Lords Sitting of 26 October 1965

Preamble
Reassembling after the Summer Recess, the House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Exeter
The Lord Lovat—Took the Oath.
The Lord Hankey—Took the Oath.

PEDESTRIANS AND TRAFFIC CONTROL
2.35 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 are aware of the serious difficulties caused to pedestrians, particularly the elderly, by traffic being allowed to filter right or left at busy junctions such as the many arising in the west end of London; and whether investigation has been made into this problem.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT (LORD LINDGREN): My Lords, the safety of pedestrians is always carefully considered before a decision is made to allow traffic to filter at a junction controlled by traffic signals. But I shall be glad to arrange for an investigation to be made at any particular junctions where the noble Lady has evidence of difficulties.
BARONESS BURTON OF COVENTRY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I have never before had such a satisfactory Answer from any Government on this particular matter? May I ask him whether he will be kind enough to look at the matter in so far as Oxford Street is concerned; and is he aware that I shall be delighted to send him details of the actual crossings?
LORD LINDGREN: If the noble Lady will send me those details I will arrange
524
for a special investigation to be made and will report either direct to her or to the House, just as she wishes.

RHODESIA: DIPLOMATIC REPRESENTATION AT LISBON
2.36 p.m.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what conclusions have been reached regarding the claim of the Rhodesian Government to have a diplomatic representative at Lisbon.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND FOR THE COLONIES (LORD BESWICK): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government do not accept the claim of the Rhodesian Government to have established a diplomatic representative in Lisbon. The United Kingdom Government is responsible for Rhodesia's external affairs and for the diplomatic representation of her interests in foreign countries.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for that Answer, may I say that, in view of the present negotiations in Salisbury on wider and graver issues, I do not propose to press this matter further to-day.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. I hope that the same helpful attitude will be generally adopted within the next two or three days.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, should have raised this matter this afternoon, but, as it has been raised, and in view of the Answer given by the Minister, I feel bound to put three supplementary questions. First of all, is the Minister not aware that, by C.R.O. Despatch No. 23 of April 30, 1957, it was laid down that, among other things, the then Federal Government of Rhodesia and Nyasaland would in future be free to appoint diplomatic agents or consular or trade representatives in countries which were willing to receive them? Is he

525
not also aware that the then Commonwealth Secretary, in a message to the then Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia on December 10, 1963, confirmed that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government that, on the dissolution of the Federation, these and other powers of the Federal Government in this sphere should be entrusted to the Government of Southern Rhodesia? In view of that, may I ask the Minister whether it was not a breach of faith with the Government of Rhodesia for Her Majesty's Government to seek to block the appointment of Mr. Reedman as Rhodesian diplomatic agent in Lisbon?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, there has been no breach of faith, and I am bound to say that I am surprised the noble Lord should suggest that there has been. The agreement and the despatch to which he refers were that there should be negotiation on the status of the diplomatic agents; and that negotiation has not been concluded.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask whether it would not have been much more helpful if the noble Lord had refrained from putting those questions today, in view of the critical negotiations now going on? Could he not at least have waited until next Thursday, when he would have had an opportunity, in the debate set down for that day, to make the points which he has now mentioned?
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I had been hoping that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, would take his Question off the Order Paper, but, as it was put, I felt bound to put those supplementaries. Having regard to the Minister's further reply, I must ask him this further question: is it not a fact that the drafts which have been submitted by Her Majesty's Government consolidating the entrustment of these powers in the Rhodesian Government have not conformed in any way to the undertaking given by Mr. Duncan Sandys in 1963? And, in view of this, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to abide by that undertaking?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am sure that the majority of your Lordships' House will agree that no useful purpose can be served in pursuing this question at the present time.

IMMIGRATION FROM NON- COMMONWEALTH COUNTRIES
2.41 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: 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 their policy on Commonwealth immigration, they have any plans for imposing a specific numerical limit on immigrants from countries other than the Commonwealth.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the only category of Commonwealth immigrants whose admission is subject to a numerical limit is those coming for employment. A much lower proportion of alien than of Commonwealth workers seek permanent residence, and we are able to regulate the admission of alien workers without having to impose a numerical limit.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but, in view of it, may I ask whether he will give the House an assurance that the jobs which are left unfilled by the restrictions on Commonwealth immigrants will not be filled by an increase in the number of non-Commonwealth immigrants? Would he also agree that the real cause of the immigrant problem in this country is the shortage of housing and social services, and that there are absolutely no grounds for discriminating in this way against Commonwealth (which in fact means coloured) immigrants by imposing a numerical ceiling on them and not on non-Commonwealth immigrants?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, there is no question of discriminating against Commonwealth immigrants of any colour, and the facts do not support the noble Lord's contention. The number of Commonwealth citizens coming in for permanent residence is in the ratio of three to one as compared with foreigners who are accepted here for permanent residence, less than half of whom are people who come in as workers and who, after four years, have had their conditions cancelled.

527
The assurance asked for in the first part of the Question is quite unnecessary because the conditions under which alien workers come into this country are quite different. They have to come in with permits approved by the Ministry of Labour and each case is considered on its merits. The great majority of them come in for short periods and not for permanent residence.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, has the noble Lord had his attention drawn to the statement by the employers in the expanding industries of Slough, which are largely export industries and which are dependent upon Commonwealth labour, that they will have to ask for increased alien labour in order to meet the needs of their factories and workshops?
LORD STONHAM: No, my Lords, my attention has not been drawn to that statement. But certainly what my noble friend has said will be considered.

COTTON TEXTILE IMPORTS
2.45 p.m.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: 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 will publish a list of all those countries, together with the relevant trade and commercial agreements or treaties, which will be affected by the proposal to introduce a single global limit for cotton textile imports.]
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the proposal is to introduce a global limit on cotton imports from all countries except the following: the member countries of FINEFTA (which is EFTA with Finland) and the E.E.C., Australia, Canada, the Republic of Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, the United States and the Sino-Soviet countries. Imports from some of these countries will be subject to other arrangements. The international instru-
528
ments mainly relevant to the proposals for a global limit are the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade and the Long-Term Cotton Textile Arrangement made under the GATT.
LORD ERROLL OF HALE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that comprehensive reply, may I ask two sup-plementaries? First, what about those countries which are not members of GATT, such as Formosa? Secondly, will the noble Lord give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will not break any agreement or treaties when attempting to implement the new policy?
LORD SHEPHERD: As I understand it, my Lords, all the countries which export significant amounts of cotton textiles to this country will be covered by GATT. The case of those countries that are not so covered will be subject to discussions. I think I should draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that we are dealing at the moment with proposals. I think the House will bear in mind that as a country we import very much more cotton textiles than any other country. Some 35 per cent, to 40 per cent, of our own consumption of cotton textiles is imported. We have to protect our own industry during this phase of development and reorganisation, but I can assure noble Lords that there will be no unilateral breaking of treaties or agreements. There will be discussions and we hope we shall be able to obtain satisfactory agreements.
LORD REA: My Lords, does not the noble Lord agree that the real trouble is the condition of the cotton industry in this country? Can he assure the House that steps are being taken to move people gradually from the cotton industry into other industries in the United Kingdom?
LORD SHEPHERD: The noble Lord will be aware that there is a considerable improvement within the cotton industry, although there is a great deal yet to be done. We are hopeful that if the present trend continues we shall have an industry that will be able to stand up in any market. But this is the object of this global agreement.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have to inform the House that there will be a Royal Commission at approximately 4 p.m., to signify Her Majesty's approval to the Commons' choice of a new Speaker.
Also, my noble friend Lord Shackleton will be making a Statement on the closure of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry. I think it would be for the convenience of the House if that Statement were made after the Third Reading of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill instead of breaking into that debate twice.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. I am sure that noble Lords do not wish me to tread again the controversial ground which underlies this Bill. That ground has been trodden inside this House and outside it for more than a century and a half in various contexts. If it could be said that the situation was once fluid, it has long since been trampled into mud, and I think that by now we may say it has been beaten into hard concrete. It is extremely unlikely that anything that can be said on this subject will be new. It is not likely that any new evidence will to-day be produced; and it is most unlikely of all, I think, that anything that is said will cause a single noble Lord to change his opinion from the one side to the other. I hope, therefore, that in the speeches that are made the old ground will not be traversed again; I certainly do not propose myself to traverse it.
All I want to do is to remind noble Lords of one or two points that may not be present in the minds of those who have not perhaps sat as assiduously through the debates on this Bill as I myself and many of our colleagues have. Noble Lords will recall that the principle of this Bill received an endorse-
530
ment by a large majority at Second Reading; but among those who voted for the Bill at that stage, as well as among those who voted against it, there were many who had doubts and hesitations. I should like to remind the House that certain Amendments have been made in the Bill with a view to meeting those doubts. There are two to be named in particular. First, there has been included in the Bill a provision that, before the Secretary of State releases a murderer sentenced to a life sentence, he shall consult the Lord Chief Justice in respect of cases in England, and the Lord Justice General in respect of cases in Scotland, and the trial Judge, if he is still available. That is, I understand, the practice of the present Home Secretary, but it has not always been the practice. If the Bill becomes law, this provision will, for the first time, become statutory. Secondly, a provision has been added that at the time when a life sentence is passed, the court may make a recommendation as to the minimum period which should elapse before the offender is to be released. That recommendation is not binding on the Home Secretary, but clearly it will carry very great weight and it will, I think, give some comfort to those who feel that the danger in abolishing the death penalty is that a life sentence may not really be life but in some cases dangerously short.
I should also like to remind your Lordships that even now, after a century and a half, this is not a final decision. This measure has a prospective life of five years and no more. Unless Parliament determines otherwise, it will lapse automatically at the end of that period. We are not therefore taking a risk to all eternity. If we are taking a risk at all, we are doing so for that short, limited period of five years. My Lords, in supporting this Bill we are promoting a measure, humane in itself, which removes the gross and widely criticised anomalies in the present law and which, judging from the experience of every other country in which a similar step has been taken, does not aggravate the risks run by innocent persons. I cannot doubt that your Lordships will welcome the opportunity to pass into law a Bill about which all this could be said. I beg to move.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3ª. —(Baroness Wootton of A binger.)
2.53 p.m.
LORD COLYTON: My Lords, I do not intend to detain your Lordships for more than a few minutes, nor do I propose to discuss in any detail the merits or demerits of capital punishment. The question of the uniqueness of the deterrent; the effect of abolition on the position of police and prison officers; the statistics of murders in abolition countries compared with those in capital punishment countries; the so-called moral argument; the terrible sentence and the macabre paraphernalia of the execution; the emotion and the sentimentality; the appalling increase in the figures of crimes of violence in this country and of robbery with firearms, since the introduction of this Bill—all these matters were discussed ad nauseam in our debates on Second Reading and during the Committee stage of the Bill. At the end of the day, however, I doubt whether one single Member of your Lordships' House was influenced in his decision by what he heard. Certainly I remain as firmly convinced as ever that capital punishment is a unique deterrent and that its abolition would lead to an increase of murders, and to most damaging effects on our prison services and the police force, the alarming deterioration of which was publicised yesterday in a Memorandum by the Police Superintendents' Association to the Home Secretary.
All that I wish to do is to make one final plea to your Lordships, even at this late hour, to reject this Bill on the simple ground that it does not command the support of the overwhelming mass of the people in this country. Parliament has no mandate to pass this measure. I doubt whether one Member of another place ever mentioned it in his election address. And I feel sure that, in response to the usual questionnaire on capital punishment which, as all of us who have sat in another place and fought a Parliamentary Election know, is sent out at Election times to all candidates by the League for the Abolition of Capital Punishment, the majority of the present Members of the House of Commons were careful not to commit themselves on this issue. Even now this measure comes to us with the support of only 200 out of 630 Members of the House of Commons on Third Reading.
532
I do not believe that a single noble Lord is in any doubt whatever about what is the feeling of the public in Britain towards this Bill. I have spoken to hundreds of men and women up and down the country in these past months since this House gave the Bill a Second Reading. They are overwhelmingly opposed to abolition. Even the minority which favours abolition includes many who are extremely doubtful about the wisdom of putting through this measure at this time, having regard to the great increase in crimes of violence.
Last night two young men, mechanics in a Midlands garage, motored down to London after they had finished their work to seek to present a petition to Parliament calling for a reformation in the law relating to capital punishment. They did so due to the recent increase in assaults upon minors. Apparently they were under the impression that the measure had already become law. Not knowing where to go, they went to the offices of the Daily Mirror, of which they are readers and which of course has taken no position on this issue. The Daily Mirror telephoned to me and asked whether I had any advice to give to these young men. I said I doubted whether the petition—I have it beside me now—was in a form in which it could be presented to your Lordships before this debate, but I undertook to refer to the matter in my speech. This morning I received the petition, together with a letter signed by Mr. James Hadley and Mr. David Cooper, the two young men in question. Incidentally, they are both married and have young children. I do not think I can do better than read the letter to your Lordships, with your Lordships' permission. This is what they say:
"We believe that the death penalty should not be abolished. We believe this because the number of murderous attacks, particularly on young children, is not decreasing while imprisonment is the only deterrent, but is increasing.
"We have been mistaken in thinking that the death penalty had already been abolished, since Her Majesty's judges have indicated in sentencing murderers that there is little likelihood of the death penalty being carried out.
"In only ten days we two have collected some three thousand signatures from people who believe that the death penalty should be retained. This we have done while off duty from our work in a Midlands garage. We have visited various Midlands towns and London in our time off. If there was more

