Lords Sitting of 24 June 1969

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

RHODESIA: THE "FEARLESS" PROPOSALS
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 whether, in view of the new Rhodesian Constitution excluding the possibility of majority rule and establishing apartheid, the "Fearless" proposals for a settlement will be withdrawn.]
THE MINISTER OF STATE, FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (LORD SHEPHERD): My Lords, with the permission of the House I shall be repeating at about 3.30 p.m. a Statement on Rhodesia which my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary will be making in another place. I would ask my noble friend not to press for an Answer at this moment.

REPORTING OF MOTOR ACCIDENTS
2.37 p.m.
LORD SORENSEN: 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 order to relieve the pressure on police authorities, the existing regulations in respect of the reporting of motor accidents could be revised so as to make it unnecessary to report cases of trivial damage, where the car drivers and the owners of other vehicles or property affected agree either to take no further action or to accept compensation.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR DEFENCE, R.A.F. (LORD WINTERBOTTOM): My Lords, if an accident does riot involve personal injury there is no obligation to report it, provided that the driver stops and gives his name and address, and the name and address of the owner of the vehicle, and its registration number, to any person with reasonable grounds for requiring them. Even if the accident involves personal injury, the driver is not required to report it if he produces his certificate of insurance at the same time as he supplies the other particulars.
LORD SORENSEN: My Lords, I did not quite hear my noble friend. Am I to understand that a driver must supply his name and address to the police, or to someone else? Before my noble friend answers, may I also ask him whether this fact is generally known by motorists, because I do not think it is? Possibly a minority of motorists report accidents involving trivial damage, when they need not do so. But many others do not do so, thus avoiding wasting a great deal of the time of the police.
LORD WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, an accident which does not involve personal injury does not have to be reported if the individual involved in the accident gives his name and the registration number of his vehicle to any person who has reasonable grounds for requiring that information. If the accident involves personal injury, the driver does not have to report it if he produces his certificate of insurance at the same time as he gives the other particulars. My noble friend has informed me that the position is not generally known, but it is clearly set out in the Highway Code, and if people do not read their Highway Code they will not know what are and what are not their duties.

THAMES FLOOD PREVENTION
LORD TEYNHAM: 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 propose to come to a decision as to the alternative means of flood prevention on the River Thames in the tidal area.]
THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT (LORD KENNET): My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government said in answer to a question in the House of Commons on February 20, 1968, the Greater London Council have undertaken to investigate, in consultation with the Port of London Authority and the navigation interests, the relative advantages of a movable barrier and a fixed barrage. and the most suitable site. The investigation is likely to be complete by the end of this year, and my right honourable friend will then consider the Council's recommendations and consult with them upon the next step.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, while thanking the Minister for his reply, may I ask whether he is aware of the failure of Her Majesty's Government and the Greater London Council to come quickly to a decision in this matter? It is holding up important developments and work in the Thames area.
LORD KENNET: My Lords, if the noble Lord will specify which developments, I will willingly see whether anything can be done about them before the decision is reached.

SOUTH AFRICA: SUPPLY OF DEFENCE EQUIPMENT
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the present position regarding the sale both of Beagle aircraft and Marconi radar equipment to the Republic of South Africa.]
LORD KENNET: My Lords, any applications to export defence equipment to South Africa would be examined by the Government in the light of our stated policy. Both Beagle Aircraft and the Marconi Company make civilian equipment as well as defence equipment.
LORD NAPIER AND ETTRICK: My Lords. while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask him this question? It was reported not long ago that
76
His Excellency the South African Ambassador had commented in South Africa that there had recently been better understanding by Her Majesty's Government concerning the arms embargo against South Africa. Is there any truth in that statement?
LORD KENNET: My Lords, I think the terms of the United Nations' embargo on the sale of arms to the South African Government are fairly clear, and I conceive that Her Majesty's Government have understood them well since they assumed office.

LIVERPOOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.
BRADFORD CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

STANDING ORDERS
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (LORD SHACKLETON): My Lords, in rising to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper, I should like to remind the House only that these two Amendments to our Standing Orders are consequential on Reports from the Procedure Committee which have already been before your Lordships and agreed to. The first Amendment arises from the Second Report of the Procedure Committee on July 10, which was agreed to by the House on July 25, and the second Amendment, which is rather longer, arises from the Committee's First Report this Session, to which the House agreed on May 8 last. I beg to move.
Moved, 1. That Standing Order No. 55 be amended as follows:
line 2, after ("session") insert ("or, in his absence, a Deputy Chairman").
2. That the following new Standing Order be inserted after Standing Order No. 63:
Public Petitions
63A.—(1) No Petition, other than a Petition relating to Judicial or Private Business, shall be received, unless it is presented by a Lord and bears his signature.
(2) A Lord may present a Petition in person to the House, or may deposit it with the Clerk of the Parliaments, or may hand it in at the Table of the House.
(3) In presenting a Petition in person to the House, a Lord may only read out the Prayer of the Petition and state the number of Petitioners who have signed it.
(4) A Petition to which this Standing Order applies shall not be printed, unless a Lord gives notice of a Motion relating to it for a particular day.—(Lord Shackleton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

HOSIERY AND KNITWEAR INDUSTRY (SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH LEVY) ORDER 1969
2.43 p.m.
THE MINISTER OF STATE, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD BROWN): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1969, a copy of which was laid before Parliament on April 24, 1969, be approved. This Order, if it is approved by Parliament, will be made under the authority of Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The Act provides that charges may be imposed by Order on persons engaged in an industry if it is expedient for funds to be made available for certain purposes, one of the more important of which is scientific research. At the present time Orders under the authority of this section are in existence for the wool textile and cutlery industries. I now seek the approval of the House for a similar Order to be applied to the hosiery and knitwear industry, which in this context means, broadly, the knitting, dyeing and finishing and making-up of weft-knitted articles. The end-products of the industry include stockings and socks, tights, underwear, outer-garments such as jumpers and cardigans, weft-knitted fabric and other weft-knitted articles such as dusters and headwear.
Although this is the first time a scientific research levy has been sought for the industry, the Hosiery and Allied Trades Research Association (usually known as HATRA) has been carrying out collective research for the industry since 1949. This has been financed partly by voluntarily subscription and partly by a grant from the Ministry of Technology. The Association is currently supported by some 300 firms out of a total potential membership of over 1,000. However, in
78
terms of production member firms represent about 70 per cent. of the industry's turnover. The purpose of the proposed levy is to spread the cost of research, which benefits the industry as a whole through a gradual improvement in knitting techniques, on as equitable a basis as possible to all firms within the industry; and, in doing so, to augment HATRA's income to the extent necessary to carry out research on a scale suited to the needs of a highly competitive expanding industry, with considerable export potential.
The levy will be related to the turnover of the industry subject to deductions as defined in paragraph 6 of the Order. The levy will be payable in respect of six-monthly periods, and the charge will be 6s. 8d. per £1,000 of turnover (less certain deductions) during a base period of the previous six months. Based on the estimated turnover of the industry in 1967 and on the assumption that sales will continue to increase, the annual levy yield should reach at least £100,000 compared with the current subscription yield of £61.000. This should give HATRA a total income of £195,000 during the year beginning July 1, 1969, compared with £131,000 for the preceding year. This income will enable HATRA to increase their qualified staff to the extent necessary to carry out research into, among other things, automation of the making-up process, and the development of non-woven, non-knitted material, both subjects of vital importance if the industry is to maintain its strong position, both in overseas markets and at home, against increasing competition from imports. The Association will also be able to step up its current work on a wide range of subjects, including the study of fabric and yarn structures, shade variations in knitted goods, quality control and efficiency in water usuage and conservation. Greater provision would be made for the dissemination of information, both by literature and through the use of the "Hatravan" information and training van, and for improving its liaison services. These latter services are particularly important in an industry which has a large proportion of small firms, many of whom, especially in Scotland, are situated at some distance from HATRA headquarters.
It is against this background that in 1967 HATRA asked the Board to consider

79
making an Order introducing a levy for scientific research in the hosiery and knitwear industry. Their application was backed by a Joint Standing Committee consisting of senior officials from the two main trade associations—namely, the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation and the Knitted Textile Dyers' Federation—the National Union of Hosiery Workers and members of HATRA Council. At a general meeting on June 4 this year HATRA members reaffirmed their support for a levy by a majority of 2 to 1.
Besides the main trade associations and the principal union, the Board sought views on the levy proposal from 20 other organisations believed to be representative of substantial numbers of employers and employees in the industry, including the nine regional associations affiliated to the National Hosiery Manufacturers' Federation. As the result of the views expressed during these consultations, the Board reached the conclusion that the proposal to introduce a levy had substantial majority support within the industry as a whole, and my honourable friend the Minister of State at the Ministry of Technology (then Minister of State at the Board of Trade) announced to the House on April 3, 1968, the Board's intention to seek approval for the introduction of a levy.
The Order has been drafted following detailed consultation with organisations representative of manufacturers in the industry. The opinions of the small but important minority of organisations who criticised the levy have been carefully considered and, wherever practicable, modifications have been made to allow for their comments on the levy proposals. The most significant of these have been a reduction in the rate of levy proposed from 0·065 per cent. to 0·033 per cent. (that is to say, 6s. 8d. per £1,000) of net turnover and the provision for deduction from turnover of certain selling and distribution expenses, including those incurred in maintaining offices overseas for export promotion purposes. The fact that it has not been possible to meet all requests for modification of the levy provisions does not reflect any lack of appreciation of the differing needs of each sector of the industry. It does reflect the need to produce provisions which are as fair as possible to the widest possible sec-
80
tion of the trade without becoming so complicated and so capable of misinterpretation as to become unworkable.
The hosiery and knitwear industry is a growth sector with a fine record of exports. Between 1967 and 1968 production rose from £327·6 million to £387.5 million, and recorded exports from £27.6 to £37·6 million. I believe that with the wider range of scientific research made possible by the increase in income which the levy would provide for HATRA,, the industry will be better equipped to meet increased competition at home and at the same time maintain and expand the substantial level of export it has already achieved. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Hosiery and Knitwear Industry (Scientific Research Levy) Order 1969 laid before the House on 24th April be approved.—(Lord Brown).
2.52 p.m.
LORD DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for the full explanation he has given of this Order. Unlike many of the Orders that come along, this does not seem to have been one that was agreed to on all sides, although I am bound to say that I have received no representations against it. I think, however, that the House would like to know in what way the minority interests are protected. First, is there going to be a reorganisation of the governing body of HATRA to make certain that the smaller producers are represented on it—particularly the producers in those areas in which there is more opposition to this scheme than in the country as a whole? Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us about that. Secondly, could he tell us what was the real basis of the objections? Was it simply an objection to contributing at all, in terms that the objectors did not see the advantage of the research that was being carried on; or were there objections to the way in which the contributions were calculated; or what? I understand that the Board of Trade has made modifications to the original scheme to meet objections as far as possible. We welcome that.
The noble Lord referred to grant. From the figures he gave, it looks, by rapid calculation, as if the Ministry of Technology grant is being increased from £70,000 to £95,000. Is that so? At any

81
rate, he did not refer to the continuation of the Ministry of Technology grant. Would he be good enough to confirm that that is being continued in favour of this scheme? I would agree that the research schemes which were set up in the past—particularly those for textiles and cutlery, and of course a different kind of scheme in cotton—under the Industrial Reorganisation Development Act have proved their worth. It would be churlish not to welcome a scheme like this, even though it is opposed. At the same time, I think we are justified in asking the noble Lord to assure us that not only were the objections met so far as possible but that the minority interests are going to be represented and that there is good expectation that they can be reasonably satisfied with the outcome.
LORD AIREDALE: My Lords, there is one point I should like to make with regard to this Order. I calculate that the minimum levy which will be collected at any one time under the Order will be £1 13s. 4d.; that is to say, 6s. 8d. per £1,000 on the minimum turnover of £5,000. Can the Minister give the House an estimate of the administrative cost of collecting a levy of 33s. 4d.; and how much of that money will be left, after the cost of collection has been met, for scientific research, which is the whole object and purpose of this Order? Having regard to the administrative cost of collecting money nowadays, I have the feeling that there would not be very much left for scientific research out of any levy collected amounting to less than about £5 at a time.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, asked a series of questions. I will attempt to answer them. He asked whether there will be reorganisation of the governing body. I can assure the noble Lord that this is taking place. Discussions are proceeding now. The intention is to provide, if possible, regional representation on the HATRA Council. I think this will effectively look after some of the smaller interests to which he referred. The story of the objections is very complex. I do not quite know how to deal with this succinctly. They have been of a wide variety. There were three very large firms in the industry which each had some objections, but each had varying grounds for them. In some cases those grounds
82
have been removed, largely by the amendments made.
The summation of the statistical strength of objection was that the objections to the Order, in terms of the number of persons employed by the objectors, amounted to 20 per cent. In other words, 80 per cent. of the employment of the industry, if I may put it that way, were in favour of the Order. Much of the objection, which we are taking a great deal of notice of, came from some of the Scottish firms who are in the high-price goods class. Their selling costs and their advertising and overseas promotion would have ranked in the sales turnover for levy had we not, in the light of the objections, made substantial amendments. I cannot tell the House whether those amendments have entirely removed their objections but I am sure they have gone some way towards doing so.
In order to make the matter clearer I will itemise some of the amendments made in the face of very varied objections from a large number of quarters. I have already referred to the reduction of the rate of levy from 0·065 per cent. down to 0·033 per cent. Then there is provision for deduction of certain selling and distribution costs, maintaining offices, payments to a third party for advertising, salesmen's salaries, et cetera. As I have already said, these were made in deference to the views of the large Scottish manufacturers. Then there is deletion from the levy proposals of what is known technically as rachel warp knitting when carried on by a weft knitter, which is another process altogether. It seemed doubtful whether much research by HATRA would be devoted to this type of knitting; so that was deleted. There are also those who make stockingette for use as dusters, et cetera. The result of amendments made there will be that only a small proportion of their production will be leviable. Manufacturers of narrow fabric—up to 18 inches in width—will not have to pay on the turnover generated by such manufacture.
The provisions were redrafted to exclude firms belonging to the clothing industry who make up processed knitting fabrics, since it was not considered desirable or practicable to extend the levy to makers-up outside the weft knitting industry itself. This does not exclude

