Lords Sitting of 29 November 1962

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

GOVERNMENT AID FOR SPORT
3.5 p.m.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: 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 studied the booklet Central Government Aid to Sport and Physical Recreation in Countries of Western Europe of which copies have been supplied to them; and if they have any comments to make on the position in so far as this country is concerned.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE LORD DERWENT): My Lords, this valuable booklet has been read with great interest, and the review it gives of Continental practice, which has hitherto been lacking, wall materially assist consideration of this question.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, not knowing the background of the noble Lord in sporting matters, I would not know whether he realises how great is the disappointment among sporting organisations and, I think, on both sides of this House at this continued delaying action on the part of the Government. May I ask him whether he is aware that what really concerns us all—it is not only a question of this side of the House—is that when we compare what is being done in Britain with what has actually been undertaken in countries of Western Europe, there seems in this country to be no clear understanding and realisation of what can be done by the Central Government to foster and encourage the drive of local authorities and to underpin the voluntary efforts of sports organisations from local to national level? I hope he feels able to
1298
bring that to the attention of his noble friends.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think it is rather difficult to compare what Central Governments in Europe are spending on sport with what is being spent here, because in this country in regard to capital expenditure a lot of it is done through the education authorities. This year capital expenditure is going to be £18 million. If you compare that with what the French Government are giving, for instance, you find the French Government are providing nothing under that heading; so it is somewhat difficult to compare one with the other. In spite of what the noble Baroness has said, we realise that this is an important matter. But it is a fairly complicated one and I very much regret that I can add nothing at this moment to what I said to her on November 6.
LORD LINDGREN: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that when one travels on the Continent one finds that practically every small town has its sports stadium, yet in this country we have many counties with neither a closed swimming pool nor a cinder running track?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, perhaps the rather sweeping statement by the noble Lord can be answered by saying this: will he also take account of the swimming pools and the tracks there are as part of the educational establishments of this country?
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHESTER: My Lords, in view of the fact that this pamphlet shows that financial aid can be given from Government sources without vitiating the essentially amateur spirit of sport, will Her Majesty's Government regard this pamphlet as an additional argument for the setting up of a Sports Development Council?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I dealt on November 6 with the question of setting up the Council. But I would point out to the right reverend Prelate that much of the finance in Western Europe is provided by the Governments through the running of pools, and whether the right reverend Prelate in act wants us to do that I do not know.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, without wishing to be rude to the noble Lord, may I ask him whether he realises that this really is a smokescreen on the part of the Government to make it sound as though all this money is being spent? Is he aware that it is not being spent on the sporting facilities, and the argument that it is done through education does not hold water? Is he further aware that there are only three countries in Western Europe where the pools are not used to encourage sport and that this country is one of them?
LORD DERWENT: I am afraid I do not quite understand the supplementary question put by the noble Baroness. She refers to "this money". I do not know whether she is referring to pools money or money spent through the educational authorities, or what money. We are, I quite agree, one of the countries who do not provide money from our pools, but I would ask the noble Baroness to remember that the pools coupons and pools profits are already taxed.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: Your Lordships are very generous, but if the noble Lord would allow me to say so, I cannot allow him to get away with his statement. I regret it if I muddled him. What I am asking is this. Does he realise that the people interested in sport in this country do not believe that the argument of the Government is a good one, when they try to ride off on each occasion with the statement, "We spend as much as any country in Western Europe and do it through education". It is just not true.
LORD DERWENT: No, I do not realise that at all.

THE MOTOR INDUSTRY AND RESALE PRICE MAINTENANCE
3.12 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: 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, in view of the request made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the motor industry to consider the
1300
adoption of seasonal prices to even out seasonal demand and thereby achieve a more even production flow, they will amend the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956, so as to prohibit the individual enforcement of resale prices which would have the effect he desires.]
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, while, as the law stands, an individual supplier who supplies his goods subject to resale price maintenance conditions may enforce those conditions, this does not necessarily preclude the adoption of seasonal prices in an industry; it is always open to the suppliers to vary their maintained prices from season to season.
The noble Lord's Question raises the subject of resale price maintenance in its relation to the products of the motor industry, but this cannot be considered separately from resale price maintenance over the whole field of trade and industry. Your Lordships will be aware that a detailed inquiry into the subject of resale price maintenance was carried out for my right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade by his officials. My right honourable friend is considering their report, but this is a complicated matter and I cannot anticipate what will be the outcome of his deliberations.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the objective of resale price maintenance is to keep prices up? I have always understood that the policy of Her Majesty's Government was to keep prices down. Is the noble Lord also aware that in the economic circumstances of this country to-day resale price maintenance is thoroughly dishonest, as it persuades and misleads the buying public into thinking that the advertised price is the price that should be paid for the goods on sale, although the Government know, and the industry knows, that as regards the motor industry the majority of its products are sold under the price advertised? Do the Government want to carry on being a party to what I have characterised as dishonest?
Further, my Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether I should be right in saying—in spite of the fact that he says he

1301
cannot anticipate it—that the Departmental Committee set up by his right honourable friend the President of the Board of Trade recommended that, as resale price maintenance throughout the whole of this country was against the public interest, it should be abandoned?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if I may take the second part of the supplementary question first, this inquiry by my right honourable friend was a confidential one, in so far as it was done for him by his officials who reported to him. So I cannot say any more about that inquiry until my right honourable friend has made up his mind. I do not accept that resale price maintenance is of necessity crooked.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, I did not say anything of the kind. I said that it was dishonest, in so far as it led the purchaser to think that the price advertised was the price to be paid; whereas the noble Lord knows, and I know, that the majority of the products sold under resale price maintenance in the motor industry are sold at lower than the advertised price.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I do not accept that the argument of the noble Lord is right in all cases.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is aware that it is not only in the motor industry, but widespread among ordinary common branded products that goods which have been the subject of rules in the trade are now being sold well below their resale maintenance price—a fact which is greatly disturbing to those traders who have kept honest faith with the people who are responsible for resale maintenance of price and the agreed margins? Really, the Government ought to come to some firm and adequate decision, as to what is the right course to pursue
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I think I must say to the noble Viscount the Leader of the Opposition that that is really outside the original Question. But I would repeat that this matter is being considered by my right honourable friend, and when he has made up his mind he will make a statement. But the supplementary question put by the
1302
noble Viscount is really very wide of the original Question on the Order Paper.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, as the law stands at present, there is anything at all to stop motor-car manufacturers from abandoning resale price maintenance voluntarily?
LORD DERWENT: Nothing at all, and in fact they have considered what is the best method of dealing with this.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, could the noble Lord tell us what are their conclusions as to the best method of dealing with this?
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, if the noble Lord its referring to the motor manufacturers, that is a matter for them and not for me.

PRIVILEGES OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
3.17 p.m.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, I bee 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 are now able to say whether they will consider examining the law in order to eliminate any provisions which confer exceptional privileges upon Members of either House of Parliament]
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND MINISTER OF SCIENCE (VISCOUNT HAILSHAM): Yes, my Lords. I would remind noble Lords that the privileges of Members of this House and of another place have deep roots in our constitutional history. In the words used by Erskine May:
"The privileges of Parliament are rights which are 'absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers'. They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity."
That is Erskine May's description. Beyond question, the privilege of freedom from arrest on civil process was very necessary in the days when arrest

1303
was a normal method of compelling the appearance of a defendant before the court or of enforcing a money judgment. The House will remember the consequences of the money judgment in Bardell v. Pickwick. It may well be that the extent of this privilege is now wider than contemporary circumstances require. This, however, is a subject which needs very careful examination. If the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition so wishes, I should be pleased to discuss with him how such an examination might best be undertaken.
BARONESS SUMMERSKILL: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount very much for that most satisfactory answer? May I ask him a minor question, as he is a fount of knowledge on this matter? A noble Lord came to me and he seemed rather concerned that we should be divested of some of our privileges. He warned me that if I was committed for a capital offence I should not be able to claim the right to be hanged by a silken cord; I should have to have a hempen rope. Is that correct?
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I have heard, my Lords, that this right does exist for Members of your Lordships' House. It has not, I believe, been exercised for quite a considerable time. Also, I have always heard that the right has been disputed in the interests of democracy, and that your Lordships could not be absolutely certain of getting it again.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, would not the more regular, constitutional and traditional method of considering this matter, which may well require further consideration, be by a Committee of Privileges of both Houses? Certainly we are concerned only with our own privileges, but, as the noble Viscount said, it may be that it is very important that both Houses should keep in line if possible. If the House of Commons took the same view after the Committee of Privileges in the House of Commons had considered it, it is not unknown that there should be set up a Joint Select Committee
1304
of both Houses; and possibly the Committee of Privileges of both Houses could sit together.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I would say, my Lords, that this is exactly the sort of question that I shall be, or should be if noble Lords opposite accepted my invitation, discussing with them. It would be merely a discussion as to which form it would take.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: We certainly agree with that.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: My Lords, I should Like to inform your Lordships that at a suitable minute after half past three my noble friend Lord Chesham will be making a statement on the supersonic airliner.

HIRE PURCHASE (AMENDMENT) BILL [H.L.]
LORD PEDDIE: My Lords, I beg leave to introduce a Bill to amend the law relating to hire purchase and sales on credit of goods; and for purposes connected therewith. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Peddie.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

EXPIRING LAWS CONTINUANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
ROYAL COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS OF GLASGOW ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936), deemed to have been read 2a and reported from the Committee.

BETTING, GAMING AND LOTTERIES BILL [H.L.]
3.23 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD DILHORNE): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now (read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

BETTING DUTIES BILL [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
3.24 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, may I say a word on this? Whenever the Government touch betting they always get into trouble, and it is a very satisfactory thing to see some of the old Statutes being wiped away and a Consolidation Bill introduced. Why we want two is a little difficult to understand, but there are no doubt sound reasons behind it. But the general purpose of a Consolidation Bill is to get things clear and precise, so that everybody can understand the situation. Consequently, I must draw your Lordships' attention to subsection (5) of Clause 1, on page 2, which I want to read, because it is all clean fun.
"For the purposes of the pool betting duty, any payment which entitles a person to make a bet by way of pool betting shall, if he makes the bet, be treated as stake money on the bet, and this subsection shall apply to any payment entitling a person to take part in a transaction which is, on his part, only not a bet made by way of pool betting by reason of his not in fact making any stake as if the transaction were such a bet, and the transaction shall accordingly be treated as a bet for the purposes of the pool betting duty."
1306
My Lords, that is a drafting triumph in mysticism which has scarcely ever been equalled. The square root of minus one is child's play compared with that. I will not ask the Lord Chancellor to explain that to-day: it is perfectly certain he could not do it. But whoever drafted that must have had something in his mind—God knows what! If the Lord Chancellor could see that at some time during the passage of the Bill it is put in intelligible language, I and others would be very grateful.
The only other point I wish to raise is the question of the 10 per cent. duty on dog track totalisators. This has always been held to be rather severe on dogs as opposed to horses, but all I want is an assurance from the noble and learned Lord that, because we pass this Consolidated Bill, it will not in any way prejudice people in making representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer relative to the future; that the passing of this Bill will not be used to enable it to be said, "You should not have passed this Bill because you have given your case away". I hope that we shall be free to make representations to the Chancellor should we wish to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not think that the passage of this Bill will in any way stop representations being made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. This is a pure (I use the word "pure" advisedly) Consolidation Bill, and it deals with betting duties as opposed to the general law of betting, gaming and lotteries. That is Why there have to be two Bills. The particular subsection to which the noble Lord has referred is, as the noble Lord will know, one of considerable antiquity. It was apparently approved in some similar form to this by your Lordships in the year 1952. I cannot undertake to expound it without notice, but I will certainly give consideration to whether or not the drafting of it can possibly be improved.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
3.28 p.m.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Craigton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE in the Chair.]
Clause 1:
1.—
(3) Where a court of summary jurisdiction other than a sheriff court or a stipendiary magistrate's court imposes detention on an offender under twenty-one years of age, the court shall state the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings along with the finding and sentence.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (3), to leave out from "jurisdiction" to "imposes". The noble Lord said: In Clause 1, subsection (3), it is laid down:
"Where a court of summary jurisdiction other than a Sheriff court or a stipendiary magistrate's court imposes detention on an offender under twenty-one years of age, the court shall state the reason for its opinion that no other method of dealing with him is appropriate, and the reason shall be entered in the record of the proceedings along with the finding and sentence."
It seems to me that this is a very worth-whlie change in the law. It presupposes that imprisonment or detention should be imposed on someone under the age of 21 only in exceptional circumstances; and, in furtherance of that, that it is reasonable, presumably for the guidance of judges or magistrates thereafter, that they should know what these exceptional circumstances were.
That being the case, I cannot see that the principle should be brought into operation only if the man has appeared before a police court or a bench of justices of the peace. I think that it ought to be applied generally in summary courts, even though in the two cases excepted, in the sheriff court and the stipendiary magistrate's court, these are not lay
1308
magistrates but are qualified legal judges. If my Amendment were accepted, it would mean that in all summary court cases there would be a record laying down for subsequent guidance the exceptional circumstances in which imprisonment or detention had been imposed. It is for that reason that I now move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 9, leave out from ("jurisdiction") to ("imposes") in line 10.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD CHORLEY: May I ask the Minister whether this proposal is peculiar to Scotland or whether a stipendiary magistrate in England has this privilege? I just do not remember. I do not remember this being in the English Act.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, has argued that in cases where the detention of a young offender seems to be the appropriate sentence, the requirement on a court of summary jurisdiction to starte the reason for its opinion and to have that reason entered in the record of its proceedings should be applied also to the sheriff summary court and to the stipendiary magistrate's court. I feel I must tell the noble Lord that the Government do not feel able to accept this Amendment. The reasons for that decision are these. The purpose of requiring counts of summary jurisdiction to state and record their reasons when they decide how best to deal with young offenders is, as the Committee will be well aware, and as the noble Lord pointed out, to make sure they give due weight to the provision of Clause 1, subsection (1), of the Bill, which states that detention should be imposed only after all other alternatives have been considered. If this requirement were not there, the Government feel there might be a danger of courts being unaware, or at any rate vague, about the provisions of Clause 1, subsection (1), and possibly passing sentence in ignorance of them.
However, as the noble Lord mentioned, the position of the sheriff summary court and the stipendiary magistrate's court is different. These courts are staffed by legally-trained, professional judges, and in the Government's

