Lords Sitting of 2 April 1968

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

CONCORDE AIRCRAFT
2.36 p.m.
LORD TREFGARNE: 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 when they expect:

(a) the French-built Concorde prototype to make its first flight;

(b) the British-built Concorde prototype to make its first flight;

(c) the Concorde to receive its Public Transport Certificate of Airworthiness.]

LORD BESWICK: My Lords, both Concordes are Anglo-French, containing exactly the same British and French components. The manufacturers will be making a statement about a revised first flight date of the Toulouse-assembled Concorde. The first flight of the Bristol-assembled Concorde remains planned for September, 1968. The grant of a Certificate of Airworthiness is planned for 1971, in time for deliveries to the airlines to begin before the end of that year.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply. Can he say whether there is any possibility or likelihood of the French-built prototype not being completed until after the date the British-built prototype is expected to fly?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I do not understand the question. Both aircraft use exactly the same components. There is no question of any race between the two; and I think it is a mistake to suggest that there is.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, would not the noble Lord be prepared to go a
1178
little further and say that this suggestion, this implication, to which my noble friend has drawn attention, that this is a race rather than an effort in co-ordination between two countries, is entirely deplorable? Would he also answer this second supplementary question? Would he clarify what was apparently a conflict of views or attitudes expressed between the spokesmen in Filton and Toulouse a few weeks ago?—for it is of concern to those of us who are interested in this project.
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. Naturally, the Press pick on what appears to be a conflict, and they like to exaggerate it. Without being too unkind to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, I would say that it is mischievous in any way to suggest that one set of people assembling components in Bristol are having a race with another set of people assembling the same components in Toulouse. If there are any modifications of components, it is planned that the French will have them first. There can be, in these circumstances, absolutely no question of a race.
The noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, asked about statements which have been made by representative people in both France and Britain appearing to criticise their respective partners. The fact is that the French Minister of Transport made a statement which was inaccurately reported and which his office quite definitely corrected the following day. There was another statement by Dr. Russell in this country which, he later explained, was made in joke. I, and others, thought it a poor joke; he should understand the way in which these things are picked up by the Press.
LORD MERRIVALE: My Lords, would the noble Lord care to comment on what seemed to be the rather regrettable attitude contained in an article by Mr. Jack Prosser in the Evening Standard yesterday to the effect that the Concorde may be a costly flop?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, I read the article, and my attitude to it is this. I have myself in years gone by criticised the supersonic concept. I can understand criticism of a project, saying that we should not have it; I can understand agreement that we should go on with it. What I cannot understand is that, having

1179
decided to go on with a project, people should then spend all their time in criticising it.
LORD TREFGARNE: My Lords, while accepting the strictures of the noble Lord about creating discord over the Concorde, may I ask him what was the purpose of the statement by the French authorities—I do not think it is one of those that they subsequently withdrew—complaining that the auto-pilot had been delivered late?
LORD BESWICK: My Lords, my own impression was that this was covered in the statement which the French Minister of Transport had made. The fact was that there was a change of specification. Instead of having an American auto-pilot, the decision was to have a British autopilot. There was, consequently, some delay in the original date for the delivery of this piece of equipment; but the decision to change the specification was an Anglo-French one. There can therefore be absolutely no question of one side blaming the other.

NIGERIAN CIVIL WAR: PEACE EFFORTS
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 consideration has been given to the proposal by Colonel Ojukwu that a Britisher should go to Nigeria to explore the conditions for a settlement of the civil war.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, I understand that in a letter to certain Members of both Houses of Parliament Colonel Ojukwu suggested that what was needed was
"a fairminded man prepared to go to both sides and listen to both arguments"
and then report back to Parliament. Her Majesty's Government have themselves received no similar communication; they still believe that the Commonwealth Secretary-General, Mr. Arnold Smith, is particularly well placed to help the Nigerians reach a solution of their
1180
problems. Mr. Arnold Smith is in touch with both sides and his fairmindedness is not open to question. We continue to give him our full support.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, while endorsing everything the Minister has said about Mr. Arnold Smith and the efforts he is making, may I ask whether, if it is not possible to send a Britisher for this purpose, Her Majesty's Government could suggest to Mr. Arnold Smith that someone else might be found from the Commonwealth—perhaps from an African country—who would try to bring this terrible war to an end?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fully share—and I am sure noble Lords on all sides share—the noble Lord's concern for bringing this bloody war to an end. I do not think there is any doubt that Mr. Arnold Smith in the Commonwealth Secretariat is well placed, perhaps better placed than any person I can think of, for bringing the two sides together at a peace table. I should have thought that in the circumstances it would be far better that we should leave this matter in his capable hands, rather than send someone else, because someone else would still need to be accepted by both sides. It would be far better to put our trust in Mr. Arnold Smith and not run the risk of crossing the wires.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to repeat that I have tremendous confidence in Mr. Arnold Smith in connection with this matter and with all that he is doing, but Her Majesty's Government is part of the Commonwealth and is associated with the Commonwealth Secretariat. Is it not therefore desirable that Her Majesty's Government should not merely accept what Mr. Arnold Smith is doing, but should encourage him by making suggestions of this kind? Is he aware, for example, that for the first time the International Catholic organisation and the World Council of Churches have both urged intervention to bring this terrible war to an end, and will Her Majesty's Government give the fullest support to all the efforts that are being made?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I have said on a number of occasions that we will give all support to any possibility, from wherever it may come, to bring

1181
this bloody war to an end. I think we must accept that while we are part of the Commonwealth we are not the Commonwealth—the Commonwealth has changed very considerably from what it was in the early days after the war. Nigeria is an independent country and therefore we have no special standing in this matter. I believe that it would be better to leave this to Mr. Arnold Smith. But I will say this to my noble friend: if either party in the conflict in Nigeria were to write to Her Majesty's Government with proposals by which it would be possible to bring both parties to the table, we should be most ready to see that such a communication was not only considered but passed on in the hope that it would bring both sides to the conference table.
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am grateful for that suggestion.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord what methods of communication we have at this moment with Colonel Ojukwu?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will be aware that we have unfortunately, and through no fault of ours, no direct communication through our own officials with those in Biafra, although of course we are in close contact with the Government of Nigeria. As the noble Lord knows and I believe other noble Lords will be aware, there are a number of people in London who claim to have some connection with the Biafra Government. To what extent they are official connections or express what is the genuine wish of the Biafra Government it is difficult to discover.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he is prepared to use his great influence in order to discourage the use of the deplorable American word "Britisher"?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I fail to see how that arises from this Question.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that one of the best contributions Her Majesty's Government could make for peace would be to cease selling arms to either of the sides involved?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, my noble friend must be aware that this matter has been raised on a number of occasions and I cannot add to what I have said in answer to previous questions. There is a legal Government in Nigeria and we are under a moral commitment to support the legal Government of Nigeria. We have limited our sale of arms to those arms which they bought under more peaceful conditions. But I do not believe that to take a unilateral action with regard to one side in the conflict, particularly that of the legal Government, would bring peace any nearer, because arms could be bought front anywhere. What really matters is bringing both sides to the conference table.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I agree with the last part of what my noble friend said. Is he aware that the argument that other people will supply arms if we do not is equally applicable to the statement that was made about South African arms?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, this is a very wide question, but I say to my noble friend that it is one to which we have given the deepest consideration. We feel that since there is a legal Government in Nigeria, a country within the Commonwealth, there is an obligation on us to support it in terms of its military purchases. But that does not mean that we take a one-sided view. We are determined to do all we possibly can to bring both sides to the conference table.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I do not wish to be in conflict in any way with the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on this matter. May I draw his attention to the phrase he used, that we have no special standing in this matter? Impeccable as that phrase is, it could in fact be falsely interpreted, and although we have no special power of seniority in the Commonwealth the fact of our being the Mother Country may mean that other countries look to us for guidance and I am sure that he would be the last to wish that we reject that suggest on.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, all I can say to the noble Lord is that I think he should look at what I said in reply in the context of the question that my noble friend put to me. We do have a

1183
special position within the Commonwealth to one extent, but we are not the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is of all independent countries, and that is the point that I was seeking to make to my noble friend.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, if I may return to the Question on the Order Paper, I do not wish in any way to disagree with what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said—in fact I agree with it. But is not the most important thing in relation to this Question that it would be a vital mistake to select the wrong sort of Britisher to go to look into a question like this? If we go outside the suggestions of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is there not a serious danger of somebody being sent whose dogmatic misconceptions of the situation and lack of knowledge of the atmosphere would from the start unfit him to give a suitable decision?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord may himself have disquiet as to who might be sent, if it was decided that a Britisher should be sent. I took exception to that word but I gather that it was the word which was in the communiqué We believe, I reiterate, that Mr. Arnold Smith, who is well recognised by both sides for his fairmindedness, is the best means we have of bringing both sides to the conference table.