533
time we could get thousands and thousands more to sign this petition. Those who have signed the petition so far think as we do, that the law of demanding a life for a life is the only just deterrent to murderers.
"Many believe as we do that the nation has not been given a proper chance to decide this issue. We have not been asked to vote for M.P.s because they are for or against hanging. That very important issue has been buried under other political issues. We feel it would have been better if every voter—particularly every parent whose children may be the victims of murderous attacks—could have voted on this important issue.
"Even at this late hour we ask that there should be a national referendum so that the public can decide for or against the death penalty.
"We regret that our petition, hastily put together, was not in a form which would enable you to present it officially to Parliament. Nevertheless, we hope that you will, if you have the opportunity, tell the House of Lords that many people of all ages, from all walks of life and, surprisingly, many young people, still believe that the death penalty should be retained, particularly for violent murderers."
That, my Lords, is the letter and I am firmly convinced that the views contained in it represent the opinion of the vast bulk of our people, old and young.
We have also, on this occasion, the advantage of the national opinion polls. All three main national opinion polls taken earlier this year show that more than 65 per cent. of the people were opposed to abolition, as against some 20 per cent. who favoured it. It will no doubt be argued that national opinion polls are not necessarily accurate, and that is, of course, true: they only indicate a general trend. But when there is an 11 per cent. lead in the national opinion polls in favour of the Labour Government that hits the headlines, and calculations are immediately made in political circles as to whether this would justify the Prime Minister in going to the country. Such an opinion poll as that is taken very seriously, indeed.
But what about capital punishment? Here the lead is no less than 45 per cent. against abolition. How can Parliament and this House dare to pass this measure and at the same time seek to argue that it is in any way a democratic reflection of the wishes of our people? Certainly, every noble Lord who votes for this Bill must know that he is voting directly against the wishes of the overwhelming majority of
534
the electors of this country, as well as against the advice of the police and prison officers. Even in this House, I doubt very much whether the large majority on the Bill's Second Reading reflected the true wishes of all its Members. If this is an unrepresentative Assembly, I suggest, with all respect, that the majority in favour of abolition on July 20 was an unrepresentative majority.
It is often said that this is a matter of conscience and principle, on which Parliament should give a lead. I suggest again that when it is evident, as it is, that the great majority of our people are opposed to this measure, which is bound to affect the lives of every man, woman and child in this country, the proper way to give a lead is for a Party, or an individual Parliamentary candidate, to advocate the measure boldly and frankly at Election time. This has never been done. I do not believe that Parliament has any right to set itself above the wishes of the people in this matter. If this is a good Bill, if the arguments in favour of abolition are sound, then the proper course is to hold up the Bill and submit the whole issue to the electorate at the next Election. Perhaps the candidates in the City of Westminster and Erith by-elections will have the courage to do so.
Meanwhile, I submit to your Lordships that our duty, as supporters of a democratic Parliamentary system, is to reject this Bill on Third Reading, so that its authors and its supporters may have an opportunity to lay it before our people for their decision in due course. In the hope that even at this late hour noble Lords who have supported this measure will reconsider their position, I give notice formally to your Lordships that I intend to divide the House.
3.5 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK:
My Lords, the record of the previous debates on the matter before the House occupies many pages in Hansard. The arguments for and against retention of the death penalty have been bandied backwards and forwards, and the thrust-and-parry of debate has been keen. If I venture to intervene at this stage in the debate, it is as one who is unashamedly for the abolition of the death penalty. But it is not, I think, as one who does so on sentimental grounds. On the contrary, in casting my vote, as I intend to do to-day, in

535
favour of abolition, I do so with a sense of deep concern for the furtherance of justice; for the security of the citizens, be they the police officers or prison officers concerned or the old and defenceless people in our cities; and for the compensation, in so far as any kind of compensation is possible, of those who are related to or dependent on the one who has been murdered.
Your Lordships would not wish me to seek to go over again the arguments drawn from the experience of countries which have, either long ago or more recently, abolished the death penalty. These arguments affect different people in different ways. For myself, I confess that I am considerably moved by the evidence, which would seem to indicate that there has been no increase in crimes hitherto regarded as deserving of capital punishment. I note also with deep interest that in such countries as Norway, Sweden and Denmark, where capital punishment does not exist, the police still go unarmed, as I am sure our own police would wish to continue to be. I cannot ignore the statement of such a witness as the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, when he said:
"I believe that there is not a shred of evidence, nothing that any respectable lawyer would dream of adducing in the lowest courts in the land, to support the view that the death penalty in the past had any deterrent effect on the rate of murder in this country."
All these things sway my judgment in favour of the ends which this Bill seeks so bring about. But on these things I shall not delay the House this afternoon. Rather, I would beg your Lordships' attention to certain moral issues which I believe must be given the most careful consideration.
As I recall the course of previous debates on this subject, I notice that there has been not infrequent allusion to Scripture. This is not to be wondered at, inasmuch as our English law can claim largely to be based on those writings. One of the arguments of many retentionists is that death as a reward for murder is written into the documents of the Old Testament and is therefore a part of the Divine intention for the conduct of human affairs so long as time shall last.
But it must be pointed out that a good deal of Old Testament legislation is no longer held to be applicable to our society to-day. Let me give but one illustration:
536
"If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman…."
The most rigid supporter of a strict code of sexual ethics would hardly wish to see that enforced to-day. The conscience of mankind has moved on. Indeed, it may be noted, in passing, that the lex talionis—"an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth"—is not so much a demand for strict vengeance in kind as a safeguard, a kindly safeguard, that if a man takes your eye, you may not take both of his.
I wish to say a word about a phrase, this time occurring twice in the New Testament, which has more than once been quoted in this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, in the speech to which I have already referred, said that he would be content to be guided by the advice of St. Paul, that vengeance is the Lord's: He will repay. The noble Lord added, in parenthesis "… if the Bishops will permit such a curious aberration from modern theology". I can only say that if it is an aberration from modern theology, to call in evidence this "advice" of St. Paul, then I would fain be put down with the ancient theologians. For here, surely, is a point of great importance. Men—weak, fallible men like ourselves—have often to be the means of executing judgment. Our officers of law fulfil a function in our national life which is indispensable for its health and wellbeing. But there comes a point—I believe it is the point whence there is no return, the point of the death sentence—where weak and fallible humans must say, "Hands off! This is the sphere where we give place to the Divine wrath. Vengeance belongs to God. He will repay".
Let me not be misunderstood here. I believe in retribution. I believe not only in reformation, but in retribution. Society must say, through its officers of law, that it repudiates certain acts as utterly incompatible with civilised conduct and that it will exact retribution from those who violate its ordered code. But to adopt that which we condemn, and to kill the killer, is not, in my view, the best way of exacting retribution. I suspect that to act thus is to take on ourselves a measure of vengeance which is best left to the Deity. There is about capital punishment a dreadful irrevocability

537
which belongs to no other sphere of justice. It is possible to go over the evidence again, as is now being done in the case of Timothy Evans, but one cannot bring a man back from the dead. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, said in an earlier debate, with a kind of awful monosyllabic simplicity:
"We can put out the light of life; we cannot light it again."
All of us—every one of us—stand under the judgment of God. I do not think we should ask any of our fellow citizens—Home Secretary, judge or hangman—to participate in a function which rightly does not belong to mortal man.
I believe that if we continue to countenance the infliction of the death penalty, we shall be placing on the Home Secretary, whose unenviable task it is to tender advice to the Crown, a burden which should never be borne. I ask: Ought our society to ask any man to shoulder the appalling responsibility of saying, Yea or Nay to the question, with all its dreadful imponderables, of a reprieve? Further, someone has to carry out the order; or, rather, a number of persons must make themselves responsible for the final act of hanging. It is one thing to debate this issue in the comfort of the House of Lords; it is another matter to find oneself implicated in the execution of a fellow member of society, however depraved he may be. And, again, I believe that the society which allows this law of hanging to remain on its Statute Book degrades itself, coarsens itself, cheapens itself.
My Lords, in my opening remarks I referred to my concern for those who were related to, or dependent on, the one who has been murdered. There is, of course, a sense in which no compensation can ever be made to those who by some fearful act have been deprived of a relative; but there is a sense in which some kind of amends may at least be attempted. In the realm of crime and punishment, I believe that the reinstatement of such ideas as duty and repayment, of sweat and toil, might be of more avail, in many cases, than the reference of the criminal to the psychiatrist's consulting room. I am not one of those who subscribe to what I have called elsewhere "the cult of the easy". A hard way back for the man who has made it hard for others may be the best way for all
538
concerned. But even in the dire case of murder, I believe that it should be made possible for the murderer, during the long years of his imprisonment (and I do not seek for the lessening of that period), so to work as to make at least some financial contribution to the remaining members of the family which he has deprived.
In saying this, I have touched on a matter which calls for far more attention than it is now receiving: I mean the employment of the prisoner—and I am now thinking particularly of the murderer—during his time of imprisonment. I am one of those who hold that, wherever possible, he should be given work of such a kind as will be profitable to the community: that it should be paid for, and that a large part of the pay should be used for the compensation of those whom he has injured. Difficult as this would be to operate—and I am not blind to these difficulties—I am sure that its operation would do something to stop that "rotting" of a man during long imprisonment, to which frequent reference has rightly been made in the course of the earlier stages of this debate, as well as making some tiny compensation to the bereaved. Compensation, on the one hand, and the promotion of self-respect, on the other, would go together.
My Lords, I have said enough. With the necessary safeguards now written into this Bill, let us by an overwhelming vote in its favour say to the country, whether they be ready for our lead or not—and if we are not here to give a lead, what are we here for?—"We will give this a fair trial. If, after a period of years, it can incontestably be proved that there has been a rise in the rate of those crimes which hitherto have involved capital punishment, and if that increase seems to be attributable to the abolition of capital punishment, then we will think again. But now, in 1965, let us be done with this relic of a bygone age. We in this House invite you to follow our lead. Have done with this thing! In the name of God, let it go!"
3.17 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I shall not trouble your Lordships this afternoon for many moments. I want to say only a few final words on this the Third Reading of the Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Bill. I, as your Lordships know, was one of those, among