1309
view there is no danger that they will be unaware of the provisions or fail to give them due weight. Art the same time I must make it clear that this is in no way a reflection on the ability or integrity of lay burgh magistrates or justices of the peace. It is merely an acceptance of the fact that sheriffs and stipendiary magistrates are legally qualified persons. I must also remind the Committee that Sheriffs operate as judges in Scotland under both solemn and summary procedure. In each case, the sheriff is the sole judge of sentence, it would surely be anomalous in the case of the same judge to require him to state his reasons if sitting in summary procedure but not so to require him if he were sitting in solemn procedure.
Will the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, repeat his question?
LORD CHORLEY: My memory does not allow me to remember whether this applies in England to courts of stipendiary and metropolitan magistrates, which, after all, are courts of summary jurisdiction.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Yes. In England it does apply to stipendiary magistrates. Of course, as the noble Lord is aware, the situation in England is that the vast majority of courts are staffed by lay magistrates. Therefore the Government have not felt that in this case they need follow the English procedure, because in Scotland fully half the summary cases, the most serious half, are tried by the sheriffs. There is in Scotland a distinction between the two types of court. These briefly are the reasons why the Government are resisting this Amendment. Moreover, we are endorsing the decision taken by the Labour Government in 1949 when the same point was discussed during the passage of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949. I hope therefore that, on reflection, the noble Lord will consider, as we do, that his political colleagues in those days showed wise judgment in resisting the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: May I say a word about this? We feel the noble Marquess's reply is a quite unsatisfactory one. Whatever was decided in 1949 a good deal of water has flowed under the bridges since then, and it is absurd to suggest that stipendiaries and metro-
1310
politan magistrates in this country do not deal with a very large proportion of the cases. After all, in the London district there are hundreds of these cases and the great provincial capitals have stipendiary magistrates too, and it seems to me ridiculous that an obligation which is quite properly imposed upon these professional lawyers—they are just as much professional lawyers in England as they are in Scotland—should not be applied in Scotland too. I myself cannot see there is any reason why, because a man happens to be a professional lawyer, he should not bring his mind to this point and give a reason in this sort of way. It brings home to him the fact that the law requires him to do it; and I should not in any sort of way myself, as a lawyer of considerable standing, feel I was being slighted if an obligation of this kind were put on me, as indeed I have never heard any metropolitan magistrates or stipendiary magistrates in England ever suggest they were slighted. It seems to me all the more reason why the rule should apply in Scotland as in England.
LORD GREENHILL: Before raising the point I wished to raise, I should like to offer my congratulations to the noble Marquess, this being the first occasion on which I have seen him at the Box in his capacity of junior Minister. My reason for rising at all is this. I am not at all questioning the ability of stipendiary magistrates or sheriffs to write their reasons for coming to a certain decision in cases of this kind. I am rather concerned with the implication on the ability of police judges and justices of the peace, in both of which capacities I have served, that they perhaps are not capable of giving the reasons for the decisions they arrive at. I only want to say that, even if that were the reason, some of us in our early days were advised that, whereas your decision may be perfectly right and just, the reasons you give for your decision may not be.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: I find the noble Marquess's reasoning very difficult to follow. He argued that because the sheriffs are legally trained, therefore they should not disclose reasons for their actions. I would ask whether this is because they act irrationally and have no reasons or

1311
whether their reasons are so bad that they are not fit to be disclosed. Those are the natural inferences the public will draw. Surely the argument is not one relating to the sheriff's knowledge of the law or his ability to observe it. Surely the argument for disclosing reasons is for the satisfaction of the accused person and his friends, and for the satisfaction of the public at large, that both justice and mercy are being duly considered.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: May I thank the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, for his kind references to myself? I should like to repeat what I said in my opening remarks, that there is absolutely no reflection at all on the ability, integrity, knowledge or wisdom of lay justices in Scotland. We are merely accepting the fact that the sheriffs are legally trained people. I would make that quite clear. I would not want him to think that we are in any way slighting lay justices in Scotland or indeed in England or Wales. Regarding the point of the noble Lord, Lord chorley, this has been very carefully considered and I do not think I can go further to-day than to say there is not a great deal of parallel between the two countries, because there are, as he knows, no sheriffs in the English system. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not press me.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to associate myself with what my noble friend Lord Greenhill said in congratulating the noble Marquess on his getting in at the deep end. There has been reference to bailies. I would remind the noble Marquess that it is the tradition in Scotland, when a bailie appears on the bench for the first time, for the powers-that-be to arrange that a suitably innocuous case wild be the first one to appear before him, so that he can be generous and let the man off with an admonition. I carefully found a simple Amendment to put down, in the hope that a Minister appearing for the first time would be given an opportunity for similar generosity. In the hope that the precedent will not be lost, I would just say that, while I am prepared at this stage to withdraw my Amendment, I do not accept that it should finality go, because, like my noble friends, I think that the reasoning advanced by the Gov-
1312
ernment is sound but that they have not perhaps considered this matter as fully as they might have done.
While it is true that a police judge or bailie is a lay magistrate, he is advised on matters of law by a legal assessor, who keeps him right on all points and who makes perfectly clear to him what he can and cannot do in the matter of imprisonment or detention; so that, from this point of view, there is a great similarity between the police court and the court of the stipendiary magistrate, of whom there are very few in Scotland. By and large, the stipendiary magistrate does much the same work as the bailie, the police judge and the justice of the peace. I do not put this forward as a justification for the legal ability or wise judgment of bailies, as against what would be done by a sheriff or stipendiary magistrate. It seems to me that the Government, by accident or otherwise, have stumbled on a good provision to put into the law and it seems to me to be so good that they ought not to limit it only to the police court and the court of the stipendiary magistrate, but should take greater advantage of their own wisdom. In these circumstances, I will withdraw the Amendment at this stage, but I ask that the Government will give the matter further consideration before the next stage of the Bill.
Amendment, by leave, Withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause I shall stand part of the Bill?
3.43 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: I should like to make one or two observations of a rather more general character. We have been debating the obligation placed by subsection (3) upon the court, in cases where offenders under 21 years of age are sentenced to imprisonment, to give its reasons for its decision. I have never been able to see why in cases of sentencing generally the court should not be required to give its reasons. In almost all cases, at any rate in English courts, the court does give its reasons, and at some length, so that not only the prisoner but everybody else is aware of the reasons for the sentence. I should like to see this made obligatory in connection with all sentencing.
I was interested to find, in an article by an Israeli judge, which appears in the current issue of the British Journal of

1313
Criminology, that the law in Israel requires that reasons shall be given in all cases. It is not limited to cases of young people under 21 years of age. It would be most valuable to sentencing courts, when they came to deal with a man up for some offence, to know the reasons that have been given for previous sentences.
As chairman of a quarter sessions, I have often felt this difficulty. I felt inclined to put down an Amendment on this point, but this is a Scottish Bill and it seemed to me unwise for an English Peer to intrude; and perhaps, because this is a wider proposal, it might be better to air it and hope that in a little time notice will be taken of it and that it will become the law of the land. It appears from the Report of the Streat-feild Committee (paragraphs 304–305) that they go some distance in this direc-tion. They suggest that the sentencing court should be entitled to have information provided as to how the sentence which they have imposed works out—in effect, that they should be kept in touch with the way a prisoner is getting on. It would seem that we are getting to the position which Samuel Butler suggested in his famous book: that from many points of view crime is a disease, and the physician ought to be kept in touch with the patient.
If I may, I should like to give an illustration by quoting a case which came before my court recently, one which shows how valuable it might be to have material of this kind. We had before us a man with a bad record, which qualified him for preventive detention. He almost certainly would have received a sentence of preventive detention, if it had not been for the fact that the warden of the hostel to which he had been released on licence for a period wrote to the court to explain how well this man had been doing for months, and that, but for the fact that he had come up against one of his old prison comrades, who led him away, so to speak, he would have carried on with the useful work he was doing in a local workshop. The warden went on to say that if he could have him back after not too long a sentence, there was a good chance of doing something for him. Obviously, that made a good deal of difference to the bench, and instead of sentencing him to preventive detention, we decided to give him a shortish sentence,
1314
so that he would be able to go back to this hostel. Not only was it of great value to us to have this information before us in reaching our decision, but obviously, if the man failed again, it would be of great value to the next court dealing with him to know what happened in my court only the week before last. If the reasons for sentencing could be made part of the records, it would be of great advantage. I beg your Lordships' pardon for bringing before you something which is perhaps a little extraneous, but I think that it is something which ought to be borne in mind; and perhaps in due course, the Government will take it up and decide to make it part of the law of the land.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Young offenders institution]:
On Question, whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: should like to comment on Clause 2. I apologise for not being present at the Second Reading, but unfortunately I had a delegate conference to attend. This proposal for having some institution to which young offenders can be sent is an admirable one. It arises out of the Report of the Advisory Council on Custodial Sentences for Young Offenders, but there seems to be no indication in the Bill of the kind of institution that was thought of. I hope very much that this will be something really new in the approach to this type of offender and not just a new type of sentence using old buildings which were previously used for sentences of another kind. I am thinking of the detention centre in Perth, which is housed in the old prison and which, although it does splendid work, would be much better if it could be in less prisonlike conditions. I hope that when this institution comes to be set up, something imaginative and constructive in the way of conditions under which these young people live will be thought of and that we shall not be faced with the position of using old institutions, painted up to look different, when in fact they are identical. I hope that on this we may have some hopeful and original thinking about the type of institution that is to be provided.
LORD CRAIGTON: I wish I could give the noble Lady the answer that I