RELEASE OF PRISONERS ON LICENCE
2.50 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: 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 how many prisoners have so far been reported on by local review committees as suitable for release on licence under Section 60 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967; how many of these has the Home Office decided not to refer to the Parole Board for consideration; how many have been so referred; and how many have been recommended by the Board for release on licence.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords,
1184
up to March 28 local review committees had recommended 1,032 prisoners for release on licence. Of these, 559 were not referred to the Parole Board. Of the remaining 473 cases referred to the Board, 332 were recommended for parole. In addition, 53 prisoners not recommended as suitable for parole were referred to the Board, and of these 18 were recommended for parole, yielding a total of 350 prisoners recommended for release on licence.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. May I ask whether he is aware that I am as anxious as he is to see that the Parole Board is a success, and that I have the fullest confidence in the choice of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, as chairman of that Board? May I ask the Minister of State whether he will explain the reasons why, after Parliament had set up the Parole Board to advise the Home Secretary on these cases, the Home Office decided not to refer to the Board, or seek its advice in, half of the cases which were recommended favourably by the local review committees?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, at all times during the discussions in both Houses it was made clear that in the exercise of his responsibility my right honourable friend was to take the decision as to which cases would be referred to the Parole Board. Therefore, a filter was set up in the Home Office for this purpose. There are a number of reasons for the disparity between the numbers of 1,032 and something over 500. We were cautious, but obviously we were not overcautious, because about one-third of the cases submitted to the Board were not recommended for parole. In many cases additional information which was not available to the local committees but available to the Home Office changed the whole view. This is something which we are remedying in future. Again, it was necessary to try to secure a consistent level of recommendations. We found that some local review committees were more optimistic with regard to the outcome in many cases than we thought was promised by the facts.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that I tabled this Question in no spirit of hostility but in order to elicit further information, some of which he has been

1185
able to give to your Lordships? May I ask whether he and the Home Secretary will give careful thought to the best means of making it known among prisoners in prison on what principles the Home Secretary and the Parole Board are operating, because I am sure the noble Lord will be the first to appreciate that there is considerable danger in a lack of communication with prisoners, or if they think that they are being judged unfairly behind closed doors?
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I very much appreciate what the noble Lord has said, and I entirely accept that his Question is a helpful one, and it is accepted as such. But I reject the implication that the fullest possible information about the working of the scheme has not been conveyed to prisoners. The Home Secretary circulated to every prisoner technically eligible under the scheme full information as to the working of the scheme and how decisions would be made and what his rights were. That was given to every single prisoner. I will undertake to forward a copy of this to the noble Lord, who I am sure will be satisfied. With regard to the conveyance of decisions, again the fullest possible information is given, and I am happy to say that so far as our investigations go they indicate that, despite the understandable disappointment when nine out of ten have to be disappointed, the decisions have been accepted very well in almost every prison.

LAND REGISTRY OFFICES
2.56 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: 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 where the Headquarters and the district registries of H.M. Land Registry are situate and whether it is proposed to establish a Land Registry in and for Wales.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD GARDINER): My Lords, the headquarters of Her Majesty's Land Registry are in Lincoln's Inn Fields. District land registries are situated at Croydon, Durham, Gloucester, Harrow, Lytham
1186
St. Annes, Nottingham, Plymouth, Stevenage and Tunbridge Wells. There is a sub-office in Swansea which it is intended to expand into a district land registry as soon as staff can be recruited. It will then act not only as the Land Registry for Wales and Monmouthshire but also for Cheshire, Shropshire and Herefordshire.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, while I express my thanks to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor both for the courtesy of his reply and for the content of it, may I ask him when he can anticipate that the sub-office will become a fully-fledged district office?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, at the moment I cannot, because it is subject to the Government's freeze on an increase in the number of civil servants.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, in view of the fact that three-quarters of the population of Wales live within a radius of 60 miles of Cardiff, would not the noble and learned Lord agree that it is highly inconvenient, especially for personal searches, for people in Wales to go to Lytham St. Annes?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, of course there is the sub-office in Swansea. But nobody would be more pleased than I should be if the additional staff required to make it into a district registry could be obtained now. And they would have been obtained but for the Government's decision that there should be no increase in the number of civil servants.
LORD BYERS: My Lords, would it not be possible to cut down some other part of the Civil Service to provide for this—perhaps the Land Commission?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, that is not a matter for me.

MEDWAY WATER (BEWL BRIDGE RESERVOIR) BILL [H.L.]
Read 2a, and referred to the Examiners.
MILL LANE KIRK ELLA BURIAL GROUND BILL
Read 2a, and committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT 1932
LORD BOWLES: My Lords, this is one of the usual Orders made under the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department for extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act 1932 to the Urban District of Pickering be approved.—(Lord Bowles.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

