Sitting of 27 April 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CARDIFF CORPORATION (EXTENSION OF TIME) BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  BIRMINGHAM UNIVERSITY BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Northern Ireland
    Mr. Mulveyasked the Minister of National Insurance what was the proportion of unemployed persons to the total population of insured in Northern Ireland for 1947, and what were the like figures for Great Britain in the same period; and whether the Government are still carrying on the first re-insurance agreement made with the Northern Ireland Government.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): The proportion for 1947 of unemployed persons to the total population of insured persons was 7.9 per cent. in Northern Ireland and 3 per cent. in Great Britain. The operation of the re-insurance agreement made in 1935 was suspended in 1942. A new agreement, covering unemployment insurance, unemployment assistance and family allowances was made on 8th September, 1946, and confirmed in the Unemployment and Family Allowances (Northern Ireland Agreement) Act, 1946. This agreement came into effect on 1st April, 1946.
    Mr. Mulvey: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what portion of the deficit of
    182
    £11½ million in the Northern Ireland Unemployment Fund was paid by the British Exchequer under the first agreement—the agreement covering the period between 1920 and 1936?
    Mr. Griffiths: I am afraid I could not give that figure without notice. Since 1946 we have paid into the Northern Ireland Fund 3,200,000. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down a question on the other matter.

    Old Age Pensioners (Earnings)
    Mr. Stanley Prescottasked the Minister of National Insurance by what weekly amounts the old age pension of Mrs. Salisbury of 12, Cemetery Road, Darwen, has been reduced since she returned to work as a weaver; and what is the total sum saved to date.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Mrs. Salisbury's retirement pension has been reduced from time to time in the past year in respect of earnings in excess of 20s. in a week. I assume, however, that the hon. Member is referring to the period of six weeks since 18th March during which she was regularly employed and declared total earnings of £9 13s. 0d. In accordance with the provisions of the Act, her pension has been reduced during these six weeks by weekly sums varying from 4s. to 16s., the total amount of reduction being £3 9s. 0d.
    Mr. Prescott: Is not the Minister aware that these old age pensioners of 60 years of age and over have returned to work in the mills as the direct result of a Government appeal; and would it not be wiser to reduce the further amount of £1¼ million which is to be spent on bringing foreign workers into this country for work in the textile industry, and to alleviate the means test in respect of old age pensioners who return to work in high priority industries in this country?
    Mr. Griffiths: This is not a means test at all.
    Mr. Prescott: Of course it is.
    Mr. Griffiths: Of course it is not. The retirement pension is paid after people have retired from regular work. The 20s. is the amount they are allowed to earn after that. Moreover, this provision was accepted by all parties in the Beveridge Report, the Coalition White Paper, and in our own Act.
    Mr. Prescott: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is a means test, but that the Labour Party will not so call it?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is not a means test at all. It is a provision by which we permit people, after they have retired from work, to earn a certain amount during their retirement.

    Spinsters
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that childless widows aged 50 to 60 receive a pension of 26s. a week and are allowed to earn 30s., while spinsters of the same age are compelled to pay full health insurance for 10 years longer to obtain the same pension, and are only allowed to earn 20s. a week, and so receive no compensation for paying for the longer period; and if he will take steps to rectify this anomaly.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I take the suggestion to be that pensions should be provided for unmarried women at an earlier age than 60, and I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply on this subject which I gave to the hon. Member for Bury (Mr. W. Fletcher) on 17th February last.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Will not the Minister give further consideration to raising the amount of 20s. which they are now allowed to earn?
    Mr. Griffiths: That has nothing to do with this Question.

    Advance Contributions
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he will arrange for contributions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, to be payable, if desired by the insured person, on the single premium principle, so simplifying administration.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of National Insurance (Mr. Steele): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given on this subject to the hon. Member for Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) on 13th April last, a copy of which I am sending him.
    Mr. Vane: Are we to understand that that reply was in the negative? If so, will the hon. Gentleman reconsider the
    184
    matter? Surely this is a suitable field in which to apply the principle of "once for all."
    Mr. Steele: The reply was in the negative, and if the hon. Member will read it, he will see the reasons for it.