1315
know she would like, but this Bill, as I said on Second Reading, sets a pattern for the years to come, and one of the great difficulties is to provide the bricks and mortar to build the institutions that we shall have in the end. We need a young offenders institution now. The only building we can employ is the Dumfries Borstal. Although I can give an undertaking that we will do the best we can, the noble Lady and I both know what happens when yon have to take the only available place. I take careful note of what she has said, and I agree with every word of it. When we come to build new young offenders institutions, we must make them suitable for the job that they are meant to do. In the meantime, we must make the best of what is immediately at hand and, as I have said, that is the borstal institution at Dumfries.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Term of detention and supervision under a sentence of borstal training]:
On Question: Whether Clause 4 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD HUGHES: I have one small query on this clause. In subsection (1) there is a reference to "section 33 (2)", and in subsection (3) there is a reference to "section 33 (4)". Why, therefore, in subsection (2) do we talk about "under subsection (3) of the said section 33"? Why is the same pattern not followed? Is it merely to introduce a little light variety?
LORD CRAIGTON: I could not answer that without notice.
LORD HUGHES: I thought that generally the draftsmen had a passion for tidiness, and it seemed that if two to one was a good ratio, they might achieve unanimity in this clause.
LORD CRAIGTON: If there is anything wrong, I will have it put right. But I think it is right.
Clause 4 agreed to.
3.53 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, after Clause 4 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952
".Section 34 of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 (which authorises the temporary deten-
1316
tion in other premises of persons requiring to be taken to a borstal institution) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to insert a new clause taking out of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1952, the power to lodge persons intended for a borstal institution temporarily in other premises. It may be that the Government have sound reasons for not putting this Amendment in the Bill, but as they have not stated anything about this particular recommendation of the Advisory Committee other noble Lords, as well as myself, will be completely in the dark on this matter. It was a point in which the Committee on Custodial Sentences for Young Offenders expressed themselves quite strongly. With your Lordships' permission, I will read what they had to say on the matter. It is in paragraph 62 of the Report, where it says:
"The authority given in section 34 of the Prison (Scotland) Act, 1952, for the detention of borstal inmates in premises other than a borstal institution, until such time as they may be transferred to an institution, should be withdrawn. It is most desirable that the young offenders should go direct from the court to begin the training which he has been ordered to undergo and that he should not have experience, however short, of any prison or penal institution other than a borstal institution."
As I have said, the Report indicates that the Committee felt fairly strongly on this matter. It seems a reasonable proposal to put forward, and, as the Government in the matter of these Reports have felt it possible to accept virtually everything else that the Committee have recommended, it may be that there is some sound reason for not accepting the recommendation in this case. I would hasten to add that I should not necessarily consider it a sound reason that the Government have not provided enough facilities. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 4, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me an opportunity to explain why we did not act on this recommendation. If he will look for a moment at the present practice, he will see that it is that after conviction and before sentence a boy is sent to a remand institution. This

1317
is at present a prison, but in future it will increasingly become a remand centre. He is sent there for a suitability report, and once the borstal sentence is passed the offender is passed to a remand institution pending the finding of a place for him. Exactly how long it takes to find a place has varied over the years. The number of youths received into borstal increased from 257 in 1955 to 328 in 1960, and to 404 in 1961. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that while until 1958 the waiting period was seldom more than 14 days, during the next two years lads were kept in prison sometimes for two months or even longer before going to borstal. In 1961 the situation eased and the period dropped to between 7 and 14 days. But during the last three months the rate of committal to borstal has increased, and the present period is about 3 weeks.
The majority of lads are kept in Barlinnie, where they are in a separate section, out of contact with, but not out of sight and hearing of, convicted adult prisoners. This is a state of affairs of which no right-thinking person can approve. I am sure the noble Lord will agree that the ideal is immediate transfer after sentence to borstal. But this cannot and would not be achieved by accepting this Amendment. The right and only course is for the powers to remain on the Statute Book, and for my right honourable friend, by good administration and new building, to ensure that they are used less and less, until they remain, as they should, only either for emergency use or for an overnight stop on a long journey, for which these powers will always be necessary.
On the question of administration, I can assure the noble Lord that my right honourable friend has taken, and will continue to take, every possible step to ensure that borstal institutions accept youths on as short notice as possible. Borstal training is necessarily a complicated function. It is sometimes difficult in the lad's own interest to give him at short notice the essential proper introduction to the busy and sometimes crowded institution which is to be the centre of his life for the next fourteen or fifteen months. All I can say is that the situation is vastly
1318
better than it was in 1958–59, and we will make the most strenuous efforts to effect further improvement.
On building, the problem undoubtedly will be eased when the new borstal at Noranside in Angus opens in April or May of next year. There will be 40 places at once, and room for extension up to 80 places. In view of the assurance that I have given, and because these powers are still necessary in any case for overnight detention, and still, regrettably, for those awaiting reception, I would ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord says that if this Amendment were passed it would not affect the situation. Does he mean that, quite apart from the Prisons (Scotland) Act, there would be power to send these lads to prison? This section gives power to keep these boys in prison. When the noble Lord says that if it were repealed it would not affect the position he must mean that there are some other powers under which they could be kept in prison.
LORD CRAIGTON: What I was implying was that the buildings are not there to do what this Amendment would require.
LORD CHORLEY: May I suggest that it really is wicked that this should be going on? I appreciate that there is this difficulty about buildings, but the whole object of borstal is to keep it apart from prison; and if the boy starts in prison at Barlinnie for two or three weeks the object is half defeated. The boy cannot understand that there is any difference. He is kept in prison for some weeks and then goes on to borstal. It is all part of the same business. He ought not to go to prison at all, and it ought to be possible to provide some houses. After all, most of the boys are not going to run away. It is true that some abscond, but the great majority do not. The whole object is to persuade them that they are not going to prison but are going to be trained. If you send them to prison for two or three weeks it breaks the thing at the beginning. I hope the Government will find a way round this problem. I am sure there are administrative difficulties, although they should not be insuperable.
LORD CRAIGTON: I go nearly all the way with the noble Lord. Administratively we will do everything possible, but there must be provision to allow the boy to go into prison if there is no other way.
LORD HUGHES: I think it would be churlish of me to insist on the Amendment in the circumstances. I had a strong suspicion that the reason why nothing was said about this subject on Second Reading was that the Government had a certain feeling of guilt in the matter. After all this time they are still in the position that they have to impose upon these young offenders a set of circumstances which, as the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has said, is not one which any right-thinking person would seek to defend. In view of the noble Lord's statement that the place at Noranside will be available in the spring, it may well be that when this matter comes along after the lapse of these few months it will be possible for the Secretary of State, by administrative action, to ensure that advantage is not taken of this Section of the 1952 Act. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
While I am on my feet I should like to say that my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth, who has now left for another engagement, was rather foxed by some of the references made in the discussion. He asked me what the noble Marquess meant when he talked about "solemn procedure". I tried to explain it, and I am glad I did, because my noble friend Lord Morrison of Lambeth was otherwise going to be under the erroneous impression that summary courts in Scotland were considered a mere frivolity.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved, That the House do now resume.—(Viscount Hailsham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.

THE SUPERSONIC AIRLINER
4.3 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM): My Lords, I hope this will be a convenient moment for me to make a statement about a supersonic airliner, similar to that which has just been made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation.
My right honourable friend the Minister of Aviation to-day signed an agreement with the French Ambassador for the development and production of a supersonic airliner. This will be a joint project undertaken by Britain and France together. The aircraft will be a slender wing airliner built mainly of light alloy. It will have a cruising speed of about Mach 2·2—that is, about 1,400 miles per hour. At this speed it would cut the present Atlantic crossing from 7½ hours to about 3 hours, and the flying time from London to Sydney from 27 hours to 13 hours.
The design of the aircraft has been agreed between the French company Sud Aviation and the British Aircraft Corporation. These two firms will carry out the work on the airframe together. They will make two versions of the aircraft, one long-range and the other medium-range. Both versions will be powered by four Olympus 593 turbo-jet engines. This engine is to be developed jointly by the British firm of Bristol Siddeley Engines and the French Sociêtê Nationale.
The first flight of the aircraft is expected to be in 1966; and it should be ready for airline service by 1970. It is reckoned that on stages of about 1,500 miles or more its operating costs will be in line with the best subsonic jet airliners now in service. France and Britain will share the costs, the work, and the proceeds of sales on the basis of equal responsibility for the project as a whole. About two-thirds of the development work on the engine and some 40 per cent. of that on the airframe will be done in Britain. One prototype will be assembled in each country.
The project will be managed by joint industrial management boards set up by the British and French firms concerned. Their work will be supervised

1321
by a joint Standing Committee of officials responsible to the French and British Governments. The British share of the costs of development and of jigging and tooling for production is estimated at between £75 million and £85 million. This will be spread over the next eight years or so. It will mainly be met by Her Majesty's Government, but the firms will be making an appropriate contribution.
British Overseas Airways Corporation and Air France will be associated with the project from the beginning. The project is the result of several years of intensive research in industry and Government establishments on both sides of the Channel, Considerable preliminary work has already been carried out in France and Britain upon it, and the project is much further advanced than any other known design for a supersonic airliner. The aircraft thus has every chance, if we press on with it now, of securing a substantial part of the world market for supersonic airliners. This is a chance that will not return. The development of the aircraft will ensure that the British and French aviation industries remain in the forefront of the world's long-range aircraft producers.
It will also have far-reaching consequences—not limited to aviation—in the technologies of metals, non-metallic materials, fluids, electrics, and electronics. Even more significant may be the lessons which France and Britain will learn from working together on every aspect of a joint project of this size. Our two countries were pioneers in the early days of aircraft production. Then they were also rivals. But now the time has come to join forces if we are to hold a leading position on the air routes of the world. That, my Lords, is the statement.
4.7 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, on behalf of the Opposition I should like to welcome the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Chesham. I am well aware that there may still be doubters, and, as was discussed in our recent debate moved by the noble Lord, Lord Braba-zon of Tara, in a more perfect world there are other matters to which we would give a higher priority in the expenditure of money of this size. But there is no doubt at all that this project
1322
is of tremendous importance to this country in terms of exports, and particularly in the technological possibilities, in getting us in the forefront and helping to keep at home some of those scientists and engineers whom the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, was sometimes worried about our losing to other countries. That is not the least of the arguments in favour of it.
I must say that I like the terms of the Government statement. I think we should congratulate those who are responsible for achieving this agreement, and in particular I have in mind Sir George Edwards, who is the managing director of the firm, and General Puget. It is encouraging that relations appear to be good, and I hope they will continue to be good.
There are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord arising out of his statement. Am I to understand that this aircraft will not be competitive with subsonic aircraft over stages of under 1,500 miles; and does this mean that there will have to be a development of more feeder aircraft? Am I to understand from (the statement that these aircraft are to be used on the Far East route; and does that mean than Zurich and places which are important from the point of view of generating traffic will be cut out? It may be that this will be necessary, but I understand that the French do not wholly share our view. They take a more optimistic view of the economic prospects of this aircraft over shorter stages. I should also like to ask how much the firms manufacturing this aircraft are going to contribute? Obviously there has been some pretty heavy expenditure already. This is not a new project; it has been going on for a number of years. I think Parliament would like to feel that it is not paid for purely by the taxpayer.
There is another point. In our discussion the other day it was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Waleran, that the Americans were likely to go ahead with a Mach 3 aircraft, and when we pointed out that this was a different type of aircraft he murmured, "Variable geometry". I understand that with a slender delta-wing machine any prospect of converting a Mach 2 aircraft into a Mach 3, quite apart from