REDUNDANCY FUND (ADVANCES OUT OF THE NATIONAL LOANS FUND) ORDER 1968
2.59 p.m.
LORD HILTON OF UPTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1968, laid before the House on March 25, be approved. The effect of this Order is to increase the borrowing power of the Redundancy Fund under Section 35 of the Redundancy Payments Act to £15 million for the period of twelve months beginning on April 25, 1968. I would remind your Lordships that the Redundancy Payments Act 1965 provides for lump sum compensation to workers who lose their jobs through redundancy. The Redundancy Fund set up under the Act is financed by contributions from employers and is administered by the Ministry of Labour. When employment is terminated through redundancy, the employer pays the worker the amount due to him according to the provisions of the Act and claims what is called a rebate from the Redundancy Fund. The amount of this rebate which is paid to the employer by the Ministry of Labour is, on average, three-quarters of the total paid by the employer to the redundant worker. Such, in brief outline, is the Redundancy Payments Scheme.
When the Act came into force in December, 1965, weekly contributions were fixed at 5d. for men and 2d. for women. This produced an income of about £300,000 a week. By mid-April, 1966, the fund had acquired a balance of £2,500,000. From then on outgoings
1188
rose rapidly to an average of £430,000 a week, and at the end of October, 1966, the fund was exhausted. The main reasons for this were that claims were running at a higher rate than had originally been assumed, and an unexpectedly high proportion were for people with long service.
At this point the Government proposed that, to meet the increased demands on the fund, and to pay off the consequential borrowings, contributions should be raised to 1s. for men and 6d. for women. This would have provided a weekly income of £850,000, which would probably have been sufficient to wipe out the deficit by the end of March, 1968. However, the C.B.I., the T.U.C. and the nationalised industries were opposed to increases as large as those suggested, and in the end the Government decided to raise the contributions by smaller amounts to 10d. for men and 5d. for women. It is estimated that these new rates will produce a weekly income of about £690,000.
Your Lordships will recall that in November, 1966, the House approved the necessary Order, which came into operation on February 6, 1967. In November, 1966, there was a sharp rise in expenditure, which continued into 1967. The deficit, which at the end of 1966 was £2 million, increased to £5½ million on June 30, 1967. As a consequence, your Lordships approved an Order last July increasing the borrowing limit from £8 million to £12 million for a period of 12 months. Since then the deficit has still further increased, and it now stands at £10 million. The deficit could easily reach the present borrowing limit of £12 million by early or mid-May, and the raising of the limit has therefore become an urgent matter.
Your Lordships will be aware that it was announced recently in another place that employers' contributions to the fund would be increased by 2d. per week for men and 1d. a week for women from September 2 of this year. This will certainly put the fund on a sounder footing, especially if it is coupled with a fall in the number of redundancies. This Order is intended to preserve the solvency of the Redundancy Fund until the contribution increases become fully effective. I therefore ask your Lordships to approve it.
Moved, That the Draft Redundancy Fund (Advances out of the National Loans Fund) Order 1968, laid before the House on March 25, be approved.—(Lord Hilton of Upton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BILL [H.L.]
3.4 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. May I begin by declaring an interest, in that I am the President of the National Association of Parish Councils? The purpose of this Bill is to remove an apparent ambiguity in the law. It is to enable a power to be exercised lawfully, without doubt, and without danger of the action of the county councils concerned (for it is county councils who exercise this power) being held to be ultra vires. I should like to emphasise that I am this afternoon dealing only with powers and not with duties. This power has in the past been used frequently by county councils, but the validity of the law concerned has been challenged by at least one large county council in this country, and therefore it becomes a matter of some importance.
There is, I think, wide agreement among impartial and disinterested people that the number of parishes now is too great, and that they are, therefore, too small. The remedy is that they should either be amalgamated, which can be done under Section 141 of the Act of 1933—and that is the Act I am talking about—or, better still, be grouped under the same Act. The reason why grouping is better, in the opinion of most people, is that it creates less opposition in the parishes concerned, because, in turn, the identity of those parishes is not lost. They keep their own parish meetings, while at the same time they share one parish council common to them all and thereby gain the advantages of a larger and more powerful authority than existed before. It could be said, I suppose, that a group of parish councils is a federation of parishes. I am one of those people who think that every rural parish should have a council. There are a deplorable number of parishes which at present do not have a council, mainly because they are too small. Except in a general review, which can take place under Section 141
1190
of the Act, grouping can only be voluntary. It cannot be done by the county council unless the consent of the parish meeting concerned is first obtained.
How is this to be achieved? May I try to answer that question by reading shortly from Section 45(1) of the 1933 Act? The subsection says:
"The parish meeting of a rural parish may apply to the county council for an order grouping the parish with some neighbouring parish or parishes…under a common parish council, and the county council may thereupon make an order."
Then it goes on to provide tint no parish may be grouped without the consent of the parish meeting of that parish. So far, so good. But then we come to Section 43(2) of the same Act, which says:
"If a rural parish has not a separate parish council the county council shall establish a parish council for that parish if the population of the parish is 300 or upwards."
The important word there, in my judgment, is the word "separate". What is meant by "a separate parish council"? Here I think is the apparent conflict in the law between Section 43(2) and Section 45(1), and the question arises: Is a parish which is grouped with one or more others a separate parish council? I am inclined to think it is not, but that is the problem which we are trying to solve.
May I help the House, if I can, by quoting an exact example of what has actually occurred? I could name these two parishes, but to save any possible embarrassment I will not unless I am asked to. They are not very far from London. Parish "A" has 500 people with a parish council. Parish "B" has a population of 129 with no parish council because it is too small to have one. The question is this: Can those two parishes be grouped together under the Act? The county council concerned, whose duty it is to do it, says, "No; that is something we cannot do." Incidentally, a number of other county councils have done, just that thing already. Hence Clause 2 of this Bill, which is quite frankly retrospective legislation, is inserted to try to ensure that no penalties accrue to those councils which have done this very thing already in ignorance of the ambiguity in the law. The strange, anomalous position is that, while if that county council is right these two parishes cannot be grouped, under Section 141 they could

1191
be compelled to amalgamate, which is much more than they want; they do not want it at all and nobody wants it. They could be compelled to do that if the county council wished it, but they cannot voluntarily group themselves together with everybody's consent, which, as the mathematicians say, is absurd.
Your Lordships may think that this is a trivial matter, but it is not quite so much a trivial matter because there are nearly 3,400 parishes in England and Wales with a population of fewer than 300, which is the magic figure that entitles them to a parish council. This Bill will, I hope, rectify the situation and put beyond doubt what can be and what cannot be done. I should like to repeat that it does not compel anybody to do anything. It only enables county councils to do what they have done already, and what I hope can lawfully be done in future—something which is sensible and something which is desired by all. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Merthyr.)
3.13 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, I rise very briefly to support the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and this small Bill which he has introduced. Unlike him, I have no current personal interest in the matter to declare, though it is true that the first public office to which I was ever elected was to the parish council of the village of Cumnor. I have ever since those days, particularly when I was the responsible Minister, maintained a high regard for parish councils and their work, and I think that the interest of the genuine local community, the village or the group of associated villages, needs to be safeguarded, whatever reconstruction or reorganisation of local government we may have in hand.
I was not aware that this difficulty had arisen over the interpretation of the 1933 Act. I did not realise that one county council was claiming that there was some contradiction in it. I had not therefore supposed, until I saw this Bill, that there was need for fresh legislation. But if in fact that need has been proved—and I think your Lordships will all accept that in this field it is desirable that the law should be clear and unambiguous—I trust
1192
that the Government will welcome this Bill and that it will receive a rapid passage into law.
3.15 p.m.
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, the position, so far as the Government know, is precisely as set out by the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr. There is very little parish regrouping going on in the country at the moment, but there is some, and all those counties, other than the county of Essex, to which I believe the noble Lord referred, which have been regrouping parishes in recent years have been doing so in spite of the apparent ambiguity in the present law, and have not been challenged on it. It is for that reason that one cannot say with any certainty that there is an ambiguity. I am advised that the situation is ambiguous, whether or not there is an ambiguity in the law. If there is one, it is a very small one. Even so, however small the ambiguity is, assuming one exists—and we do not have to make up our minds whether there is one or not—what we know is that one county regards the position as sufficiently ambiguous to prevent them from going ahead on this basis with the existing law; and that in itself would of course be a reason to wish this Bill to be passed.
In an ideal world the Government would, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested, welcome this Bill and do what they could to ensure it was passed. But, my Lords, our democracy is not ideal; it is a congested and over-crowded democracy in the field of legislation, and that imposes the duty on the Government of considering which of the small, desirable measures which are brought before Parliament should be given priority treatment in the queue to get into law. In this context we have to measure not only the intrinsic desirability of a given measure which is proposed, but also the way it relates in time to major reforms in the same field which may be coming forward; and we are expecting, as the House knows very well, the Report of the Royal Commission on Local Government later this year. Nobody knows what the Royal Commission will say about parish councils. It will no doubt say something about them. It may have something to say about the way they should be set up