    Unemployment Benefit
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of National Insurance whether having regard to the large surplus in the Unemployment Fund, he will arrange to increase substantially the rates of pay to unemployed persons and their dependants.
    Mr. Piratinasked the Minister of National Insurance whether in view of the fact that the official price index is 168, while the present unemployment allowance is only 41 per cent. above that of 1938, he will take immediate steps to bring the latter at least up to the cost of living index figure.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: The rates of unemployment benefit will be increased when the National Insurance Act comes into full operation, to bring them into line with the other main benefit rates under the insurance scheme. When the new scheme comes into operation the Unemployment Fund will be merged into the new National Insurance Fund. Thereafter, individual rates of benefit cannot be considered in isolation, and any general review of benefits and contributions must, I think, await practical experience of the operation of the scheme as a whole.
    Mr. Davies: I am probably anticipating my right hon. Friend, but before this change takes place will not he agree to increase the payments made to the unemployed, in view of the fact that there is such a substantial surplus at his disposal?
    Mr. Griffiths: The surplus is due to the fact that for three years we have had a full employment policy. The new benefit rates will begin in July, and I do not think it advisable to do anything until then.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this full-time employment is entirely due to American capitalists?
    Mr. Griffiths: It is due to a wise Government.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Unemployed Farm Workers, Cheshire
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Labour what is the number of registered unemployed farm workers in Cheshire at the latest convenient date.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): Forty-three at 15th March.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Why are these men unemployed? Has the right hon. Gentleman discussed the matter with the Minister of Agriculture?
    Mr. Isaacs: They are unemployed because nobody happens to want them, but it is likely that they are now in employment.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Is it not true that some of these men have been unemployed because farmers do not agree with their activities within their trade union? Have not some men been victimised?
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Is the Minister aware that the great shortage of houses for farm workers is the real difficulty?

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. Prescottasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many European voluntary workers have been introduced into the United Kingdom;
    (2) of the total number of European voluntary workers permitted into the United Kingdom, how many are married and how many single; of those married, how many are male and female; and in how many cases both husband and wife have come to the United Kingdom.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): 54,700 European volunteer workers have arrived in this country; 8,000 were known to be married, including 3,500 married couples. The position regarding nationalities is still, broadly, as stated in the reply given to the hon. Member for East Willesden (Mr. Orbach) on 17th February.
    Mr. Prescott: What has been the total cost of bringing these people here?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot say without notice.
    Mr. Stokes: What is the difference between a married couple and a married person?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I was talking about persons brought over here as married couples. A married person can be brought over here by himself. A married couple means a man and his wife.
    Earl Winterton: Are any of these people displaced persons in the technical sense of the word?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Most of them are displaced persons.

    Scotland
    Sir William Darlingasked the Minister of Labour what were the five major classifications of unemployed men in Scotland; and what was the total of unemployed males at the last convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: As the reply contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Sir W. Darling: I have some slight prevision of what the figures will be. Cannot the right hon. Gentleman supplement the observation made by the Minister of National Insurance, who asserted that the Government were securing a policy of full-time employment? I want to know whether they are securing full-time employment for 50,000 people in Scotland.
    Mr. Isaacs: The Government are securing full employment for a far greater number of persons than has been known in this country hitherto.
    Following is the reply:
    Among men aged 18 years and over registered as wholly unemployed in Scotland at 15th March, the largest numbers were in the following occupational groups: General labourers, 19,816; Seamen and fishermen, 2,158; Motor vehicle drivers, conductors, etc., 2,082; Engineers, metal machinists, mechanics, etc., 1,917; Clerks, etc., 1,502.
    The total number of males registered as wholly unemployed in Scotland at that date was 40,649.

    Industrial Disputes
    Mr. Houseasked the Minister of Labour the total number of working weeks lost through unemployment over the two and a half years immediately following World War I and World War II,

    187
    respectively; and the total combined number of working weeks covering the same periods lost through strikes and lock-outs.
    Mr. Isaacs: Information is not available to make the comparison asked for in the first part of the Question. The numbers of working days lost by stoppages of work due to disputes during the two-and-a-half years after the first and second world wars were 89 million and 6¼ million, respectively.

    Dismissed Employees, Barton
    Mr. Austinasked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that Messrs. Platt Bros., Barton, have recently dismissed 112 employees on the grounds of redundancy; and whether, in view of the importance of the cotton production drive, he will consult with the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade with a view to holding an inquiry at which facilities shall be made available for trade union representation.
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the first part of the Question is, "Yes, Sir." As regards the second part, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Supply and the President of the Board of Trade are aware of the position.
    Mr. Austin: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has a most important bearing on a very important industry? If the situation worsens, will he hold an inquiry?
    Mr. Isaacs: An inquiry has been held by two of my right hon. Friends and myself into the cause of these dismissals. I think the matter was fully explained on 22nd April, in a reply given by my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade.
    Sir Waldron Smithers: Does the Minister realise that the real reason for these dismissals is Government interference and the division of responsibility between two or three different Ministries?