539
others of your Lordships, who opposed this Bill, because we thought it would have the effect of encouraging violent crime and discouraging the police. If the opposition is pressed to a Division today, as I understand it will be, I shall again vote against the Bill, although I realise that both Houses of Parliament have taken a different view.
I must confess that, in spite of the powerful arguments—and I thought them very powerful—adduced by the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, I do not think it likely that any speech by me or anyone else will be calculated to make this House alter the decision to which it has already come. I say this the more because I am very conscious of what I believe to have been the nature of the motive that caused the majority of your Lordships and Members of another place to support the Bill in its earlier stages and to vote as they did. It was not that the great mass of our fellow countrymen want this Bill passed. On the contrary, I think it is generally agreed, and admitted even by the supporters of the Bill, that the great majority of our fellow countrymen are strongly opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. Nor, in my view, were those noble Lords who supported this Bill actuated by the dictates of pure reason. Indeed, I got the impression that noble Lords who advanced those elaborately marshalled arguments to which we listened, to the effect that twenty years' imprisonment was really a greater deterrent than fear of hanging by the neck, were not convinced even themselves.
And I will say to the most reverend Primate who just made so moving a speech and who quoted a remark of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, that there was not a shred of evidence that capital punishment was a deterrent, that that was not the view either of the police or of the prison warders, and, with all deference to the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, I would prefer their opinion on this point to his. I do not believe that the sort of arguments to which I have just been referring had any influence on the decision to which your Lordships came, and that the majority of noble Lords were actuated by something far more simple and fundamental: by the dictates of personal conscience. They simply could not bear the idea of one man hanging another and of themselves
540
personally, as members of society, sharing with the hangman a part of the responsibility for such a deed. I believe it was that which was in the minds of most noble Lords when we debated the Second Reading of this Bill.
I do not in the least complain of that. None of us, whatever our views about this Bill, likes the idea of taking away a fellow man's life. And I do not pretend that I personally do not have a feeling of relief if that is not going to happen again. But the supporters of this Bill—and I will say this with very great deference to the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of York—who have, or will have, by their action to-day, brought capital punishment to an end, must face one hard, inescapable fact. We who are citizens of this country have a dual responsibility. It is not only to see that justice and mercy shall be meted out to the evil-doer, however heinous his crime; it is also to see that, so far as it is in our power, proper protection is given to the ordinary law-abiding citizen, whether that citizen be a man or a woman or a child, and whether he or she be young or old.
That being the case—and I would say again that noble Lords must face this fact—it is not we who have opposed this Bill but those noble Lords who supported the Bill who will henceforth be on trial. If their sanguine expectations are realised, and if the figures of murder and violence go down, or even remain where they were before the introduction of this Bill, then they and we can alike rejoice. But if the figures of murder and violent crime, which so often leads to murder, continue to go up, what will their position be then? They will have done indeed their duty by the murderer by tempering their justice with mercy, but what about their equal responsibility of protecting the law-abiding citizen from murder and outrage? That is something about which they will assuredly have to give very serious attention and anxiously search their consciences. If such a time does come—and I hope, with them, that it will not—I hope, too, that they will not shrink from the agonising reappraisals to which the harsh lessons of experience may lead them.
3.25 p.m.
LORD PARKER OF WADDINGTON: My Lords, I had not intended to take

541
part in the debate to-day, but in view of what is transpiring I should like for a moment to recapitulate some of the views that I expressed on Second Reading. This is a subject which, as we all know, gives rise to high emotion one way or the other. I have always tried to approach the matter on a purely practical basis. It is said that the death penalty is a unique deterrent, and I should be the last person to vote in favour of the abolition of something which I believed was a really unique deterrent. But your Lordships probably know the figures. Out of some 170 murderers every year, only a minute percentage are ever hanged. After all, it is the certainty of punishment which is the only real deterrent. Secondly, murder is in quite a different category from, say, many other offences. I suppose that 90 per cent., or more, of all murders arise in some domestic situation which will never arise again, or in the course of some sexual crime. Nothing, I venture to think, in those cases will be a deterrent at all.
It is always said that judges are reactionary; that they never want any change in the law. But they sit there every day seeing where the shoe pinches and where injustice is being done. For seven years I have presided in the Court of Criminal Appeal, to whom almost every capital murderer appeals, and for the last four of those seven years I have been so disgusted (if I may put it that way) with the anomalies that arise, with the injustices that are done as between man and man—one man is hanged and another, equally blameworthy, imprisoned for life—that I determined four years ago that something ought to be done, and I was in favour of abolition.
When one gets to that stage, there are only three courses open. The first is to amend in some respect the Homicide Act. I venture to think that that is quite impossible. It is impossible to legislate for every type of crime which may occur at any time in the future. Whatever one does, there will be anomalies. I was interested to know—I was out there at the time—that the New Zealanders were minded to amend the Homicide Act, and they produced draft after draft and came to the conclusion that nothing they could put into an Act of Parliament would really see that justice was done in all cases. They went ahead—if one can call
542
it "ahead"—and completely abolished the death penalty.
The other two courses are to go back to the stage when every murder was a murder attracting the death penalty, and when reprieves were the exceptional course. Again I venture to think that one cannot go back now, certainly not after the overwhelming vote in another place and in your Lordship's House on Second Reading. That means, I think, that we should go ahead and completely abolish the death penalty, subject to certain safeguards. On Second Reading I voted in favour of this Bill on the condition that certain Amendments were inserted which I thought would provide safeguards up to a point. I introduced those Amendments, and your Lordships passed them. They are the Amendments which, for the last four years, I have thought should be the conditions for abolishing the death penalty.
I am a little worried to-day at those who threaten to divide the House at this stage. I cannot believe that they would face a constitutional issue on this point, and that really the gambit—if it be a gambit—is to see that the Bill does not get through this Session, and that those who favour it should start again. I ask those who threaten to do that to think again. Take the unfortunate Judges, whom I represent and who arc almost to a man behind me on this matter. Are they to go through the farce, indeed the tragedy, day after day, of sentencing people to death, when everybody knows the death penalty will never be carried out? I ask those who threaten to divide the House to think again.
3.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, that almost everything that can be said on this subject has been said in the course of our debates, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, has really given us to-day a résumé of the speech he made on Second Reading. I must say something in reply to some of the points made by the noble Lord, but because everything has been said, and if I may say so, said so well on both sides, I do not propose to speak for very long to-day and I shall endeavour, so far as possible, not to go back on to old ground.

543
My noble friend Lord Colyton has said that he proposes to divide the House. I can see no constitutional reason why he should not do so if he so wishes, nor can I see any constitutional issue arising if this House takes a different view from another place on a Private Member's Bill. So far as the position of the Judges is concerned, they have to implement the law as Parliament decides it to be, and I must say I was surprised the other day to note that following upon a Report made by a Committee on the functions of the Court of Criminal Appeal, action has been taken on that Report by Her Majesty's Judges without any expression of view upon that Report by either House of Parliament. I certainly do not think that there would be anything wrong or unconstitutional in dividing if my noble friend decides so to do. If he does, I shall certainly support him.
Last week I read in the Daily Telegraph, to my surprise and astonishment, an emphatic statement that I intended to divide the House. Where they got that from I do not know; they certainly did not get it from me because it was not my intention, after the majority this Bill got on Second Reading and the Amendments carried in Committee and on Report, to ask the House to divide. But I still think that, despite those Amendments, this is a bad Bill for Parliament to pass at this time. If there is a Division, I shall vote against it, and I should like to state quite shortly the reasons why I shall do so.
As my noble friend Lord Colyton has said, this is not a Bill, so far as one can judge, which is wanted by the public. In so far as there has been any attempt to find out what the public think about it, the indications are that the public do not want it. So far as I know, not many Parliamentary candidates said at the time they were standing for Parliament that they were in favour of abolition. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor excused the failure to consult the electorate by saying that he had always set his face against this becoming a Party matter. I certainly would not wish it to become a Party issue, as apparently it was in New Zealand, and in fact it could not become a Party issue as views on this cut right across Party lines. The fact is that the public have had singularly little opportunity to make their views known.
544
If it is the case that the public are against it, we are being invited to ignore public opinion. It is said, and said powerfully, and said this afternoon by the most reverend Primate, that we should give a lead. That is an argument which can always be advanced in support of a measure the public do not want.
No one, not even the strongest opponent of this Bill, likes capital punishment. I myself would like to make it clear that I do not want to see it retained out of any spirit of vengeance or of lex talionis or for the purposes of retribution. What concerns me is the possibility that, if it is not retained, a lot of people will be murdered in future who would not suffer that fate if in fact the law were not altered. I would gladly see capital punishment go if I felt that could be done without serious risk, but to abolish it now, in this age of violence, with so much grave crime, involves, in my belief, serious risk that more people will be murdered. Those who support this Bill are prepared to take that risk. My Lords, I for one, am not prepared to take such a risk. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said on Report that he was not satisfied that an experimental period of five years was really long enough and that the number of murders goes up and down as between one year and another. It is to be inferred from that statement that he recognises that the passing of this Bill may be followed by an increase in the number of murders in this country in the next five years, but he hopes that will have evened out in a ten-year period. The most reverend Primate, in a moving passage in his speech to-day, told us he thought the death penalty degraded society and that society coarsened and cheapened itself by retaining it. I would say that it is a low form of society in which murders become prevalent, and if the consequence is that the rate of murders increases materially then I think the kind of society which permits that would properly be open to adverse comment.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Parker of Waddington, said he did not think that capital punishment was a unique deterrent, and he went on to say "because of the low numbers who were executed". I would have thought if that argument led anywhere it was in

545
precisely the contrary direction. If large numbers of people had to be executed for capital murder then it might be said that the deterrent was not effective, but I think such indications as we have in this country point in a very different direction. I am sure we all hope that, after the passing of this Bill, there will not be an increase in the number of murders, but if there is—and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, if I do not misunderstand him, appears to think there well may be—the supporters of this Bill will have a responsibility which I for one would not like to share.
We have been given the figures for capital and non-capital murders for a period before and after the passing of the Homicide Act. They have been referred to before, but they are, I think, significant, and if I may I should like to remind your Lordships of them. They show that the annual average of non-capital murders has increased since those murders were made non-capital, by 31. Thirty-one more people are killed—that is the annual average. In every year since 1957, the year of the Homicide Act, there have been more non-capital murders than in any of the years from 1952 to 1956 inclusive. In 1957 the figure rose to 174. That figure has been exceeded in each of the last three years.
The number of capital murders has ranged since 1952 between 31 as the highest in any one year and 17, and the annual average has only risen from 20 to 23 since the Homicide Act was passed. Expressed in percentages of the total number of murders, the percentage of capital murders has fallen by 0·9 per cent. and non-capital murders have increased by 0·9 per cent., but that 0·9 per cent. means an annual average of non-capital murders rising by 31. Now if capital punishment had no real deterrent effect one would not have expected such a rise in the annual average of non-capital murders when the annual average of capital murders shows so little change. If in this age of violence it was to be expected that more people would be victims of murder, and that that was one of the reasons for the rise in the yearly average of non-capital murders, surely it is significant that there has been no similar increase in the number of capital murders. Surely these figures are some evidence that capital punishment, abhor-
546
rent though it is, is in fact a unique deterrent. I am sure we all hope that, if this Bill is passed, we shall not see a similar rise in what are now capital murders.
By this Bill you are removing the deterrent to killing by those with long criminal records. They know—it does not take much intelligence to realise it—that if they are caught and convicted again they will inevitably suffer a long term of imprisonment. They know that, if this Bill is passed, if in order to prevent identification they kill the person who comes upon them in the course of the commission of a crime the most they will suffer if caught and convicted will be a longer term of imprisonment. How long no one can say. It will under this Bill depend on the Home Secretary of the day, and the present Home Secretary has made it clear in a speech that has been quoted often in this House that that may mean nine years or so.
By this Bill you are removing, too, the deterrent against killing to avoid arrest, whether it be of a policeman or of a member of the public, and the deterrent against the killing of prison officers. The noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, has, I know, asserted that there is still a deterrent in those cases. She said on July 27 that if it is a policeman who is murdered the person who commits the murder will know that he has committed a murder of exceptional gravity. Will that really be a deterrent to a man with a very bad record who knows that if he is caught he will in any event get a very long term of imprisonment? All he will get, should he be caught after killing, is perhaps a still longer term. She went on to say if it is murder of a prison officer—and I quote her words—the murderer
"knows that his chance of release has gone forever".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 268 (No. 110), col. 1210, July 27, 1965.]
I should like to ask the noble Baroness what authority she has for saying that. I have not noticed that the Home Secretary or any member of the Government has said anything of the sort. If she is right, for murder of a prison officer there will be a life sentence which really means imprisonment for life. She did not say that that would be the effect of the murder of a policeman. Does she regard such a murder as less grave? I hope