1193
or amalgamated or run together, and by whom and under what conditions. But it is clear that parish councils also are in the melting pot with this examination, and it is not very many months hence when we shall know what the recommendations will be.
Because of that, and because of the intrinsic smallness of the reform proposed, the Government do not feel that this is a measure for which it would be justifiable to lay out all the procedural red carpets in Parliament so as to smooth its passage. This House, of course, is entirely master of itself as regards what Bills it finds time to take through, and the sponsor of any Bill is entirely his own master in deciding whether to proceed with it in this House. But it would be wrong of me to leave the House and the noble Lord under any impression that there is very much hope of time being found for this Bill in the House of Commons under any procedure during this Session. The same may not be true during next Session. I cannot say. It will depend on the Royal Commission's Report and the attitude the Government adopt to that Report. The field then is open. It might then appear to all parties concerned to be more necessary to get this Bill through during the time before the Royal Commission's recommendations as a whole could be adopted or modified or otherwise dealt with, whatever decisions were taken upon them.
That is all I have to say to your Lordships this afternoon. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will be considering whether, on the one hand, he wishes to proceed with this Bill now and to secure it a Second Reading this afternoon, so that it will go through Committee and Third Reading in this House and will then, I must say, in all probability come to a dead halt; or whether, on the other hand, he would prefer to withdraw it, and perhaps to be in touch with my right honourable friend or me in the autumn, when the Royal Commission's Report has been received and when we could together re-assess the situation in the light of that Report.
3.20 p.m.
LORD MITCHISON: My Lords, may I take the occasion to say that I hope the Government will not neglect the importance of parish councils? Mr. "Nye" Bevan did a great deal for them in the
1194
Local Government Act which he introduced. He gave them additional powers, with limits, and I think it was his wish and his intention, if he had had the opportunity, that those limits should in the course of time be enlarged. The fact of the matter is that in this country there were parts of the countryside, including many villages, which depended on a squirearchy that is now hopelessly out of date, and in my view it is up to a Labour Government to see that in their place the parish council has the necessary powers, and that where the unit is too small, as in the case which the noble Lord is putting forward, there shall be a joint council. It has been necessary in the past to rescue the county councils from some acts of doubtful legality. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will remember that this was first done in connection with cattle grids, which some of the county councils in the West had been putting down, without any authority whatever, and which had to be legalised.
I refer to this matter particularly because I have Scottish connections, and unfortunately there are no parish councils in Scotland. One can see the reason for this state of affairs, but it is a great pity, and one misses them sadly in connection with such matters as the provision of village halls, where parish councils have done a great deal in England and there is no one to take their place in Scotland. Therefore I hope that when we come to the reorganisation of local government the Government will not think that parish councils do not matter because they are so small and their powers are, comparatively, so trifling. I believe that they matter a great deal, although I have not much use for parish meetings, which are open to other objections.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to comment on the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Mitchison. Of course the Government believe in parish councils in broad terms, and I know that the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, will agree with me if I remind the House that this is not a Bill which in any way would safeguard parish councils, increase their powers or prevent their reduction, because there is no need for such a Bill. It is simply to remove the doubts of one county council about the proper procedure for running two or more parish councils together.
3.23 p.m.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, of the two alternatives which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, put before the House for the progress of this Bill I prefer the latter, and I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon, whatever its fate may be in the future. The reason I do that is because I have never been impressed by the argument which I hear widely used, not only in this House but still more so in the countryside at large, that one should hold up a decision on a matter pending the Report of a Royal Commission. If people do not like something which you propose, they say: "Let us do nothing because there is a Royal Commission sitting"—or has been appointed, or is just about to be appointed, or is now reporting—"and of course we must wait for its Report". I do not follow that argument and I do not concur in it.
Perhaps I am fortified in saying that by the fact that I was a member of a Royal Commission, and it happened to be on local government. It sat thirty-two years ago, and since then not a line of its Report has been implemented. So, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, I am not impressed by that argument, which I think can be too frequently used. If the current Royal Commission to which he has referred does report in the autumn, and the Government immediately put that Report into effect and immediately pass legislation to carry out its recommendations, nobody will be better pleased than I; but I am afraid that I am not willing to wait and see what happens about it. Therefore, I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

HEALTH SERVICES AND PUBLIC HEALTH BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.
BRIGHTON MARINA BILL
Returned from the Commons with the Amendments agreed to.
CONSULAR RELATIONS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.

EDUCATION (No. 2) BILL
3.25 p.m.
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Bill read 3a.
Clause 6 [Short title, citation, construction and extent]:
BARONESS PHILLIPS: My Lords, this Amendment corrects the provision in Clause 6(1) for the collective citation of the Education Acts. The subsection is drafted in terms which assume that the other Education Bill before Parliament, namely, the Bill dealing with the government of colleges, will receive the Royal Assent first. In the event, this Bill has been the first to pass through both Houses. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, leave out from ("and") to end of line, and insert ("this Act and the Education Acts 1944 to 1967 may be cited together").—(Baroness Phillips.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.

COURT LEES APPROVED SCHOOL STAFF
3.27 p.m.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action is being taken in respect of those members of the staff of the former Court Lees School who are not being reemployed at the new approved school there, and have not yet obtained any other employment. The noble Lord said: In asking this Question it is certainly not my intention to traverse again the whole unhappy story of Court Lees Approved School. I shall seek to say

1197
nothing that will raise the temperature of debate, and I certainly do not intend to fight last year's battles over again. The subject was debated at length in your Lordships' House on October 25 last, and in another place on November 16. The former Court Lees School was closed in August, 1967, and the boys were either sent home or dispersed to other approved schools. It is now being reopened under the Surrey County Council with a new name. I am perfectly sure that all your Lordships will wish success to the new school as keenly as I do.
I personally believe that the former Home Secretary created a very difficult situation for himself by setting up an inquiry not, as in the case of Carlton Approved School, into the quality of Court Lees School as a whole and the good or harm it was doing on balance to the boys—and the boys are the most important people in this matter; I must emphasise that fact—but into the much narrower question of irregular punishments at the school. On these irregular punishments I do not question the findings in paragraph 78 of the report of the inquiry. I can see how the former Home Secretary was led by those findings to take the action he did and to close the school. But I think that by setting up the original inquiry on such narrow lines, and then by closing the school instead of using any other of his powers, he undid a great deal of the good work which the school had been doing, and he certainly interrupted the training of 120 boys, and dismayed most of the staff. Most of the staff were in no way blameworthy for the irregular punishment or anything else that went wrong, and most of them, according to my information, still think a wrong has been done to the school and the former headmaster and deputy headmaster who were responsible for the irregular punishments.
What the inquiry found against these men—and I will summarise it—was that in some respects the headmaster did not conform with Rule 34 (iv) of the Approved School Rules; that he failed to detect that the canes which he inherited from his predecessor when he took over the headmastership in January, 1967, did not conform to Home Office requirements; that in certain cases, four of which the inquiry found proved, the headmaster administered six strokes of
1198
the cane with excessive severity; that Mr. Draycon, the deputy headmaster, on at least one occasion caned a boy who was wearing pyjama trousers and not his ordinary cloth trousers as the Approved Schools Rules require; and that on many occasions the headmaster and the deputy headmaster failed to record punishments in the punishment book, as they were required to do.
Some of your Lordships may have personally experienced at school, in days gone by, punishments as severe as those recorded in that report, or more severe—and I hear, "Hear, hear!" from the Liberal Benches. But I would say to noble Lords who seek to make a direct comparison between their schools and an approved school that it must be remembered that the parents of those of your Lordships who may have suffered pain in these ways chose voluntarily to send your Lordships to schools where corporal punishment was in use and was known to be in use; whereas a boy is sent to an approved school not only against his will but almost always against the will of his parents; and that is why a special duty devolves on the Home Office, and I would say on Parliament, to see that the punishment rules are kept.
When the report was published in August, 1967, Court Lees School was immediately closed and the whole staff were given six months' leave of absence with pay. I understand that as regards those members of the staff who have not yet found new employment this paid leave has since been extended to the end of April. I tabled this Question in the interest of those members of the staff who had not yet found re-employment. The great majority, your Lordships will be glad to know, were re-employed by the Surrey County Council at the new school, which I think is being called Hays Bridge. To the best of my information, seven members of the old staff were not taken on by the Surrey County Council, but four of those seven have by now found other employment. The three who have not are Mr. Cook, who was the writer of the original anonymous letter to the Guardian, Mr. Haydon, the headmaster, and Mr. Draycon the deputy headmaster. The former Home Secretary said in another place on November 16 that he would not approve of Mr. Haydon or Mr. Draycon being