83
the function of making up if it is done by somebody who has done weft knitting, but it does exclude making up and other processes when it is done quite separately from those who make the material itself. Perhaps that is sufficient by way of example to demonstrate that a great many amendments have been made. It may be that the noble Lord will want to ask more questions in which case I shall be happy to answer them.
With regard to the grant from the Ministry of Technology, I concede that the figures that I have given are a little puzzling, and I took the trouble to discover how they were made up. The grant from the Ministry of Technology will probably be of the same order as in the past, about £36,000. There will be about £44,000 earned in fees by HATRA for services rendered. There will, we hope, be continuing the £7.000 amount of voluntary contribution from people outside the immediate industry concerned. The levy itself will, we hope, raise about £104,000. These figures should make a total of approximately £195,000.
I now come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale—and he was good enough to give me notice of it, which has given me an opportunity to go into the matter. I must confess that when he wrote to me about it his point met with a good deal of sympathy from me. I am sympathetic in principle to the idea that he is putting forward, but now that I have gone into it I have this to say. The minimum turnover which ranks for levy is already £10,000 per annum, £5,000 for each levy period. I am informed that no extra staff will be employed by the division of the Board of Trade responsible for collecting the levy and that the cost of printing, envelopes, stamps, stationery and so on, per firm, to whom they have to address themselves is approximately 1s. 7d. per company. What is, they think, a rather enlarged estimate of the total cost per annum of looking after the collection of this levy is about £3,300 a year. This has to he set against a levy collection of £104,000, and it is probable that the figure will be considerably less in the years after the first period, which always has initial difficulties.
My Lords, the point I would make—and perhaps the strongest reason for my suggesting that the noble Lord's point
84
is not so valid as it seemed at first to me—is that the Board of Trade will have to address itself to each one of these thousand firms in the first place to discover what is their turnover. They will have to be asked, and they will have to be asked each year, because the number of small firms in the industry is very high. There is great room for expansion because imports are very substantial and we hope that, with the help of HATRA and the emerging economic situation, turnover will rise in a number of cases very rapidly so we shall have to address ourselves to a thousand firms each year and it will not save much expense not to levy them.
The last point is this. If we were to raise the limit to something like £30,000 we should to some extent defeat the purpose of the Bill, because the urge is to get the burden of research carried by a much larger proportion of industry than is at present carrying it, in terms of numbers of firms, and if one raised the level of levy it would have the result of cutting out a very large number of small firms and it would appear inequitable. I hope that the reasons I have given will satisfy the noble Lord, and I assure him that I have approached the consideration of this point with sympathy, as I think he knows.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SELECTIVE EMPLOYMENT PAYMENTS VARIATION ORDER 1969
3.5 p.m.
LORD BROWN: My Lords, I beg to move that the Selective Employment Payments Variation Order, a draft of which was laid before this House on May 21 be approved. The purpose of Article 2 of this Order is to add four employments to the employments to which Section 1 of the Selective Employment Payments Act 1966 applies. This means that establishments engaged by way of business in such employments will be eligible for refund of selective employment tax and, in addition, in development areas to selective employment premium and regional employment premium. The employments are scrap-metal processing, waste-paper processing, film production and industrial photo-printing.

85
Since the early days of selective employment tax there has been a good deal of pressure from the waste-reclamation industries for scrap-metal processing and waste-paper processing to be relieved of the tax in the way which is now proposed. These industries contribute a great deal to the country's economy by providing the raw materials which enable further manufacturing processes to be carried out. Their products are carefully graded to a large number of individual specifications which can be used in manufacturing industry without further modification. It is intended that only establishments which process scrap-metal and waste paper by the use of machinery and to the specifications required by manufacturing industry should be eligible to benefit under this Order. It is not intended—and I must make this clear—that those scrap-metal and wastepaper merchants who merely collect scrap metal and waste-paper and sell it again without fulfilling the precise conditions laid down in the Order should benefit. The Order therefore draws a clear line between scrap-metal and waste-paper merchants and those processors who are producing to specifications laid down and are using machinery in order to do so.
The third industry to benefit under the Order is the production of films either for public exhibition or for television presentation. Again, ever since the imposition of the tax the Government have been pressed by the film production industry to make a concession of this nature. The industry is producing a manufactured article; namely, a film which can be and is sold. So far, the manufacture of unexposed cinematograph film has been eligible for refund of S.E.T. and so has the processing of exposed film for public exhibition. The intervening process—namely, the "shooting" and production of films—becomes entitled to refund under this Order. I should perhaps point out that similar processes recorded not on film but on videotape are not covered by this Order but are covered in the 1968 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification which comes into effect for S.E.T. purposes on the same date as this Order, subject to the approval of Parliament. This means that there will be no difference in treatment between films for public exhibition and videotape for television presentation.
86
The fourth employment now eligible for refund is industrial photoprinting. This is a comparatively small industry which produces enlargements of photographic prints for exhibition, publicity or display. It is to some extent in competition with the printing industry which has always been eligible for refund of the tax, and thus a minor anomaly is rectified.
Apart from these matters, there are two other matters covered by Article 2 of the Order to which I would draw your Lordships' attention. Last year's Selective Employment Payments Variation Order gave refund of S.E.T. and premium in development areas to slaughterhouses in the private sector of industry. Local authorities' slaughterhouses already received refund of tax under a different section of the Act. However, since last year's Order was laid before your Lordships it has become apparent that a number of private slaughterers have establishments within local authority slaughter-houses. These establishments were covered neither by the Act nor by last year's Order and thus a further anomaly was created. The present Order sets that right.
A further amendment to last year's Order is required in order that the slaughtering of animals when performed from a knackers yard, as for example on a farmer's premises, shall become eligible for refund of S.E.T. Under last year's Order, slaughtering animals within a knackers yard became eligible for refund. However, a number of knackers yards carry out the majority of their slaughtering on farmers' premises. The present Order puts all knackers yards on an equal footing, irrespective of where the actual slaughtering is carried out.
Finally, by Article 3 the Order acids one employment to Section 2 of the Act, which means that establishments engaged in it are eligible for refund only. They can never get premium even in development areas. This activity is that covered by Minimum List Heading 601 of the 1968 edition of the Standard Industrial Classification which relates to the production and distribution of gas. The public utilities—that is, gas, electricity and water—are of course mainly nationalised or are local authority enterprises. They are thus covered by Sections 3 and 4 of the Selective Employment Payments

87
Act and receive refund of the tax under those sections. However, when the tax was introduced, it was realised that there were a small number of private establishments which generated electricity or purified and distributed water. Such establishments were therefore made eligible for refund under Section 2 of the Selective Employment Payments Act by the Act itself. At that time there were no private sector establishments which produced gas. The position is now different. There are a small number of private sector establishments which process and purify North Sea gas before selling it to the Gas Boards. Under this Order these establishments become eligible for refund of S.E.T. in broadly the same way as establishments of gas boards engaged in the same processes.
The total cost of these concessions will be about £3 million in relief of S.E.T. and in premiums in a full financial year. It is proposed that the changes should take place on July 7, which is the same date as that proposed for the majority of the other changes in selective employment tax which are being made in this year's Finance Bill. My Lords, I hope that, with that explanation, it will be possible for your Lordships to approve this Order. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Selective Employment Payments Variation Order 1969 laid before the House on May 21 be approved.—(Lord Brown.)
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, it would be impossible for me to pretend that I can find anything good to say about the selective employment tax. What distresses us most is that the more harm it does, the more delighted the Government seem to get with it. It appears to have a kind of intoxicating effect on them and they keep on extending it, as they have done in this Budget. I do not think that this Order makes it much worse and it is certainly a good thing that the refund should be paid for the production of natural gas. The tax ought never to have been levied in the first place. Although I do not approve of the principle of paying a premium to a certain industry, I do not think it will do any great harm to extend this premium to the processing of waste paper—of which so much has been caused by the application of the tax itself—
88
and its conversion to the more useful pulp. I think that we should allow this Order to go through without any further comment.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

TELEVISION ACT 1964 (ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS) ORDER 1969
3.14 p.m.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1969, laid before the House on April 21 last be approved. The purpose of the draft Order now before your Lordships' House is to provide for a modest increase in the yield of the television levy. It is a matter of history that the community has to be provided with a proper share in the value of the profitability created by the concessions granted to the Independent Television contractors, concessions which enable them to benefit from an asset at public disposal. We are not debating to-day the history of Independent Television; we are debating only the draft Order before us. But I should like briefly to set this draft Order in its historical perspective.
When commercial television in Britain was first established it was not at the start a paying proposition. Since this is a field in which many noble Lords declare an interest, I will also declare my prejudice, which I think is well known to the House, and certainly was known at that time, against independent commercial television. I do not retract anything I said then. But Parliament decided that commercial television should come into existence, and I should like to pay a tribute now, and a very genuine one, to the interests who pioneered commercial television in the early days and made a go of it and, in particular, have given us some high quality programmes.
The tide quickly turned after a yeas or two. Income grew far ahead of expenditure; profits grew and grew. And that phrase was coined which has passed into folk lore, but which I cannot bear to repeat, uttered by the noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Fleet. The first step to correct this situation was taken in the 1961 Budget, in which the then Chancellor of the Exchequer introduced) a television advertisement duty at a flat rate

89
of 11 per cent. But this duty turned out to be the wrong way of dealing with the problem, and accordingly the 1963 Television Bill introduced a new solution—the additional payments, which have become generally known as the levy.
These payments took the form of rental payments, additional to the rentals due to the I.T.A. for meeting the latter's costs in providing a transmitter network and in supervising and controlling the programme contractors. These new additional rentals were to go into the Consolidated Fund and thus reduce, so far as they went, the burden of public expenditure which would otherwise have fallen on the ordinary taxpayer—and in these days this includes us all. I must emphasise that these additional payments were and are rental, not tax. This was made very clear by the previous Administration. If I may express it in another way, the levy is no more a tax than the rentals paid by tenants of Crown property. Here is something which is at public disposal.
Time has shown that Independent Television has survived the original levy and has continued to thrive. The levy came into operation in July, 1964, at rates previously provided for in the 1963 Act (and in the 1964 Consolidating Act) and has remained in operation at those rates ever since. Naturally we, and in particular the Chancellor of the Exchequer, have watched its progress. In the summer of 1967 officials of the Department of my right honourable friend the Postmaster General began discussions on facts and figures with their opposite numbers at the I.T.A., as a preliminary measure to enable the Ministers and the Authority to begin considering jointly whether the scale needed revision.
The main finding was that profits before tax of the Independent Television companies taken as a whole were running at well over 40 per cent. on capital employed. Profits were shown to be likely to decline because of the companies' new commitments in colour television and the Independent Television Authority's decision to introduce a fifth major contractor. These extra factors would more than offset the reduction in the Authority's own rentals. But past profits had been very substantial—I do not think anyone would dispute that—and it might well have been thought that an increase in the levy was overdue. My
90
right honourable friend therefore asked the Authority to consider whether there was scope for adjusting the scale of levy so as to increase the yield while still leaving the contractors with a reasonable return on their capital.
The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, and his colleagues in the Authority strongly advised my right honourable friend against any increase. So long as the Addison Rules are with us, I am sure that this is an area where it would be particularly difficult for the head of a body of this kind himself to debate an issue; and since he cannot speak for himself I must straight away defend him against any charge that in the long discussions which, as the Act requires, preceded the decision he and his colleagues did not make crystal clear to my right honourable friend their assessment of the future prospects of Independent Television.
None the less, the decision was for the Government, and Her Majesty's Government concluded that in the circumstances there was scope for an increase to give about £3 million extra in a full year; and this increase, as your Lordships know, was announced in the Budget speech. If applied in full to the current independent television contract year—the year ended July 28, 1969—this increase would still have left the companies with a return on capital, on the Authority's estimates, of 18 per cent. or so before tax, over the system as a whole. As your Lordships know, there are various ways of calculating return en capital, and that is why I preferred the rounder figure of 20 per cent. that I used on the last occasion.
Although the Authority felt unable to agree with the decisions to go for an extra £3 million, the Authority and the Government were able to reach total agreement on the fairest way of distributing the additional requirement. The Authority and the Government were able to convince each other that the distribution, which, of course, involves some contribution from companies who previously paid no levy at all, and a slightly greater contribution than before from the larger regional companies, was the fairest possible way in the circumstances of providing the Independent Television companies with the chance to achieve a roughly equal return on capital. Thus