547
the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will deal with this point when he comes to reply.
As I understand the Bill, persons who murder policemen and prison warders will be dealt with just like other murderers, and the length of their imprisonment will depend on the decision of the Home Secretary and may well be far less than imprisonment for life. It is quite true that this Bill has been improved by the Amendments moved by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice; but I must confess that I preferred the Amendment he moved and which was carried into the Bill to that which he substituted for it. It is the function of the Judges, in my belief, to decide what is the proper sentence to impose. The only exception to this in the field of serious crime has been where the punishment is death, for it has always in this country been regarded as too heavy a burden to put on a Judge to make him decide whether or not to pass a sentence of death. But now that murder ceases to be capital there is, so far as I can see, no reason at all why Judges should not have power to pass the sentence they think is right for murder just as they do for other serious crimes—for attempted murder, which although the victim does not die, may leave him crippled for life. Once murder is made non-capital, I think it is an invasion of the proper province of the Judges for Parliament to say that in such cases a life sentence must be passed and that it will be for the Executive to say what it really means. I think this is wrong in principle, and that is why I preferred the Amendment first moved by my noble and learned friend Lord Parker of Waddington. It is true that the Judge will have power, as he had without any statutory provision, to say what he thinks a life sentence should mean, but it will still be for the Executive to decide in murder cases what in fact it does mean.
I have said before and said again, and if your Lordships would allow me I should like to repeat, that I have for long been in favour of a substantial relaxation of the rules with regard to release on
548
licence. I should like to see much wider powers for that, and powers exercisable not only in cases of murder; but I should be strongly opposed to the Home Secretary and the Home Office exercising this power on their own. I think it essential that there should be an advisory body, on which the Judiciary should be strongly represented, to advise the Home Secretary after going into all the facts of the case.
It is because I fear the consequences of abolition now that I am opposed to this Bill. Of course it can be said that there never will be a right time for abolition. I do not share that view, and if since the passing of the Homicide Act we had seen no real increase in the annual average of non-capital murders I should myself have been in favour of this Bill. But the annual average of persons murdered where the death penalty has been abolished has risen, as I have said, by 31. I hope my fears as to the effect of this Bill will not be realised, that we shall not see a similar rise in capital murders. If my fears are not realised, I shall not object at the end of the five years' period, nor do I suppose there will be any objection, to this Bill's being made permanent. But if my fears prove true, then indeed some other solution will have to be found. I do not think it means going back to the Homicide Act. Some other attempt at finding a solution will have to be made.
In conclusion, I would say this. As your Lordships know, I have opposed this Bill from start to finish. I oppose it today. But I hate hanging. During my professional career I never attended a murder trial in which I was not professionally engaged, and I hated being engaged in one. But I still believe that we cannot dispense with this terrible punishment now without subjecting a number of people to a greater and serious risk of being murdered, and so I repeat, if there is a Division on this Bill I shall vote with those who vote against it.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think this would be the right moment for me to interrupt Business for the Royal Commission.

SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS
3.50 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, I beg to acquaint the House that a Commission has been issued under Her Majesty's Great Seal to several Lords named therein authorising the said Lords to declare in the name and on behalf of Her Majesty Her Majesty's approbation of the choice of the Commons of the Right Honourable Dr. Horace Maybray King to be their Speaker.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 4 p.m.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.
4.0 p.m.
THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS (THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER), THE VISCOUNT DILHORNE, THE EARL OF LISTOWEL, THE LORD HENDERSON, and THE LORD OGMORE)THE LORDS COMMISSIONERS (THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER), THE VISCOUNT DILHORNE, THE EARL OF LISTOWEL, THE LORD HENDERSON, and THE LORD OGMORE) being seated in front of the Throne, and the Commons, having been sent for, being at the Bar:
MR. SPEAKER-ELECT (DR. HORACE MAYBRAY KING), addressing the Royal Commissioners, said: My Lords, I have to acquaint your Lordships that, in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, Her Majesty's most faithful Commons have, in the exercise of their undoubted rights and privileges, proceeded to the election of a Speaker, and that their choice has fallen upon myself. I now present myself at your Lordships' Bar and submit myself with all humility for Her Majesty's gracious approbation.
The Commission having been read:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Dr. King, we have it in command from Her Majesty to declare Her Majesty's entire confidence in your talents, diligence and sufficiency to fulfil the important duties of the high Office of Speaker of the House of Commons to which you have been
550
chosen by that House; and in obedience to the Commission which has been read, and by virtue of the authority therein contained, we do declare Her Majesty's Royal allowance and confirmation upon you, Sir, as Speaker of the House of Commons.
MR. SPEAKER: My Lords, I submit myself in all humility to Her Majesty's Royal will and pleasure, and if, in the discharge of my duties and in maintaining the rights and privileges of the Commons House of Parliament, I should be led into any inadvertent error, I pray that the blame may be imputed to me alone and not to Her Majesty's faithful House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker and the Commons then retired.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

MURDER (ABOLITION OF DEATH PENALTY) BILL
4.17 p.m.
Debate on Third Reading resumed.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, in an exceptionally large House, after two days of debate, your Lordships voted for the Second Reading of this Bill by 204 to 104—a proportion of 2 to 1; substantially the same as had happened on the Second Reading in another place. One or two noble Lords expressed the hope that the learned Judges would be satisfied about what I may call the release procedure, and, as your Lordships know, Amendments were moved and considered, first in Committee and subsequently on Report stage, and were agreed to. I should have hoped that in those circumstances it might be possible to dispense with a Division of the House on the Third Reading, but of course the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, is fully within his rights in dividing the House upon it. However, I am sure that your Lordships will feel that at this stage I can be extremely short, because I think we have had—and perhaps inevitably—no new arguments at all.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, asked me specifically to ans-

551
wer the question whether it was right that anybody who killed a policeman or a warder would never be released at all. That of course is not so. His case would be treated in the same way as others, bearing in mind, of course, the particular gravity of his crime. The noble Lord, Lord Colyton, dealt almost entirely with public opinion and the public opinion polls. Your Lordships may remember that on the Second Reading debate the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in an obviously well-informed and careful speech, dealt fully with the public opinion poll.
The main argument for those who believe in capital punishment has throughout been—and it is, I believe, the only rational argument for the retention of capital punishment—that it is a much greater deterrent than any other form of punishment, and that therefore if you abolish capital punishment murders will increase. I do not doubt that a great many members of the public who have never had occasion to consider the relevant facts believe that. It has always seemed to me quite natural that they should. The division here is very largely between informed and less-in-formed opinion; but this has always been the main argument. It was on Second Reading, it was in 1956 and it was in 1948. Indeed, if one were to go back to 1748 one would find that this was still the main argument. William York was convicted of murder at Durham Assizes in 1748 during that short period in our legal history when the trial judge had the right himself to respite the death sentence. The Chief Justice, before whom York was tried, was not sure whether that was a proper case in which to exercise the power. He therefore asked the other judges, who met and sent him their views in a memorandum—which is why we know what they said. They said:
"He is a proper subject for capital punishment and ought to suffer. Though the taking away of a life of a boy of ten years old may savour of cruelty, yet as an example this boy's punishment may be a means of deterring other children from like offences; and as the sparing of this boy merely on account of his age will probably have a quite contrary tendency, in justice to the public the law ought to take its course".
This has always been the main argument; and, of course, it is a view which anybody is entitled to hold. But no new
552
point about it has been made to-day. For myself, I am absolutely certain that the existence or non-existence of capital punishment has absolutely no relation at all to the homicide rate. I believe this because from 125 years ago, when we in this country successively abolished capital punishment in the case of over 200 different offences, we have always been told, particularly by the judges, that if we abolished capital punishment from this crime, then this crime would enormously increase, and that if we abolished it from that crime, then that crime would enormously increase. The fact is that at that time there was no subsequent increase in those crimes at all.
Further, I believe it has no relation to the homicide rate because the experience of other countries has been the same—and they are countries of the greatest diversity of geography, of race and of economies. While most of the civilised countries of the world, as your Lordships know, have long abolished capital punishment, there is, I am satisfied, no country in which the abolition of capital punishment has resulted in any increase in murder in that country; and I should think that the experience that we have had since the introduction of the Homicide Act tends to point in that direction. I know one can always argue statistics in different ways. I base my reliance on the simple fact, relied on by Mr. Henry Brooke, that in 1957 we abolished capital punishment 85 per cent. We are now dealing with the 15 per cent. anomaly; and, if capital punishment is a far greater deterrent than any other form of punishment, should we not all have expected that there would be a very substantial increase in the number of murders in the 85 per cent. category from which capital punishment was then removed, and a substantial decrease in the number of murders in the 15 per cent. category for which it was retained? On the contrary, as Mr. Brooke pointed out, there has been no substantial change at all.
Secondly, my Lords, it is my own view that the deliberate putting to death of a man or a woman in cold blood as a punishment for crime is no longer consistent with our own self-respect. Thirdly, I do not believe that fallible human beings are entitled to impose a punishment so irrevocable that, if they find

553
they have made a mistake, they have, by choosing this form of punishment, made it impossible for them to do anything to rectify that mistake. Further, I do not believe that any human being is irredeemable: nor do I believe that any other human being is himself or herself fit to decide that some other human being is not fit to live. Next, I think we ought not to employ people to do that which we would in no circumstances do ourselves. It was a former prison governor of Pentonville Prison who said:
"I never can help asking myself why, when one is called upon to superintend an execution, one should have been affected by such an acute sense of personal shame. There must be something fundamentally wrong with a law which has the effect of lessening the self-respect of those whose duty it is to carry it out".
Lastly, I believe that in a short time the thing which will surprise us will be why we did not do this earlier; why we did not do it at the sort of time when most civilised countries did it: I believe we shall realise for the first time the effect of example. It was one of the representatives of an abolitionist country who said to the Select Committee:
"In my country, the lesson has been learnt that the best way of inculcating respect for human life is for the State itself to refrain from taking life in the name of the law".
My Lords, I believe that that is right, and in expressing the hope that your Lordships' House will pass the Third Reading of this Bill by the same sort of proportion as it passed the Second Reading, I am quite sure that, when the traps have been removed from the prisons, not only shall we be as safe a country but we shall be a much saner and healthier one.
4.28 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I think there is just one addendum that I ought to make to the short list of reminders which I gave in my opening remarks. I think your Lordships need to have in mind that we are not here to discuss the abolition of the death penalty. We are here to discuss the abolition of a number of completely anomalous instances in which the
death penalty has survived after it has been abolished for by far the greater part of crimes that were formerly capital.
Public opinion has been quoted, and I am quite willing to concede to the noble Lord, Lord Colyton, that public opinion is probably against the abolition of the death penalty and that the public opinion polls are as good a reflection of public opinion as we are able to get at present. But if, in the decisions in your Lordships' House, we were to follow the public opinion polls, some very curious results would follow. At present, one of the results would be that noble Lords opposite would be under an obligation to accept any measures that were moved from the Benches on this side of the House. What is much more important is that public opinion is, on this issue, ill-informed; and the young men who brought Lord Colyton their petition also appear to be ill-informed. They were, very understandably, deeply concerned, as we all are, about child murders, but it is a very long time since a child murderer has been hanged, because most child murders are not committed in the course of theft, children are not policemen and children who are murdered are seldom, if ever, shot.
What we are here to do to-day is to remove this differentiation between the murderer who takes sixpence from his victim's pocket and the one who does not—a differentiation which, as the law now stands, is, or may be, a matter of life and death: a differentiation between those who murder by shooting and those who bludgeon their victims to death; and a differentiation which favours the poisoner and allows the person who shoots in hot blood to be hanged. I am sure that when we appreciate that this is what we are deciding, we in this House shall not hesitate to align ourselves with the practice which now prevails in the greater part of the civilised world.
4.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 3ª?
Their Lordships divided: Contents. 169; Not-Contents, 75.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Arran, E.