    Students, Leeds (Grants)
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that some students of the Leeds College of Technology were awarded two-year grants to enable them to study for the Ordinary Diploma of Building, but that that Diploma has been
    188
    abolished in favour of a three year Higher National Diploma; that those students who obtained grants from the Ministry of Education are to be allowed to study for three years, while those awarded grants through the Ministry of Labour have been refused a third-year grant; and what action he proposes to take.
    Mr. Isaacs: Two students eligible for grants under the Further Education and Training Scheme to study for a qualification higher than the Ordinary National Diploma were given grants, in the first place, to study for the Ordinary National Diploma, as no courses for the Higher National Diploma were then available at Leeds. These grants were extended when higher training became available. Three students, not eligible for grants under the Further Education and Training Scheme were given grants under the Vocational Training Scheme to study for the Ordinary National Diploma. In spite of the change in the courses at Leeds, special arrangements have been made for them to complete their two-year course and take the Ordinary National Diploma as planned.
    Miss Bacon: Will my right hon. Friend say when these arrangements were made? I wrote to him last November, and he promised me that they would be made, but I have received further letters within the last fortnight saying that no such arrangements have been made.
    Mr. Isaacs: I am advised that the arrangements have been made. I do not know the date on which they will come into operation, but I will find out and let my hon. Friend know.

    Disabled Persons
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour what is the percentage of unemployed disabled ex-Service men in Wales and in England at the latest known date; and what further steps he is taking to find employment for these persons.
    Mr. Isaacs: In Wales, of the 28,000 ex-Service men registered as disabled, 5,130, or 17 per cent., were unemployed at 15th March last. In England, of the 422,000 registered as disabled, 31,160, or 6½ per cent., were unemployed at the same date. Continuous efforts are made both under the Quota Scheme and other-

    189
    wise to find suitable employment for these men. I am holding a conference in South Wales at an early date to consider what further steps can be taken.
    Mr. Freeman: As there are approximately three times as many in Wales, if it is difficult to build training centres for them will my right hon. Friend consider taking over temporary premises in areas where unemployment among ex-Service men is serious?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is not so much a question of training as of employment; many men are available for work if only we could get employment for them.

    Vehicle Builders' Strike
    Mr. Errollasked the Minister of Labour if he will make a statement on the strike of vehicle builders.
    Mr. Isaacs: I understand that work is to be resumed tomorrow.
    Mr. Erroll: Under what conditions—the old or the new conditions?
    Mr. Isaacs: Under the old conditions. The Ministry have tried, in this case, to see that the men put themselves within the law before any steps are taken to act on their behalf. Now that they have undertaken to return to work, the arbitration tribunal, at their request, has postponed its hearing, by agreement with the employers. When the men have returned to work every effort will be made to see whether a settlement by negotiation can be obtained.

    Police Recruitment (Miners and Farm Workers)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Labour in what conditions men employed in mining or agriculture are allowed to volunteer for the Police Force.
    Mr. Isaacs: The present position is that men normally employed in coalmining or agriculture are not allowed to leave those industries to enter any other kind of employment. I am, however, reviewing this arrangement as regards its effect in relation to the Police Service.
    Mr. Vane: Will not the right hon. Gentleman agree that these are cases where an exemption certificate should always be given? Surely, it is wrong that the police should not be able to draw recruits from
    190
    these industries, which together amount to more than 1,500,000 men?
    Mr. Isaacs: Because of the circumstances I am reviewing the position.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the statement made by the Home Secretary that every effort is being made to recruit members of the Police Force, can the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that the decision on this matter will be reached quickly, as it was raised over a month ago?
    Mr. Isaacs: With respect, I think it became acute in the recent Debate on the Criminal Justice Bill. I contacted my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, whom I am anxious to meet in this matter, and I can assure the noble Lord that we shall not delay making a decision.
    Earl Winterton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there was a Debate specifically on the Police Force, when the question was raised by myself, and the Home Secretary said that every effort would be made to obtain recruits from any quarter from which they were forthcoming? That was over a month ago.
    Mr. Isaacs: That is so, but at that time we were not able to bring in men from this source. Now we propose to examine the possibility of opening this source of recruitment.
    Colonel Ropner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking to reconsider cases in which he has refused permission for men to transfer to the Police Force from mining occupations?
    Mr. Isaacs: Yes, Sir; if it is found proper in all the circumstances to vary this arrangement, it will be made to apply to those who have already made such a request.
    Sir John Mellor: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this arrangement, by preventing some men from getting out of these industries, discourages others from coming in?
    Mr. Isaacs: No, Sir. It is necessary to keep these industries fully manned, and without this arrangement we should find the situation more difficult.