91
this part of the decision was a fully agreed one.
My right honourable friend the Postmaster General has reported in another place the assurances he received from the Independent Television companies that they had no criticism to offer of the Authority's actions. They had, so he tells me, assured him also of their determination that, come what may, the quality of the programme in Independent Television would not be allowed to suffer. Their assessment of their financial future bore out the Authority's general assessment of future trends and added to it a forecast that in the year ending July 28, 1970, return on capital over the system as a whole would fall to about 10 per cent.
This latter forecast had not been available during the consultations between my right honourable friend and the Authority, but I understand that the Authority are convinced that it is correct. But this, even so, was an estimate. The facts were that, whatever the future might hold, the companies who enjoyed programme contracts before 1968 had been able to achieve a return on capital almost three times as great as the average for industry in the same period. I am well aware of the dangers of comparisons of this sort—it is never easy to get other than broad orders of magnitude and indications—but in an industry which may be at some risk, this risk had paid off very handsomely.
We shall see how things go. Her Majesty's Government are confident that the modest increase in the levy now proposed need create no insuperable difficulties for the industry. Your Lordships will have noted the pledge that my right honourable friend the Postmaster General gave in another place, but I should like to repeat it. He said:
"I give an undertaking to the House that we will keep the position under review and, if the contractors' worst fears as expressed to us are realised, we shall be ready to consider making a further Order reducing the impact of this charge."
He then added:
"This pledge cuts both ways. If things turn out better for the companies than we have foreseen, we would also have to consider whether it should be increased."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 16/6/69; col. 176.]
92
But this, my Lords, is staring into the crystal ball, and I do not propose to say anything further than that I think my right honourable friend's statement could not be fairer. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Draft Television Act 1964 (Additional Payments) Order 1969, laid before the House on April 21 last be approved.—(Lord Shackleton.)
3.25 p.m.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal will be aware that we on these Benches do not like this Order. We believe that the higher levy which it introduces imposes an unfair burden on the bigger companies, and an intolerable burden on the smaller ones. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, speaking of this proposal when it was in the Budget, said:
"This is competition with one hand tied behind our backs."
The size of the additional levy is worrying enough. but it is exacerbated by the method of its assessment. I know that the method of payments based on revenue rather than on profits was introduced by a Conservative Administration, but the effectiveness of this is very much affected by the size of the levy. While the levy is relatively small, it can be an encouragement to efficiency when it becomes dangerously near to the break-even point it becomes an incentive to cut standards. There is not now the same potential of increasing revenue that there was in 1963.
This is no longer a question of by how much we should cut excessive profits. There is a danger of eliminating profits altogether in some cases, or at least of reducing profits below a reasonable level where risk capital is involved. Noble Lords opposite may not accept that capital in Independent Television companies is risk capital. But there is a vast amount to be spent on conversion to colour, which was very fairly mentioned by the noble Lord. The major companies are having to find £8 million or more for this colour television, and it may not be a success. For most people the cost of a set is prohibitive. But even if it is a success, it may not bring in extra revenue. The B.B.C. get an automatic increase in revenue, through the licence, for every set sold. The independent companies have no guarantee that any more will be spent on advertising than was spent on

93
black and white television. Some of the smaller companies may make little or no profit at all after the levy. The major companies, on whose output and prosperity the programme strength of I.T.V. as a whole depends, must have a reasonable profit margin. Perhaps the time has come to calculate the Treasury's share on profits rather than on income.
There has been a lot of talk in both Houses about what percentage profit constitutes a fair return on capital, taking into consideration the risks involved. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, will tell us what are his views and those of the Government on this point. After what his right honourable friend said when this measure was debated in another place, it is important that we should know. The noble Lord has read out the undertaking of his right honourable friend, and I do not propose to repeat it. What he has said seems at first sight to be sweet reasonableness, but it seems to me that on closer consideration, it introduces an extraordinary new concept. What he is in fact suggesting might be done in the future is the fixing of profits by tax, or, if the noble Lord prefers the word, by this levy. What the Minister was in effect saying was that if, as a result of the increased levy, profits fall too much below the percentage figure that he presumably has in mind as a fair return on capital, he will reduce the levy; if they go about that percentage, the levy will go up so that the Treasury will take the excess. What is the figure that the Postmaster General has in mind as a fair profit on capital?
My Lords, if Her Majesty's Government are going to predetermine the profit that a company is to make, whether it does well or badly, whether it is wise or foolish, where is the incentive? Why bother? We know that the Party of noble Lords opposite dislike private enterprise. Up to now their policy has been to attack the private part of the combination. With this new suggestion they are leaving the private and killing the enterprise. I hope that they will think very strongly before carrying out what I believe is implicit in the Statement of the Postmaster General.
3.32 p.m.
LORD SHAWCROSS: My Lords, I hope it may not be improper if I seek to detain your Lordships for a few minutes
94
longer on the consideration of this Order. If the Lord Privy Seal tells me that I am in any way in breach of the Addison Rules, I will immediately bow to his better judgment, although I am assured that I am not in breach of the Rules. But I must at the outset disclose a clear and obvious interest in the subject matter of this Order in this respect: a month or two ago I was nominated by the Independent Television Authority to be—and in fact I am now—the chairman of one of the largest of the contracting companies. Your Lordships must discount what I say about this Order to what ever extent you may think right because of that affiliation of mine. Perhaps I may he permitted to add, since we are dealing with the profits of the television companies, that my own financial interest is one which in no way depends upon the profits that the companies make. I have no interest in the equity of these companies. and at the moment I am inclined to think that this perhaps is a fortunate fact.
At my age I should have known better, but I confess that when I was invited to take the appointment as chairman of one of these Independent Television companies, I was quite starry-eyed about the possibilities of increasing the popularity and the quality of the Independent Television programmes. I was convinced, too, that competition from the independent companies was one of the factors which would continue to ensure high quality on the part of the B.B.C. I must admit that at that time I shared the illusion which the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal appears still to have, that there would be no lack of money with which to improve the qualities of programmes. But, my Lords, this was not so. I had not been in the job many days before I found that the real problem was not how to spend more money on improving the quality of programmes, but how to make both ends meet, and ensure that there was remaining some reasonable remuneration for the capital which had been invested in the business.
This increase in the levy is bound to have grave repercussions on the economic viability of the independent television companies, and I think consequently upon the public interest. Some of your Lordships may have a different view, but my own view is that the success of these companies is a public interest. Of course

95
this levy—and I am not blaming the present Government for this at all; it was not their fault—is wrong in principle. I do not mean simply because it is a discriminatory levy on television advertising, but because it is charged on gross revenue, regardless of the cost of earning that revenue. If it is justifiable at all—I repeat, if it is justifiable—it should come as other rentals come: and the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal saw fit to describe this as a rental, although it is a very curious form of rental capable of fluctuating up and down at the whim of the Government of the day. If this is a rental, if this is a justifiable charge, by whatever name one chooses to give it, upon the revenue of the television companies, it should come after charging the costs of earning that revenue; in other words, upon the profit before tax. It was suggested in another place that to charge it in that way could not be done because of the risk of evasion. That is not so. The risk of evasion is no greater than such risk as may exist in the case of corporation tax, profits tax, ordinary income tax, all of which are taxes on revenue, after allowing for the costs of earning that revenue. In this case, with the Independent Television Authority acting as a constant and strict invigilator, the risk of evasion is indeed so much the less.
Your Lordships are concerned now, however, not with the principle of the levy, but with the proposed increase. As the noble Lord has said, the decision to make that increase was based upon the assumption that television companies were earning profits running at the rate of over 40 per cent. The noble Lord seems to have forgotten that this is a levy imposed upon new contracting companies. Some of them, it is true, are old companies with slightly different franchises. Some of them are entirely different companies, new companies which have had no participation in those large profits which now are a matter of history. These are profits being earned by new companies under new contracts, which have only six years of certain permanence to run. It is simply not true that the profits earned by these companies are of the order of 40 per cent., or anything like it. In the year ending this July, the year 1968–69, during which the new contracts have been running for 11 months,
96
the profits appear to be running at something a little under 20 per cent. For the coming year, 1969–70, ending July, 1970, the companies are now, as I know, working on budgets which show returns of 10 per cent., or very much under 10 per cent. in some cases.
This return is obviously and utterly inadequate to attract the introduction of capital into this very important industry. These companies will be left with no alternative but to make the most drastic and painful cuts in their expenditure. This is not a time when one sees much opportunity of increasing the revenue the companies earn—not a time when one can expect any great increase in advertising appropriations. It is not open to the television companies—and I am very glad it is not—in the way that it is open to one or two theatrical producers, who can, for a time, attract voyeurs to their theatres by the deliberate exploitation of pornography. We cannot profiteer in pornography. We have to provide—and I am glad that we do—good programmes for family audiences, and it is very difficult to see how the television companies can in present circumstances increase their revenue; it follows that they must drastically cut their costs.
My Lords, if the Government wish—and, contrary to all indications, one must assume that they do wish—that this country should maintain, and indeed lead in, the high quality of its television, and I would add also its radio, programmes, and the interrelation of the independent companies and of the State system is not to be denied, they must permit the independent companies, not excessive, not inordinate, but reasonable and fair remuneration for the capital which is invested in them. This increase in the levy is going to make that quite impossible.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord to make just one point? He made a reference to radio programmes. I was not quite sure what the significance was.
LORD SHAWCROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord may have observed and will no doubt be familiar with the fact that there has been much consideration in the public Press of the finances of the B.B.C. and the possibility that they too

97
may have to cut the quality of their programmes because their finances are inadequate. While, of course, I have no greater interest in the quality of programmes on the B.B.C. than other Members of your Lordships' House, I think it important from the point of view of the public at large that the quality of both television and radio programmes should not be allowed to deteriorate because of financial stringency.

RHODESIA: RESIGNATION OF THE GOVERNOR
3.41 p.m.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like now to repeat a Statement that is being made by my right honourable friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary in another place on Rhodesia. The Statement is as follows:
"In answering questions on Rhodesia yesterday I commented on the results of the referendum held on June 20. I said that the constitutional proposals for which the Rhodesian electorate had voted could never form the basis of an honourable settlement with this country and that there could be no prospect of such a settlement until there had been a real change of attitude on the part of the Rhodesian Europeans.
"One important aspect of the referendum result is its implications for the position of the Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs. Everyone in this country has felt the highest admiration for the courage and dignity with which he and Lady Gibbs have steadfastly upheld the cause of legality in Rhodesia. The messages which he has received from Her Majesty The Queen, on a number of occasions since the illegal declaration of independence, have testified to Her Majesty's deep appreciation of his conduct over a long and difficult period.
"Her Majesty's Government and all Members of this House share in that appreciation and have often expressed their own feelings of respect. It is right that we should again express that admiration and respect to-day.
"On June 11, before the referendum, the Governor issued a public
98
statement about his own position. In that statement he said that, if enough of the electorate voted for the Rhodesian Front proposals for them to be put into effect, then in all probability it would be impossible for him to continue to be Governor of Rhodesia, since the door to further negotiation would have been closed by the Rhodesian electorate who would have demonstrated their wish to break all ties with Her Majesty The Queen and with Britain.
"In view of the results of the referendum, I have been in consultation with the Governor, who has not changed his view. I have come to the conclusion that in all the circumstances it would not be justifiable to ask the Governor to remain any longer at his post.
"I have therefore advised The Queen that he should be permitted to resign. Her Majesty has graciously signified Her agreement and also the hope that, before long, Sir Humphrey and Lady Gibbs will be able to come to this country so that they can take leave of Her Majesty in person. I have notified the Governor accordingly.
"In the light of this decision, and of the referendum results, Her Majesty's Government have decided that it would serve no useful purpose to maintain the United Kingdom Residual Mission in Salisbury and that Rhodesia House in London should be closed. The necessary instructions have been sent to the Residual Mission and the Head of Rhodesia House was informed this morning. We have proposed a period of three weeks for closure on either side.
"We shall of course stand ready to resume links whenever there are people in power in Rhodesia who share our principles and with whom we can talk. As I told the House yesterday, it will remain our policy to work for an honourable settlement when that day comes."
3.45 p.m.
LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should like to join in what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has said about the Governor. Sir Humphrey Gibbs has had a most difficult and worrying and unhappy time, and it was obviously only his sense of duty and his loyalty to the

99
Queen which made him remain as Governor. I think that in the present circumstances Sir Humphrey understandably feels that the time has come for him to resign. And he does so with the grateful thanks of all of us in this House, wherever we sit.
I must say that I am not quite so sure about the decision to close the two Missions. After all, the Rhodesian Government has been illegal ever since U.D.I., though of course if a new Constitution is introduced and a Republic is declared a new situation will arise. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday, and has again repeated in this Statement, that he still wants a settlement, however remote it may seem at the present time. I should have thought it unwise at this particular moment to cut off the means of exchange of information and views and communication. This sort of decision may look firm, but I do not think it is anything other than a gesture—and not, I think, a very wise gesture.
LORD HENLEY: My Lords, may I, too, express our admiration and thanks to Sir Humphrey Gibbs for what he has done; for the untiring and selfless devotion with which he has approached this problem, at considerable expense to himself—not only financial expense, which I believe he has been put to, but also in his personal relations with other people in Rhodesia. The position must have been deeply painful to him.
I quite see that with this actual formal approach of the Republic the Government may feel that they ought to close down relations. I would not perhaps go quite so far as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, but I feel that possibly somebody of the nature of Sir Humphrey Gibbs, somebody of standing and of distinction, might be found to represent us informally in Rhodesia. Because, quite clearly, if we hope to arrive at some sort of arrangement between ourselves we shall have to keep some links open, and this might be the better way of keeping the links open at this particular moment. We must keep them open because Rhodesia, in spite of her referendum, is in deep trouble—in fact her troubles are possibly only just beginning. I hope that it will be possible to find some means of replacing Sir Humphrey Gibbs in some informal way.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I am sure we are all very grateful for the words of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and of the noble Lord who speaks from the Liberal Benches. If there is anything to be gained from the sorry affairs of Rhodesia it must be the gleaming light of integrity and duty that Sir Humphrey Gibbs has shown, not only to ourselves but also to those people in Rhodesia who believe in duty and integrity. Clearly, a decision as to whether our Residual Mission in Rhodesia and Rhodesia House in London should continue has given my right honourable friend deep thought. We have said on many occasions—and I do not think there has ever been any doubt about it in the minds of this House—that the proposals we made in "Fearless" lay upon the table; that if anyone wished to talk, particularly if there were to be meaningful talks, then we should be only too ready to listen and to hear. As my right honourable friend said yesterday, the proposals that we laid on the table were pushed off the table; and not by us. The hand that we have offered to Rhodesia was rejected by a minority in Rhodesia.
I hope that the withdrawal of the British Mission and the closure of Rhodesia House will emphasise to the Rhodesians and to the world at laree how completely and utterly we dissociate ourselves from the Rhodesia Front constitutional proposals. But, my Lords, having said that, I would add this: if there are people in Rhodesia who can create sufficient force that they represent the views of the whole of the people of Rhodesia, then we in this country will only be too ready to open our own hands and to listen to what they have to say.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord some questions on one or two practical consequences of this decision. In the first place, have the Government advised Her Majesty the Queen to make any financial provision for His Excellency the Governor in his retirement, in view of the fact that presumably he will not be eligible for any pension from any authority within Rhodesia itself, and has undergone considerable financial responsibilities in maintaining his position in Rhodesia without any cost to Her Majesty's Government here?