Addison, V.

Amory, V.

Arwyn, L.

Airedale, L.

Amulree, L.

Asquith of Yarnbury, Bs.

Alport, L.

Archibald, L.

Astor, V.

Attlee, E.

Hankey, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Auckland, L.

Harewood, E.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Harmsworth, L.

Queensberry, M.

Beswick, L.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Raglan, L.

Blackford, L.

Hastings, L.

Rank, L.

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Boothby, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Rea, L.

Boston, L.

Hertford, M.

Reay, L. [Teller.]

Bourne, L.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bowden, L

Hives, L.

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Bowles, L.

Hodson, L.

Robertson of Oakridge, L.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Howard of Glossop, L.

Royle, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Hurcomb, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Brockway, L.

Hurd, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Brook of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Iddesleigh, E.

St. Albans, L. Bp.

Brown, L.

Ilford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Burden, L.

Ingleby, V.

St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich, L.Bp.

Burton of Coventry, Bs.

Kennet, L.

Byers, L.

Killearn, L.

St. Just, L.

Carnock, L.

Lansdowne, M.

Segal, L.

Carrington, L.

Latham, L.

Shackleton, L.

Cawley, L.

Layton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sherfield, L.

Chorley, L.

Lilford, L.

Silkin, L.

Citrine, L.

Lindgren, L.

Simey, L.

Clinton, L.

Listowel. E.

Simonds, V.

Clwyd, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Snow, L.

Cohen, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Soper, L.

Cohen of Brighton, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Sorensen, L.

Coleraine, L.

Luke, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Colgrain, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L.

Stonham, L.

Coventry, L. Bp.

Mabane, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigmyle, L.

McNair, L.

Summerskill, Bs.

Croft, L.

Mancroft, L.

Swanborough, Bs.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Merthyr, L.

Swinton, E.

Devonshire, D.

Meston, L.

Tangley, L.

Dinevor, L.

Milford, L.

Terrington, L.

Dudley, L.

Milford Haven, M.

Thurlow, L.

Effingham, E.

Mitchison, L.

Twining, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Morris of Borth-y-Gest, L.

Wade, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Exeter, L. Bp.

Morrison, L.

Walston, L.

Falmouth, V.

Mottistone, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Foley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Wilberforce, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Willis, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Newton, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Geddes, L.

Norwich, L. Bp.

Wise, L.

Gifford, L.

Norwich, V.

Woolton, E.

Grantchester, L.

Ogmore, L.

Wootton of Abinger, Bs.

Granville-West, L.

Oxford, L. Bp.

York, L. Abp.

Haddington, E.

Parker of Waddington, L.

Ypres, E.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

Phillips, Bs.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailsa, M.

Devonport, V.

Kemsley, V.

Allerton, L.

Digby, L.

Lambert, V.

Ampthill, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Long, V.

Ashbourne, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lovat, L.

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Ellenborough, L.

MacAndrew, L.

Barnby, L. [Teller.]

Erroll of Hale, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Falkland, V.

Merrivale, L.

Bolton, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mersey, V.

Brocket, L.

Forster of Harraby, L.

Middleton, L.

Chesham, L.

Furness, V.

Milverton, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Glasgow, E.

Monsell, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Glendevon, L.

Morton of Henryton, L.

Colwyn, L.

Godber, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Colyton, L. [Teller.]

Goddard, L.

Reith, L.

Coutanche, L.

Greenway, L.

Rockley, L.

Cromartie, E.

Grenfell, L.

Rowallan, L.

Denham, L.

Harris, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Deramore, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Derwent, L.

Ironside, L.

Salisbury, M.

556

557

Saltoun, L.

Stamp, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Shannon, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Waleran, L.

Sinclair of Cleeve, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Willingdon, M.

Somers, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Wolverton, L.

Soulbury, V.

Teynham, L.

Wynford, L.

Stamford, E.

Tucker, L.

Yarborough, E.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Bill read 3ª accordingly, with the Amendments.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Wootton of Abinger.)
VISCOUNT DILHORNE: My Lords, I rise, not to carry on opposition to this Bill, but, despite having been referred to as, and probably being, one of the ill-informed opponents of this Bill, to extend my sincere congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, on the success she has achieved, despite the strongest opposition that we could put forward. I should like also, if I may, to congratulate a Member of another place, Mr. Silverman, and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who together have fought for so many years to bring about this change in the law.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

LONDONDERRY ANTI-SUBMARINE SCHOOL
4.48 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF DEFENCE FOR THE ROYAL AIR FORCE (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to intervene to repeat a Statement which is being made in another place by my honourable friend the Minister of Defence for the Royal Navy on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence, about the future of the Joint Anti-Submarine School at Londonderry. The Statement is as follows:
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary and I"—
that is, the Minister for the Navy—
"have visited this establishment, and we have given long and careful consideration to the representations made to keep this Training School at Londonderry by the Prime Minister and Government of Northern Ireland, the Mayor
558
of Londonderry, the honourable Member for Londonderry and other honourable Members"—
and, perhaps I may add, by noble Lords in this House, in particular, my noble friend, Lord Haire of Whiteabbey.
"Nevertheless, we have come to the conclusion that the advantages in economy and efficiency to be gained by moving the school to Plymouth are so great that they must be accepted. The move will save between £400,000 and £500,000 a year, and will also make available well over 200 officers and ratings for service elsewhere. The rundown will not take full effect for about three years, and during that time, in conjunction with the Government of Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Government will make every effort to bring new employment to the area.
"This was a hard decision to take, because it must break a strong and fruitful link between the Royal Navy and this part of Northern Ireland, and will be a blow to the city and people of Londonderry. Nevertheless, quite apart from the substantial economies I have mentioned, the move will have decisive operational advantages, not only for the Navy but also for the R.A.F."
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for repeating this Statement. The saving he has described in men and money is considerable. I suppose that we can take it that the savings are in absolute terms—that is to say, at least 200 officers and ratings fewer will be employed at Plymouth, for the same result, as are now employed at Londonderry, and also the operational costs at Plymouth, for at least the same result, will be between £400,000 and £500,000 less than at Londonderry. But even if this is conceded, as I assume it is, there is still no reference in the Statement to capital costs. Will the installations to be dismantled at Londonderry have to be re-created from scratch at Plymouth, and, if so, at what capital outlay?

559
I should also be grateful if the noble Lord could be a little more explicit, for the benefit of a landlubber, on the "decisive operational advantages" referred to in his closing words. Can he reassure us on this point—because I understand that the School at Londonderry is held in very high repute by the Services concerned? I am sure that he will have answers to these questions. I put them merely in order to clear my own mind.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all, on the noble Lord's point as to whether good results will be obtained for the money, let me say that very much better results will be obtained for the money. The capital cost will be paid for in the course of one year's saving—in other words, it will come within £500,000. The noble Lord asked for the "urgent operational reasons". This is a fairly complicated subject. The majority of submarines available for this training, and the majority of ships, are in the South, and it has been calculated that this move will save the equivalent of 1½ submarine hulls and 1½ anti-submarine ships in sheer time of passage and convenience. In addition the Anti-Submarine Tactical Trainer is in the south. There are many valid operational reasons why this should be done. I should add that it has been only with the utmost regret that the Government have taken a decision which, in total effect, if we add savings of ships, is probably not £400,000 to £500,000 but £1 million a year.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, having been First Lord of the Admiralty for five years, may I be allowed to pay my tribute to the Joint Anti-Submarine Training School in Londonderry, which was a model of what a school should be and was much envied by the Navies of other nations? It is very sad that it should be closed, but I think that the noble Lord has certainly made out a financial case for doing so.
May I ask the noble Lord three questions? He spoke of "operational advantages", and in answering my noble friend Lord St. Oswald, he spoke of the saving in passage time. My recollection, which of course may be at fault, is that one of the reasons why Londonderry was chosen for the Anti-Submarine School was that it was much nearer deep water. If my
560
recollection is correct, will not that operational disadvantage discount the advantages, whatever they may be? Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether he can tell me where the new School is to be at Plymouth? And, thirdly, could he tell the House how many men and women now employed at the School at Londonderry will find themselves out of a job as a result of this decision?
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: My Lords, my noble friend will hardly expect me to be wild in my welcome of this Statement. I am satisfied that he and the other Ministers concerned have arrived at this serious decision only after the most careful thought and consideration. I am satisfied that only questions of defence costs, and of the economic re-deployment of the forces concerned, and no other social considerations whatever, have led to this decision. The proposal to delay action until 1968 will, of course, be welcome to everyone in Londonderry, and especially to the men concerned. Northern Ireland will surely feel that the axe has not fallen too suddenly and without due notice. The proposals to find alternative employment—
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE EARL OF LONGFORD): My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but we are on questions on the Statement and he is beginning to make a speech.
LORD HAIRE OF WHITEABBEY: My Lords, the proposals to find alternative employment for the men concerned lead me to ask whether new industries have been found for Londonderry in order to provide this new employment; because, clearly, we must give thought to the many men concerned who are, and have for long been, associated with the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force at Londonderry.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, as a Member of your Lordships' House who has visited the Submarine School at Londonderry, may I say that I was highly impressed by the facilities provided for submarine courses and also by the attitude there of the NATO Navy personnel. I should like to ask the noble Lord whether the numbers of NATO personnel which will use these training facilities will be less at Plymouth than they are at Londonderry.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, first of all let me deal with the question of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale. It is up to NATO to make use of these facilities, if they wish. I hope very much that they will desire to continue to make precisely the same use of these facilities when they are at Plymouth. This is a point which has been clearly recognised.
I understand the feeling of my noble friend Lord Haire of Whiteabbey as a Northern Irishman—or Ulsterman, whichever he prefers to be called—on this matter. There is no doubt that the problem of employment is a serious one, and it is strongly recognised by the Government. Clearly, in view of the extremely important defence economies, there is a limitation to the extent to which the Defence Budget should carry what is essentially a social cost, but it is the intention of the Government, as part of their general plans for Northern Ireland, to do their best to bring new employment to Londonderry. But, as my noble friend has said, it will be some time before the run-down is completed.
Dealing with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, certainly the presence of deep water close to Londonderry has been an operational advantage, but I should like to correct him historically. I think I am right in saying this—and my memory of the Anti-Submarine School probably goes back farther than that of the noble Lord—that it was placed in Northern Ireland during the war, when the Western Approaches in that area made an ideal centre, rather than anywhere in the South-West. I remember it when it was the Joint Anti-U-Boat School at Maydown, because the Navy were unable to provide intelligence for their own base and the R.A.F. had to provide it.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I was saying that its closeness to deep water was one of the reasons why the School was kept at Londonderry.
LORD SHACKLETON: I appreciate that. The point raised by the noble Lord has been taken into account, but it is small in comparison to the saving which I exemplified in terms of actual ship-time. I think the argument is that the operational advantages, from the point of view of both the Navy and the R.A.F., and also
562
taking into account NATO requirements, are quite overwhelming.
LORD CARRINGTON: Will the noble Lord answer my other two questions? I asked where the school would be at Plymouth, and also how many men and women would lose their jobs as a result of this decision.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the reason why I did not answer the question about Plymouth is that I do not know the answer.
LORD CARRINGTON: It seems to be quite important.
LORD SHACKLETON: We have two or three years in which to plan. I think that, for the moment, Plymouth is near enough the geographical point. I appreciate that it will be of interest to have this information, and I will let the noble Lord know it.
The number of people whose jobs are at risk is different from the number who actually lose their jobs. The total number of civilians who will be affected in Londonderry is 481, which is a quite considerable number. Of these, 249 are established and will be offered jobs elsewhere in the Government service, possibly in Northern Ireland, in which case they have priority over unestablished civil servants in Northern Ireland. But I should not wish to deceive the House in suggesting that these jobs will necessarily be forthcoming within Northern Ireland. The remaining 232 are unestablished. Whether or not they will be discharged as redundant will depend partly on normal wastage.
LORD ASHBOURNE: My Lords, could the Minister confirm that when the School moves to Devonport its scope and capacity will be roughly the same as it has been at Londonderry over the last fifteen years or so?
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the capacity and scope will be increased. I do not want to press this point, but there is great difficulty at the moment in carrying out the courses they want. The number has been cut from eight to six, and the length of the course has been cut from four to three weeks. We hope to restore the position. Perhaps I should say to the noble Lord that, although we