1199
appointed to the new school or indeed being appointed as headmaster to any other approved school.
The particular reason why I tabled this Question some three weeks ago, on March 14 I think it was, was because I understood that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Drayton, the headmaster and deputy headmaster, had been granted long and full interviews with a Deputy Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office round about January 22 concerning their future. It seemed to me, and indeed it still seems to me, that the Home Office were blameworthy in letting so long a time pass after that, while the remainder of their paid leave was fast running out, without letting them know the outcome of the representations which they were given the opportunity to make to a senior official of the Home Office in January. But since I tabled the Question things have happened. Whether the imminence of this Question coming up for debate had anything to do with that I cannot tell.
Six days ago, however, the headmaster and the deputy headmaster were, I understand, granted personal interviews with the present Home Secretary. I want to give the Home Secretary every credit for agreeing to see these two men personally. Three days later, that is on Saturday last, official letters were sent to each of them on his behalf giving his conclusions, and a Press statement, I understand, was issued by the Home Office yesterday afternoon. I understand that these letters are in no way confidential now, and therefore I will quote one or two sentences, which I think indeed have already appeared in this morning's papers. In writing to Mr. Draycon, the deputy headmaster, the letter says:
"After most carefully considering all the circumstances, the Secretary of State has reached the conclusion that he would not at present be prepared to approve your appointment as headmaster of any approved school, but that he would feel able to consider the position afresh, if he were asked to do so, at any time after the end of the present year."
In the letter written on the same day to Mr. Haydon, the former headmaster, it is stated thus:
"The Secretary of State fully accepts that the excessive punishments which Mr. Gibbens found that you inflicted on boys at Court Lees School were not inspired by morbid or cruel motives. He notes, however, that you find it
1200
impossible, after reflection in the light of all that has happened since, to recognise that there were serious errors of judgment in your handling of an admittedly difficult situation. After most carefully considering all the circumstances, the Secretary of State has reached the conclusion that he would not at present be prepared to approve your appointment as headmaster of any approved school."
I think it is common ground that the criticism in the Gibbens Report of the headmaster was more serious than that of the deputy headmaster. It was the headmaster who was carrying the major responsibility for the school. He was, therefore, fully responsible for what went on under him. There were only one or two cases of excessive punishment inflicted by Mr. Draycon found proved, though there were four cases found proved in the case of Mr. Haydon. I think, therefore, it is understandable that the Home Secretary has shown a greater concession in point of time to the one than to the other, though I am inclined to wish that he might have gone further in both cases.
What I do attach importance to is the statement in the Home Office letter to the headmaster, Mr. Haydon, that
"the Secretary of State fully accepts that the excessive punishments which Mr. Gibbens found that you inflicted were not inspired by morbid or cruel motives."
Something which has been worrying me about this case—and let me say that I did not take any part in the previous debate in October, though I have read it all and the whole of the debate in another place—is that both the former Home Secretary and the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, used the word "brutality" in relation to Mr. Haydon's conduct. That is their word. It is not in the Gibbens Report; it is not implied by the Gibbens Report. What Mr. Gibbens said about Mr. Haydon was that, despite the conclusions of his Inquiry, he believed Mr. Haydon to be basically a kindly man. He was described by Mr. Gibbens as "an honest and candid witness."
I have never myself met Mr. Haydon nor Mr. Draycon, nor Mr. Cook, but from all I can gather I take Mr. Haydon to be a capable and sincere headmaster who relied overmuch on corporal punishment that really hurt for maintaining discipline. I understand that he had been fully backed by the Home Office for appointment as headmaster of Court Lees

1201
when that headmastership fell vacant at the end of 1966. So presumably up to then he had earned a good reputation in the approved school world. Now, at the age of 46, he has been grievously punished and his career has been undermined, if not wrecked, by the decision of the former Home Secretary to close the school. I think it is common ground that he is not guilty at law of any offence, because no criminal charges have been brought against him; even after the debates that took place it was apparently decided that no criminal charge should be brought. So he has had none of that opportunity which is normally open to someone accused of a criminal charge to defend himself against the charge.
In passing, I should say that I understand that the Secretary of State for Education and Science would now raise no objection to either Mr. Haydon or Mr. Draycon being employed in teaching in schools that are under his control. The issue is solely now that of a matter of Home Office policy. The present position, which really led me to put down this Question, is that now we have Mr. Haydon without employment and only four weeks still to run to the end of his paid leave of absence; Mr. Draycon, the deputy headmaster, in a similar position, and Mr. Cook, the informant, in a similar position. I want to ask whether the Home Office, in all those three cases, feels any responsibility for helping them to pick up the thread of their careers again.
I understand that the final breaking point with the managers, when they were interviewed by the former Home Secretary, was that the Home Secretary told them that they must retain Mr. Cook in their employment, and they refused. The fact is that a good many months have passed since then and Mr. Cook has not been able so far to get anyone else to employ him, either in the approved school world or elsewhere. In the circumstances, I have some sympathy with the managers in refusing, for the good of the school, to re-employ Mr. Cook, though I certainly think that the managers were seriously at fault in not supervising sufficiently closely what went on in the school for which they were responsible.
I am not going to criticise the present Home Secretary for what he said in these letters written with his authority on Saturday last, and, as I have indicated, I give him much credit for personally interviewing Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon. I think he inherited a most unsatisfactory situation bequeathed to him by his predecessor, all or almost all stemming from the fact that a wide-ranging inquiry into the school was not ordered at the outset, because that would have assessed everything and everybody connected with the school at their proper values. I do criticise the long delay at the Home Office, through February and March of this year, when important time appears to have been wasted, and when Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon, knowing that their paid leave was running out, must have been waiting in great anxiety to hear what the Home Secretary had decided.
My Lords, I end by asking that in the interests of justice the Home Office shall now be prepared to help these men concerned to find new employment suitable to their talents; and I trust that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon will do so well in them that, before long, the ban on their applications for headmasterships will be lifted.
3.47 p.m.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, I was in the United Nations when the debates on Court Lees took place, and I have been fascinated to read the debates both in this House and in another place arising out of the Gibbens Report, which gave both sides of the argument on this matter. The then Home Secretary, Mr. Roy Jenkins, was subjected to a good deal of criticism. But after reading his speech in the Commons, which gave the background and the history of the managers since 1961, what still remains clear is that none of the three men directly involved in the Report is suitable for posts at any approved school. That does not mean to say that they are not suitable for posts in an ordinary school if they are good teachers.
Mr. Cook, the schoolmaster who made the disclosures at Court Lees, is a casualty of his own conduct and the methods he employed. After all, we know that some people would commit murder in order to get their names in the newspapers.