101
Secondly, what is the position in regard to the archives in Government House in Salisbury? Will they be retained by Her Majesty's Government here or handed over to the Residual Mission before they leave, since clearly there are papers there which are of considerable importance and should be retained in British hands? Thirdly, while supporting the Government's decision to reduce and eliminate the Mission, at any rate for the time being, I would ask: are any facilities to he retained in Salisbury—or indeed here—to deal with passport matters of British subjects who remain in Rhodesia, many of whom, over the period of these last years, have been completely loyal to the Queen and to this country?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, the noble Lord has referred to the financial cost that Sir Humphrey Gibbs has borne in his long period of service in Rhodesia. The fact that he has not taken a salary from this country was a decision of his own. Clearly a new situation has arisen, and certainly Her Majesty's Government will be in consultation with Sir Humphrey on this and other matters. In regard to the archives, this again is something that will have to be considered in the light of a number of other factors which we shall have to discuss with the head of the Residual Mission in Salisbury. These are practical issues which will have to be dealt with during the next three weeks. So far as passports are concerned, the facilities for obtaining a United Kingdom passport in Rhodesia for those who are entitled to it clearly will not be withdrawn, but applications will have to be made to the British Embassy in Pretoria.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not propose to go into the wider issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, but I should like to ask a perfectly simple question. As I understand the position, the referendum does not mean that the new Constitution is already law—it has not even been passed into law in Rhodesia. Would it not be more appropriate to delay the closing of these offices until the law is passed in Rhodesia? It may never be passed, and it seems to me that to take this action now will only embitter the situation and would not really he appropriate to the position in which we find ourselves.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I will only say to the noble Marquess that if I believed, and also if my right honourable friend believed, even at this late moment, that there was the possibility of a change, particularly with Mr. Smith and his colleagues leading the illegal régime, we would have hesitated in this matter. But I should have thought it was quite clear to anyone looking at this matter objectively, and also reading what has been said in Salisbury in the last month or so, that the possibility of meaningful negotiations is so remote that it can hardly be considered. A decision has been taken by the British Government, as I have said, in order to establish, clearly and once and for all in the minds of the minority electorate of Rhodesia, how utterly we dissociate ourselves from what they have done.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, may I make just one more point? I understand that the reason why the Government are taking this action is because they disapprove of the new Constitution. I can well understand that. But this Constitution is not yet law, and it seems to me to be premature to take this very violent action against some legislation which is not already in being, even in Rhodesia.
Loan HANKEY: My Lords, may we take it that the Government will cease to protect British interests in other countries the internal Government of which they disapprove?
Loan BROCKWAY: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that all of us, in all parts of this House, have the deepest admiration for the attitude of Sir Humphrey and Lady Gibbs and hope that they will be treated with the utmost generosity?
May I ask my noble friend this question? Is not the seriousness of the present position due to the fact that it is not only an attitude of Mr. Ian Smith and his Government but one that has been endorsed by a very large majority of the white minority population? In view of that fact, should not our policy be directed to providing conditions where the majority of the people in Rhodesia can reach a decision about their future? Has my noble friend noted the report of the United Nations Secretariat issued

103
to-day which indicates that during this last year Rhodesian exports have fallen only to a minimal degree, while imports have actually increased? Has my noble friend also noticed not only that South Africa and Portugal are involved but that Western Germany is second in the list of nations which are continuing their trade with Southern Rhodesia? In view of these facts——
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Speech!
LORD BROCKWAY: My Lords, I do not know whether I should appeal to the noble Lord, the Leader of the House. Others have made speeches; I am trying to put questions seriously. My last question is this. In view of these facts, if force is to be ruled out is it not essential that the isolation of this small minority in Rhodesia should be increased by cutting all communications with that territory and strengthening the application of mandatory sanctions?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, perhaps in reply to my noble friend I might also deal with the point that was repeated by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as to why we are taking this action at this present moment, and whether it would not have been better to wait until legislation had been passed in Salisbury.
Some three months ago Mr. Smith himself said, speaking about the referendum, that there could be no alteration to the new Constitution once it was accepted. Presumably by that he meant the referendum. He went on to say that Britain would have to accept Rhodesia on those terms. That is the situation which, clearly, we have to take into account.
In regard to sanctions, these must continue. I do not believe that there is an area for increased sanctions, but clearly existing sanctions must be made more effective. This is now a responsibility of the United Nations and the members of the United Nations. I would say to this House that we have played a full part in making those sanctions as effective as we possibly could, and in the light of the developments in Rhodesia in the past week it is for countries who believe in freedom to see that these sanctions are made effective.
LORD FRASER OF LONSDALE: My Lords, is the haste, which I think is un-
104
seemly haste, due to spite? Or what is the motive? Are there not countries which are Republics? Are there not countries with whose internal policies we profoundly disagree but with whom we nevertheless retain contacts? And do not contacts lead to friendship and, in the end, understanding?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, clearly in this world there is much disagreement and we have to find ways and means of reducing disagreement. We have for some four years now sought to find agreement with Rhodesia, and we have failed; and the hand we have offered has been rejected by the people of Rhodesia. I think I should say this: that there are many people in this country, some in your Lordships' House, who have unwittingly given an impression in Rhodesia that if they will hang on a little longer all that they stand for can be achieved and, in the end, will be accepted by this country. I do not believe it, and I ask Members of your Lordships' House and those perhaps in a wider field not to give comfort to the minority in Rhodesia who seek to impose one of the worst features of the present day, a racialist Constitution, one that I cannot believe can be defended in your Lordships' House.
LORD BOOTHBY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to clarify one point? I want to be clear about it. Am I right in saying that British citizens who settled in Rhodesia some years ago and have since taken out Rhodesian citizenship and Rhodesian passports will be entitled to apply for a resumption of British citizenship if they so wish?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I dealt with that matter some time ago. It is a very detailed and legal question. I will go into it and let the noble Lord know. I may say that what was the position has in no way been changed by this decision.
THE EARL OF SWINTON: My Lords, may I put one practical point to the Minister? I have not one word, naturally, to say in favour of this Constitution. The noble Lord knows my views about Rhodesia and the kind of Constitution I should wish to see there. But on the practical question of archives, Which is very important, I do not know to whom the archives belong. If the Government proceed to close down the

105
Residual Mission there and nothing is left, and Mr. Smith says, "I do not propose to hand over the archives", how do the Government propose to proceed to any practical arrangement about them?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, if the noble Earl will put down a Question next week I will be very ready to answer it. That is one of the practical matters which I referred to in an earlier supplementary answer that clearly will have to be dealt with by consultation. If the noble Earl, or any other noble Lord, wishes to put down a Question of this sort I shall be happy to answer him perhaps next week.
LORD ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask one more question? It is this. I was referring to one thing and I think my noble friend Lord Swinton was referring to a different thing. I was referring to the archives in Government House and not at the Residual Mission. In view of the reports of the attitude of certain of the most important and powerful chiefs, representing their people, and their desire to pass a message to Her Majesty the Queen, will the Government, before the Residual Mission closes down, make clear what channels can be used by any of the African peoples of Rhodesia to make such an approach to Her Majesty the Queen if they wish to do so?
LORD SHEPHERD: Yes, my Lords.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Minister kindly inform the House how he proposes that British interests shall be protected in Rhodesia after withdrawal of the Mission?
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, these companies are in Rhodesia. The Mission is being closed and we shall have to see how events develop. I hope the noble Lord is not suggesting that this Residual Mission should have remained indefinitely, despite any circumstances there may be, merely to protect commercial interests.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, is it the Minister's idea, the Government's idea, that we withdraw missions from countries with constitutions of which we disapprove? There might be a good many others. It is normal to have somebody to represent British interests in a country from which we have to withdraw missions.
BARONESS GAITSKELL: My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it is not just the fact that we disapprove of the régime and that we abhor the way events have turned out in Rhodesia, but it is the fact that we are responsible, or we were immediately responsible, for this régime? We are not responsible for the régime in Russia. We are not responsible at the moment for the régime in South Africa.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I think it is not for me to suggest that these questions and answers should be brought to an end. Clearly further opportunity could be provided if necessary. I would say to my noble friend that she has put in her own words very much what most of us on this side of the House, and I think most noble Lords on the other side, feel in this matter.
LORD HANKEY: My Lords, would the Government kindly consider how British interests are to be protected in this territory? Because even when we are at war with a territory we have some arrangement.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I must say to the noble Lord that he obviously will not get any more satisfaction. I really think we ought to return to the business. If the noble Lord wants to insist on going on, I cannot stop him.

TELEVISION ACT 1964 (ADDITIONAL PAYMENTS) ORDER 1969
4.8 p.m.
Debate resumed.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, we return to our fascinating discussion where the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, left it, on the subject of the television levy. Let me say straight away to the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, that he is in no way in breach of the Addison Rules and in any case it would have been for him to interpret them; it is not for me to interpret them, but I would have advised him if he wished it. It is entirely a matter for individual Lords to decide whether it is proper for them to speak in your Lordships' House. The noble Lord thinks that as chairman of a contracting company it is proper to do so, and I have no comment on this, beyond perhaps saying that when he has been

107
there a little bit longer he will have learned that the television levy has not been fluctuating up and down; it has in fact been altered only once since it was introduced.
I will turn to the rather serious points made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, about the future, and I may he able to say something of some comfort to him. I do not really believe that we ought to spend much time discussing whether this should be a levy on the net advertising receipts—I should stress that it is net and not gross—as opposed to some special levy on profits. This point was very fully discussed before, and although I take Lord Denham's point, which is a subtle one, that the levy is all right provided that the figure is low enough, but it becomes all wrong when it approaches the margin, with respect to the noble Lord I think this is a piece of sophistry, because the intention is that it should not approach too closely to the margin, that there will be an adequate level of profit.
I must remind the House of what Mr. Bevins, who introduced the new system, said. He said that the rental should consist of two elements: first, an amount to cover the costs of the Authority; and, second, an amount to cover the commercial value of the concessions. And he said that he had made it perfectly clear at the outset that the proposed levy was not a tax. To talk about discriminatory taxation—it has not been mentioned to-day, but it was on another occasion—was really an absurd form of talk. Of course the community has no more right than anybody else to charge unfair rentals; but I shall try to explain why the new rates of levy are in our opinion fair and reasonable.
I cannot help remarking that there has not been half the fuss over the new rate of levy that there was in 1963, when the idea of the levy was originally proposed and long before the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, diversified himself into this area of activity. There was enormously more fuss about it at the lime; and this is really nothing to be surprised at, because when the levy was first proposed the television duty which it was to replace took 11 per cent. of gross advertising receipts, while the new levy was to take, overall, nearly 25 per cent. of those receipts. No wonder there was a much
108
bigger storm than over this relatively small increase of to-day!
A recurring theme in discussion in another place, but not so noticeable to-day, has been that the new levy will bear particularly hard on the smallest companies. As I explained in my opening speech, although the Authority dissented from Her Majesty's Government's conclusion that there was scope for this extra £3 million a year, there was general agreement that this was the fairest way to do it in the circumstances.
I should like now to turn to this question of profits, and what is—I will not say the right profit, but the appropriate profit in the circumstances. I think we must recognise that companies whose contracts have been continued have received very large profits indeed; and it does not seem to be much in dispute that they have made what can almost be called excessive profits. But much of this profit has been distributed—in some cases because in close companies they had to be; in others because the companies chose to do so, as they have every right to do. Some companies decided, as they were fully entitled to do, to employ their profits to help diversify their businesses. Others built up reserves which will help to pay for the heavy programme of capital expenditure now facing the system, a programme the coming of which was readily foreseen, or could have been readily foreseen several years ago.
I must say that I am a little surprised at the concept, whether with a new company or an existing company, that in all circumstances if it is to finance new capital development its profit in any particular year must be above a particular level. The companies which were originally set up, before they really "came into the money", did not immediately make profits, and it is not unknown for private enterprise in fact to take risks and to face years where their profits are not as high as others. So I do not think it is reasonable to assume that the cost of the new capital investment which may face them, as well as the extra running costs brought about by the introduction of colour, is something that should be related directly to what their profits are in any one particular year; and I do not really believe that noble Lords who own businesses would dispute this particular proposition.