    Kingston-upon-Thames Area
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Labour how many persons

    191
    registered as unemployed in the boroughs of Kingston-upon-Thames, Surbiton, and Malden and Coombe respectively, with separate figures for men and women, as at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Isaacs: The numbers of insured persons registered as unemployed at the Kingston-upon-Thames employment exchange at 12th April, 1948, were 475 males and 178 females. Residents in Surbiton and Malden and Coombe register at the Kingston employment exchange when unemployed, and separate figures for these two boroughs are not available.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman reconcile these highly disquieting figures with the assurance he gave me a fortnight ago that no unemployment was expected in this area as a result of the removal of Messrs. Leyland's works?
    Mr. Isaacs: Knowing something about this area, I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman—and this is a point which he will appreciate—that in all probability those people who register at the employment exchange do not work in the area. They may be people living there but working in London. On the other hand, the unemployed registering there are 1½ per cent. for males and 1 per cent. for females, which is very considerably below the national average.
    Sir W. Darling: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us how it is that he is able to give these detailed figures about Kingston-upon-Thames, Surbiton, and Malden and Coombe respectively, and is unable to give any detailed figures about unemployed persons in Scotland?
    Mr. Isaacs: It was not a question of being unable to get them, but I did not want to burden hon. Members with a number of figures that they could read in HANSARD tomorrow.

    Joint Production Committees, Scotland
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in Scotland in the establishment of joint production committees in industry.
    Mr. Isaacs: I regret that at the moment I am unable to add to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend on 20th January.
    Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend stated in that reply that he had been in touch with both sides of industry in this matter. Has any progress been made in those consultations?
    Mr. Isaacs: That was the reason for using the word "regret." It was not that I could not give the information, but that I had no information to give. The matter has not been moving as quickly as it ought to have moved, and we are now using other methods, by propaganda and publicity, to try to bring the matter along.

    Polish Resettlement Corps
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Minister of Labour if he will now give a date for final winding-up of the Polish Resettlement Corps.
    Mr. Isaacs: I cannot yet give a date when the last man will have left the Corps, but it is hoped to reduce the Corps to very small proportions by the end of this year.
    Mr. Hynd: In view of the fact that after this long time the members of this Corps are still receiving from the British taxpayer the pay and privileges of military ranks for non-existent military duties, will the Minister consider hastening the process of putting them on a reasonable retaining allowance?
    Mr. Isaacs: We must carry out the obligations into which we have entered. Steps are being taken to find employment for the men and women in that Corps in such a way as will not disturb the balance of employment or create upsets in other areas. The main problem is the disabled Poles, for whom something will have to be found, but even then there will still be some left in the Corps in order to wind it up.
    Mr. Lipson: Can my right hon. Friend say how many are in the Corps at present?
    Mr. Isaacs: I am afraid I could not.
    Mr. Stokes: In support of what my hon. Friend the Member for Central Hackney (Mr. H. Hynd) has just said, may I ask whether in view of the allowances and provisions each person in the Corps gets, my right hon. Friend will take some steps to bring them more into line with the ordinary pay in industry in this country?
    Mr. Isaacs: We place these people in employment as soon as employment is available for them. Many of them have volunteered for employment, but until we get more jobs for them in areas in which there is accommodation for them to live in. we have to keep them in the Corps.
    Mr. Wilson Harris: Can my right hon. Friend say whether there are any men in the Corps who have refused employment which the authorities considered suitable for them?
    Mr. Isaacs: I should like to have notice of that question. I should like to be quite sure of the answer before I give it to the hon. Gentleman.

  SCOTLAND

    Special Housing Association (Rents)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has considered the resolution passed at a conference of local authorities in Clydebank on 20th March, a copy of which has been sent him by the hon. Member for West Fife, regarding rents charged on houses built by the Scottish Special Housing Association; and whether he will consider increasing the subsidy to the Association so that rents for these houses may be kept down at the same level as local authority houses.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I have received the resolution referred to, but I do not propose that the Scottish Special Housing Association should be granted more favourable rates of housing subsidy than local authorities.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is the Secretary of State aware of the fact that the general policy on housing was that houses should be let to the poorest families; and that now the Scottish Housing Association is using its position to cut across that policy and in many cases to disturb the points scheme by letting houses not on the basis of need but on the basis of ability to pay? Is the right hon. Gentleman not going to do anything about it?
    Mr. Woodburn: That is a matter that can hardly be discussed by Question and answer.