563
said that the Joint Anti-Submarine School is leaving Northern Ireland, it is not closing down: it will continue with greater efficiency elsewhere.

RENT BILL
5.3 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Rent Bill, has consented to place her interest, so far as it is concerned on behalf of the Crown, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of this Bill.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES (LORD MITCHISON): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3ª.—(Lord Mitchison.)
On Question, Bill read 3ª, with the Amendments.
Clause 14:
Recovery of possession of owner-occupied houses
14.—(1) Where a person who has occupied a dwelling-house as his residence (in this section referred to as the owner-occupier) has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied then if—
(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for the owner-occupier or any member of his family;
the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
LORD HASTINGS LORD HASTINGS moved, in subsection 1(b), to leave out "any member of his family" and to insert:
"his wife or widow or his child (or, if more than one, such of them as may in default of agreement be decided by the court);".
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I know that it is not the normal practice to move Amendments on Third Reading if
564
it can be avoided, but I think these two Amendments are self-explanatory, and it will be quickly understood why they are being moved on this occasion. With regard to the first Amendment, your Lordships will remember that Clause 14 in its original draft allowed an owner-occupier who had occupied a dwelling-house and then had let it unfurnished to recover it by giving notice to the tenant in the way laid down in the clause of his intention to do so, and at the same time allowed any member of his family who had resided with him in that house to recover it also.
We felt on the Committee stage that it was unreasonable to exclude from this right a wife or child of that occupier who had not actually lived in the house. Therefore we cut out the limitation, thereby passing an Amendment against the wish of the Government and allowing any member of his family to reacquire occupation of that house. The noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, resisted that strongly and made great play with his nineteen grandchildren. Later, when I pressed him on the inhumanity, as we thought, of excluding a wife or child from the home of the husband and father because they had not happened to live there, he brought in the difficulties about how you would decide between nineteen children, a curiously reactionary argument which met with strange support from a member of the Liberal Party who does not seem to be with us to-day.
Anyhow, being reasonable people in the official Opposition, we, of course, sought to meet these criticisms, and therefore this Amendment is really improving on what we did on the previous occasion. We are limiting the concession, as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, likes to believe it is, to the wife or widow or the child of the owner-occupier, and, if more than one, such of them as may in default of agreement be decided by the court. By narrowing down this clause we feel that we have met the criticisms raised in Committee. We therefore put forward this Amendment, and as it is an improvement on the previous one I hope that the noble Lord opposite will have no difficulty in accepting it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 10, line 36, leave out from ("or") to end of line 37 and insert the said new words.—(Lord Hastings.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I correct the history a little? What happened in this case was that the original Bill confined the right of possession in these cases to relatives who had lived there with the owner-occupier, and an Amendment was put down by the Opposition which dispensed with the requirement of having lived there and extended the right to any member of the family. It did not need me to tell them that that was not right; they said so themselves and they were quite clear about it. No doubt the Conservative Party is always right, but not necessarily the first time. They have now tried to correct this minor error by limiting the matter a little, applying the right not to all members of the family but to some of them; and the "some", I notice, leaves out various possibilities—a mother, for instance, who has lived there, and so on. On the other hand, the Amendment that is now brought forward was in effect mentioned, and it was on the basis of this Amendment that the argument proceeded in Committee. I am certainly not going to repeat what was then said by way of objection to the original alteration.
On this side of the House, we still think that the original version was right and that the omission of the requirement of having lived there with the owner-occupier was quite wrong, for the reasons that were given at the time. But, so far as this Amendment is concerned, it simply corrects what was in fact a minor error, and, therefore, while in no sense of the word can I accept it, I should certainly not feel justified in suggesting to the House that a Division should take place on the Amendment.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, after Clause 14, to insert the following new clause:
Recovery of possession of dwelinghouse for residence by owner or his widow
.—(1) Where a person has purchased or become the owner of a dwelling-house with vacant possession and intends to occupy it within five years from the date of obtaining vacant possession and has let the dwelling-house on a regulated tenancy and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) of this section are satisfied, then if—

(a) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the dwelling-house; and

(b) the court is satisfied that the dwelling-house is required as a residence for that
566
person or his widow, and the said five years have not elapsed;

the court shall make an order for the possession of the dwelling-house, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Act of 1933, and section 5(2) of the Act of 1920 shall not apply in relation to the order.
(2) The said conditions are—

(a) that not later than the commencement of the tenancy (or if the tenancy was created before the commencement of this Act, not later than six months after the commencement of this Act) the landlord has given notice in writing to the tenant that possession may be recovered under this section; and

(b) that the dwelling-house has not since the commencement of this Act been let by the said person on a regulated tenancy with respect to which the condition mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection was not satisfied."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this new clause is almost identical with the new clause that I moved on the Report stage of the Bill, and somewhat similar to one moved on the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord St. Helens. So this matter has twice been discussed by your Lordships, and discussed fully, and I hope you will not expect me to spend very long this afternoon on rehashing the arguments in support of it. What this new clause broadly amounts to is this. It says that where a man buys a house with vacant possession, or becomes the owner of a house with vacant possession, and intends either to occupy it himself or that, in the event of his death, his wife should occupy it within five years of the date from which he obtained vacant possession, then he shall be able to obtain possession from the court within that five years as a matter of right, provided that at the time of the letting on a regulated tenancy he informed the tenant in writing that he would be recovering possession within the five years.
I think that at every stage in your Lordships' House, and pretty well at every stage in another place, Ministers have said that they accept in principle that exceptional treatment should be given to the man who wishes to buy a house for his retirement. The object of this new clause is to meet the case of purchase for retirement. At the same time, Ministers have always gone on to say that, although they accept it in principle, they have not been able to find a satisfactory way of carrying it out. It is my submission this afternoon, as it has been my submission

567
before, that we have found, if not perhaps the best way of doing it, at any rate a perfectly adequate way of doing it. When we find what we consider is a good way of doing it, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, objects that to do this violates the principle enshrined in the Rent Acts that it should be for the courts to determine where the balance of hardship lies between the owner and the tenant.
There are two answers to this objection of the noble Lord. The first is this—and I have made this point before. In Clause 14, which we have just been discussing and which deals with recovery of possession by owner-occupiers—incidentally, the Government's own clause—the Government themselves admit that in the particular cases dealt with by Clause 14 it is right that there should be no question of considering any possible hardship to the tenant. So in this new clause we are not seeking to write a precedent into the Bill. The second answer to the objection of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, is this. If the Government really mean what they say—and I am sure they do, because they have said so often, and with great sincerity, that they would accept the principle that it is right to treat exceptionally the man who purchases a house for his retirement—then it follows from that as a matter of simple logic that consideration cannot be given to any possible hardship to the tenant. You cannot say, on the one hand, that the court shall decide where the balance of hardship lies and, at the same time, that you accept in principle that the man who buys a house for retirement should be exceptionally treated.
The other main objection which the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, has made to this clause is that it goes too wide. Theoretically, it certainly covers more than the man who buys a house for his retirement within a period of five years of obtaining vacant possession, and it must do so for this simple reason. As I know, and as the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, knows, it is not possible to write into this new clause or, indeed, into the Bill at all, the notion of retirement, because the word "retirement" is not capable of sufficiently accurate definition. But your Lordships may recall or, at any rate, I think the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, will, that at the
568
Report stage the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, pointed out in a most persuasive speech in support of my new clause that there are equally deserving cases, in his judgment—and I would agree with him—which this new clause may take care of: cases which are just as deserving as that of the man who buys a house against his retirement.
They are, first, the man who has to go abroad for a few years because of his employment and wants to have a home to come back to when he returns to this country. Secondly, there is the case of a man in one of the Armed Services who knows that in two, three or four years' time he is going to retire, not from work, but from his service in the Navy, Army or Air Force, and again wants to have a home in which he and his family can live. I think that is really all I need say in commending this new clause once again to your Lordships' House.
It was apparent to me, at any rate, when I last moved this new clause on the Report stage that it found favour with every noble Lord present—with the exception, of course, of the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison—irrespective of where the noble Lords were sitting in the Chamber. I withdrew the new clause on that occasion, rather reluctantly, for two reasons. The first was that I hoped that the noble Lord would accede to the request made to him by his noble friend Lord Silkin that between the Report stage and Third Reading he would think yet again about this matter and try to put down his own form of words which would meet the object which I think he has at heart just as much as I have.
A further reason why I hoped the noble Lord would do that is that I do not imagine the drafting of this new clause is perfect, but it is the best that my noble friend Lord Hastings and I can do. The other reason why I withdrew my Amendment at the Report stage was simply that, although I was in no doubt that if I had pressed it to a Division there would have been a majority of your Lordships voting in support of the new clause, I doubted whether we had a quorum. If your Lordships remember, it was the last day's Sitting before the Summer Recess. If there had not been a quorum, even though the majority had