109
Profits on the new companies are now running at about 20 per cent. The levy, of course, is charged, as I admit, on all the advertising revenue which actually reaches the company, the so-called net advertising receipt which of course cuts out the cost of agency fees and so on. Looking back at the published figures of a group of two or three of the main provincial companies (and these are figures which I understand have been published; they have of course come from public companies) one finds a rate of return before tax of anything from 40 per cent., back in 1966, up to 80 per cent. But I must admit that, even so, I am slightly doubtful about the value of these particular figures. Again nobody will know better than the noble Lord, Lord Shawcross, that there is no such thing as right rate of return or profit. It depends on the type of business and on all sorts of things. One would have to examine them in great detail to come to precise figures.
But the common theme has been high profits. This is over and done with now and the community cannot, and ought not to seek to recover the money. It is true that, if there is the smallest element of truth in the Press reports which went the rounds at the time, some people were able to make a fairly spectacular killing on the market when the new contracts were awarded. I do not know whether this is true; but I am bound to admit that the levy is not the ideal remedy—indeed it is no remedy—for that. I have noted the concern expressed by noble Lords about the future of Independent Television, and Lord Shawcross's own idealist tic approach to what he hopes to do and what led him into this business, and I acquit him of any intention, so to speak, of trying to get his spoon into the gravy. I think he is fascinated, as anybody would be, by the interest of this type of activity. I am saying this in a kindly way to the noble Lord, because I can see that this is of great interest.
LORD SHAWCROSS: My Lords, I have no objection at all to "putting my spoon into the gravy". Unfortunately, there is no "gravy" and I have no spoon.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, the noble Lord was rather at pains at the beginning to indicate that he had no interest in the equity of the business. I
110
do my best to be nice to the noble Lord, but he slaps back at me, and therefore I am bound to say that for a man of his business experience I think he takes an extraordinarily narrow view of how companies operate. I really am astonished that somebody who has spent as long as he has in association with one of the largest companies in this country should think in these very narrow terms. His own company, Thames Television, is, I think, one of the newer ones; but we shall just have to watch the progress of these companies over the next period.
I honestly believe that we need not get so "steamed up" as the noble Lord, Lord Denham, is about the future. I want to focus on one point. The noble Lord alluded to the Postmaster General's reference to the possibility that in certain circumstances, if the profits were very much higher than expected, the levy might go up. Since the noble Lord has been busily assuring us that there is no possibility of the companies making profits of this level, I do not think he need worry about it. But I would agree with him that it would be a dangerous tendency if this became something that was constantly adjusted in this sort of way.
I find it impossible to state categorically what the right sort of rate of return should be. I think we shall agree that is has been excessive in the past, but if it drops as low as some noble Lords fear, it may drop too low for the satisfactory conduct of the business. But at this stage it is too early to come to any conclusion on this. This is a period of national financial stringency, and in a time of financial stringency, I think, a certain squeeze on profits is not necessarily a bad thing.
Again, noble Lords who have been in business will admit that at times when their profits have been squeezed they have worked with rather greater vigour to save costs and run the business more efficiently and maximise profits. The level of profits has been so high that there cannot have been a great deal of incentive in the past. Still, the fact is that managers and others go ahead in doing their best, to a great extent regardless of profit levels. This is going to be a challenge. In much of its output, and notably in the export market, the industry's performance has been first-class. Export earnings, I should mention, are not subject to levy and were deliberately left out of the reckoning in

111
the assessment of profits which led to our decision; and the new circumstances will, I hope, encourage the industry to try to improve still further on past performances, however good they may have been.
I have already paid a tribute to the achievements of Independent Television. I am bound to say that I think it is too early for the noble Lord, Lord Denham, to be seriously worried about the position of the companies, but I repeat again the undertaking that the Postmaster General has given that he will keep a careful watch on the situation.
LORD DENHAM: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I say that I think the Postmaster General's words need a little more clarification. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, has given us a certain explanation of it, but my worry is that he has suggested that he is going to regulate the profits by this levy which is based on the revenue. It is not a question of taxing profits. If you have a high tax on profits, the more profits you make the more tax you pay, admittedly, but also the more net income you are left with. But if, by the levy on the revenue, the net profit is going to be controlled, it is a little difficult for anyone to make any plans for the future and to put the risks on the one hand, against the advantages he may get, on the other.
LORD SHACKLETON: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is taking a little advantage of the House. He is supposed to speak only once, and I think that was more than just a question. The noble Lord has asked me whether I can be more precise about what the Postmaster General meant. What I think I did was put a certain gloss on what the Postmaster General said. The noble Lord has made his point. I think he is carrying his conclusions much too far and is reading too much into the Postmaster General's statement if he thinks it implies that the rental is something that is automatically regulated according to the movement of profits. Obviously one takes into account, as the previous Government did, certain profit levels, and one takes certain broad steps to bring them into whatever appropriate level the Government of the day think is right. It may well be that the returns will, in the course of the next year or two, be very much
112
higher than the Government have foreseen, but there is nothing they can do about it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SHARING OF CHURCH BUILDINGS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with Amendments: the said Amendments to be printed.
NATIONAL MOD (SCOTLAND) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL
4.24 p.m.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Extension of area of operation of Corporation]:
On Question, Whether Clause 2 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: On the Second Reading of the Bill I raised with the Minister a point concerning the extension of the area of activity of the Colonial Development Corporation, and suggested to the Minister that the word "may" in the Explanatory Memorandum did not impose upon the Minister the absolute duty of calling upon the C.D.C. to ask for his agreement before they extended beyond their existing territories. Further, I felt that it was necessary that Parliament should be informed if and when the boundaries which at present limit the C.D.C. are extended to areas outside the ones at present authorised,

113
and I suggested that I might put down an Amendment on the Committee stage. At the same time, I said I should be perfectly content not to put down an Amendment if the House could have assurances on that dual point, the dual point being, first, that the C.D.C. should have an obligation to obtain the Minister's permission, and, secondly, if that were given, that the Minister should inform Parliament. The noble Baroness was good enough to communicate with me. I have not put down an Amendment and I understand she would now be willing to inform the House further on the particular points I raised.
THE EARL OF BESSBOROUGH: If the noble Baroness would permit me. I should like to support my noble friend on this particular point. I, too, should have preferred to see the word "shall" substituted for the word "may" in Clause 2(2) of the Bill. But the noble Baroness having already given both my noble friend Lord Balfour and myself certain assurances on this point, I think I am quite happy about it, subject to whatever the noble Baroness may say now.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: The noble Lord was rightly concerned about the extension of C.D.C. activities into new countries and that they should be subject to the approval of the Minister. The Minister had indicated in another place that he would give directions to C.D.C. under Clause 2(2) of the Bill, but I very much welcome this opportunity of underlining that and of saying further that on each occasion such approval is given the Minister intends to inform Parliament. I am extremely grateful for the courteous way in which the noble Lord raised these important issues. As he says, I wrote to him and gave him assurances from my right honourable friend. I think the House would like to have them written into the Record, and I hereby say that it is the intention of the Minister once the Bill is passed immediately to give directions requiring the Corporation to obtain his approval before performing functions in any new country; and I further give his assurance that he will inform Parliament. I should like to thank both noble Lords for the way in which they have dealt with this matter and to say that I am glad to have had the opportunity of making the Minister's intentions clear.
LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE: I am sure the Committee will accept the assurances of the noble Baroness on behalf of the Minister of Overseas Developments on these points. I thank the noble Baroness and, through her, the Minister of Overseas Development.
LORD WALSTON: I do not want to bring an unhappy note into the friendly discussion that has been going on. I am certainly not in any way dissatisfied with what my noble friend has said, but I should just like to issue one note of warning, I hope in a delicate and tactful manner. The C.D.C. has operated admirably—I think all noble Lords and everybody else are agreed with that. They have behaved in a sensible way, in a responsible way, and in a business-like way. It would be a very great pity if now, with this further extension of their area which has been welcomed by everybody, they should be subjected in any way to an increased bureaucratic, as opposed to business, control of their activities.
As I have said, I have no objection at all—I think it is quite reasonable—to the fact that the Minister should be informed when they are intending to go into a foreign country as opposed to a Commonwealth country and that he should have the right of veto if necessary, but I hope that this will not be interpreted in such a way that all proposals for operating in foreign countries will have to be submitted and scrutinised by the officials of a Government Department which is not, in fact, the C.D.C. itself, and go through what is sometimes a fairly lengthy procedure before they eventually find their way on to the Minister's desk, which might mean that the very efficient activities of the C.D.C. will be held up. So I hope that the noble Baroness will give us a further assurance that this will not in any way be used as a means of stultifying or making less businesslike the activities of the C.D.C.
BARONESS LLEWELYN-DAVIES OF HASTOE: I can indeed give my noble friend the assurances for which he asks. I know that my right honourable friend considers the C.D.C. one of the best methods which he has of giving aid. In any case, he had intended to give directions that the C.D.C. should seek his approval before going into foreign countries. I do not think that this will in

115
any way be a bureaucratic action and I do not think it will cause delay. thank my noble friend for his interest in this matter and for his approval of the C.D.C., but I can sincerely say that I think his fears will prove quite groundless.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

DARTMOOR PRISON: DISCIPLINE AND SECURITY
4.33 p.m.
LORD MOLSON LORD MOLSON rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have noted the evidence given in a recent trial before Mr. Justice Lawton of unsatisfactory discipline and security in Dartmoor Prison. The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships may feel inclined to ask why I should be raising this matter now, when all the material facts were revealed as long ago as December, 1966, in the Report of the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma, into Prison Escapes and Security. The reason for my raising this matter is the recent conviction of Reginald Kray of conspiracy to effect the escape of Mitchell. In some respects, evidence in the trial goes beyond the evidence that was put before Mr. Robert Mark, and certainly in many important matters it tends to confirm the findings of that inquiry.
Lord Mountbatten recommended, first, that some immediate changes should be made in the arrangements at Dartmoor, particularly in connection with the so-called "honour party". and he then went on to recommend that after certain changes and improvements had been made new organisations should be introduced for the future. I want to ask Her Majesty's Government what they have done, or intend to do, to make certain that there is no such scandal in the future as occurred on that occasion. It is not, I think, too strong a word to describe what has been revealed in connection with the imprisonment of Mitchell as a scandal. A so-called honour party was allowed to work outside the gaol, and it consisted of five prisoners.
In addition to Mitchell, two of them had been convicted of violent offences. One of them, while undergoing imprisonment, had been punished for two assaults upon a warder and for one assault on a fellow-prisoner. Mitchell was sent to Borstal for the first time at the age of 17. He was sent there for the second time at the age of 20, and he had spent most of his adult life in prison. He had been sent to Rampton and had escaped, and while away from there had attempted to commit murder.
There would appear to have been a remarkable failure on the part of those in authority correctly to assess Mitchell's state of mind. Lord Mountbatten said:
"His behaviour and progress had been at all times carefully studied and assessed. To what extent the assessments were accurate remains to be seen".
That is in paragraph 197 of the Report. I think it is reasonably clear now that those assessments, indicating a very great improvement in the man's character, were in fact inaccurate. It was as a result of those assessments that he was allowed outside on a working party, and this was fully in line with other decisions about his treatment. To allow him out on the honour party was, in Lord Mountbatten's view, "a logical development". But the Deputy Governor—whose report is extensively quoted in Lord Mountbatten's Report—the chaplain, the prison medical officer and the Governor must all have been entirely misled. One would suppose that the evidence they received was incorrect or inadequate.
I feel that one is entitled to draw attention to the extraordinary expression of opinion by the prison medical officer, after this dangerous criminal had broken away from an honour party and escaped, when he said:
"I feel that this one incident of his breaking from an 'honour party' should not be used to allow repressive measures to creep into the prison system."
An attitude of mind of that sort seems to me deplorable, when an escape of this kind so obviously shows a complete failure of the whole treatment that has been accorded, and involves great danger to the general public. We now know that while on this honour party, Mitchell was in the habit of visiting public houses on the Moor. We know from the Report that on occasions he refused to work and was allowed to stay in the hut. From evidence that was given in the Kray