    Housing Scheme, Cumnock (Timber)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he has refused to sanction the request of Cumnock Town Council for wooden floors in certain rooms in its new housing scheme, in view of the fact that the plans show economy of timber in other respects.
    Mr. Woodburn: In view of the continuing need to save timber, the use of concrete for the ground floors of new houses must still be regarded as the basic economy, and any further savings which local authorities are able to make must be additional to this.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could not the Secretary of State be a little more imaginative in dealing with this problem because the local authority guarantees to save timber in other directions?
    Mr. Woodburn: The more timber a local authority can save on these houses the more houses will be built for other people elsewhere by the use of that timber.

    Shop Tenancies (Requisitioning Powers)
    Mr. Carmichaelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of cases in which he has exercised his authority under the Emergency Powers to protect shopkeepers and others against the demands to purchase or quit their premises; and if he is satisfied that his powers are adequate to deal with this serious problem in Scotland, or when he proposes to bring in legislation to deal with it.
    Mr. Woodburn: I am at present examining a number of cases submitted to me by the local authorities. I cannot yet say in how many cases requisitioning powers will be used or whether these powers will be adequate.
    Mr. Carmichael: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend is still examining the question of his requisitioning powers, may I ask him if he is also examining the possibility of introducing at an early date legislation to cover all the cases?
    Mr. Woodburn: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer which I gave on this subject last week.
    Mr. Rankin: Could my right hon. Friend indicate approximately the number of cases he is at present examining? Is it a dozen, 20 or 30?
    Mr. Woodburn: That would convey nothing, because a number of cases are under examination and it is difficult to reduce them to a concrete number which can be dealt with.
    Mr. McGovern: Surely the Minister could tell us how many cases he has submitted to the local authorities? Is the number so small that he is afraid to tell the House?
    Mr. Woodburn: My hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. Local authorities examine the cases and submit them to me. I have sent back to the local authorities a considerable number of cases, numbering over 100, which they sent originally and which they are now examining. Some of them have come back to me for further examination.

  EX-SERVICE MEN (ARTIFICIAL LIMBS)
  Mrs. Leah Manningasked the Minister of Pensions if he is aware of the difficulties which ex-Service men are suffering due to the long time taken by private manufacturers to supply and repair artificial limbs; and whether he will consider having such work undertaken in Government factories.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions (Mr. Blenkinsop): The average time now taken to supply artificial limbs is about 10 weeks; major repairs take about four weeks. There may, of course, be some difficult cases which take longer but there is in general no undue delay. If, however, the hon. Member has any particular case in mind and will let me know of it, I will gladly have it investigated. As regards the second part of the Question, the work is done by firms under contract to and closely associated with my Department. There are no Government factories which could undertake this specialised work.
  Mrs. Manning: While expressing some surprise at the last part of my hon. Friend's answer, might I ask him whether he realises that there is a vast increase in the number of men, women and children needing artificial limbs and repairs to those
  196
  limbs, and that this trade has hardly expanded at all; and does he not propose to do something about it, because having to wait four weeks for repairs to these artificial limbs causes great inconvenience to the injured parties?
  Mr. Blenkinsop: I would only say that we have this position always in mind, particularly in view of future commitments, and the position is that we are rapidly overtaking any balance of orders there may be.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Nettleton Range
    Mr. Osborneasked the Secretary of State for War if he will immediately release the firing range of 700 acres, at Nettleton, North Lincolnshire, which has not been used since last June, is now full of weeds and thistles, and is good agricultural land which has not been cultivated for six years; and why the promise to the Caistor Rural District Council has not been more promptly carried out.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): This area of 700 acres will be released as soon as it has been cleared of unexploded missiles. The delay in release has been caused by the acute shortage of skilled personnel who can be placed on clearance of areas. The whole Nettleton range cannot be cleared satisfactorily by visual search; the greater portion requires a more thorough search by mechanical means. My Department is aware of the agricultural value of the land and has placed the area on a high priority for clearance. I have no knowledge of any promise to the Caistor Rural District Council.
    Mr. Osborne: Will the Minister look again to see when the promise was made to clear this land and does he not think it is criminal for him to refuse to use it as a firing range and still not allow agriculturists to grow food on it? Why should it not be used for one or the other?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have a very great deal of sympathy with the hon. Member and those concerned, but until we can get the necessary labour to clear the ground it is impossible to go further.
    Mr. Osborne: Will it be done by the Spring?