569
been in favour of the new clause, that would have been the end of the day's proceedings on the Report stage of the Rent Bill and therefore if I had instigated anything like that I should have been in breach of an understanding which had been reached through the usual channels. However, I am under no such compunction this afternoon. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 14, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I envy, but suspect a little, the divining powers of the noble Lord, Lord Newton, who was able to say that everybody in the Chamber supported his new clause when he last brought it forward. It is quite true that my noble friend Lord Silkin and I did not agree on this matter, and I dare say we still do not agree—I do not know—but let us see exactly what is happening. Here is a group of three or four clauses which produce particular exceptions in favour of the landlord and entitle him to get possession in certain circumstances. To that group an addition is sought to be made. It is to follow immediately on one which deals with the recovery of possession of owner-occupied houses. Owner-occupation is the reason why the Government have put that clause in. It is the absence of that fact about which we have been complaining in connection with the previous Amendment. This is an entirely different matter. Here it is sought to bring in people who need never have occupied the house at all, but certainly were not occupying it at the time in question, and clearly again this is not a case of ministers of religion or persons employed in agriculture; it is something entirely new.
The position is that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, is perfectly correct if he says that my right honourable friend in another place and I here expressed sympathy with the wish to deal especially with cases of retirement, but we both said that we found great difficulty in devising suitable machinery, and in fact we have not found it. Whether one can be said to accept something in principle when what one says is, "I sympathise much with the intention but I do not see how to carry it out" is a matter of language with which I need not trouble your Lordships at this hour. I have looked at it
570
again and I am still unable to see how to carry it out. What I am quite clear about is that the clause proposed here, which incidentally does not mention retirement at all—does the noble Lord wish to say something?
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, what I said under my breath was that we know that, and I went to great pains in my speech to explain exactly why the word does not occur.
LORD MITCHISON: Then we can proceed from there: whatever else it does, the clause does not mention retirement. What it does is to give a man who has bought a house and who is not expected to have occupied it, and it gives certain relatives of that man also, the right to get into the house as a resident; a right against the tenant who is there at the moment; a right to be exercised on notice and within five years. The conditions of exercising the right, other than those I have already mentioned, consist in the satisfaction of the court that the dwelling-house is required as a residence and—a very vague one—that at sometime or another, there was an intention to occupy it. That is what we are asked to accept as a provision.
I am not quite clear what the merits of this clause are, and that is what troubles me. It is agreed that it goes infinitely beyond the case of the man who retires. I should have thought it might easily lead to people making a practice of getting a notice of this kind. I do not quite know when they are supposed to have the intention, thereby creating the right to use the clause at a later stage. But what is the real purpose and object of it? I listened carefully to the noble Lord's speech, and if it is agreed that this is not just a question of retirement, what is the reason for putting forward this clause at all? I should understand it if there were no provision at all bearing on this case, but in effect we are being asked to say that the provision that occurs in paragraph (h) of the First Schedule to the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933 is insufficient, and we are asked to give to the landlord in this particular case rights which are far more extensive than those already given by that paragraph.
I think I ought just to remind your Lordships what that paragraph says. It

571
is at the end of the First Schedule to the 1933 Act and it provides for recovery of possession where the dwelling-house is reasonably required by the landlord, and then there is a limitation of date, the limitation now being the date when this particular Bill was introduced, because that is by an Amendment in this Bill; and then it goes on to say
"for occupation as a residence for—

(i) himself; or

(ii) any son or daughter of his over eighteen years of age; or

(iii) his father or mother:

Provided that an order or judgment shall not be made or given … if the Court is satisfied that having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the question whether other accommodation is available for the landlord or the tenant, greater hardship would be caused by granting the order or judgment than by refusing to grant it."
That is a well-tried provision which is intended to deal with this type of case. It has been in existence now for over thirty years. What does this proposed clause seek to do? What it seeks to do is, first of all, to omit the discretion of the court not to make an order if it thinks it would be unreasonable to do so. That is in all these rent cases, although I did not actually read it out. Secondly, it seeks to omit the question whether the landlord's requirement is reasonable; and, thirdly, to omit the question of greater hardship.
These are all matters which fall to be decided by the courts, and what in fact is happening in this case is that the new clause seeks to deprive the tenant of the protection of the court, and only the tenant. This is in fact a landlord's clause if ever there was one. It is so widely drawn that it could be applied in a large number of cases. The provision in the 1933 Act will be of little or no practical use afterwards because people will proceed on this new provision, the whole object of which is to deprive the tenant of the protection of the court. That is as I see it. I may be wrong, but if that is the position I say to your Lordships that this is a most remarkable attitude to take up. I always thought we were all agreed that in cases of this kind these questions of recovery of possession of a house were bound to involve human factors; there were bound to be different circumstances in different cases, and for those reasons it was right to leave, as
572
there had always been left, a wide ambit to the discretion of the court. Questions of what is reasonable, of where the greater hardships lie, are, I suggest, matters which the court ought to be allowed to consider, and not forbidden to consider, as in effect this clause provides. This clause really enjoins on the court to let the landlord in, being a landlord who has not himself ever occupied the house, who has bought or has acquired it in some way or other and requires it as a residence for himself or members of his family.
I suggest that in the present housing conditions, and indeed in the housing conditions we have had for twenty or thirty years past, to put in such a provision is bound to cause considerable hardship to a considerable number of tenants. I would again suggest that it is unworthy of Parliament in those circumstances to consider that this is a better alternative than the provision which already exists in the 1933 Act. There is no doubt where the political majority lies in this House, but I say to your Lordships that in my humble opinion it will be a discreditable thing if we seek by this particular clause to deprive tenants all over the country of the protection of the courts in the manner I have indicated, because that is the effect of the proposed clause.
LORD NEWTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, said that it would be discreditable for this House to insert this new clause in the Bill. Is it not also rather discreditable for the noble Lord to come down here now and plead the wrongfulness of this new clause, on the ground that it includes a possible hardship to the tenant, when time and time again Ministers in both Houses of Parliament have said they accept in principle that it is right to put the man who wishes to purchase a house for his retirement in a favourable position? One cannot maintain both these things at the same time.
Unfortunately I did not bring with me all the relevant Hansards, but I have one here and I will just remind the noble Lord what he said about this in Report stage:
"I think we are all agreed that if we could provide for the case of a man who buys a house with a view to retiring shortly into it, we would do so. My right honourable friend certainly said it quite clearly in another place; I repeated it here, and I have repeated it again to-day."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 269, (No. 116), col. 446, August 5, 1965.]
LORD MITCHISON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. He knows quite well that this was with reference to retirement, as was what my right honourable friend said. We both used the same language: that we were sympathetic to the idea but did not believe it could be carried out. This clause goes far beyond it.
LORD NEWTON: The reason it goes beyond it, as I have already explained to your Lordships, is that it is intended to deal with the retirement case. The noble Lord said that he was uncertain what our purpose was. It is to deal with the case
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.42 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass. I
of the man who purchases a house for his retirement. But, as the noble Lord, knows, it is not possible to narrow the clause by writing in references to retirement; it cannot be done. We could go on debating this matter for ever. I do not think the noble Lord and I are any nearer than we have ever been, so I must now ask your Lordships to decide between us.
5.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-contents, 56.

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Devonshire, D.

Long, V.

Allerton, L.

Digby, L.

Lothian, M.

Alport, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Luke, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Mancroft, L.

Ampthill, L.

Eccles, V.

Margadale, L.

Auckland, L.

Effingham, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Barnby, L.

Elliot of Harwood, Bs.

Mersey, V.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, Bs.

Morrison, L.

Boston, L.

Falkland, V.

Newton, L.

Brooke of Ystradfellte, Bs.

Ferrers, E.

Reading, M.

Carrington, L.

Fortescue, E.

Redesdale, L.

Chesham, L.

Glasgow, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Clinton, L.

Glendevon, L.

St. Helens, L.

Colgrain, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Conesford, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St. Oswald, L.

Coutanche, L.

Harris, L.

Somers, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Hastings, L.

Strange of Knokin, Bs.

Craigton, L.

Hertford, M.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Crathorne, L.

Horsbrugh, Bs.

Teynham, L.

Cromartie, E.

Ilford, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Inglewood, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Derwent, L.

Lambert, V.

Wolverton, L.

Yarboroueh, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Addison, V.

Hilton of Upton, L.

Royle, L.

Airedale, L.

Hives, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Amulree, L.

Hobson, L. [Teller.]

Segal, L.

Arwyn, L.

Hurcomb, L.

Shepherd, L.

Beswick, L.

Iddesleigh, E.

Simey, L.

Blyton, L.

Latham, L.

Snow, L.

Bowden, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sorensen, L. [Teller.]

Brockway, L.

Lilford, L.

Southwark, L. Bp.

Burden, L.

Lindgren, L.

Stonham, L.

Champion, L.

Listowel, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Chorley, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Strang, L.

Cohen of Brighton, L.

Longford, E. (L. Privy Seal.)

Summerskill, Bs.

Francis-Williams, L.

Mitchison, L.

Wade, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Walston, L.

Gardiner, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Nathan, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Peddie, L.

Williams, L.

Granville-West, L.

Phillips, Bs.

Willis, L.

Haire of Whiteabbey, L.

Plummer, Bs.

Winterbottom, L.

Henderson, L.

Rea, L.

think it would be appropriate if I were to say a few words—and only a few words—about the Bill as a whole. We have I think, in general, on both sides of the House, been agreed that something was required. I think I might go rather

575
further and say that this Bill was a courageous venture—for that word was used three times on the Second Reading. I hope that I may go yet a little further, and say that a great deal of it, at any rate, is good. The reason why noble Lords opposite regarded it as courageous, I feel, was that the Bill involved in some cases an increase of existing controlled rents, and they thought that that was beyond the brief of the Labour Party.
But the real courage of the Bill, it seems to me, is that for the first time it does not propose the idea of control of rents by reference to rateable value, by reference to a percentage increase or something of that sort, but founds it on the judgment of men who have some knowledge of the right sort of amount that the rent ought to be; because, great as is my respect for a valuer, that is probably the way in which a great many of them are hound to face it.
When this question became clear in the course of discussion on Second Reading a number of noble Lords opposite expressed some doubt as to whether the Bill could be put into operation fast enough to exclude what might well be a most inconvenient gap. I am trying to put this fairly to all sides concerned, and I said at the time—I gave the House a formal assurance—that we would indeed proceed with it as rapidly as possible. Perhaps I may take the opportunity today of saying a word or two on how things are moving.
First of all, the Greater London Rent Assessment Panel will be given responsibility for the whole of Greater London and the complexity of its housing problem. But most important, I think, in the meantime—and I believe that a public announcement has already been made on this matter—is the fact that most distinguished persons have agreed to serve on it. The President is to be Sir Sydney Littlewood, who is a Past President of the Law Society. The Vice-Presidents will include Professor Donnison, who is a Professor of Social Science and Administration at the London School of Economics, and was a member of the Milner Holland Committee. There is another member of the Milner Holland Committee, in the person of Mr. Pilcher, who is a chartered surveyor and Past-President of the Royal Institution of Chartered
576
Surveyors; and then a former Deputy Chief Valuer of the Valuation Office of the Department of Inland Revenue, Mr. J. J. Edwards. I cannot imagine a more distinguished and suitable body for the purpose than those gentlemen. We propose soon to issue invitations to prospective London Panel members—that is to say, the people who will be serving under the President and Vice-Presidents in dealing with the machinery of the Bill.
The question of the rent officer service is also being considered. Noble Lords will remember that the rent officers have a new function under the Bill. They are, as it were, the equivalent of conciliators in industrial disputes rather than a tribunal of any sort. We shall require about a hundred or so in London and two to three hundred in other parts of the country. Applications have already been received for many times the number required in London, though we have not yet proceeded towards getting applications in other parts of the country. I think it right to mention the proposed salaries so as to give the House an idea of the type and status of person we are looking for. The salary will be from £1,495 to £1,745, with an additional allowance of £250 for senior rent officers. Outside London the salaries will be the same, less the London weighting—the usual allowance that is made for the extra expense of living in London. The Bill is not yet law and we could not have gone any further than we have gone already; but I think it is fairly clear that London at any rate will get under way quickly, and there is every reason to believe that the other parts of the country will follow pretty quickly, probably beginning with the West Midlands.
As regards Scotland, here again the proceedings are not quite so far advanced as they are in London, but it is intended to appoint rent officers and rent assessment committees early in the New Year in the four cities in Scotland, the large burghs. There have been informal consultations about that, and there will be statutory consultations as provided in the Bill as soon as it is enacted. There will follow consultations with the other large burghs and counties. In general, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State expects the system to be in operation for most of Scotland in the early part of next year. My Lords, I apologise for