117
trial, we know—or if we do not know, it was, at any rate, stated on oath—that he went to—
THE MINISTER OF STATE, HOME OFFICE (LORD STONHAM): My Lords, the noble Lord said that we know that when Mitchell was on the honour party he refused to work. The only evidence given on that point was by the prison officer in charge of the honour party, who, when asked the question, said that Mitchell had never refused an order from him.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I will not pursue this particular matter further if the Minister of State disputes it. But it was accepted by Mr. Robert Mark that that had been so, and if the Minister of State has now found that it was not so I shall naturally be interested. I am assuming, from what was I thought a very careful Report, and, if anything, a Report which understated the position, that that is what the prison officer stated to Mr. Mark.
The finding of Mr. Mark can be summarised by what he said at page 43:
"… many of the staff with personal experience of Mitchell have volunteered statements which indicate that some officers tolerated abuse, threats, and in one case manhandling amounting to technical assault by him, without pursuing the matter; or were dissuaded from that course by the supervisory officers below the assistant governor level".
Frank Benson, giving evidence on oath in the Kray trial, said that Mitchell was allowed to do what he liked. My Lords, this is a shocking state of affairs in a prison, and what I want to ask the Minister of State is: Why did the Governor and Deputy Governor not know what was going on? Were the prison officers in contact with Mitchell so intimidated that they did not dare to report him to higher authority? In any case, it is a very serious reflection on the organisation of the prison, the supervision and the communication between members of the staff who were responsible.
While Mitchell was out with the honour party, in addition to the prison officers, who were entirely inadequate in number, there was additional supervision. At paragraph 188 we are told:
"The responsibility for visiting the Honour Party at irregular intervals was shared by two principal officers who ordinarily did so twice
118
a week. No record was made of these visits".
That appears at page 49 of Mr. Mark's Report. So in the first place we have no reports being made to the Governor or the Deputy Governor by the prison officers who were responsible for the daily supervision of the honour party, and then we have this additional supervision by two principal officers who went out at irregular intervals—obviously sent out to check what was going on—and no record being made of these visits.
My Lords, Lord Mountbatten summarises the state of affairs in paragraph 199:
"… Mitchell came to enjoy in day-to-day circumstances more liberties than he should have had or was ever intended to have, and grounds for suspicion that he was abusing the trust placed in him were not reported to senior officers. This was a failure on the part of the senior officers to convey their policy clearly, and a failure on the part of the junior officers, either through fear of Mitchell or through lack of good sense, to report the liberties that he was taking …".
In the evidence given in the Kray trial, Mrs. Prescott said that Mitchell had told her how he went on "pub crawls" outside, how he rode over the moor on a pony, that his cell was crammed with drinks and cigarettes, and that Reginald Kray smuggled him £100 a week. Frank Benson, another witness in this trial, stated on oath that Mitchell had £45, and he went on to say that all the prisoners in the gaol had access to money. I should like to ask the Government whether that is actually the case. The whole situation is summarised at paragraph 185, where it is said:
"… it was possible to visit Mitchell, in or outside the prison, agree an appointment to pick him up whilst unescorted outside the prison, and take him away without difficulty".
My Lords, I come now to the question of visits. Paragraph 176 sets out the visiting procedure at Dartmoor. Paragraph 177 states:
"Unless the person concerned is known to be undesirable there is no hindrance to anyone visiting."
Then in paragraph 182:
"It is relevant to mention that before the Criminal Justice Act 1948 abolished the distinction between convicts and prisoners, the Prison Commissioners sought the assistance of the police as a matter of routine in considering the suitability of anyone applying for permission to visit a convict. Permission was not granted until that had been done. This procedure was not followed even before 1948 in

119
respect of prisoners as distinct from convicts and has never been introduced subsequently".
As I understand it, the reason prisoners are allowed to receive visitors is that such visits have a beneficial effect on the characters of those detained. It is, if I may quote a hymn we used to sing at the beginning of every term, and with which the right reverend Prelate will be familar, to
"Keep the spell of home affections,
"Still alive in every heart."
Visits by wives and children, and by other friends, are encouraged, I understand, as being likely to keep alive among the prisoners an interest in the outside world and a desire for rehabilitation and a return to their homes.
My Lords, when we find that in this case Reginald Kray, at that time already known to the police to be a member of a criminal gang, was able, without any let or hindrance or any inquiry, regularly to visit Mitchell in Dartmoor Prison. to bring him money and so on—the Minister looks surprised. I should be very much interested if he is going to deny that Reginald Kray was in the habit of visiting Mitchell in Dartmoor Prison.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, we have no evidence whatsoever that Kray ever visited Mitchell in prison. I am interested to know what evidence the noble Lord has to the effect that he did.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, it was frequently stated on oath at the trial of Reginald Kray that that was the case. In any case, how are the Government in a position to say that Reginald Kray did not visit Mitchell since no inquiry was made as to who were the people who did visit Mitchell while he was there? As was made quite plain, there was no inquiry into who did visit him there. It has not been the practice of the prison authorities anywhere to inquire as to the suitability of visitors from the police, who are the people most likely to be in a position to give guidance on the subject.
I would now summarise my questions to the Minister of State. First, what steps have been taken to deal with this matter as the result of the Mountbatten Report? Secondly, what are the present arrangements regarding outside working parties at Dartmoor? Thirdly, what steps have been taken to ensure at Dartmoor
120
effective communication between those in touch with the prisoners and those in higher authority; and what steps have been taken to ensure that there is in Dartmoor humane, but at the same time firm, discipline?
4.51 p.m.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I see that the right reverend Prelate wants me to speak before him; so I shall. I wish to support my noble friend, Lord Molson, to this extent: that now that the Kray trial is over certain questions should be answered by the Government who, with the various law cases going on, have been inhibited from giving a proper reply to criticisms made in the Mountbatten Report. What was going on at Dartmoor, what has come out in the trial. has been a shock to all of us, and particularly perhaps to people like me who have had a certain experience of prison and prison governors and officers. I must say here that in general my admiration for the work done by the Prison Service is very great. They work under exceptional difficulties, one of which is that there are a great many prisoners compared with the number of prison officers. But the fact remains, as my noble friend said, that things went very wrong. I tend to put a slightly different gloss on it from that of my noble friend. I do not pay too much attention to the evidence that came out in the Kray trial. I am sorry for Mr. Justice Lawton in having to make up his mind, when telling the jury what was what, as to who was lying and who was not. He had a gang of ruffians giving evidence, and that made the task almost impossible. There is quite enough to answer in the criticisms of the Mountbatten Report. We want to know if those criticisms have been dealt with.
I do not think that the actual escape of Mitchell is all that important, because there is no prison in any civilised country from which escape is impossible. I would remind your Lordships that escapes were made even from Colditz in Germany, in the middle of enemy country, where prisoners were shot if they tried to escape, where there were electric fences and so on. It was the one fortress to which prisoners who had tried to escape were sent after recapture. So the actual escape is of secondary importance to what we are talking about now.

121
I think that the first question to ask ourselves in considering the matter is this. Was the policy of leniency to Mitchell entirely the wrong policy? In my view, it was not entirely wrong. It is impossible to run a prison satisfactorily unless the prison staff can, by and large, get the co-operation of the prisoners. This is largely a question of numbers. The Prison Service, even in the period before his detention in Dartmoor, had had great experience of Mitchell. He was a man of enormous physical strength, with a fiery temper and a rather childish mind—a difficult combination. He was the kind of problem prisoner who causes difficulty in co-operation. After endless conferences, in which not only prison governors and prison officers but also Home Office officials took part, it was found during the years that Mitchell's cooperation could be gained if he was ridden with a light rein. I believe that that was probably the best policy.
But, reading between the lines of the Mountbatten Report, I think that throughout this affair the orders to junior officers were probably not precise enough. Indeed, at a later stage, the orders from the Home Office to the Governor were not precise enough. It rather looks as if the junior prison officers were told: "This fellow is dangerous. He is very strong. We find that we can handle him if we are not too fussy; so treat him lightly." I very much doubt if the orders went much further than that. It is difficult to know, since there is no actual evidence: but it that is the case I think they were not enough. And there was evidently. as my noble friend has said, a lack of communication between the junior officers and the prison Governor which should in these circumstances have been stressed from the top in this way: "We want repeated reports. Is he trying to break too many prison regulations or is he trying to break them all? We want to know". I doubt whether more than general orders were given. So far I have seen no evidence about it; but reading between the lines that would appear to be the case.
After endless more conferences at which doctors were called in, medical officers from Broadmoor (where he had been and from which he had escaped) and Home Office officials, it was decided to try the experiment—and, of course, there is a
122
risk in these experiments—because Mitchell had been in latter years, on the whole, co-operative, to let him work outside. The Home Office eventually said "Yes; we shall try it. Put him on the quarry party." Here, again, I think communication broke down, in this case between the Home Office and the prison. Orders were not definite enough on this very difficult man. He was put on the quarry party. In the quarry party prisoners work in small groups under permanent supervision from two prison officers at least on top of the quarry who can see what is going on. The work was satisfactory there. Then—again I think owing to lack of communication—it was decided to try him on the honour party. The Home Office had not said that he could be tried on the honour party; on the other hand, they had not said that he could not be. In my view they should have said that he could not until they had had a further report.
Mitchell should never had gone on this honour party without specific permission because, my Lords, what is an honour party? In most prisons, or in many prisons, there is a hostel system. Men nearing the end of their sentence and who know when they are likely to go out, live in a hostel and go out to work. At Dartmoor that is not possible because of the geographical situation and, in effect, the hostel system at Dartmoor is the honour party system. A man serving a life sentence is not allowed to enter the hostel system until he knows the terminal date for his sentence. In other words, he is told, "By such and such a date you will he released—if you behave yourself." Then he may, or he may not, be allowed to take part in the hostel system; but he is never allowed to do so until the terminal date is known to him. Mitchell's terminal date had not been——
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, although I know what his intention is, I do not think he had made it clear that he is talking only about life prisoners.
LORD DERWENT: My Lords, I did refer to life prisoners; it is particularly important and I did say it. I am sorry that the noble Lord missed it. I was saying that Mitchell had no business to have been put on the honour party, which is equivalent to the hostel system, because his terminal date had not been

123
decided and he was serving a life sentence. There again there was a lack of communication.
It has been suggested that the staff were frightened of Mitchell because he was immensely powerful and had an ungovernable temper. That may have been the case with regard to certain officers; it is a very difficult problem for them. Some of them may have been frightened of their bosses. They had been told to treat Mitchell with a light rein and not to let him get into trouble if they could avoid it. What is a young prison officer to do? Either he keeps going to his superiors, in which case he is told that it is about time he used his own nous, or he is frightened to go to them. I dare say that among some of the younger prison officers there was just as much fear of falling down on the job.
My Lords, what is a prison officer to do when a man like Mitchell is in an honour party and when the members of the party are not in the officer's sight all the time? I would quote two paragraphs from the Mountbatten Report, because I think that they are very telling. The first is something which was said by an officer who was frequently in charge of the honour party and who was being questioned. He said:
"If Mitchell had escaped at any time of the day, whether he was with me or away from me, there was nothing I could do to prevent him. My duty as an officer working alone"—
which he would have been—
"would have been to collect the remaining members of the party and walk or run approximately three miles to the telephone kiosk at Peter Tavy. I know of no one who would argue with Mitchell on their own."
He was obviously frightened of violence, but what was he to do if Mitchell ran away? Should he leave the other prisoners? That is one of the questions I shall come to at the end when I ask about what is now happening.
The second paragraph relates to another officer. This is what he said about Mitchell—and it is why I think that the orders cannot have been clear in the first instance:
He has never shown any physical violence towads me but at times he did used to get in a temper over something that was not apparent to me and I would just let him go. I felt I could not afford to risk him attacking me."
124
That sentence may mean either that the officer was frightened of being attacked or that he was told to see that Mitchell did not cause trouble—to ride him lightly. The officer went on:
"If Mitchell said he wanted to do something, for instance help with the dinner, I let him do so. Mitchell once or twice said that he did not want to go and work at the fence"—
this is what I think my noble friend Lord Molson was referring to—
LORD MOLSON: Yes.
LORD DERWENT: He continues:
"and so I let him stay in the hut with another prisoner. I just could not afford …"
Remember those words, my Lords. Here is an officer on his own in charge of a batch of prisoners who were spread about." I just could not afford could mean anything—that he "could not afford" if he was to do his job properly; or because it was Mitchell he "could not afford". We do not know, but he said:
"I could not afford to have Mitchell troublesome."
That was the position.
My noble friend has asked certain questions, and we are all extremely concerned as to what went on. I think rumour may well have blamed the prison authorities unfairly; it is difficult to tell, particularly about this fear of Mitchell. But again I would stress to your Lordships that co-operation of the prisoners is essential if the prison is to be run properly. I put down much of the fault in the case of Mitchell to lack of clear orders, both from the Home Office and from the senior officers of the prison.
The questions I want to ask come from recommendations in the Mountbatten Report. The first one is this: has supervision of working parties been strengthened, or is that impossible with the existing establishment of officers? This is all part of the first main question. If it is not possible with the present establishment of officers, is it not time, even in these stringent financial times, that additional staff should be recruited? The cost would not be very great. It emerges from the Report that if an officer in charge of an honour party, or indeed in charge of other outside working parties, wants help, he has to run for it. Sometimes he has to run for miles, and make the prisoners run with him, if he can. In these modern days that is an absurd situation,

