a borstal institution.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before seven o'clock.