    Personal Case
    Mr. John Lewisasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a full statement on the circumstances of No. 3461764 Bandsman K. Bowden serving with the Lancashire Fusiliers and stationed at Bury, whose release was authorised by his Department on 12th January, 1948, in order for him to go back to the mines where he was employed for 18 months prior to joining the Army, but who was subsequently advised that his release had been cancelled as a result of representations of the officer commanding the Lancashire Fusiliers depôt.
    Mr. Shinwell: As a full statement on this matter is necessarily rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Lewis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this young soldier was notified that he would be released for the mines and that this release was subsequently withdrawn on representations from the depôt by the leader of the band? Once release has been granted by the War Office, is it right and proper in any circumstances that my right hon. Friend should play ducks and drakes with the susceptibilities of a serving soldier?
    Mr. Shinwell: I would advise my hon. Friend to read my answer before he mixes his metaphors.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will the Minister tell us what status or rank a "leader of the band" holds in the Army?
    Mr. Shinwell: I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was so very well informed on military matters that he would know all about it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is no such thing as "leader of the band" as a rank or status in the Army? It is high time he knew that.
    Following is the statement:
    Bandsman Bowden enlisted as a boy in the Regular Army on 18th March, 1946, at the age of 15, with his father's consent. His engagement was for nine years with the Colours and three with the Reserve.
    In January, 1948, his name was received from the Ministry of Fuel and Power for consideration for release, as an underground coalminer, under the
    198
    scheme in force for the release of men with six months or more previous mining experience. As the military particulars of other ranks are not held at the War Office release in such cases is subject to confirmation by the Officer in charge of Records that the soldier is eligible under the normal conditions. In this case the Officer in charge of Records reported that as he was on boy's service he appeared Ineligible for release. The case was considered and an offer of release was authorised, but his Commanding Officer and the Commandant, Royal Military School of Music, represented, as they were entitled to, that his out-of-turn release should not be granted on the grounds that he had joined the Army at the age of 15 and had received two years' training at the public expense as a Bandsman, whereas his mining experience could only have been of a limited nature. He was recorded as having been a haulage hand.
    The case was at once referred to the War Office by the Officer in charge of Records, and the Ministry of Fuel and Power were then consulted. In view of his age, his limited mining experience and the two years Army training which he had received, the Ministry decided not to press for his release. Authority for the offer of release was therefore withdrawn as there was no longer justification for releasing him on the ground that he was an experienced miner.

    Release Deferments (Postal Services)
    Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware that a number of men in age-and-service group 69, serving in the Army Postal Services (R.E.), B.A.O.R., have been notified that their release has been deferred, and that in some cases they were only so notified one week before their release was due; approximately how many men are affected by this deferment; what steps have been taken to replace them by men in later release groups or from other arms of the Service; and why such block deferment is necessary at such short notice.
    Mr. Shinwell: There is at present a shortage of trained men in the R.E. Postal Services in all theatres. In spite of all possible adjustments some men had to be warned that their release might have to be deferred. I am glad to say, however, that so far no release of men of this

    199
    category in age-and-service group 69 serving in Rhine Army has actually had to be deferred. I hope that all such men will have been released by the last date on which their group is due to be out, 29th April.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend's answer mean that men in this group who were warned of deferment a week or two ago have now had that warning cancelled?
    Mr. Shinwell: No, Sir. I should not say that is the full interpretation of what I have said. Some may have had to be warned, as I have indicated, that their release might have to be deferred, but so far as that particular age-and-service group is concerned, that is not generally so.
    Mr. Driberg: Would it not be possible to give more than one week's notice? When a man is expecting to go out by a certain date, he has made all his home arrangements.
    Mr. Shinwell: I will look into that, but my hon. Friend must be aware that there are very great difficulties just now because of the run-down of the Army. We have to keep units up to strength.

    Terrorist Attacks, Palestine
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War what political direction has been given by his Department to the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine relating to defence of military stations and camps and also to retaliatory action by the Army after attack.
    Mr. Shinwell: On the political aspect of his task the General Officer Commanding in Palestine relies on advice from the High Commissioner and no political direction has been given to him from my Department. The closest and most cordial co-operation exists between the Civil Government and the Service authorities, who are fully free to take whatever action they think militarily desirable both to protect themselves and to carry out their functions. The Civil Government has throughout afforded all the assistance in its power to the Military authorities in carrying out their difficult duties.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he said he had full confidence that the commanders on the spot were as efficient as their critics—a statement with which we quite agree? Yet the normal military steps for protection are not being taken. Can he say what the reason is? If these men are as efficient as we believe, who is stopping them doing their job?
    Mr. Shinwell: Nobody is stopping them doing their job, and in all the circum stances they are doing it very well indeed.
    Mr. A. R. W. Low: Does the right hon. Gentleman recall that he told us last week that it was a good thing that commanders on the spot should be under some restraint —I think he used words to that effect—and the House therefore assumed that they were under some restraint? Will he clarify the position?
    Mr. Shinwell: Nothing requires clarification to anybody who is intelligent enough to understand. The fact is that there are no inhibitions, but obviously, in a very difficult and critical situation in Palestine, our people on the spot exercise due restraint.
    Mr. Gallacher: Has my right hon. Friend given any political direction to the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine regarding the entry of the puppet Government of Transjordan into Palestine?
    Mr. Shinwell: It is not my function to give any political directions to the Commander-in-Chief. We leave the matter in the hands of the High Commissioner.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the fact that no one would expect the right hon. Gentleman to remember today what he said last week, will he refresh his mind by looking at HANSARD, where he will see that he said it was lucky that in fact some political restraint was exercised over the troops in Palestine?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of course, it is always desirable to exercise restraint, and if the right hon. Gentleman were to take a leaf out of the book of our military commanders on the spot it would do him a lot of good.
    Earl Winterton: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that in reply to a supplementary question which I put last