125
and the Mountbatten Report stressed very strongly that every prison officer in charge of an outside working party on the Moor should be in radio communication with his headquarters. So my second question is: Has this now been done?
My third question refers to the terminal date. If you are going to allow a man a certain amount of freedom and no terminal date has been fixed in respect of his sentence—and a terminal date is the one thing that keeps up his hopes—he will attempt to escape. In my view, before any prisoner serving a life sentence is allowed to join a working party of the kind we are talking about, he should be aware of the terminal date of his sentence; otherwise he should not go out. I ask: is it possible nowadays to give longer notice of the terminal date? I think it has been three months or six months in the past——
LORD STONHAM: It is 12 months.
LORD DERWENT: I think the noble Lord said that it was originally 12 months. I think it ought to be longer. To give a terminal date is merely saying. "If you behave yourself and all goes well, you will go out on that date". It is not a promise to the man that he will go; it is a promise that if he behaves himself he will, and the longer ahead he can be given a terminal date, the better.
5.9 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I suppose it is obvious to everybody that in the case of Mitchell a mistake was made by somebody—perhaps by more than one person. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, has just pointed out, there was plenty of thought behind the decision to treat Mitchell in the way in which he was treated; and there was plenty of thought behind the decision to put him in the honour party. Unfortunately, Mitchell's character was misjudged: it is a risk that one must take in cases of this kind, and there are bound to be mistakes every now and then. But I think that your Lordships should be reminded that the escape rate from Dartmoor is (I think I am right in saying) about one per year. Those who live on Dartmoor do not live in fear of having their houses broken into night after night by violent escaped prisoners.
126
What I must stress, however, is that the inside of Dartmoor Prison (and I know it probably better than most of your Lordships) is really very unpleasant. I am sure that the Minister will not quarrel with me about that. The buildings are well over 100 years old. They are by no means impervious to damp. They are painted inside year after year, but the damp still comes through and runs down the walls. The geographical position of Dartmoor Prison is in itself delightful—I would far rather be there now this afternoon than here in the City of Westminster. But it is undeniable that during the winter months there is an above average degree of mist and rain, and this is of course depressing.
The cumulative effect of this is that the régime inside the prison has to be pretty relaxed and liberal, if they are not to have riots on their hands, human nature being what it is. Your Lordships must also remember that Dartmoor Prison is not in a technical sense a maximum security prison. It does not have a maximum security wing, like Parkhurst and Durham, and it is not intended for that kind of prisoner, I think. One might ask the Minister, therefore, how it came about that a man of Mitchell's antecedents was sent to Dartmoor at all. It really imposed upon the prison officers at Dartmoor a rather specially difficult problem, and one to which, I imagine. they were not accustomed. But this I would not know, and I merely asked the Minister whether this is so.
I should also like to ask the Minister whether he is in a position to give us any kind of assurance as to when the existing prison at Dartmoor will be pulled down and when it will be rebuilt. If there is a decision to pull Dartmoor Prison down, I would also urge on Her Majesty's Government that the new prison be again built at Dartmoor, because it is a very good site for a long-sentence prison. It has a very extensive farm and before the Mountbatten Report, a number of the prisoners were allowed to do a great deal of maintenance, repairs and decorating in the many houses which are in the ownership of the Home Office. It is a good site for a prison. All that is wrong with it is the Victorian building which now exists. I hope that I may perhaps have some assurance from the Minister on this point.
5.13 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate, who obviously knows his Dartmoor, inside and outside. I am equally grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Molson, for putting down this Question about the escape of Frank Mitchell from Dartmoor Prison, because it gives me an opportunity of refuting some of the fantasies which have been written around this story, of correcting a false impression that has been left by the recent trial and of reassuring the House, as all noble Lords have asked me, about the present state of discipline and security at Dartmoor. A number of questions have been put to me and I think the public interest demands that I should give all the information I possibly can in answer to those questions. Therefore I apologise in advance if my speech is rather lengthier than I should like it to be.
The false impression to which I refer is that some of the Press reports of the case and of Mr. Justice Lawton's remarks revealed for the first time deficiencies of security and control that we have done nothing to remedy. Obviously, that is the impression, from the speeches of noble lords. I would remind your Lordships first that when Mitchell escaped from an outside working party on Dartmoor on December 12, 1966, it was seven weeks after the then Home Secretary, concerned at the growing evidence, culminating in the escape of Blake from Wormwood Scrubs, that all was not well with prison security, had appointed a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten of Burma,
"to inquire into recent prison escapes, with particular reference to that of George Blake, and to make recommendations for the improvement of prison security".
The noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, was assisted in his comprehensive inquiry by three assessors, one of whom was Mr. Mark, now Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police. It was on the very day that Mitchell escaped, but before his escape was known, that the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, had instructed Mr. Mark to visit Dartmoor in pursuance of the general inquiry. This top level independent inquiry thus began immediately following Mitchell's escape, while the evidence was fresh, and I submit that, having regard to the calibre and
128
experience of the inquirers, its findings were likely to be far more accurate than the story which emerged in court 2½ years later when, because it was a trial for an offence of conspiracy to effect Mitchell's escape, the whole defence effort was directed at showing that it was so easy to escape from Dartmoor that no outside assistance was needed. And some of the rather extreme statements quoted in the Press from Mr. Justice Lawton's summing up, consisted, in fact, of his putting the case for the defence to the jury. Mr. Mark's inquiry covered all the surrounding circumstances, including the considerations which led to the assignment of Mitchell to an outside working party, the suggestions that Mitchell terrorised staff and prisoners and had a retinue of servants, and reports that he had been visiting public houses on Dartmoor.
Mr. Mark's report is reproduced in Lord Mountbatten's own Report, which was presented to Parliament. It is, in my view, a balanced and objective report, which makes it plain that as a member of the so called "honour party" Mitchell had had an undue degree of freedom and that the policy which the prison authorities had adopted towards Mitchell had undoubtedly created the impression that he was a privileged person.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me to comment on the suggestion that Mitchell intimidated other prisoners and prison officers. Mr. Mark made a full investigation of this, and I do not think that I can usefully add much to what he said in his report, but I would remind the House of his conclusions. He said:
"A number of suggestions have been made publicly to the effect that Mitchell was the prison 'boss', that he terrorised prison officers and prisoners, and had a retinue of servants. Enquiry shows them to have some foundation. There are a number of pointers to the truth. In all establishments with long-term prisoners there tends to emerge a small number of experienced and hardened prisoners to whom the weaker defer. This is done as much to curly favour as from fear. The Deputy Governor and the staff of 'D' wing make it clear that Mitchell was certainly in this class and that his distinction was all the more cicarly emphasised by his physical stature and strength, and by the general policy of the staff which assumed that he was more amenable to persuasion than to direction. There is no doubt that this made easier the task of controlling him but many of the staff with personal experience of Mitchell have volunteered statements which indicate that some officers

129
tolerated abuse, threats, and in one case man-handling amounting to technical assault by him, without pursuing the matter; or were dissuaded from that course by the supervisory officers below the assistant governor level."
I do not dispute that in any way, I think it is a statement of truth. Mr. Mark added that there was no formal record indicating that Mitchell offered violence to staff or prisoners at Dartmoor, but that it was clear that every effort was made by the staff to avoid treating him strictly. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, will remember that I interrupted him during his speech, when he was speaking about Mitchell refusing to work while probably on a working party.
LORD MOLSON: Yes.
LORD STONHAM: In Officer Brisco's evidence (I read the transcript again over the week-end) it was dealt with thoroughly. Brisco was in the witness box for two days, and when the direct question was put to him he said that Mitchell did not refuse any order from him. But he also said, in answer to another question, that if Mitchell suggested that he should not go out, or that he would stay in the hut, he was quite pleased to agree. That again. I think, puts the position quite accurately.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, if I may Interrupt the noble Lord, what I said in my speech was a quotation from Mr. Robert Mark's report, which the Minister says he regards as an objective statement of fact. I am not sure that there is any substantial difference between what said in quoting from that report and what the noble Lord has just said.
LORD STONHAM: The noble Lord leant rather heavily on the word "evidence" in support of some of his statements. I was simply quoting evidence given by a prison officer at the trial. As I have said, Mr. Mark added—and I think this is important—that there was no formal record indicating that Mitchell had offered violence to staff or prisoners at Dartmoor, but that it was clear that every effort was made by the staff to avoid treating him strictly.
I would also remind the House that Mr. Mark produced some illuminating reports by the prison authorities which put the treatment of Mitchell in perspective by showing that he had
"come a long way from the days when he was a dangerous and excitable young man who needed to be locked away in Broadmoor."
130
Indeed, the Governor had felt able to recommend to my Department that Mitchell should be given a date of release from his life sentence. I think that any noble Lord who has read the reports will agree that they provide a useful corrective to the picture of Mitchell as "the mad Axeman", which was painted, not very helpfully, by some sections of the Press. The noble Lord, Lord Molson, referred critically to what the medical officer at Dartmoor said after Mitchell's escape, and, as I understood it, said that his escape invalidated the good reports of him which were reproduced in the Mountbatten Report. I do not think that this is sound reasoning. There is little doubt that Mitchell, although still unpredictable, had matured and become less violent. I will deal a little later with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I do not think there is much difference between us.
I think those remarks of Mr. Mark are a corrective also to the more fantastic stories about bottles of vodka, and so on, under the bed. Like all cells in Dartmoor and in all other prisons, Mitchell's cell was searched without notice at irregular intervals. I have on my file the dates of the 19 occasions during 1966, the year of his escape, which are recorded in the Hall search book when Mitchell's cell was searched without any result. Significantly, also, there was nothing there when the cell was searched again after his departure. There was no typewriter there either; because, although Mitchell had a typewriter in his private property when he came to Dartmoor in 1962, it was put immediately in store with his private property, and in 1963, at his request, it was sent home to his parents.
Then there are these ridiculous stories about his valet calling him in the morning with tea and toast and bacon and eggs, which scarcely tie up with the one prison egg a week (if you are lucky). the 6.30 a.m. unlocking, and the 7.15 breakfast, which is common to all prisoners. Nor does it tie up with Mitchell's regular early morning start with the quarry party, the scavenging party, and. finally, with the honour party on bleak Bagga Tor.
Mr. Mark's report was followed by Lord Mountbatten's own comments on the escape. He concluded that there was clearly room within the prison system for outside working parties with varying

131
degrees of supervision, particularly at a prison like Dartmoor, but thought that joining the honour party should not be allowed until a terminal date in a life sentence had been fixed, or, in the case of a long fixed sentence, in the later stages of it. He also made it plain that in his view Mitchell should not have been placed on the honour party, with its minimal supervision. Again, with this I entirely agree. I note and reject what the noble Lord, Lord Derwent said: that there should have been direct instructions about Mitchell from the Home Office; and I doubt very much whether his noble friend Lord Brooke of Cumnor would agree with that either.
I want to deal. however, with the business of terminal dates. It was the practice during the time of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, as Home Secretary—and still is—that after all the consultations, bringing in the Lord Chief Justice and, wherever possible, the trial judge, when we are satisfied that it is right and proper to do so we give a life prisoner a terminal date 12 months before that on which, if his conduct continues good, he will be released on licence. But because in most cases these men have served in prison a good many years, we try during the terminal period to ease their entry back into civil life, either by sending them to an open prison for the last part of the period, or by working out through the hostel scheme or through the working out scheme.
LORD DERWENT: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I want to get this right. Is this after the man has been given the terminal date?
LORD STONHAM: Yes, certainly. In view of what I said about agreeing entirely with Lord Mountbatten in what he said, there is obviously no disagreement on this between the noble Lord and myself. But I want to make the position in regard to terminal dates and what we do perfectly clear. We say that when a man has been given a terminal date, and there have been all the possible consultations that Parliament has approved, then it is right to ease him back into society, rather than just to leave it to the day when the gates open and he goes out without any preparation at all. But let me add, on behalf of my Department, that even before Lord Mountbatten had re-
132
ported we had suspended the honour party so that its place in the prison's régime could be reassessed; and Lord Mountbatten expressed the hope that with improved supervision it would be possible to resume it. My Lords, it has now been resumed.
I remind your Lordships of these facts to make it clear that Mitchell's escape, and the régime at Dartmoor at the time, were immediately, fully and independently investigated, and that where there was scope for criticism, frank criticism was made, accepted and, as I shall show, acted upon. At the recent trial, an ex-prisoner, Benson (who was one of the witnesses interrogated by Mr. Mark, during his inquiry, when it was "red hot" so to speak) gave evidence about Mitchell's special status in the prison, and made allegations which Mr. Justice Lawton described as "hair-raising". There are a few comments that I should like to make. First, as Mr. Mark made clear, it can be reasonably accepted that Mitchell was able to visit public houses on Dartmoor when he was supposed to be working with the honour party; and the evidence of the publicans concerned is that Mitchell appeared to have plenty of money, and that he used to buy drink to take away with him. There is, therefore, a pretty clear indication that Mitchell had access to money and drink. But, although Mitchell had opportunity while he was away from the honour party to acquire, and hide, money and illicit articles, there is no evidence that he and other prisoners had possession of substantial sums of money while in prison. Nobody with knowledge of prisons would suggest that prisoners cannot find ways of having contraband articles, and there are more hiding places in a prison, and even in a cell, than a layman might think of. But—and I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, say a word for the prison officers—it is a gross libel on the prison staffs to suggest that Mitchell was specially exempted from any search; and certainly if he had brought any sizeable contraband into prison it would have been discovered during one of the frequent searches of his cell which, although at irregular intervals, occurred about every two weeks.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked me how it could come about that the authorities, the Governor and the Deputy