1323
a hundred other technical problems, is not possible; and it might be useful—it is rather an important point to explain—to get across some of the complicated technical factors that have led to the decision to concentrate on Mach 2 instead of Mach 3. There are many other reasons. I think it is also worth noting that Rolls-Royce are not the only engine manufacturers in this country. This is a Bristol product and it is satisfactory that we have these two great aircraft engine manufacturers.
May I also ask the noble Lord whether a name has been chosen for the aircraft? I understand that it was suggested that it should be called the "Concorde" which of course, would apply in either language. I wonder whether agreement has been reached. I had heard that the Minister of Aviation had some personal views on it. Certainly, it is a minor point, but it is a joint Anglo-French effort and I should like to know what it is going to be called. Finally, I would ask the noble Lord to say a word again on noise, because there will be anxiety; and it is worth pointing out that this aircraft—so I am informed—will cause less disturbance to those who live near London Airport.
4.12 p.m.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, I was one of the noble Lords who on the last occasion expressed some doubts on this project. Those who were in the House at the time will recollect that my doubts were entirely confined to the commercial and financial aspects of the transaction: whether it would attract more customers; whether, with all that we have to do to make our industry efficient, this was the best way by spending £75 million or £85 million. Having said that, and I understand that it attracted a certain amount of attention, I should like to make it quite clear that I have never had any criticism at all of this project from the technical side, and if the project is to be undertaken I am certain that it could not be in better hands than the extraordinarily able team who have been working on it and who will, I hope, carry it to a successful conclusion. As we are going forward—and I am very glad we are going forward in partnership—and having been something
1324
of a "Doubting Thomas" should like now to wish the project every possible success.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I said a few words the other day against this project. Now that it has been decided to go ahead with it, I welcome it in this way: that it is an exciting technical adventure, and when a thing is that, I am, of course, immensely interested in it. In fact, our Air Registration Board are already looking at the machine to see whether it is airworthy right from the beginning. I must say I look upon it rather like a project to make a machine, for prestige reasons, for going to the moon, because there is absolutely no use for this machine at all. You will not get one more man into the air by making this machine, and I should like to ask the Minister whether there was a demand from any operator in the world for this machine, and, when it is produced, who is going to operate it.
My noble friend Lord Shackleton said that he did not think that the extra noise at aerodromes would worry anybody. I have never made a great point about that; it is the sonic boom which is the trouble with this machine, and nobody knows what that sonic boom is going to be. People talk glibly of their ability to reduce the pressure 1 lb. per square foot, which is reasonable; and then other scientists say that because there are curious currents in the air and meteorological conditions, bang it goes up to 10 lb. per square foot—Which will break all your windows. This is a tremendous gamble. Frankly, I like gambling but I do not think you are on to a certainty or something which is of any good at all in this world.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, I should like to welcome the Government statement. I did not say anything on the previous occasion but I would say now that I think it is an encouraging state of affairs when we see such large-scale co-operation between two major industries, the French and the British, and especially between such important and excellent firms as Sud Aviation and the British Aircraft Corporation. But, having said that, I would take this opportunity to ask my noble friend one question, as he mentioned, I believe, the

1325
British Overseas Airways Corporation and Air Fance. Is it true, as was said this morning over the French radio, that the industry in this country—the British Aircraft Corporation—would manufacture the long-range version of the aircraft and the French aircraft industry—Sud Aviation—would manufacture the medium-range and shorter-range aircraft?
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, I should like to congratulate all those concerned upon this venture and wish it luck. And may I ask whether agreement tos been reached, and, if so, what agreement, as to the fabrication of these machines in metres and millimetres or in inches and yards?
4.17 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am grateful on the whole for the words of welcome that have been accorded to my statement on this project. I thought that the words that came from the noble Earl, Lord Swinton, were very generous and I also welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said, even if his welcome was somewhat more reserved than the welcomes of those other of your Lordships who had something to say.
May I briefly take the questions? The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, reiterated the points he made at slightly greater length, although by no means at undue length, in the recent past when we had our debate on the subject. I am sure that neither he nor your Lordships would wish me to take up all the points made in that debate all over again at the length at which I found it necessary to tackle them. But if I may get on with the questions, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked whether this aircraft was going to be competitive with subsonic airliners on stages of less than 1,500 miles. I have been rather careful, and it is necessary to try to be as careful and realistic about these things in prospect as it is possible to be, and I cannot say that it will be. I said on the last occasion that there was going to be room for the development of both subsonic aircraft for the shorter haul and the supersonic for the longer haul.
If the French optimism to which he referred proves to be justified, I am sure that that would be a very good thing;
1326
but on grounds of safety and caution I should not like to try to reassure your Lordships that that might well be so; and I do not think I can add to anything I said before on the competition aspect. As regards the contribution of the firms, I cannot quote any figure as yet, because that is a matter in which the negotiations have not yet been completed with the firms concerned, and therefore that figure is not yet a definite, agreed one. He went on then to talk of the possibility——
THE Earl OF SWINTON: My Lords, while the noble Lord is answering that question, could he clarify what was not, I think, quite clear. A great amount of work has been done over the last three years: has that been entirely paid for by the two Governments or has it been contributed in part by the firms?
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I understand that the noble Earl is referring to the figure I gave last time, of something like £3 million already spent on each side of the Channel. I understand that the firms concerned have contributed a part of that, but I cannot at the moment be specific as to exactly how much. The noble Lord then turned to the Mach 3 aircraft and wondered whether that might not be a better bet. It was not assessed to be. It seemed that, with the technical problems involved to which he referred, which are considerably more difficult, it would be considerably more expensive. In terms of getting to New York or Sydney, the amount of time it would knock off is not significantly very much greater, as I pointed out to your Lordships before. The thing that is important is to out the time from 7½ hours to 3 hours, and not to cut the three hours to 2½ hours or something like that.
The name I am unable to confirm to your Lordships at the present moment. It has not, I understand, been absolutely finally decided, because it is thought important that the name selected should be truly representative and equally acceptable to both sides as being indicative of the joint Anglo-French nature of the project.
I am glad the noble Lord raised the question of noise again, as of course did the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I do not think I can do better than repeat what I said on the last occasion, that on

1327
the aerodrome itself at the side of the runway it is thought that the noise on take-off will be greater than existing jets; other than that, while climbing I understand that the noise level is not anticipated to be greater, and the flyover noise can be controlled, including the very important matter of sonic boom, which can be kept, by operating techniques and not flying supersonically below certain levels, below the point at which it would become unacceptable. I said this before, because it is of very great importance. If these problems cannot be solved, the project would become a ridiculous one. We simply cannot, in order to achieve speed, have aircraft that fly about breaking everybody's windows and making life intolerable. If there were not reasonable indication that these problems could be overcome, together with certain others that we discussed before, this project could not sensibly go forward. It is with a reasonable prospect that the noise level will not be unacceptable that we want to go on with the project.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, asked what was the demand for this aircraft and who is going to operate it. I would say to him that if the case I have put forward, both in the statement and, in greater detail, on an earlier occasion, is anything like correct, and the thinking is that it is correct, it will be used by the majority of the major airlines of the world. He says, what is the demand—who has asked for it? I do not think anybody has asked for it, because they know perfectly well that without some project such as this—which is a very large one and can be developed only by Government aid: it is beyond the capacity of private industry—it is no good their asking for it, because they would not get it. I think, for all the variety of technological and other reasons which have been welcomed in the House this afternoon, one has to take a view into the future, to produce something which there is reasonable evidence to believe will be required as a method of transport.
The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, asked a question about one nation producing one version and the other the other, and I believe that is not necessarily the case at all. It may as a matter of management possibly turn out
1328
to be like that, but I understand that that is not the planned progress of production. The noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Lonsdale, asked me something, and I cannot read the note that I wrote.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: Has agreement been reached about metres and yards?
LORD CHESHAM: I said there would be joint boards to manage this thing, and I have no doubt we can safely leave it to them in their deliberations to translate each other's measurements to each other in a comprehensive way. I know what the noble Lord is getting at, and I am not going to be drawn on it. I think I have covered the questions. As I say, I appreciate, by and large, the welcome your Lordships have given to this announcement.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the Minister two questions? First of all, what plans the French and British Governments are making, in view of this development, to speed up the time it takes from the airport to the centre of Paris or London as the case may be. It took me 35 minutes a few weeks ago to get from Paris to London by air and one hour from London Airport to the air terminal. Is it not absurd to go on increasing the fantastic speeds of these aircraft and when you get to the ground very often to have this virtual seizing up of any sort of movement? The second question is what is being done with the Eurocontrol Convention, the Act in respect of which we passed last year in this House. That deals, as the Minister knows, with air safety and air control in the upper air and this is very important in view of this development. Are the countries who have not yet signed the Convention about to do so?.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I do not know quite how far I am justified in considering the whole matter of civil aviation; I do not think your Lordships would wish this subject to be extended over the whole field. I would very briefly answer the noble Lord, but I thought he would have known by now that a motorway is being built with a spur to Heathrow in order to speed up that access. For the French Government I cannot answer, and on Eurocontrol may I refer him to the Answer I gave to the House quite recently on that subject, of which I will send him a copy?
LORD OGMORE: Very unsatisfactory.
LORD CHESHAM: The noble Lord always regards any Answer I give which is not the one he wants as unsatisfactory.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I must draw your Lordships' attention to a very ingenious and ingenuous remark by the Minister, in which he said that to avoid sonic boom the aircraft would, over large parts of the country, fly beneath the speed of sound. That is what we are doing now. It is only when we go above the speed of sound that we get the sonic booms, and that is the purpose for which we are making this machine.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
THE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES: My Lords, before I put the next two or three clauses, I should like to make one general remark: if any noble Lord or Lady at any time wishes to make a comment on the Question, "That the clause stand part", it would help the Chair enormously if he or she would notify the Chair of that fact.
Clauses 5 to 7 agreed to.
Clause 8 [Term of detention in a detention centre]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: Before moving this Amendment I should like to say that although, unfortunately, it has been found necessary to table so many Government Amendments, none of those in my noble friend's name, with the exception of Amendments Nos. 9 and 21, upon which my noble friend is going to speak, raise any new points; they are designed merely to clarify the intentions of the Bill, to correct mistakes, or to improve the drafting. With the permission of the Committee, therefore, I will move all these Amendments formally, although I shall, of course, be glad to furnish any explanation which the Committee may require. I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 43, at end insert ("or of imprisonment, as the case may be,").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Transfer between institutions]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 10, leave out from ("If") to ("amenable") in line 12 and insert ("in the case of a person who is not").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 21, leave out from ("is") to ("under").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 [Transfer to prison of persons over twenty-one, and maximum age for detention in young offenders institution]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
("(3) Where a person has been transferred to prison under this section, he shall be treated for the purpose of his serving the unexpired part of his sentence and of his supervision on release as if the sentence of detention passed upon him were a sentence of imprisonment for a like term, and the provisions of this Act and of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952 relating to the treatment and supervision of prisoners shall apply to him accordingly.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Supervision of persons released from detention centres]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 2, after ("Act") insert ("or transferred therefrom to a young offenders

1331
institution under section 32 (3) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD GREENHILL: There is, I think, a printer's error in the Marshalled List of Amendments in regard to Clause 12. It reads, as you see, as at page 7, line 2 "after ('Act') insert … 'under section 32 (3) of the Prisons (Scotland) Act 1952') ".
There is not, I think, a subsection (3) under Section 32 of the Act. I think it is just a printer's error.
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
4.33 p.m.
LORD HUGHES LORD HUGHES moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "fourteen days" and insert" four weeks". The noble Lord said: In Clause 12 (2) the period for which an offender may be liable to be detained on recall is, in the Bill, fourteen days. This is precisely the period which the Advisory Committee have advised most strongly should not be adopted. They point out that if a young person is brought back to a detention centre and is kept there for only fourteen days it will just be a nuisance to everybody concerned and will not serve any useful purpose, so far as the offender is concerned. The Committee say:
"We take the view that the period of recall should be a standard period of four weeks."
Reading the Report of the Committee, I think this is exceedingly sound advice. Unlike the previous Amendment, which I was happy to withdraw when it was pointed out that at this stage it was physically impossible to accept the recommendations of the Committee, this Amendment, and the recommendation in paragraph 49, do not appear to have any physical impossibility. It is merely that the Government, for some reason which appears sound to them, have decided to do the very thing which their Advisory Committee have urged most strongly should not be done. I put this Amendment forward primarily to give us an opportunity of knowing why the advice of the Advisory Committee in this matter is rejected. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 24, leave out ("fourteen days") and insert ("four weeks").—(Lord Hughes.)
LORD CRAIGTON: Once again I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me the opportunity to explain why we have departed from the recommendations of S.A.C.T.O. I have given this Amendment a great deal of thought. Your Lordships will realise that on a point such as this the decision must rest on a balance of judgment on a subject on which our practical knowledge is still quite inexact. We seek only to find the right answer, or the answer that is most likely to be right. The fourteen-day period to recall is, as the noble Lord said, contrary to S.A.C.T.O.'s recommendation, but it does follow the English Act. One must consider first whether there are any special Scottish conditions which would of themselves justify a longer period of liability to detention on recall in Scotland than in England. If there are, then that alone would, as in so many special cases, justify departure from English practice. But there are no such special conditions. So, if we accept this Amendment, the Committee must be satisfied that twenty-eight days is, on balance, right, and that England was, on balance, wrong in enacting fourteen days.
What are we looking for? Is it not the period of liability to detention that will best achieve two objects? The first object is the rehabilitation of the offender—an offender who was found by the court to be most likely to benefit from the short, sharp shock of three months in a detention centre; that is, ten weeks with full remission. If borstal or a young offenders institution was considered inappropriate when the youth was sentenced, we take the view that after ten weeks in a detention centre as much as four weeks in a young offenders institution might be just the sort of experience that the court did not wish the boy to have. Surely the period must be the shortest effective period?
But there must be some sanction—and here one comes to the second object of the period of recall. To be effective, compulsory after-care depends on the cooperation of the person under supervision with his supervising officer; and in securing that co-operation the threat of being sent back to detention is a powerful weapon. Young people especially, once they are in circulation again after their detention, particularly dislike being recalled at all. I am