1203
Although both Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon were given grave warnings, they were not declared unsuitable for employment as teachers. As I say, if they are good teachers they will have no difficulty in finding employment, because there is a great shortage of teachers. But their fitness as teachers is one aspect of the whole business, and their suitability for approved school work is quite another thing. The Home Secretary had to decide once again, after the Inquiry, whether Mr. Haydon was a suitable head to continue in a reconstituted Court Lees school, or on his fitness to be head of any other approved school. If Mr. Jenkins, the then Home Secretary, was criticised for being hasty and unfair, he would have been far more severely criticised if he had acted with great irresponsibility and had allowed things to continue as before the Gibbens Inquiry.
Perhaps the most strange speech on Court Lees came from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whom I am very glad to see here to-day. In essence the right reverend Prelate queried the results of the evidence of the Gibbens Inquiry in an argument which amounted to a refutation of the Report. All the guns of the right reverend Prelate were trained on Mr. Cook, and there was not one word of condemnation for Mr. Haydon or Mr. Draycon. I will quote one small passage from the speech of the right reverend Prelate. He said:
"…I do not think that any man in his right mind would let Mr. Cook loose in a community of boys."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25/10/67; col. 1689.]
I agree with the right reverend Prelate; I myself would be reluctant to let him loose in a community of boys. But I should like to ask the right reverend Prelate this question. How about Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon? Would he, after everything that has happened, let them loose in a community of boys? These two men could not see beyond the end of a cane—and an unauthorised one at that. Their one idea of discipline was a beating. I know that we in this country are very tolerant—some might say indulgent—of corporal punishment, and the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, was very tolerant of the whole idea of corporal punishment. Perhaps because it is the regular thing at public schools people regard corporal
1204
punishment as part and parcel of the aristocratic way of life. When one notes the triviality of the offences at Court Lees, surely it must make us all uneasy and wonder what exactly it is that passes for discipline. For boys of 14 and 15 corporal punishment is humiliating, both physically and morally. The history of Court Lees since 1961 does not reflect any credit on the management, on the staff, or, I may say, on the Home Office Inspectors. They have done a fairly superficial job in past years. Once the true state of affairs had come to light, a surgical operation was absolutely essential if the Home Office was not to neglect its duties.
In these debates there has been much talk of justice. But I wish to ask: justice for whom? For the headmaster and the deputy alone? What about justice for the boys? Much has been said about morale. It has been said that the morale among managers and staff in approved schools would be much affected by this matter. But among the managers and staffs of good, well-run approved schools their morale surely would be increased. Among the managers and staffs of bad schools, of course, their morale would be decreased; and that is just as it should be. It would have been both irresponsible and unjust to ignore the findings of the Gibbens Inquiry—and most people have said that it was a very fair Inquiry—and to let off the head and the deputy with only a reprimand. The Home Office is not only responsible for running the school, it also finances it.
However mixed up were the methods used by Mr. Cook to expose the scandal at Court Lees, it has done one very good thing. It has alerted us to the terrible shortcomings in the running of approved schools. I have always thought that teachers in approved schools need a "crash" course of psycho-analysis to give them an insight into what prompts the boys in their behaviour. It has been said that Mr. Haydon was a kindly man, in spite of the fact that he was such a compulsive beater. It is true that one can have just that situation; that is to say, a man who is quite a kindly man ordinarily, but who does not quite know why he thinks only of using the cane when he wants to maintain discipline. I believe that it would be a good thing

1205
for all teachers in approved schools to spend six months in a really progressive school. I am not completely sold on everything that happens in a progressive school, but it would be a good thing for them to see that a school can be run and discipline maintained without corporal punishment. There is no doubt that the staff, the managers, and the Home Office Inspectors stand condemned for what has happened over the years at Court Lees. I hope that the searchlight which is now being trained on this miserable affair will lead to a much better examination of, and a much better state of affairs in, approved schools in the future.
3.56 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I had not intended to speak on the general issue, because I thought that the decision had been made and the die cast: rightly or wrongly, Court Lees has come to an end. My main concern is with the employment of the men who are now without a job, though I hope that in passing, in view of the remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Gaitskell, I may try to defend myself. She suggested that I took no exception to what had been done at Court Lees. I have not Hansard in front of me, but if I remember rightly I said that I did not for one moment condone what had been proved to be contrary to the law. I also said (I cannot remember whether the noble Baroness was here at the time; I do not think she was) that I am opposed to corporal punishment as such. I still am opposed to corporal punishment. And if the noble Baroness would like to put through this House a Bill for the prohibition of corporal punishment in schools, especially that inflicted by prefects on their fellow boys, I should be the first to support her and to speak on behalf of the Bill. Therefore I hope that she will not think that I am a compulsive beater who is never happier than when boys are being flogged. I am against corporal punishment. On the other hand, it is at the moment permitted by law, and I am concerned that those who employ it should be treated justly.
I do not think that the noble Baroness is being fair when she says of the headmaster and the deputy that they could not see beyond the end of a cane, and
1206
that their one idea of discipline was a beating. It is just not true. I know that school fairly well—indeed, I know it very well through my chaplain. After all, a Bishop is not supposed to be in every parish and in every school. The whole theory of episcopacy is that you work through your clergy, your incumbents and chaplains. I have had full reports from the chaplain of Court Lees. He had weekly contact with the boys, and indeed only last summer he was in camp with them. I am, through him, reasonably well informed; and I should think I am far better informed than a great many people who took part in the debate and yet spoke apparently with considerable knowledge. From what I have learned, both from him and from my own impressions, it would be far from the truth to suggest that the headmaster could see no further than the end of a cane. I regard that as a most damaging and unfair remark.
Not only have I had a good impression of the school from what my chaplain has told me, but the Gibbens Report itself speaks well of the school in many ways. And if it was as bad as has been suggested, why did not the inspectors of the Home Office say so before? By and large, I am satisfied—and I ask your Lordships to remember that I am opposed to corporal punishment—that it was a happy school and a worthwhile school. I also believe that, although the headmaster and the deputy failed in certain respects, and did things which they ought not to have done, nevertheless they were devoted to their job and, as I have ample evidence to show, many of the boys were devoted to them.
My concern, however, is to do what I can to see that these men are treated fairly with regard to re-employment. We are told by the Home Secretary that he does not believe that they are men who indulged in corporal punishment for any sinister motive. That is why I very much hope that the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, no matter how much we may have differed in the past, may be prepared publicly to say to-day that he accepts that comment of the Home Secretary and will have second thoughts about the word "brutal"; because so long as that stigma remains it is going to be difficult for either Mr. Haydon or Mr. Draycon to find employment. Both of them have applied for many positions, and I have

1207
done my best to support them, so far I fear without success; and, as I say, I doubt whether one will have success while that stigma of brutality attaches to them.
With regard to Mr. Cook, although I spoke severely about him in the last debate—and I withdraw nothing that I said, because I believe that it was justified—yet in his case, too, I should be only too glad to do what I could to see that he found reasonable employment. I do not believe it should be within a school, but it could be elsewhere. No doubt the Home Office have made careful inquiries about his past history. They know why he left the Armed Services; they know why he left the Devon county authority. If they do not know, I am prepared to supply them with chapter and verse. But there are many occupations for which Mr. Cook is qualified, and I hope that the Home Office will do everything within their power to see that he is given a job that is suitable. I also hope that they will do everything within their power to see that Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon find reasonable employment.
This has been an unhappy affair, and I can assure your Lordships that I had no intention, when we began this debate, to refer to what we discussed in general last year. My main concern, and I repeat it, is that these men who now face being unemployed shall be given the opportunity to find a job in which all three of them can give useful service.
4.5 p.m.
BARONESS SEROTA: My Lords, I intend to intervene only briefly in this discussion and to express my regret that once again we are discussing the deplorable happenings at Court Lees School. In spite of the protestations we have heard to the contrary, any discussion of this kind must inevitably involve detailed discussions of the running of the school itself and those who say that this school was typical of the system are, in my view, gravely indicting the approved school system as a whole and individual members of the staff who were involved in the inquiry held under the chairmanship of Mr. Gibbens.
As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, has reminded us, this matter was fully debated here last November, and has also been debated in another place.
1208
He himself was present through most if not all of our debate. It is true that he did not participate, but I assumed from his silence on that occasion, and knowing his deep concern for the welfare and well being of children and young people, as evidenced during his term of office as Home Secretary, that he was satisfied and in general agreement with the findings of the inquiry. As I recall the previous debate in this House, the only Member present in your Lordships' House who appeared not to accept the findings of the inquiry was the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and he has confirmed that impression again to-day.
We must remember what was said in paragraph 37 of the Gibbons Report, and particularly in paragraph 57, where we had the opinions of the distinguished forensic experts on the photographs that were produced in evidence. They said that if they had been shown such photographs in another sphere they would have felt it necessary to report their findings either to the police or to other suitable authorities. In the light of these paragraphs we surely have no alternative here to-day but to endorse the action of the Home Secretary in refusing to condone excessive severity by not approving the appointment of either the head or the deputy head of Court Lees to future headships of approved schools.
We have heard that the Secretary of State for Education and Science arranged for Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon to have available to them the normal procedures of appeal for teachers; that they have been through those procedures, and that, as a result, they are to be allowed to continue their professions as teachers, although grave warnings have been issued. But the responsibilities of the Home Secretary in this matter, in my view—and, I am sure, in his view and in the view of my noble friend Lord Stonham—go far beyond the classroom situation. Heads of approved schools, deputy heads and those holding posts of special responsibility have heavy and grave duties in relation to the social care and education of the boys who are committed to them by the juvenile courts. The responsibilities here are so grave that I myself should find the greatest difficulty in supporting a Home Secretary who continued to employ as heads of approved schools staff who had been involved in the happenings at