577
having taken a long time to deal with this, but the House really was interested in the possibilities of getting it moving as quickly as possible. If I have not given any great detail, it really is because one cannot say much more than I have said; but I hope that the House will take this as an indication that we are really trying to get a move on.
I do not think I need say any more, except that one is allowed on this sort of occasion to say "Thank you" to all noble Lords who, through varying points of view, some of them most critical of some parts of the Bill, have nevertheless made constructive—I hope I do not sound as if I am arrogating to myself any right to say this; I do not so intend—criticisms of the Bill. I am most grateful to them. I apologise for all my own deficiencies, which have been numerous, some detected by noble Lords opposite and others not detected. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Mitchison.)
5.50 p.m.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a few moments at this late stage of the Bill. First of all, perhaps I might express my own thanks to the noble Lord for the information which he has just given us about the arrangements which are being made for bringing this Bill into operation.
There are two matters which I should like to put to your Lordships and to the Government. Both are matters which can be appropriately discussed at this late stage of our proceedings. First of all, this is undoubtedly an exceedingly obscure Bill. I do not in my experience recall a Bill of greater obscurity or complexity. Clause 1 itself is a masterpiece of legislation by reference. It presents the greatest difficulties of construction. I am not complaining of the draftsmanship; in some ways the draftsmanship is a model of the Parliamentary draftsman's art. It is the complexity of the subject matter of the Bill which makes it so difficult to put it into simple and straightforward language. But it is unfortunate that a Bill of this nature should be a Bill which is expressed in such an obscure fashion. This Act will affect hundreds of modest homes in all parts of the country. It will affect the comfort and the happiness of thousands of persons, landlords as well as tenants. This Act will
578
have to be interpreted to these people by their solicitors, by house agents, estate agents and so on. I desire to make no reflection on the small solicitor, but most of the solicitors who have to advise on this Bill are not the sort of solicitors who are accustomed to deal with complicated legislation. It may well be that they will find it difficult to appreciate what this Bill is all about. I confess I had to read it several times myself before I began to understand it.
My recollection goes back a long way in these matters. I remember the Act of 1920, which was the consolidation Act passed at the end of the First World War. In those days I was in active practice at the Bar and was very glad to go down to the county court and argue a point on the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act for a modest fee of three guineas, which was the fee I commanded in those days. At the same time I used to go to what in those days was called a "poor man's lawyer centre" and give advice, mainly on rent questions, to persons who were not able to pay for advice. At times I am appalled when I think of the misery I must unwittingly have caused by the unsound advice I gave to those unfortunate people. I am quite sure that we are going to find this Act even more difficult to construe than the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920.
It seems to me that this Bill is a most suitable Bill for reference to the Lord Chancellor's new Law Commissioners. I believe that at an earlier stage of the Bill something was said about referring the Bill to the Commissioners for early consolidation. I should like to ask the Government for an assurance that this Bill will in fact go to the Commissioners at an early stage for consolidation. Consolidation is not going to be an easy task and it will take some time for the work to be done. I hope that the Government will be able to refer this legislation to the Commissioners at an early stage so that it may be put into a form in which it will be more readily understood by those who have to interpret it.
There is one other matter to which I should like to refer. The Bill provides no appeal from the rent assessment committees. In my experience every tribunal works better if there is an appeal

579
from its decisions. Only your Lordships' House and the most humble and modest tribunals are free from the operation of appeal tribunals. I am quite sure that these rent assessment committees will do their work much better if they know that their decisions will be subject to appeal. It may well be that provisions relating to appeals from these committees have been omitted from the Bill because it is possible, under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958, to extend the provisions of that Act to tribunals which are set up by legislation passed subsequently to the Act, as these tribunals will be. As I understand the Act of 1958, the Lord Chancellor in conjunction with the Secretary of State may direct that the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958 should apply to the decisions of the rent assessment committees. In that way there will be an effective appeal on a question of law to the tribunals set up under the Act of 1958. I hope that we may have some assurance from the Government that this matter will be considered and that the Act of 1958 will be applied to this Bill at an early stage.
If I may indulge in reminiscence again for one moment, I remember when the Act of 1920 came out how difficult it was to give anybody any positive advice. Indeed, when the Court of Appeal began to receive the appeals and to appreciate the circumstances in which they came to them—because most of the persons engaged in this litigation are not in a position to go to the Court of Appeal and there were no legal aid provisions in those days—and realised the importance of clarifying this legislation, they in a short time succeeded in clearing up most of the outstanding obscurities in the Act of 1920. It has always seemed to me that the Court of Appeal of those days did not receive the credit which they deserved for the manner in which they took this legislation in hand and made something workable and understandable out of an obscure and difficult piece of legislation. I hope that to-night we may have an assurance that this matter of appeal has not been overlooked and that it is intended to apply to the rent assessment committee under this Bill the provisions of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1958.
6.0 p.m.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, we did, of course, give this Bill a Second Reading, but on that occasion we pointed out that it was good only in parts. I had the impression on Second Reading that the Government spokesman thought the Bill was so good that it would be very difficult to improve upon it at all, but in fact we discussed 84 Amendments during the Committee stage and 32 more on the Report stage. More than 40 of those were the Government's own Amendments, so it is clear that this House had a task to perform, and that we performed it well. Of the other Amendments, nearly 70, which were put down by the official Opposition, I regret to say that, to the best of my memory, only one was willingly agreed to by the noble Lords opposite, and that another four or five we have had to pass against the wishes of the Government.
The noble Lord was kind enough to refer to our constructive attitude but, apparently, he did not think it was all that constructive when it came to the vote. I am reminded of the London Government Bill, of which both my noble friend Lord Newton and I were leading protagonists on the Government side. On that occasion, of 80 Amendments of real substance which were passed during the Committee stage, and of many more consequential ones, no fewer than 30 were put forward by the Opposition, the Labour Party, and were accepted by us.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD CHAMPION): But they were good Amendments.
LORD HASTINGS: When we compare our attitude towards their Amendments I find that this reflects little credit on the Government's attitude during the passage of this Bill. I am afraid that perhaps their intelligence was not quite up to the enlightenment shown by us when the positions were reversed.
The noble Lord referred to the fact that we had mentioned that this is a courageous Bill. Of course we did; but only in two respects, one of which he mentioned: that the controlled statutory rents will eventually become regulated ones, and the rents will go up. The second, of course, was because the Bill

581
did not propose the repeal of the 1957 Rent Act to the extent which the electorate had been led to believe. In those respects only is it a courageous Bill. But, that said, of course there is a lot of good in it. We have said that before, and we say it again. There are still many things in it that we do not like, and we do not know how this Bill will work, but we hope that it will work well.
We are grateful to the noble Lord for giving us information about the progress already being made. I am not quite sure about the propriety of taking these anticipatory steps before the Bill becomes law, because I remember, again in the case of the London Government Bill, being taken very heavily to task—I think by the late-lamented Lord Morrison of Lambeth, and possibly by others—because our Government dared to prepare the tremendous changes which had to take place in the government of London before the Bill actually became law. But, again, being efficient and enlightened, of course we entirely applaud the action that the present Government have taken on this occasion.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I think that if this suggestion went into circulation without correction it might do some harm. If the noble Lord will look at HANSARD, he will find that I did not mention, in effect, anything of substance that had already been done. What was referred to was by way of preparation; for example, the number of gentlemen who were going to serve, the number of applications which had been received, and the number of informal consultations to be followed by statutory ones. That kind of thing, I should have thought, was permissible, correct and in the present circumstances required, and I earnestly hope that the Opposition, having urged us to get on with the Bill just as quickly as we could, are not now going to say "Not quite so fast."
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I was not saying anything of the sort. I was pointing out to the noble Lord only that those were the sort of measures we took with regard to the London Government Bill, and that the attitude on this occasion is somewhat different. Of course, on Second Reading the noble Lord said that this is not a Bill to provide more houses, and that is quite true. Unfortunately, it is
582
not a Bill, either, to provide more houses for rent and that is much more important. As my noble friend Lord Newton said on Second Reading, this Bill is unfortunately going to have the effect of making fewer houses available for rent in the private field, but we understand, of course, that this is the Government's wish and that they do not believe that the private landlord has a part to play in the future. It is interesting that there are two members of the Milner Holland Committee on the Kent Assessment Panel, for that Committee thought that the private landlord had a great part to play, if we were going to solve the problem in London at all. But be that as it may—
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord again, but he really must not say I said that. I never said anything of the sort. I have never suggested that the private landlord had no part to play.
LORD HASTINGS: My Lords, I hope I did not say that the noble Lord had himself said that. I was referring to the Government, and I think we shall find on reference back that that sort of thing has been said or indicated by the noble Lord's right honourable friend. However, we must not make too much of that. The fact is that the Government believe that the problem of rentable housing is to be solved by the local authorities. Of course, we are expecting to hear about that in the future, and it will affect the whole field of subsidies. I am just pointing out that this Bill does not really help the provision of houses for rent, and in the private landlord field it will, I am afraid, prove a handicap.
With that said, I should again like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, and the noble Lord, Lord Champion, also, for dealing so thoroughly, though sometimes unwillingly, with our large number of Amendments, and of course for their courtesy. My noble friend Lord Ilford has pointed out the great obscurity of the Bill, and I remember that both noble Lords on one occasion at least, having given one interpretation of a clause, found that they were wrong. Therefore, human fallibility being what it is, we cannot expect too much, even of the Labour Government. But I thank the noble Lords for their courtesy. I am only too glad to admit that the

583
noble Lord, Lord Mitchison, who has taken on the greater burden of this task, has been courteous and a worthy battle foe. I detected a slight disappointment in him this afternoon when, shortly before we came into this Chamber, he told me that he had been reading a book on the Vikings and he felt quite sure, partly, I think, as a result of my behaviour during the passage of this Bill, that I must be the direct descendant of one of the more ferocious of the Vikings named Hasting. Unfortunately, that is not so, but I am glad to know that the noble Lord considered that I also was a worthy opponent. That said, we shall be relatively glad, though not entirely happy, to allow this Bill to pass.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I just reply to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ilford, about the Law Commission? The noble Lord will remember that under the Law Commissions Act the Law Commission has to prepare its programme, it is then for the Minister—in the case of the main Commission the Lord Chancellor—to approve the programme, and the programme has then to be laid before Parliament. I shall not, I hope, be disclosing anything I should not if I say that both Law Commissions have already produced their programme, and I have already approved the programme for the main Law Commission. Not being either a Statutory Instrument or a Command Paper, it could not be laid before Parliament when Parliament was not sitting, but if the noble Lord will wait for 48 hours I think he will find that his question is answered. It would not, of course, be proper for me to say which way it will be answered, but I think he will find that it is answered, and I hope to his satisfaction.
LORD ILFORD: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for that informa-
584
tion. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord could give me some assurance about the other matter, the intention of applying the Act of 1958.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should hope that my noble friend Lord Mitchison will reply to that point.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I be allowed, in mercy, to look at the point in Hansard, and to write to the noble Lord about it? I do not remember it with sufficient accuracy, I am ashamed to admit. The noble Lord's speech was such an exciting one that I forgot parts of it; but I will write to him on the point.
On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.