1333
advised that the deterrent effect of the threat of recall in the case of such young offenders is not to be measured by the period of recall. All that really matters is the possibility of recall.
I would therefore ask the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment, for three reasons: first, because on balance it seems in the youth's best interests that he should in no circumstances be subjected for any length of time to the rêgime of the young offenders institution; secondly, because fourteen, as compared with twenty eight, days does not weaken the essential deterrent of the threat of recall; and thirdly, because there are no special Scottish conditions that override the two considerations which I have mentioned. Those are the reasons, and I only hope that the noble Lord will find them as convincing as I do.
LORD HUGHES: I am sorry, but I do not find them in the least convincing. I would remind your Lordships that earlier on, I was prevailed upon to withdraw an Amendment because in that case we were dealing with laymen and others—the sheriff versus the bailie. But now we are dealing with trained lawyers. Here is a case where a Committee presided over by a distinguished sheriff principal—Sheriff Harold Leslie—are trying to make recommendations based largely on their own experience and knowledge, and they use perhaps the strongest wording that is to be found anywhere in their Report in this particular connection. I think it is worthwhile reading what they have to say:
"A person under supervision after release from a detention centre who failed to observe one or more of the conditions of supervision would, on the analogy of the present statutory provision in regard to borstal licence-holders, be liable to recall to the institution for a period up to the date of termination of sentence, i.e. for a period of about two weeks, representing the maximum amount of remission on his sentence. We do not think that recall for so short a period would be an adequate consequence of non-observance of the conditions. So puny a punishment for misconduct or wilful neglect of the conditions would be of little help to those whose duty it was to supervise and encourage other released inmates who were similarly under supervision."
I find it in a way disappointing that a Minister, who has been so long at the Scottish Office as the noble Lord, Lord craigton, should so regularly find something having not been done in England as a convenient reason for not doing it
1334
in Scotland. Surely, we are not sitting always on the basis that nothing good can originate in Scotland. But the Minister accepted that that is not the position: it (has not been done in England, it has not been necessary to do it in England, and therefore there is no reason why we should be pioneers in Scotland—even in a case like this where very good advice is received from a Commitee on a point on which from their experience they are well qualified to give guidance. I do not know whether this is a decision taken by the legal officers at "he Scottish Office, and we shall never have any way of knowing, so far as I can see, because they are never going to be in a position to speak for themselves in either his House or the other one. So that we must take it for granted that is their opinion, if Lord Craigton says it is.
It may be that this seems to civil servants to be a nice tidy way of just putting back on the fourteen days which were taken off in the first instance. But it seems to me—and I hope it will appear so to your Lordships—that we are really making the task of "he people who have to supervise these young offenders more difficult than it need be. What is wanted is not that anybody breaking the regulations is brought back to a young offenders' institution either for fourteen or 28 days. It is that the conditions laid down should be such as to give the maximum encouragement or otherwise to the individual to adhere to the regulations under which he goes. It seems to me, as it appeared to the Advisory Committee, that to recall him for a period of fourteen days is not going to serve any useful purpose whatsoever.
I regret very much "hat I am not in the least persuaded that the Government are right in this, because I think, quite definitely, "hat the reasons advanced are quite unsound. In these circumstances I think it would be folly to withdraw the Amendment. I would hope rather that the Government in this case would see the error of their ways.
LORD FORBES: I quite agree with the Minister that recall would be a deterrent, but I cannot really see why the only reason he has given for the period being 14 days' recall is, as I have understood it, that it is done in England. That is not a good enough reason.
LORD CRAIGTON: That is not the reason at all. I am afraid my noble friend did not hear correctly what I was saying. The reason is this. Here is a boy who has been sentenced to three months; he serves ten weeks; and, although I agree that the deterrent effect is what really matters, I personally feel strongly when the court has decided that the right treatment for the boy was the short, sharp shock of three months—or ten weeks—in a detention centre, we should not take the risk of sending him back, as part of his penalty if he does not behave himself, for as long a period as a month. I think that fourteen days is the right period. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, that we do not really want to recall the boy; we want to use this threat of recall as a deterrent. But the deterrent effect of fourteen days is just as good as that of 28. Do not let the noble Lord give me horns and a tail about this. What we are trying to do is to arrive at the best balance of judgment.
The noble Lord quoted from S.A.C.T.O. I think it would be only fair if I were to quote from A.C.T.O., the English equivalent of S.A.C.T.O., on this point, because here also we quote learned gentlemen giving their best decision. A.C.T.O. says, in paragraph 70:
"It must be recognised that the sanction for misbehaviour during after-care would be no more then recall to a detention centre for two weeks, if the period of detention was three months, or for one. This sanction may seem to be hardly adequate, but we understand that young people very much dislike having to return prison or detention, even for such a short period. In view of this, and of the fact that it is hardly ever necessary to use the sanction of recall in cases of young prisoners released after serving sentences of three or six months' imprisonment, we think that this sanction will prove to be adequate."
So there is another opinion on the same subject. I think in this case we are right to take fourteen days.
LORD HUGHES: I would draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that he advice given by the English Committee, because the English Committee recommende—and it is in the English Act— that they come back for fourteen days to a detention centre. The Scottish Committee pointed out that it would be wrong to bring
1336
them back to a detention centre and that they should go to a young offenders' institution. In fact, the Government have accepted that. They are going to put them into a young offenders' institution, accepting the advice of the Committee on where they should go, but rejecting their advice as to how long. The justification for reducing the period to the 28 or fourteen days that the Committee recommend is that the Government say "It is dreadful to put him into a young offenders' institution at all". If they were therefore going to disagree with the committee they should have been doing was to follow the English practice in its entirety.
It seems to me that this is a case where the Government, having a number of choices, have decided to make the worst of all possible choices. If they felt that the English Committee was the one whose guidance should be taken in this matter, then I begin to wonder why the Secretary of State went to the bother of asking the Scottish Committee to look at the matter at all, when there was so recent advice given from the Committee sitting across the Border. It is not inconceivable that the circumstances otherwise existing in England make what is suggested in this connection a reasonable thing to do there. But there are many other matters in Scotland which are quite different, and cases where it might well be fallacious to follow the English precedent. I am very sorry, but I do not feel in the least bit more persuaded to withdraw. The more the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, speaks to me on this the more convinced I am that he has nothing to convince me about.
On Question, amendment negatived.
On Question,whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.49 p.m.
BARONESS ELLIOT OF HARWOOD: I should like to raise one point on this clause. Subsection (1) of Clause 12, states that a person who is released from a detention centre shall be under the supervision of
"such society or person as may be specified in the notice to be given to him by the Secretary of State on his release, …"
In Scotland by far the greatest amount of after-care and supervision is done by

1337
probation officers. During the discussions on the Criminal Justice Bill, 1961, I spoke about the omission of the Scottish probation officers on this point of supervision and after-care. The Minister was kind enough to accept my Amendment and to make an alteration to the Bill, so tin after-care and supervision referred to in that Bill (now an Act), and also in this, there is reference to probation officers. I have put down an Amendment on this matter here, because I thought that I could speak to it and would ask the noble Lord to consider the point. I think that, in view of the enormous amount of work that is done by probation officers in this field, it is a great pity that they are not specified in this after-care and supervisory work, and that there is simply a vague reference to
"such society or person as may be specified".
I should like to see the probation officers mentioned in this connection.
LORD CRAIGTON: Clause 12 is in the same form as the comparable provision in the English Act of 1961. After-care is normally made the responsibility of the society "—the After-Care council in Scotland; the Central After-Care Association in England and Wales. Probation officers are not mentioned in these provisions dealing with liability to after-care. This does not mean that they may not be used as supervising officers, and we must await the S.A.C.T.O. Report on arrangements for carrying out after-care before we decide on that point. But outside London, as the noble Lady knows, the Central After-Care Association use probation officers as agents for carrying out after-care. If the same system is to be adopted in Scotland, the Secretary of State has power under the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1949, to make after-care a duty of probation officers. So I think we should await the S.A.C.T.O. Report.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 to 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Power to search for forfeited articles]:
LORD CRAIGTON LORD CRAIGTON moved to leave out Clause 35 and to insert instead:
Warrant of search for forfeited articles
"35. Where a court has made an order for the forfeiture of an article, the court or any
1338
justice of the peace may, if satisfied on information on oath that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found in any place or premises and that admission thereto has been refused or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended, issue a warrant of search which may be executed according to law; and for the purposes of this section, any reference to a justice of the peace includes a reference to the sheriff and to a magistrate."
The noble Lord said: With the Committee's approval, I should like to discuss this Amendment with No. 21. This Amendment fulfils a promise made on Second Reading, after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, had pointed out that the search provisions in the Bill were altogether too wide. Under this revised clause the police can exercise their powers of search only under judicial warrant.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 4, leave out Clause 35 and insert the said new clause.—(Lord Craigton.)
LORD GUEST: I only wish to say that I am grateful to the noble Lord for his thinking again about Clause 35, and that the clause in its present form entirely meets the points which I made on Second Reading.
4.54 p.m.
LORD GREENHILL: As both the noble and learned Lord, and the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, have said, this new clause is in substitution of the original clause. My own feeling about this clause is that it is still rather ambiguous, and because I felt that, I took the liberty yesterday of discussing the matter with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest. He very kindly pointed out to me that on one reading you might get one impression, and on another reading you might get another impression. What I tried to bring out was that a warrant of search for forfeited articles may be issued but two conditions must first be satisfied. The first is that there is reasonable ground for believing that the article is to be found in the premises to be searched, and that admission has been refused. The second is that a refusal of admission is apprehended. It was that phrase which I thought ambiguous, because I asked myself: apprehended by whom? If it were merely those who would be acting in obtaining the forfeited goods—if it were only they who decided that refusal of permission was apprehended—then