133
Governor, were unaware of what was going on. If I have not already made it clear, let me make it quite clear now that what was going on was, and still is, disputed. There was a suggestion at the recent trial that Mitchell ran Dartmoor. On any showing that was nonsense. Certainly there were failures to appreciate Mitchell's scope for abusing his position on the honour party, and failures of communication about his treatment.
Again I accept what the noble Earl, Lord Mountbatten, said and which I think the noble Lord, Lord Molson read out, that:
"… the senior officers at Dartmoor did not realise that it was possible for Mitchell to abuse the trust placed in him by visiting public houses and so on when he should have been working. If they had known this I am sure they would not simply have taken Mitchell off the party; they would have reorganised it or withdrawn it until proper arrangements could be made. The opportunities for abuse have existed for a long time, probably several years—the party was established in 1958—hut, so far as is known, Mitchell seems to have been the first man to take full advantage of them.
"Secondly, the Governor and Deputy Governor had drawn up a policy for treating Mitchell, in accordance with advice from the then Chief Director, which involved handling him with a light, though firm, rein. In the application of this policy, sensible in itself, Mitchell came to enjoy in day-to-day circumstances more liberties than he should have had or was ever intended to have, and grounds for suspicion that he was abusing the trust placed in him were not reported to senior officers. This was a failure on the part of the senior officers to convey their policy clearly, and a failure on the part of the junior officers, either through fear of Mitchell or through lack of good sense, to report the liberties which he was taking—not that he was out drinking, which they did not know about, but other minor infringements of discipline."
These are frank and fair statements which I accept and which are true. I would add only this. It is very easy to say that each level of managament within a prison system, or in any given prison, ought to "know" what is going on at the grass roots of the prison. But it is a gross simplification to think of a prison simply as an administrative or managerial structure. A prison is a complex community in which, as I am well aware, inmates evolve their own "sub-culture", and the smooth running of the prison community very greatly depends upon cooperation between the large community of inmates and the much smaller community of the staff. In fact, as the noble
134
Lord, Lord Derwent, said, I believe, every prison is a community and it cannot be run successfully without the help, participation and co-operation of the prisoners.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord? I hope I am not interrupting prematurely. I hope that the Minister of State will deal with paragraph 188: that is about the additional supervision of the honour party. There is the extraordinary thing that these principal officers went out at irregular intervals and no record was made of these visits.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, I was proposing to deal with the honour party when I came to the present and future of Dartmoor. I must accept what the noble Lord has said from paragraph 188. that no record was kept, and records should have been kept—if that is the point he is now making. I prefer to go on with the honour party in the future. The fact of the community of the prison does not lend countenance to the more sensational Mitchell stories, some of which might almost have been lifted straight from the music hall sketch which used to be played years ago by the late Charles Austen. It was of a prison officer in charge of a prison with a permissive régime, and I remember one moment when he stopped one prisoner who was walking out and asked him, "Where are you going?" The reply was, "I am going out". The officer asked, "What time are you going to be back?" The reply was, "Eleven o'clock". The prison officer said, "Here, take the key; I'm not going to wait up for you!" That is almost what one is led to believe happened. from some of the stories I have read.
My Lords, a prison is a dynamic community: the traditions and expectations of the inmate culture, and their general relationship with staff, are liable to change. Against this background, it is no simple task for management to keep aware of the "atmosphere" of a prison or of particular incidents in it: its need is for antennae which will sense when things are going wrong, and for mutual confidence among staff at all levels which will ensure the fullest possible co-operation about life in the prison. The truth of the Mitchell affair is that the antenme were either not working, or their message went unheeded.

135
This is a matter on which the Inspector General, with his team, is concentrating a great deal of time. This, again, is the real answer to the noble Lord's point about what the Home Office is saying and doing about these matters. Last week the Inspector General was on a routine two-day visit to Dartmoor—his third—investigating every aspect of security. He told me this morning that he is satisfied that the antenna are working, that the control of security is sufficiently and properly based, and that there has been a very great improvement in the past two years. There has been a particularly sharp improvement in the past twelve months. He is not only thinking of machines; he is thinking of men, too, and of the spirit which guides men.
The noble Lord, Lord Molson, asked how it came about that Mitchell was visited by members of the criminal fraternity, and mentioned in particular Reginald Kray. This is why I was so surprised. I was not sure why he picked on Reginald Kray, because I see that in summing up in the recent trial Mr. Justice Lawton said of him:
"There is no evidence at all that he was one of Mitchell's many visitors in 1966. What is more, he has said in the witness box that he was not a visitor and that there was a good reason for his not being a visitor, the good reason being that the prison authorities had banned him from visiting Dartmoor."
I have looked up the names and addresses given on the 27 occasions at Dartmoor and the three at Maidstone when Mitchell received visitors, and Kray is not among them. That is in the whole period from 1962 onwards. Kray is certainly not among them. Eleven of those 27 visits were made by a Mr. and Mrs. Willey, who were friends of Mitchell, or Mr. Willey alone, or Mrs. Willey alone. Most of the visits are accountable for in that way. Certainly, if Kray went there he did not visit Mitchell under his own name, and I think he would have been recognised. We know that Mitchell was visited by some men with criminal records using false names, and by one criminal who used his own name. Certainly I dispute entirely that statement about Kray.
Perhaps I may also deal with the suggestion which has been made to the fact that girls were taken down there. Again, I have closely examined the records, and
136
find that on 11 of the 27 occasions from December, 1962, to December, 1966, when Mitchell had visitors, one of them was a woman, and on three of these occasions he was visited by a woman alone. On two occasions it was Mrs. Willey and on one occasion another woman. All of those visits, including the criminal ones, would be bona fide closed visits in the presence of an officer. There was no possibility—and the police bear this out, even in the visits to the pub, where clearly Mitchell could have met women—and there was no suggestion, that Mitchell was able to meet women for sexual purposes.
LORD MOLSON: My Lords, I never made any such suggestion. I want to make that quite plain. I was quoting two things from Robert Mark's report, which says that one of his visitors was known to have a criminal record, and that they were able to visit him by giving names which are now known to have been false.
LORD STONHAM: Yes, my Lords; I know that at the trial it was said that Garlick visited Mitchell. His name does not appear. I have looked carefully at all the names. All that a prison officer who was there at the time says is that among Mitchell's visitors at one time were two bull-necked characters; that is about the only description that we have. The position is that a visitor with an order would normally be admitted if there was no reason to think him undesirable. There is no routine procedure for checking that a visitor was who he claimed to be, and no means of making sure that the person visiting was the person named in the order.
What is the position now? The position under the relevant rules and instructions about visitors is the same as it was in Mitchell's day; that is, Rule 33(1), which gives the Secretary of State a general power, with a view to securing discipline and good order or the prevention of crime, to impose restrictions, either generally or in a particular case, upon the communications to be permitted between a prisoner and other persons. In short, the Home Office or Prison Governors, as officers of the Home Secretary, can forbid visits by a particular ex-prisoner or any other person. And we often do so. We do so because they are known criminals. We do not allow such

137
visits, unless they are close relatives or because in many cases, if we did not allow a prisoner to have visits from ex-prisoners he would never have a visit at all because they are the only people whom he knows and the only kin that he has. That is the rule at the moment.
But let us look at its practical application. We have a total population in prison of over 34,000. All of them are entitled to regular visits and any one prisoner may have a large number of prospective visitors. It is impossible, therefore, to check the bona fides of every proposed visitor or to satisfy ourselves that a visitor is what he purports to be.
So what are we going to do? At the moment this is what we are doing or are going to do, because clearly we must be selective. Only a minority of prisoners are a real security risk, and we have to identify those criminals because their visitors are the ones who need watching. We have created a basis on which we can exercise this selectivity by introducing our four security grades—A, B, C and D; the top grade of A being the prisoners whose escape would be highly dangerous to the public or the security of the State. This system enables us to identify and keep a special eye upon the most dangerous men in prison, and of course that includes keeping a careful eye on their visitors.
Secondly, we have greatly developed and improved liaison between the Prison Service and the police, including the exchange of intelligence about criminal activities. For obvious reasons I do not wish to elaborate on that. But, again, I had it from the Inspector General this morning that he was quite satisfied that at Dartmoor the whole area of security and criminal intelligence is based on joint discussion and action, and that there is a really effective understanding between the prison staff and the police. And the development of this co-operation, both at national and at prison level, has helped us very much to get earlier warning of escape plots and the like, including warning that visitors may not be all that they appear to be.
We have also under urgent consideration the possibility of an altogether more systematic control of visitors to the prisoners in the top security category, the category A men. The right reverend
138
Prelate the Bishop of Exeter was a member of the sub-committee of the Advisory Council on the Penal System which reported last year on the régime for long-term prisoners in conditions of maximum security, and he will know that the Council suggested that a long-term prisoner contained in a maximum security prison should be required to submit for approval a list of his authorised visitors. who would then be asked to supply their photographs for checking by the police, people with serious criminal records being excluded unless they were close relatives. A scheme of this kind, as the noble Lord will know, raises a number of administrative problems which we are now resolving, but the Home Secretary accepts this recommendation in principle. I hope very soon now that he will be able to announce the introduction of a scheme for visitors to category A prisoners which will tighten our security defences considerably. I hope that on that noble Lords will accept that we are moving in the right direction.
I now revert specifically to Dartmoor Prison and turn from the past to the present and the future. Dartmoor has at present a very small number of category A prisoners—eight out of a total population of 550. We do not intend to use Dartmoor (as the right reverend Prelate pointed out) in the long term for category A prisoners; and the few, the eight, who are there now are certainly not the worst of the bunch. Even in category A there are variations. Nevertheless, we shall move them as soon as they can be accommodated at the selected dispersal prisons. We cannot be too precipitate about building up the category A populations in other prisons, but I hope to achieve this objective before the end of the year so far as Dartmoor is concerned.
I do not wish to give the impression that Dartmoor will then have a population about which we can be complacent. It will still include a high proportion of prisoners with bad records, including records of violence, and high security consciousness will still be essential. But at least they will not have to cope with the category A prisoners whom we have picked out as the worst risks in the system. I assure your Lordships that the escapes of prisoners like Blake, Biggs and Mitchell had a profound effect on attitudes to prison security in the Prison Service, and without abandoning its other

139
objectives of treating prisoners constructively and humanely, the Service is now much more deeply conscious of its duty to keep prisoners, particularly dangerous prisoners, in safe custody. I think that the very low escape figures of the last two and a half years prove this. Dartmoor is no exception to this trend. I can assure the House that security there is now a good deal tighter than it was when Mitchell escaped; and this is not simply a matter of physical precautions: the attitude of the staff, too, has changed.
But this is not the whole story. Dartmoor now has a security principal officer, especially and solely concerned with security, who can devote himself, under the Governor's direction, to identifying the meeting the security risks. Second, we have greatly improved our capacity to intervene in and take control of an emergency, such as an escape, by establishing radio communications such as now exist at Dartmoor, both between prisons and the police and within prisons. Officers at Dartmoor now have personal radios, so that they can keep in touch with each other within the prison, and officers with outside parties can keep in touch with the prison, provided they are within radio range. I would add that Bagga Tor and Fort 22 miles from the camp is not within that radio range. But we have developed the prison dog service, of which Dartmoor, with eight dogs and handlers, has its share. The dog patrols are undoubtedly a substantial deterrent to attempts to escape. There are also now four pony patrols; these, of course, are exclusively for outside working parties. There are four pony patrols, compared with only one patrol at the time of Mitchell's escape, which visit the outside working parties.
There are two things, particularly in reply to the right reverend Prelate, which I must make clear. It is still the Government's intention, in the long term, to close Dartmoor prison. We have 8,500 men sleeping two or three to a cell. The closure of Dartmoor is not imminent. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Cumnor, knows, too, we have also given an undertaking that when we do decide on a date we are then going to give three years' notice. So closure is not imminent. But we certainly intend to carry on and, one day, tear Dart-
140
moor down. Whether or not we shall accept the right reverend Prelate's advice and put up another prison there, I do not know. There are things to be said for it and certainly things to be said against it. But at present, in view of our programme, we should not be justified in spending on the prison the vast sums that are involved in providing, say, a 17-foot high interior fence, closed-circuit television systems, and electronic warning devices, and so on. That is why (and the right reverend Prelate agrees) I do not claim that Dartmoor provides the highest security we could aim at. It does not set out to do so.
Secondly, I should like to make it clear that it is out of the question for the entire Dartmoor prison population to be contained all day within the prison. The prison is geared, as it has been for very many years, to the use of inmates on outside working parties, and these must continue. At present, about 120 men a day, out of a total population of 550, are employed on such parties—on the farm, in the vegetable garden and the quarry, and also in a works party, which is mostly occupied working on officers' quarters in Princetown.
I mentioned earlier that the honour party had been revived, with strict control over its membership. The party is confined to men who have been selected for the prison hostel and outworking scheme, and are within about two months of transfer to a hostel. In other words, it comprises men in the last year of their sentences who have been selected as fit, for the final six months before their discharge, to be at liberty during the day, working for outside employers. Obviously, they are men with the strongest reasons for not attempting to escape, or to commit any other abuse.
Until recently the party comprised six men supervised by one officer, but it has now been increased to nine men with two officers. So the difficulties which were, very properly, pointed out by the noble Lord as afflicting one officer in an emergency, no longer arise. The party is employed about 22 miles from the prison on Ministry of Defence property, where it is building a road over a firing range, and it is away from the prison between 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. It is visited by the principal officer in charge of outside parties once or twice a week, and

141
I hope I have convinced your Lordships that, whatever the failings of the recent past—and there were failings—control and security in Dartmoor are now satisfactory. But on the basis that the proof of the pudding is in the eating I will, in conclusion, give the House the figures. In 1966, the year that Mitchell escaped, there were five escapes from inside the prison and nine absconds from outside working parties, making a total of 14. In 1967, 1968 and 1969 to date there have been no escapes from inside the prison. In 1967, one prisoner absconded from the working party in the quarry; in 1968, no prisoners absconded from outside working parties, and this year, so far, two prisoners have absconded from the works party, one in January and one in April. That is a total of three in two and a half years, compared with 14 in one year. That is a vastly improved record, which is characteristic of the figures for the prison system as a whole; and I think it speaks for itself.
My Lords, while firmly repudiating what I regard as the Dartmoor phantasies. I frankly admit that three years ago there were serious defects. These have been corrected. Subject to the limitations I have mentioned, Dartmoor is now as secure as we can make it, and we shall endeavour to keep it so.

GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and referred to the Examiners.
BRISTOL CLIFTON AND WEST OF ENGLAND ZOOLOGICAL SOCIETY BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: the Order made on April 28 last discharged, and Bill committed to the Committee on Unopposed Bills.