    201
    week he said that he had sent a directive to the military commanders to the effect that they could take any action which they thought fit without reference to the High Commissioner in order to protect British camps and troops in transit? In view of the obvious difficulty of understanding what the actual situation is will the right hon. Gentleman either re-state it now or publish some statement on the subject?
    Mr. Shinwell: The position is very simple. The military commanders on the spot are fully entitled to take what action they think fit in the circumstances which face them.
    Major Haughton: What directions, it any, have been given in the case of the attacks upon British banks and commercial establishments in Jerusalem and other cities?
    Mr. Shinwell: It must be obvious to every hon. Member that it is quite impossible to give directions to military commanders even if it were desirable, which it is not, after the event has occurred.
    Major Tufton Beamish: It is perfectly clear now that no general restraint is imposed by the War Office on our military forces in Palestine when they are acting in a military capacity?
    Mr. Shinwell: No restraint is imposed by us, but we expect the people on the spot to act in accordance with the circumstances, and that obviously imposes a self-restraint.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War how many armoured and other military vehicles have been stolen by terrorists in Palestine during the past year; and how many have been recovered within that period.
    Mr. Shinwell: The information necessary to answer the hon. and gallant Member's Question is not available in the War Office. I have, however, called for a report from the military authorities in Palestine and will write to the hon. and gallant Member when I have received it.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: In view of the fact that if a vehicle is lost by a unit the commanding officer has to indent for another and that that indent eventually goes to the War Office, how is it possible
    202
    that the War Office do not know the number of vehicles which have been stolen?
    Mr. Shinwell: When a military vehicle is lost for one reason or another in Palestine, an indent is not immediately made on the War Office but on Middle East Command, and we do not always ask the Command to report these detailed matters to us. However, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants the information, I will try to get it for him.
    Mr. Erroll: Is the central census of vehicles no longer maintained in this country?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is quite a different matter.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for War how much ammunition was stolen from the train blown up by Jewish terrorists near Benyamina on Saturday, 17th April; and how much of this has been recovered.
    Mr. Shinwell: I have not yet received precise information, but according to a preliminary estimate some 50 tons of ammunition were missing after the blowing up of the train.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: This is a most astonishing statement. Is there any report on how this great lorry convoy took this ammunition away, were any steps taken to regain any of it, and, if so, could not they have regained the lot, or are they going to let the, terrorists have it?
    Mr. Shinwell: I shall be only too pleased to answer those questions, if the information is available and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put down Questions. All he asked me was how much ammunition was stolen and how much has been recovered, and I tried to answer his Question.
    Earl Winterton: In view of the really dangerous situation in Palestine and the fact that an enormous amount of ammunition has been lost, as well as British lives, surely the right hon. Gentleman will realise that this is intended to be a friendly question, and that there is a need for keeping the House fully informed? [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter. The loss of British lives is serious. Surely both sides of the House want to be kept informed of the situation?
    Mr. Shinwell: I fully appreciate the noble Lord's friendliness, and I do not complain about the Questions put. These are very important matters, and I do my best to answer them in accordance with the information furnished to me. If hon. Members put Questions down, I will continue to answer them.
    Major Beamish: Why is no precise information available? This extremely serious incident took place, did it not, more than 10 days ago? Is it not about time that the right hon. Gentleman came to this House properly briefed? For the third week in succession he has not given adequate answers.
    Mr. Stokes: Before answering that Question, is it possible for my right hon. Friend to say how much of the ammunition went up when the blowing up took place?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid that supplementary question is beyond me, but in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Lewes (Major Beamish), I give to the House, in reply to Questions, all the information in my possession, but we cannot expect the Commander-in-Chief in Palestine and those subordinate to him, in the present critical and difficult situation, to furnish all these precise details.