1339
that would not alter the contents of the original clause, which really gave a carte blanche to open a locked-up place, for the reason that one wanted to get hold of what forfeited goods might be there.
But, as was explained to me by the noble and learned Lord, there is an alternative way of reading it. That is that if we assumed for a moment that, instead of a kind of mental comma appearing after the words "in any place or premises," the comma came after the word "refused", on the following line, the meaning would be rather different, because then it would not be the alternative of two things; it would be the whole thing contained in that one sentence. I assume that he probably thought I was not wholly convinced, because he said: "Well, I should not myself seriously object to the exclusion of that part of the clause—that is to say, the words 'or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended'. "I do not want to raise any difficulties about this, but perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, would be good enough to go through this clause again. Then if after consulting with his experts, they approve of my point of view, perhaps they would bring out a form of words which would satisfy even the layman critic that I am.
LORD GUEST: Perhaps I might be allowed to intervene. It is quite true that I had a discussion yesterday with the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and that we discussed the terms of this clause. I think that when the clause is read as a whole there can be no reasonable doubt about its meaning. I think what the noble Lord is doing is putting the alternative, "or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended", to the main part of the clause, and reading it in such a way that, if the court is satisfied on information that a refusal is apprehended, then it may issue a warrant. That is not how I read the clause.
I think there are two alternatives. One is that you have information on oath that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found, and admission has been refused; or you have reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found, and that a refusal
1340
of such admission is apprehended. I think that is made perfectly plain by the fact that the words are "such admission is apprehended". That, clearly, refers to the "admission" in the preceding phrase, and I do not think that the reading which the noble Lord has put upon this clause is really practicable. If the whole of the question of admission and refusal of admission were deleted from the clause, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, suggested, one would then be in the position that the liberty of the subject would be less protected, because there would have merely to be information that there was reasonable cause to believe that the article was to be found. Therefore, it is some protection to the householder that there is apprehension of refusal of admission, or that in fact admission has been refused, and I would certainly support the clause in its present form.
LORD GREENHILL: Would the noble and learned Lord be good enough to satisfy me on this point? Is the apprehension that of the court or the justice of the peace?
LORD GUEST: I should have thought that the apprehension was the apprehension of the informant on oath. I should have thought that if the informant on oath said. "Admission has been refused", or "I, the informant, apprehend that admission will be refused" then it would be for the court or the justice of the peace to consider whether that justified the issue of a warrant.
LORD HUGHES: It is quite obvious from the amended clause that, in the first instance, the court has to be satisfied that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found there, and that admission has been refused. There is no doubt about that at all. These two go together. As to the doubt which my noble friend Lord Greenhill has expressed, it is quite clear that apprehension of refusal is alternative merely to the second condition and is not alternative to the first and second together. My noble friend is not seeking to alter the purport of the clause. Surely a quite simple drafting alteration could put the matter beyond any dubiety. I hesitate to suggest this, because I shall probably be shot down in flames, but it

1341
seemed to me that if there were substituted some such words as:
"if satisfied by information on oath—

"(a) that there is reasonable cause to believe that the article is to be found in any place or premises; and

"(b) that admission thereto has been refused or that a refusal of such admission is apprehended",

it would then be made perfectly clear that the second and the third are alternative to each other, and that the third is not in fact a possible alternative to one and two together. That might make the matter clear beyond any possible doubt, without in any way detracting from the Government's intentions in the matter.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, and to other noble Lords who have spoken about this matter, and I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Guest, for coming to the defence of the draftsman. Clearly we should have another look at this point, however. I am sure the draftsman will read the speeches made; and, if the clause can be improved, I will improve it on another occasion.
LORD GREENHILL: I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 36 to 48 agreed to.
Clause 49 [Interpretation]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out from beginning of line to ("in") in line 9 and insert—
("'impose detention' or 'impose imprisonment' means pass a sentence of detention or imprisonment, as the case may be, or make an order for committal").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 49, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
First Schedule [Supervision of Certain Discharged Prisoners]:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 28, line 3, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
First Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Second and Third Schedules agreed to.
Fourth Schedule [Amendment of Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1949]:
THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN: These are purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 34, line 44, leave out from ("occuring,") to ("means") in line 45.
Page 35, line 1, leave out from ("to") to ("or") in line 2 and insert ("proceedings
Before the High Court of Justiciary, that Court,")
line 4, leave out ("the appellant's") and insert ("a person's").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
Fourth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule [Minor and Consequential Amendments]:
THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN: Amendments Nos. 15 to 23 are all drafting except for No. 21, to which my noble friend spoke on Amendment No. 9. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 36, line 17, leave out lines 17 to 21 and insert—
("For section 16 (1) there shall be substituted the following subsections:
'(1) Where a prisoner who is serving a sentence of thirty-one days or less would, but for this subsection, be discharged on a Sunday, he shall be discharged on the immediately preceding Saturday.
(1A) Where a prisoner who is serving a sentence of more than thirty-one days would, but for this subsection, be discharged on a Saturday or Sunday, he shall be discharged on the preceding Friday.'")
Page 36, line 21, at end insert—("In section 28 (2), after the words 'detention centre' there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institution'.")
Page 36, line 25, after ("(4)") insert ("(other than paragraph (iv) of the proviso to subsection (4))")
Page 36, line 28, at end insert (", and in the said paragraph (iv) for the words 'or detention centres' there shall be substituted the words 'detention centres or young offenders institutions'.")
Page 36, line 41, at end insert ("in subsection (5), for the words 'Borstal institution' there shall be substituted the words 'young offenders institution'.")
Page 36, line 43, at end insert—("In section 35—

1343
in subsection (1), after the words 'detention centres' there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institutions';
in subsection (6), after the words 'preventive detention' there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution'.
In section 37—
in subsection (1), after the words 'preventive detention' there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution';
in subsection (2), after the words 'preventive detention', there shall be inserted the words 'detention in a young offenders institution', and after the word 'prison', in both places where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'young offenders institution'.")
Page 37, line 12, at end insert—
("In section 20 (1), for the words 'such warrant' there shall be substituted the words 'warrant of apprehension or search'.")
Page 39, line 13, after ("section") insert ("'court' does not include a court-martial, and")
Page 39, line 31, leave out ("14, 15 and 17") and insert ("12, 13 and 15").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether the Fifth Schedule, as amended, shall be agreed to?
4.55 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: I should like to ask a question about the Fifth Schedule. On page 36, lines 8 and 9, there is a reference to Section 3 of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1961. I attempted to look that up to-day to find out just what this meant, and I am informed that there is in fact no Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act, 1961. What is the reference supposed to be? If such an Act has been passed, it has escaped the attention of the Library, because they cannot lay their hands on it. Nor can the Printed Paper Office.
LORD CRAIGTON: I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot be intelligent about this, but I can assure the noble Lord that I will look it up and write to him, or take the appropriate action.
LORD HUGHES: The noble Lord says he does not know without notice. I did look up the Criminal Justice Act, 1961, which is an English measure which applies in part to Scotland, but it did not seem to me that Section 3 very obviously fitted in there, though it may be that I was looking at the wrong Act. I should
1344
be prepared to sit here quite happily until a message comes back, for another reason—because my noble friend Lord Silkin has asked me to keep this going. He is having a cup of tea.
LORD CRAIGTON: I have certain ways of obtaining information, and these ways I see approaching me. The answer is a very simple one: that this refers to the Bill which we are now discussing.
LORD HUGHES: So it is the year which is wrong?
LORD CRAIGTON: No.
LORD HUGHES: Yes. I knew the noble Lord was frequently out of date, but the noble Lord ought to realise that we have reached the year 1962.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
THE MARQUESS OFLOTHIAN: I beg to move Amendments Nos. 24 and 25.
Amendments moved—
Page 40, line 44, column 3, at end insert—("Schedule 1")
line 49, column 3 at end insert—
("In section 22, the second sentence.").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
In the Title:
THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I beg to move the Amendment to the Title.
Amendment moved—
In the Title, line 16, after ("Isle of Man;") insert ("to provide for the appointment of additional judges of the Court of Session;").—(The Marquess of Lothian.)
LORD HUGHES: As a matter of interest, and in furtherance of my declared objective, having regard to the fact that the Government have taken such a momentous decision as to increase from sixteen to eighteen the numbers of judges in Scotland, why did they make the mistake of forgetting to put it in the Title?
LORD CRAIGTON: I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who I see has just come into the Chamber, is most grateful to his noble friend. Even the best of us make mistakes.
LORD HUGHES: Thank you very much. I am sorry we could not keep it going longer, because I am quite sure that my noble friend Lord Silkin has not had the relief to which he is justly entitled.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with Amendments.

LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT
5.10 p.m.
LORD SILKIN rose LORD SILKIN rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose taking to make more land available for development, and particularly for housing development; and whether they have any plans for dealing with the high cost of land. The noble Lord said: This is what is known as an Unstarred Question and I am permitted to make a speech—I hope one not too long—to explain the purpose of the Question. I can say quite simply that the purpose of this Question, unlike that of many other Questions on other occasions, is to get information. The new Minister of Housing and Local Government has, on numerous occasions recently, made statements in the country, at the Conservative Conference and, I think, in another place, that he proposed to make more land available for housing and for other purposes. I recognise that the new Minister is an extremely able person—most people recognise that, including the new Minister himself—but there are limits to what even an extremely able person can do. One thing he cannot do is to make land available which does not already exist; and I wanted to know exactly what the Minister had in mind when he said that he was going to make land available. In the first place, he does not own any land himself; nor does his Department; nor does the nation as a whole. There is no land available which he has power to put at the disposal of those who are going to carry out the development and I have been wracking my brains as to what he could mean when he said that he was going to make land available.
There are a variety of possibilities. One of them is that there is a certain
1346
amount of green belt land, some of which has been designated and some of which is still in the melting pot and awaiting confirmation. I wonder whether the Minister had in mind the possibility of using some of the green belt land. I would say that I do not regard green belt land as absolutely sacrosanct; that you must not take one square inch or one square yard of that land. In some cases the Ministry has -been rather silly about it in refusing permission to build a cottage where no possible harm could come of permitting it. But we treasure the green belts. We think they are fine institutions to prevent the unlimited growth of large towns, and we should certainly regard it as quite wrong that the green belts should be materially interfered with. I should like to know Whether he has in mind any interference with the green belts.
There is the question of agricultural land. Has the Minister in mind making agricultural land available for housing or other developments? I should be grateful if the noble Lord could tell us that. I recognise that a certain amount of agricultural land will of necessity have to be used as time goes on to meet the needs of an increasing population. But is that what he had in mind? If so, is he going to discriminate between good agricultural land and bad? There is the possibility of permitting greater density in existing development. A certain amount of land can be saved in that way. And there is one more possibility—that of taking a more common-sense view of planning applications on appeal. I know a good many cases where refusal, seems to be quite arbitrary, the reasons given being those you would expect if there were a real reluctance to permit development. They seem very often to be mere pretexts. Has the Minister in mind to loosen up on that kind of thing?
Let me give one example known to me of an area of 14 acres which was formerly the site of an American camp, on the outskirts of a village. All the services were laid on. An application was made for the development of that site, and ore of the reasons for refusal was that it would unduly enlarge the existing village and alter its character. If we are not going to enlarge existing places, how on earth are we going to deal with the housing problem? Of

1347
course, an access of a hundred or so houses will enlarge the character of the existing village; but it is assumed that that is automatically wrong. I can see nothing wrong with the existing village and if the noble Lord who is going to reply were to see that village I think he would admit that anything one does to that village must be for the better and not for the worse. That is merely an example of the arbitrary and irrational way in which many planning decisions are made. If one of the methods of providing more land would be that the Minister would loosen up and deal more rationality with planning appeals I should be wholeheartedly in his favour. I am very puzzled, because, after all, he is the fifth Minister of Housing and Local Government. He has been in office for only five minutes and if he has the answer to the land question and can deal with "he shortage of land, it is a sorry reflection on his four predecessors, who, no doubt, had given some thought to the question. The problem is not a new one.
The other part of my Question relates to the cost of land. That is becoming more and more serious, both for the private person who wants to build or to buy a house for himself, and certainly for local authorities. It is no uncommon thing to find one has to pay several thousand pounds for the site of an individual house—and I am not thinking of expensive areas such as Chelsea, Kensington, Westminster, and so on, but of suburban areas. I saw an advertisement recently where somebody was asking £4,500 for the site of a new house in one of the suburbs. If this kind of thing goes on, it will become almost impossible for the normal, ordinary person to build or to buy a house for himself. If more than half the cost of the house is going in land, then it really is a very serious matter. It is quite beyond the means of a person with an income, say, of anything under £2,000 a year, who has to get a mortgage and to repay it, to acquire a house of that kind. I should like to know What the Government have in mind to deal with the high cost of land. It is one of the things the new Minister mentioned as something he had in mind.
There is not only the high cost of land. We hope that a good deal of development will take place which will
1348
necessitate development on a wider scale—shopping, open spaces, and so on. I have been asked what is to happen about open spaces. The cost of acquiring open spaces, which is on the basis of developed land, is going to make the acquisition of open spaces almost prohibitive. I do not want to make a speech beyond what I have already said. I hope that the noble Lord who is going to reply will give us a satisfactory answer, but, if not, I promise him that he will have an opportunity of making a more favourable reply and I shall certainly endeavour to arrange a debate on the subject, because I think that this is one of the most important questions that we are facing in connection with redevelopment in this country at the present time.
5.21 p.m.
LORD MESTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having asked this question, and I am only sorry that he has not spoken for a greater length of time, because I always listen to his observations with the greatest pleasure. I appreciate the fact that he has asked a question, but, in my view, there is no question and no answer until we can get to the root of the problem. This was discussed at great length yesterday in your Lordships' House, when reference was made over and over again to the drift of population to the South. In my view, that is the crux of the question. If we draw a line from London to Bristol, South of that line, along that line and just North of that line, we find an enormous increase of population. The greatest increase of all is in Loudon itself and in the South-Eastern counties.
In 1970, if the present state of affairs continues, there will be one continuous street from Charing Cross to Reading, and equally the same situation will arise North, East and South of London. Between 1951 and 1960, the insured population of the South-East of England rose by 873,000, an increase of almost 100,000 workers a year. This represented an expansion of 12.2 per cent., as compared with only 4·7 per cent. for the rest of Great Britain. This has had a profound effect upon the amount of land available for further development and also upon the price of land. When I was a young man many years ago, many more years than I care to remember, I recall hearing that a famous man wrote