1209
Court Lees, and who, in the words of the Report of the inquiry, had been found guilty of, or responsible for, using excessive punishment on boys in their care, for breaking the rules of the approved school service, and who, in my view, have brought great discredit on the approved school service as a whole.
I hope that this is the last occasion on which we shall debate the events at Court Lees School. To-day the Surrey County Council is re-establishing a school in the same buildings and on new lines. We all know the grave shortage of places for the care, treatment and training of children and young people who have come before the courts as being in need of care, protection and control, or who have committed a criminal offence. I hope that very shortly we shall be debating a far more urgent matter in relation to the approved school service; namely, the Government's future proposals for the approved schools, of which we had such an interesting preview, if I may put it in that way, from my noble friend Lord Stonham when we last debated this matter.
4.9 p.m.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, I find it quite easy to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Serota, but I find it quite impossible to follow the reasoning of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I just cannot understand his reasoning after looking at the report of the Gibbens inquiry. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 51 on page 18:
"… Mr. David James Ellison, the housemaster of Gillum House, who impressed me as an excellent and entirely reliable witness, not given to exaggeration, described the bruising he saw on the buttocks of boy No. 13 as the worst he had ever seen, comparable to that shown in the colour photograph of the buttocks of boy No. 2".
Paragraph 52:
"I find proved the allegation of excessive severity in the punishment of this boy on 16th February 1967".
I could have wished that the right reverend Prelate had shown a little more feeling and consideration for the boy who was the subject of those two paragraphs.
My Lords, there remains in my mind the question which was in it before the debate began: will this debate help any of the persons most directly involved? I very much doubt that it will. It certainly caused me to re-read the report of the inquiry conducted by Mr. Gibbens,
1210
and also to read the report of the debate in your Lordships' House on October 25 of last year. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, asks:
"… what action is being taken in respect of those members of the staff of the former Court Lees school who are not being re-employed at the new Approved School there …"
So far as two of them are concerned—Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon—the Gibbens Report scarcely shows them as heroes or, if I may say so, as worthy martyrs. For on them, surely, mote than on anyone, rested responsibility for ensuring that the Approved School Rules were observed. The re-reading of the Gibbens Report and that debate emphasise how very right it was that the facts of life at Court Lees should be made known and, being known, should be made the cause for action—action to remedy an extremely undesirable situation.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the noble Lord to say that the facts of life at Court Lees school were stated with great authority just now by the right reverend Prelate. The Gibbens Report did not cover all the facts of life at Court Lees School. It covered one narrow part of the facts of life there, and I accept its findings on that.
LORD GARNSWORTHY: My Lords, if I may say so, I much prefer to accept those facts of life which are disclosed in the report of the Gibbens inquiry, and I think it extremely important that those facts of life should be made known and should be acted upon. Because let us be under no illusion: the inquiry and the report put an end to such acts, and it would have been quite inexcusable if boys had been left at Court Lees at risk, because they were the most important people in the place. Undoubtedly, it would have been better if those facts had been brought to light in a different way; but it was nevertheless right that they should be known. And it would indeed be ironic if Mr. Cook was to be given less sympathy and understanding than those whose duty was so clearly laid down. It may be that Mr. Cook ill-fits the role of hero, but neither, if I may say so with great respect—and here I would address myself in particular to the right reverend Prelate—does he deserve to be forced into martyrdom.

1211
In regard to Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon, it seems to me that the Home Secretary and his predecessor have behaved with a fair degree of generosity. Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon are being paid up to the end of this month, and they are still in occupation of the accommodation of which they were previously in possession. They are free to take teaching posts, as my noble friend Lady Gaitskell suggested, and I would suggest that this gives them an opportunity to re-establish themselves outside a specialised service—a specialised service in which society has a right to demand the observation of disciplines within the Rules laid down for Approved Schools.
4.16 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, I join with my noble friend Lady Serota in deploring the fact that we are again debating this unhappy subject, and I join with her also in expressing the hope that this will be the last time that we shall debate it. When the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, said that it was not his intention to traverse again the whole unhappy story of Court Lees or to fight last year's battle over again, for a moment my spirits were lifted and I thought that perhaps we might avoid what is to me a great unhappiness. My spirits were again lifted when he said that the most important people in this issue were the boys. Unfortunately, that was almost the last that we heard about the boys in this debate. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, went on, although he felt no disposition to debate the matter again—and for that I was grateful—he nevertheless made certain points with regard to the findings which made it necessary for me to comment. This is the unfortunate thing, when a Minister gets up to reply to a debate of this kind: whereas he would much sooner—at least, I would—let the whole thing go, it is nevertheless necessary to answer at least some of the points made, again in the interests of truth and justice.
The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, mentioned my use in the previous debate of the word "brutality". My noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark asked me now, on reflection, to withdraw that word. The noble Lord,
1212
Lord Brooke, said that in his view the headmaster relied overmuch on corporal punishment as a means of enforcing discipline. I think it will be accepted that I have never knowingly or unnecessarily inflicted pain on another individual. Nor have I ever knowingly abused the privileges of this House in order to inflict unfair treatment on another individual. Therefore, I can well remember that I pondered long about the use of that word "brutality". It was the only word I could then use to describe the conduct which, as my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy has said, produced the results which caused an impartial, experienced expert, when he inspected the photographs, to say that had he seen that state of affairs in the normal course of events it would have been a matter for reference to the Director of Public Prosecutions. My Lords, that is brutality. I accept—the Home Secretary has said he accepts it, and I accept it, too—that it was not inspired by morbid or cruel motives.
I am reading now from a letter to Mr. Haydon. This is important—very, very important. The Home Secretary writes:
"I note that you"—
that is, Mr. Haydon—
"find it impossible, after reflection in the light of all that has happened since, to recognise that there were serious errors of judgment in your handling of an admittedly difficult situation."
That is the unhappy crux of the matter. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested that the breaking point was the managers' refusal to employ Mr. Cook. The mainspring of the former Home Secretary's decision was his realisation that the former managers had utterly failed to realise what the Home Secretary regarded as the enormity of the position they had allowed to spring up and that they had failed to convince him also that they were either prepared to, or had the ability to, alter things. Those are the real reasons.
The right reverend Prelate, I am sure, pleased all of us when he said that he was opposed in principle to corporal Punishment as such. I am bound to tell the right reverened Prelate that my recollection of a speech which I very much regretted hearing, much as I respect him, was that he was singularly successful in