1349
a book about land and made the observation that the amount of land in this country is fixed. That is obvious; but it is remarkable how people overlook the obvious and self-evident observations. The effect is that when we talk about the market value of land we are, I am sorry to say, using a misleading phrase. So far as land is concerned, the demand increases but the supply remains virtually static, and therefore the phrase "market value" is hardily properly applicable to land.
What are the remedies for the present situation, so far as the cost of land is concerned? One suggestion is to re-institute price controls. Personally, I think that they are not desirable. They involve more officials and also they give rise to evasions in every possible way. Another remedy is the nationalisation of land. I am entirely opposed to that, though I appreciate the fact that other people take a different view. A third suggested remedy is increased compulsory purchase. This involves an inevitable dilemma. If the full market price is paid, the taxpayer or ratepayer will have in effect to pay for the profit the landowner would enjoy. If less than the market price is paid, this causes an injustice to somebody, in that there is one price for the private buyer and another price on compulsory sale to a local authority.
What is the remedy? Let me make a couple of revolutionary suggestions. First of all, with the exception of New Towns, there shall be no further new buildings, except on the site of existing buildings, erected in London and within 50 miles of Charing Cross in all directions for the next five years, after which time the situation can be examined. Likewise there shall be no further industrial development certificates granted for any industrial development within the same area for the next five years. I appreciate that this is somewhat ferocious action to take, but there is no halfway in the matter. Either we take strong action along the lines I have suggested, in order to prevent the further drift to the South, or we allow it to continue year after year. Just think of it in 1970, if nobody does anything—there will be one street from Reading to Charing Cross, with shops, bingo clubs and cinemas all the way along for a distance of 35 to 40 miles.
1350
What a lovely prospect! It is an impossible situation, and if we do not stop this drift to the South there is indeed no question and no answer.
5.27 p.m.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, is certainly right: it is an impossible situation; but I am not sure that it is impossible in quite the way he means it. Though undoubtedly the increase in population in the South has considerable effect on the shortage of land and high prices, I should suspect that the more potent factor is the early marriages that have been going on in our nation. This took everybody by surprise, including, I believe, the Government Actuary.
In my brief lifetime, there have been at least three systems of planning. First of all, there was the old more or less free-for-all, which led to ribbon development, and that was very unfortunate. Then we had a Socialist system, which produced a situation whereby the greatest penalty that could be inflicted on anybody was that his land should happen to take the eye of the local authority. It was rather like living in an oriental autocracy where, if you had a good looking wife, you took jolly good care that the ruler never cast his eye upon her. That system has now been replaced by the present one, which has this terrible drawback that in certain parts of the country land is fetching famine prices.
In my locality not very long ago land for residential accommodation was valued at £15,000 an acre, I was told. That enormous price has meant, of course, that a good deal of land has come on to the market which would never have come on before. For instance, a piece of the land I have just mentioned happened to be a girls' school, and this is going to be developed, much to the annoyance of the parents. The same thing happens with excess gardens of houses, where gardens are too big to keep up and owners are tempted by these enormous prices. Therefore, to some extent, this famine is creating its own solution. One cannot pretend that it is a happy solution, and the plight of anybody who has to buy at the rate of £500 per flat or several thousand pounds per house, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, is not an enviable one. Frankly, it is extraordinarily difficult to see what solution there can be

1351
in a free society. I am looking forward with interest to what my noble friend has to say in reply.
There are odd palliatives which one can call to mind and which I do not think are being adopted so vigorously as they should be. I do not believe, first, that the Government are purging their own Departments of the surplus land which they hold all over the country in small pieces, probably in many cases almost forgotten. There should be a vigorous search through every Department in the Government to see whether it is necessary for these pieces of land to be held, and whether they serve any useful purpose: and, if not, they should be made available to the local authority if required for residential purposes. And there must be no question of paying the War Office, or whoever it may be, compensation for lack of development.
Then, as the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said, and as I said in a speech only yesterday, we ought to do a great deal more in our villages. Planning permission is not being given freely enough in our villages, largely because of the long-standing prejudice of people who tend to have influence on the planning committees of local authorities. I must confess that I am unable to produce a solution, and I dislike making a complaint without being able to do so. However, I am nonplussed, and I await with great interest my noble friend's answer.
5.32 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, it is a tragedy that over the past few months this grievous problem of land prices has been drawn into the inferno of Party politics, but it is at least gratifying that during the past few minutes Party politics have been excluded, and that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has put his Question in a most practical and, if I may say so, sensible manner. Those of us who live within 20 miles of London, either North or South of the Thames, know to our cost what maintaining a house, whether it be freehold or leasehold, is like; and we know also what travelling is like if we have to commute to and from Town each day. It is in that context that much of the problem exists. In the village where I reside the population has doubled over the past six or seven years, and so has
1352
the price of land. The reason is not hard to see. It is largely because more and more people are commuting to London: they want to live somewhere which can vaguely be called country and since the train service is good, if uncomfortable, they congregate into this area and others instead of living 60 or 70 miles out. It is perhaps somewhat ironical that the building of the M.l motorway has encouraged people to move out almost as far as Stony Stratford to commute each day.
I should like to ask my noble friend who is to reply whether the Government are giving serious consideration to moving more office accommodation into the suburbs, in order to relieve the congestion on the railways, quite apart from the roads, and also to try to stop this blocking up of every space in London with offices. There is a problem here with special relation to the Green Belt. I hope that my noble friend may have a few words to say later upon the Green Belt. If more offices are moved into the suburbs, it is fair to assume that a certain amount of Green Belt land may have to be used for its erection. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that Green Belt land is not necessarily sacronsanct; but what I hope the Government will avoid is any temptation to put large housing estates on Green Belt land. Houses or other buildings built on this land should be carefully and attractively designed.
The other solution to this land problem seems to me more building of New Towns, where land can be more judiciously used than is at present done on some of the L.C.C. and other housing estates. I am not trying to prejudice myself against the London County Council, who have enormous problems to face. To quote the case of Stevenage, there the land has been used intelligently. There are factories on one side of the Great North Road and shops and residential accommodation on the other, with bridges over the road separating the two, so that people can walk over the bridges instead of having to cross and compete with the enormous amount of traffic on the A.l.
This problem of land prices is obviously one that cannot be solved in a moment. It is a question of supply and

1353
demand. State control of land has been suggested in some circles, but here again there is difficulty, because land needs in a place like Sutton are very different from those in a place like Stratford: there would have to be a great deal of regionalisation, and it would add to the problem. I wonder whether the Government would also look at the question of the speculative builders, of whom there seem to be far too many nowadays, who throw up houses indiscriminately without any intelligent thought about the use of land. I do not say that this applies in every case, but one sees far too much of it. In Surrey, it is virtually impossible, if you want to build a house, to employ a builder of your own choice, who may well use land far more judiciously than a speculative builder would.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or some other noble Lord with great knowledge of housing, will instigate a debate shortly on the New Towns, because we can then discuss the whole question of land prices in relation to what I believe is a partial but very important solution to this problem—namely, the building of more New Towns. I hope that the points which have been raised will command the Government's close attention.
5.39 p.m.
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has put his finger upon the essential point—namely, that there is only a limited amount of land available. The population of this country is increasing; and not only that, but the standard of living is rising and people are able to demand and afford batter accommodation. More than that, not only is the population increasing, but the number of families is increasing even more rapidly, and people are insisting upon having separate accommodation for each family. In those circumstances, it is inevitable that the price of land will increase because it is entirely a function of the demand for land, and the demand is steadily increasing and will continue to increase as far as anybody can see.
Moreover, when we make comparisons between conditions now and conditions before the war, we have also to take into account the fact that the purchasing power of money has fallen and cones-
1354
quently the price of everything has been multiplied to a corresponding extent. It is impossible to stop this progress. It may be mitigated to a certain extent if you like to allow some land at present scheduled under Town Planning Regulations not to be developed or to be restricted in its development, to be developed or to be developed more extensively. To that extent you increase the effective amount of land which is available. But there is obviously a limit to the extent to which that can be done if you desire a development to be orderly and advantageous to the community generally.
Nor is there any means by which you avoid this process by means of compulsory purchase of land or other devices of that kind, because the value will be there whatever happens. You may be able to conceal the destination to which it goes or to alter that in some way or other, but the value is there, because the demand is there. Therefore, there is only one solution which can be found for this problem, and that is to enable the Government, or the local authority, as the case may be, to take a tax or a rate based upon the value of the land, apart from the value of the buildings or other improvements which are upon it, and to make that available for the financing of public services and other development. That is the only solution which there is to this problem, and it is a perfectly simple and feasible one.
It is perfectly just, because this valuation has been created entirely by the growth of demand and not by anything Which has been done by those who happen to be owners of land. If it were done, there is not the slightest doubt that in many cases there would be an incentive upon owners to allow development of land which is at present allowed to remain idle or in a very inadequate state of development, because it will be obliged to pay tax according to its real value and not according to the use which is made of it at the moment. In that way you would have an increase not to the absolute amount of land, which is fixed by nature, but to the amount which was effectively available and offered for renting or for purchase as the case may be. No doubt you would also discourage a certain amount of speculation which

1355
takes place at the present moment, and which induces people to keep land off the market for the moment because they hope that at some future date they will get a still better price for it. But that is the only thing that can be done in order to deal with the high price of land—to restore it to the people who have created it, the community at large.
5.45 p.m.
LORD HUGHES: My Lords, I had not intended speaking on this subject, but while the noble Lord, Lord Meston, put his finger on the position as it affects the area around London and 50 miles from it, I rather think he receded from that point of view to assume, as did the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, that the problem was one which was confined to 50 miles around London, and that if the drift from the North to the South was brought to an end the problem would disappear. That is far from the case. It is a problem which exists in almost every large centre of the population, and nowhere more so than in the areas which are most affected by the loss of population to the industrial South and the Midlands of England.
I do not know whether the previous debate, in which it was made perfectly clear that the Scottish Office were greatly influenced by what was done in matters of legal procedure South of the Border, will apply in housing matters, and that if anything which the Minister of Housing is going to do in relation to making more land available in England will necessarily be followed by the Secretary of State for Scotland. But I should like the House not to forget the fact that these problems arise in the North of England and in Scotland, although the price of land has not necessarily risen to the astronomical figures which have been quoted in the South. Local authorities and other people responsible for building the housing in the North are working under the difficulties that land is not available as they would wish it and, by direction of the Secretary of State for Scotland, local authorities are being required more and more to put up multi-storey tenements, going up to nineteen and 23 storeys high, at costs which make it virtually impossible that the Government can ever attain their objective of getting rents up to an eco-
1356
nomic figure. Because we are now finding that Scottish local authorities are having to pay up to £4,000 for the building of a three or four-roomed flat. That is the position which is being forced upon them, because the alternative is to use more and more agricultural land.
If, in fact, there is to be any alteration of the problem to make it possible for local authorities to provide houses at a more reasonable price, particularly in lieu of the Bill relating to rents which is presently before another place, then I hope that Ministers will not forget that this is a problem on a national basis, and not one which affects only certain parts of the country. I think my noble friend Lord Silkin, when he introduced his Question, made that perfectly clear. While I would have accepted that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, was speaking particularly and not necessarily exclusively to the problem which arises in this part of the country, when my fellow Scot, the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, merely because he lives down in this part of the world, also followed the same line I thought it would be only right that I should make it perfectly plan that the areas to which the noble and gallant Viscount, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, referred as "the tribal areas" also have their problems of shortage of land.
5.50 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, for having put down this Question and allowing us, in a manner of speaking, to finish the debate which was started yesterday. At the beginning of his speech the noble Lord said in a most pleasant and disarming fashion that all he wanted was to obtain information; that that was the purpose of his Question, and that there was not some other ulterior motive, as might be the case on other occasions. But I think I must be a little careful, because he went on to make certain remarks about my right honourable friend, casting considerable doubt on the ability to live up to his undertakings to make more land available—which, as the noble Lord said, he has on several occasions stated he will do.
But my Lords, it was only yesterday that we had a long and most interesting debate on the location of population, industries, factories and offices, and on

1357
the need for the redevelopment of the centres of towns. Not unnaturally, what was said during that debate has impinged considerably on the subject of the Question asked by the noble Lord this afternoon. Clearly, the location of population and industries and the redevelopment of town centres affects, indeed has the major effect upon, the problem of housing. It is precisely this effect over the next 20 years in the areas of the great conurbations of the South East, of the Midlands and the North West that is being studied in the regional surveys into land needs which are now being carried out by the Ministry of Housing, and which were referred to by my noble friend Lord Jellicoe yesterday. It is hoped that, the results of these surveys will start to come forward during the course of next year.
That, in itself, is an answer to the noble Lord who has asked what the Government propose doing to make more land available for housing development. But, of course, it is only part of the answer: there is much more to it than that. As noble Lords know, the allocation of sufficient land for development is a task for local planning authorities. They have to review their plans at least every five years, and they can also submit ad hoc proposals at any time. The first development plans by local planning authorities made in the early 1950s were meant to see us through until 1971, but they are already proving inadequate. The reasons are not far to seek. The population is increasing more quickly than was expected, due both to a sharp rise in the birthrate and to greater longevity. There has also been a decline in the number of persons per household and a corresponding increase in demand for separate dwellings. This was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, and the figures are quite interesting. In 1951, there were 13·1 million households in England and Wales, but in 1961 there were 14·7 million, an increase of 12·1 per cent., compared with the population increase of only 5·3 per cent. Economic prosperity is, of course, also a vital factor in demands both for land and for housing, and this is a factor of which Her Majesty's Government have no reason to be ashamed.
In view of this situation the Minister of Housing and Local Government sent
1358
a circular in 1960 to local authorities reminding them of the need to maintain the supply of land for development. There is evidence that this circular has encouraged authorities to allocate more land; there is a constant stream of new town maps and reviews of plans coming into the Ministry of Housing. However, in order to reinforce the effect of the circular of 1960, and to remind authorities once again of the demands which the inceased housing problem is likely to produce, my right honourable friend will soon be issuing a further circular on this subject. Here, possible reference might be made to the plea of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, that a commonsense view should be taken of planning applications, and that if these come to appeal the Minister also should take a common-sense view. It may well be that this point will be looked after as the result of the action my right honourable friend is taking.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, said in the debate yesterday that he doubted whether, in fact, local authorities were submitting revised plans every five years, and he suggested that the Minister should speed up the review of plans. It will give some satisfaction to the noble Lord to know that revised plans on an ad hoc basis are being submitted to the Minister and that my right honourable friend is urging local planning authorities to speed up the process very considerably. In most places land is, in fact, available and some can be allocated for development by local authorities as and when necessary. But the noble Lord's Question clearly has in mind those areas where the pressure of population is greatest and where land for housing is scarce, or even non-existent, or where for good planning reasons it may be undesirable to release any more for development. And naturally it is quite clear that the pressure of population is not only on London but, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, pointed out, in other large centres in the Midlands and in Scotland as well.
In London a special drive to find land for housing is beginning to show results. There is some surplus Government land; for instance, the depôt at Kidbrooke, which we hope will produce something like 100 acres. And that is an answer

1359
to my noble friend Lord Hawke, who suggested that the Government should make surplus land available—and, in parenthesis, I may say here that the Government are constantly reviewing their holdings of land all over the country, not only in London. Land not required will be released for use. Still dealing with London, there is also Croydon Airport, where the Development Plan Amendment recently approved by the Minister will produce some 80 acres of land for housing. Of course, as my noble friend Lord Molson reminded us yesterday, the British Transport Commission, in consultation with the London County Council, are preparing a scheme for the balanced development of their surplus land, as a result of which plans will be submitted to my right honourable friend in due course.
LORD HAWKE: My Lords, may I interrupt my noble friend for a moment? He said something which is most interesting: that at long last the War Department is selling some of its land. Are there other sales in prospect, and has a system of disposal been thought out which does not involve a preliminary offer of a piece of land around to every Government Department before it is put on the market, as that provides unending possibilities of delay?
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I can only repeat to the noble Lord that the process is going ahead. I am not equipped with the detailed information that he would like. If I may, I will write to him and let him know what is being done in that respect in regard to both parts of the question.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I do not want to say this offensively, but most of this sort of land seems to be land available not for ordinary development but for Messrs. Clore and Cotton. They seem to be the beneficiaries of the Government policy, and I should be glad if the noble Lord would make representations to ensure that this land really is made available for the purpose for which it was intended.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I will certainly do that, and make the representations asked for.
To help the areas with bad slum clearance problems my right honourable
1360
friend has set up a special office in Manchester which will assist the local authorities with their building programmes and also watch the problem of the supply of land in these areas, not only in Manchester but in similar slum clearance areas. I have already mentioned the regional surveys which will enable local authorities in or near the largest conurbations in this country to gauge more accurately the demands upon land for development over the next 20 years.
I think it is appropriate at this point to reply to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, about the Green Belt. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no intention of solving the housing problem by abandoning the Green Belt policy. The noble Lord, and also my noble friend Lord Auckland, went on to say that they do not regard Green Belt land in general as sacrosanct; and, of course, the noble Lord referred to Green Belt land which is designated and that which has not yet been approved. All I will say in that respect is that before a Green Belt is formally approved there must be clear need for it, and the limits of the Green Belt should be carefully drawn so as not to include land which it is unnecessary to keep open permanently for Green Belt purposes.
At this stage, since I will find it difficult to work it into my speech at a later period, I would mention that my noble friend Lord Auckland brought up the point of moving office accommodation to the suburbs. That point was very thoroughly covered in our debate yesterday and I would ask him to see what my noble friend Lord Jellicoe said upon it. Also he made a helpful suggestion that we should have a debate on the New Towns, and I think that when the time is appropriate the Government would welcome that. With regard to his point about speculative builders, I think I can hardly deal with that on this occasion.
So far I have replied to the noble Lord's Question in so far as it concerns Government action affecting supply of land for development. Yet this is only half the problem. If I may say so with respect, the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, although he mentioned greater density, has put undue emphasis on the availability of land—a very precious

1361
commodity in this small island and a heritage of unsurpassed beauty which many may say, and do say as they look around them, has been squandered in wanton fashion over the past forty years—and not enough emphasis on the type of development and upon the use to which the land is put. My noble friend Lord Auckland emphasised this use of land, which is so important.
My noble friend Lord Molson referred yesterday to the increasing spread and ugliness of what he called "subtopia", and he described it as neither town nor country, an unplanned sprawl One cannot help but remember the very telling speech made in that debate by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of London describing the dangers of the uncontrolled growth of London
Nowadays—and I am sure noble Lords will agree—it is very important that more intensive use should be made of land set aside for development, and that higher densities should be achieved through good planning, good design and efficient building, utilising the best methods made available to us by scientific research and by modern techniques. A planning bulletin entitled Residential Areas, Higher Densities is being published to-day and is being sent to local planning authorities. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, mentioned the problem of vary high flats—I think it was in Edinburgh or it may have been Glasgow—and their high cost. The problem of high building is in fact mentioned in this bulletin, which I have here and which is of a very attractive nature. The economics of higher densities are gone into pretty thoroughly and guidance is given to the local authorities in that respect.
This question of the intensive use of land does not apply only to new land. There is plenty of scope for redevelopment of older residential areas quite apart from the clearance of slums where densities are already high. Middle class housing of the Victorian and Edwardian eras—where there are large gardens, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, not so much in demand as they used to be—offers am opportunity to private builders for high density redevelopment on modern lines and of first-class standards. In this connection, may I be allowed to quote the words of
1362
my noble friend Lord Jellicoe spoken from this Box only yesterday. He said [col. 1290]
"In the long term the chronic obsolescence of our older residential areas … is an even greater problem than that of the slums. It is vital to stop this slow decline from obsolescence to unfitness."
My Lords, the measures I have outlined and the encouragement and guidance being given by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government will help to make more land available and to ensure that that land produces as many houses as possible. This in itself should have a steadying effect on land prices, which are the subject of the second part of the noble Lord's Question. As to any plans the Government may have "for dealing with the high cost of land" (to use Lord Silikin's own words), we could, of course, bring about a lasting effect on the market by removing all planning restrictions. In fact Her Majesty's Government have no intention of doing any such thing, and I imagine that the noble Lord will be relieved to hear that.
Nor do we believe that the imposition of statutory restrictions on prices will serve the purpose. Moreover, experience of development charges from 1947 to 1952 indicated that such restrictions slowed down the supply of land coming into the market. I was not quite sure if this was precisely the point that was being made by the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch when he suggested a tax on what he called the actual value of land. The actual value of land, when the district valuer comes to survey it, is the present use value. I think perhaps he meant (there should be a land tax on the increased value of land. Is that right?
LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH: I meant a tax upon the total market value of the land.
LORD HASTINGS: The noble Lord there is, of course, imposing a general land tax, and that is a very large political subject which I will not touch upon this afternoon, and one with which I think many noble Lords in all quarters of the House would strongly disagree.
Nationalisation of the land has been mentioned and rejected from the Liberal Benches, as well as from behind me, and

1363
I do not know that it has even been put forward very convincingly from the Benches of the official Opposition. Of course, nationalisation of the land under a Conservative Government is out of the question, and in any case the land would have to be bought at market prices, which would not solve the problem of land prices for future developers. In respect of this problem the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, confessed himself nonplussed, as I believe did every other speaker, except the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch.
LORD SILKIN: May I say, in self-defence, that I was really only asking for information as to What was the Government's policy? I forecast the possibility of having a debate on this subject, and on that occasion I should certainly put forward my own proposals and those of my friends.
LORD HASTINGS: I apologise for accusing the noble Lord of not putting forward proposals, but other noble Lords had found themselves in difficulty.
The point of the noble Lord, Lord Meston, that one should stop London development, or any development within 50 miles of London, is, I think, rather trying to put the clock back—and we argued that pretty well yesterday afternoon. I would only say, in relation to these prices, that one of the points to remember is that when one quotes the
1364
cost of land the proper standard of comparison nowadays is the cost per dwelling and not the cost per acre. And that does make a considerable difference. Of course the problem is limited to those areas where land is in short supply, and these high prices do, in a way, encourage the most intensive use of the land, as has been pointed out by various noble Lords, indirectly if not directly, both in new areas and in redevelopment; and that sort of redevelopment is to the good. Therefore on this question of the price of land, to sum up, the Government believe that there would be no advantage to be gained, and indeed many risks to be run, by interfering with the free market in land.
I do not know whether I have given the noble Lord opposite the information he required, but I think I have shown that a good deal is being done to make land available, by surveys, by thorough investigation, searching for surplus land, and by redevelopment of existing land which is already built upon. One way and another, I am quite sure that my right honourable friend is going to be able to carry out his undertaking to make more land available. I hope that that will satisfy the noble Lord, and I think that we shall have to leave the subject now. Perhaps, later, there will be another opportunity, as I am sure there will be, for this problem to be discussed in due course.
House adjourned at ten minutes past six o'clock