1213
concealing his condemnation of corporal punishment as far as Court Lees was concerned.
THE LORD BISHOP OF SOUTHWARK: My Lords, I think that those who read Hansard will agree that there, written in black and white, is my disapproval of corporal punishment as such.
LORD STONHAM: I am just commenting on the speech that was made before. There is one thing affecting, in particular, Mr. Draycon, to which I will refer later, when I shall endeavour to put the record straight to some extent with regard to the comments made by my noble friend Lady Gaitskell.
Now, if I may, I shall briefly review the circumstances. As your Lordships know, Mr. Roy Jenkins decided that in the light of Mr. Gibbens's report he would not be prepared, at least for some time, to approve the appointment of either Mr. Haydon or Mr. Draycon as headmaster of an approved school. To give a fair idea of what went on I may say that, subsequently, on January 30—and not on January 22, as the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, suggested—a very senior officer of my Department saw Mr. Haydon who was accompanied by a solicitor to the National Union of Teachers and a professional colleague. On the next day, January 31, he saw Mr. Draycon, who was accompanied by the same solicitor. Both those interviews were to consider representations on the limited issue of whether the appointment of either as headmaster of an approved school could be approved by the Secretary of State. Each interview lasted for almost four hours; which enabled both of these gentlemen to say everything they wished to say very fully indeed.
They were informed that the Home Secretary had accepted Mr. Gibbens's report and that there could be no question of reviewing or reopening his findings on questions of fact. Apart from that, they were free to roam over their whole careers, their motives for what they did, the difficulties with which they had attempted to cope and so on. Everything they said was fully and faithfully reported to my right honourable friend, who also examined documents and testimonials which these gentlemen handed in. Having studied these reports, the Home Secretary, on March 27, accorded
1214
a personal interview to Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon. The noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has complained of the delay between January 31 and March 30—two months of anxiety and worry for Mr. Draycon and Mr. Haydon.
LORD BROOKE OF CUMNOR: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for a moment? He criticised me earlier for raising this subject again in this House. I thought I made it clear that it was just because of that delay, which seemed to me to be unfair to all concerned, that I tabled this Question. Certain things have happened in the last three days which, had they happened earlier, might have led to my not raising the subject.
LORD STONHAM: I am dealing with this question of delay. They were very long interviews. Before they went to the Home Secretary the reports were carefully considered—and they were long reports, which I have seen. The Home Secretary took what he regards as a reasonable time to study them and gave an indication, prior to the interviews, of the line of his thinking. He then saw these gentlemen. I would mention, however, that in all the debates that have taken place, nothing but discouragement has been given to the idea that these gentlemen might be employed vain, either at Court Lees or as headmasters in an approved school. There was nothing to stop either of them from seeking employment; and certainly Mr. Draycon did so.
After this long and careful review the Home Secretary has decided to maintain the decision not to approve, at least for some time, should he be asked to do so, the appointment of Mr. Haydon as headmaster of an approved school. With regard to Mr. Draycon the position is somewhat different, because, while maintaining the previous decision, the Home Secretary will be prepared to consider his case again after the end of this year. I should add that appointments to the staff of approved schools (other than those of headmasters) do not require the Home Secretary's approval; and if such posts are offered them they are free to take them. Similarly, the Secretary of State for Education and Science, as the noble Lord has said, has not barred them from teaching. They are therefore free to accept any ordinary teaching posts offered to them. My noble friend Lady Gaitskell

1215
said that the Secretary of State for Education and Science had given a "grave" warning to Mr. Haydon and Mr. Draycon. That applies only in the case of Mr. Haydon. He gave a warning to Mr. Draycon. I mention that merely to show that there was a difference, and also to do away with the suggestion that has been made, and was made at the time, that they were "in the clear".
I have been asked whether the Home Office will help. Certainly, within the limits I have mentioned, my Department will do whatever we can to help find these people employment. Mr. Draycon has already sought our help in connection with several posts in schools of various kinds. Mr. Haydon has only recently done so. I have mentioned that when they move to take up other posts they will be given help with their removal expenses. Meanwhile, the six months' notice on full pay, which expired on February 6, has been extended to April 30, so as to give them time to find other jobs. That period of eight months' full pay is very much longer than is called for in their contracts. The Surrey County Council, to whom we cannot sufficiently express our gratitude for all their helpfulness in making it possible to start a new school on the premises, have allowed Mr. Draycon and Mr. Haydon to continue to occupy their houses there. But there is a limit to what the local authority can be expected to do. I trust therefore that they will soon obtain employment; because how long they can occupy their houses is entirely a matter for the Surrey County Council.
Your Lordships, I am sure, will be anxious to know, first, not only about the three principals, as it were, but what has happened to the remainder of the staff who, because of the unavoidable decision to close the school, were all given six months' notice, to expire on February 6. Because of the delay occasioned by the attitude of the former managers, it was not until November 8 last that Surrey were able to write to the remaining staff inviting them to apply for posts in the new school. All except five of those who applied were offered posts in the new school. The five not offered posts—this is apart from the head and deputy head—were two teachers, one being Mr. Cook, two housemasters and a house mother. They all received, by the same
1216
post which conveyed the bad news, a letter from the Home Office repeating an earlier offer to help in finding new jobs, and all five took up that offer. One teacher and one housemaster were assisted to find similar posts in other approved schools, which they took up on or before February 7. The other housemaster and the house mother, who was his wife, were put in touch with several suitable posts, but were not appointed. Their notice was extended to April 30, but the housemaster decided to take a post in industry in which he formerly worked. His wife decided not to seek other employment immediately.
There were four other former members of Court Lees staff who were offered posts by Surrey but did not accept. One retired and the others took other employment. All former staff who applied for but were not offered posts at the new school have been, or will be, given help towards the costs incurred in moving. All, including Mr. Draycon, are eligible for payments under the Redundancy Payments Act. Mr. Haydon is not eligible because he had not been at the school long enough. This leaves only Mr. Cook, the teacher whose letter to the Press uncovered the whole matter. In this I express my pleasure about what was said by my noble friend Lord Garnsworthy. It would be ironical if Mr. Cook were given less sympathy and understanding than those who, as it were, "laid it on". Whatever may be one's views of the exact method, the fact is that this matter might not have been uncovered but for Mr. Cook's action, and I certainly hope that in the material or the career sense, he will not suffer for it.
Mr. Cook was invited by Surrey County Council to apply for a post at Hays Bridge School, the new name of the school. He was interviewed, but was not successful. He applied for only one other post in an approved school as headmaster, but he did not get it. We believe that his best prospects are in general education. My Department has written, on his behalf, to 18 chief education officers and seven institutes of education about the possibilities of a post for Mr. Cook. He has been interviewed for several that appeared likely to suit, but so far without success. The replies indicate that there is no lack of willingness to help, but the posts for

1217
which Mr. Cook may be considered are limited by the nature of his qualifications and his own views and wishes as to the kind of appointment he wants. My Department will continue to do everything we can to help, but in this the Home Office can only use its good offices. Unquestionably, Mr. Cook has much to offer in a suitable setting, and I hope that it will not be long before he finds employment in which his undoubted talent can be fully employed.
My Lords, I said that I would mention Mr. Draycon, to whom my noble friend Lady Gaitskell referred, in her very moving speech. I hold no brief for Mr. Draycon, but the facts indicate that my noble friend has been a little hard on him. He was not found to have administered any excessively severe punishment, only that he failed to record some canings. He once caned a boy who was not wearing ordinary cloth trousers. The curious thing is that at an earlier, though not much earlier, stage of his career he was in charge at a time when, at the school where he was, there was no corporal punishment at all. I just wanted to put that point straight.
1218
My Lords, this debate will, I hope, be the public end of an unhappy story and the public beginning of a new and brighter chapter. The former senior assistant of the former school is at present in charge of the new school. Applicants for the post of headmaster are to be interviewed on April 4. A deputy head will be appointed later, and other vacancies will be filled. Meanwhile, the managers are proposing to reopen the school next week with the first group of 10 to 12 boys who will be selected with great care. This number will be gradually increased to 24, and once the new headmaster takes up his appointment, the school will build up to its full complement. I know that, whatever differences of view there may have been about this whole matter from the beginning and may still be, your Lordships will all join with me in wishing the boys, the staff and the school a happy and creative future.

LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's Consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.