    A.T.S. (Police Interrogations)
    Sir David Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for War if, in view of the facts disclosed in a recent case, with which he is familiar, he will make a new rule detailing an officer to be present when a member of the A.T.S. is under interrogation by the civil police.
    Mr. Shinwell: A soldier or auxiliary has the right of any citizen interviewed by the police to decline to answer questions or to ask for the attendance of a friend or legal representative. No special arrangement seems necessary for the A.T.S.
    Sir D. Robertson: But is it not the duty of an officer to protect those he is privileged to command? Why should there be any difficulty in providing these young girls of 18 and 19 years of age with someone who can protect them at a time when they are subjected to an interrogation which savours of the third degree?
    Mr. Shinwell: I can assure the hon. Member that, in the case which I think
    204
    gives rise to this Question, the girl had the opportunity of being furnished with some friend who could advise her. In all cases we permit that to happen. There is no question of third degree.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that before this young girl was summarily brought in for examination by a police officer, her company officer said to her, "You can send for a friend or legal adviser"? With great respect, I cannot accept that answer.
    Mr. Shinwell: According to the information supplementing what I have said, if the auxiliary had asked for the presence of an officer, her request would have been granted immediately. In fact, an officer was waiting in a nearby room in case she was wanted.

    Middle East (Commands)
    Mr. William Wellsasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement regarding the re-organisation of the Middle East Land Forces Command.
    Mr. Shinwell: Headquarters Middle East Land Forces, now centred at Fayid in the Canal Zone, will be responsible for policy and will retain operational command. Matters of administration will be dealt with by two subordinate Commands direct with the War Office; one, "Eastern Mediterranean Command," will include all land Forces in Egypt, Greece, Cyprus, Malta and North Africa; and the other, "East Africa Command," will include all land Forces from Somaliland to the Zambesi.
    Mr. Keeling: May we take rather absurd application of Middle East to Egypt, which is East, will now be dropped?
    Mr. Shinwell: If it is necessary to drop anything, we shall do it.
    Mr. Stanley: Does that apply to bricks?
    Mr. Shinwell: Of which, since this Government came in, there has been an ample supply.

    Military Material (Arab Legion)
    Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for War whether he will give details of the military equipment and material recently passed over to the Arab Legion; and whether, in view of the declaration of

    205
    King Abdullah that the Legion will take action against the Jews after 15th May, he will ask for the return of such military equipment and material.
    Mr. Shinwell: Such issues, which have been made in accordance with treaty obligations, have been from stocks held in the Middle East. Precise details of recent issues under the approved programme are not available in this country. As regards the second part of the Question, this is primarily a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Cocks: Was there any stipulation that this equipment should not be used against the Zionists and, in view of the fact that King Abdullah has now invaded Palestine, will equivalent equipment be transferred to the Jews to ensure equal treatment between the two sides?
    Mr. Shinwell: On that question, which appears to have been derived from Press reports, I would beg my hon. Friend to suspend judgment.
    Mr. Janner: Could my right hon. Friend say whether he is taking any steps to ascertain how many of these members of the Arab Legion are participating in attacks upon Palestinian people, and whether, in view of the fact that they are obviously supplied with ammunition and officered by British officers, he will see that neither ammunition nor other possibility of attack is given to them.
    Mr. Shinwell: We have no information that members of the Arab Legion are making attacks on Jews.
    Mr. Austin: As the treaty with Transjordan was drawn up on the basis of securing and maintaining peace in the Middle East, how does my right hon. Friend reconcile that fact with the present situation?
    Mr. Shinwell: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

  HOUSE OF LORDS (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his consultations with regard to the powers and constitution of the House of Lords.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I am not in a position to make a statement today.
  Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the series of consultations has ended without any agreement?
  The Prime Minister: I cannot make any further statement today.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Economic Information Unit (Women's Organisations)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what women's organisations were invited to attend the meeting of the Economic Information Unit of the Treasury, held in the office of the Scottish Home Department, Edinburgh, on 9th March, 1948; how many attended; what organisations they represented; what expenses were paid to those attending; and if any arrangements are being made to extend such meetings in other cities in Scotland.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): The following organisations were invited by the Economic Information Unit to attend a conference on economic information in Edinburgh on 9th March, 1948: The Church of Scotland Women's Guild; Edinburgh Association of Girls' Clubs; Edinburgh Women Citizens' Association; Electrical Association for Women; National Council of Women; National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; National Union of Townswomen's Guilds; Scottish Association of Girls' Clubs; Scottish Cooperative Women's Guild; Scottish Women's Rural Institutes; Soroptimist Club of Edinburgh; Women's Group on Public Welfare; Women's Voluntary Services; Y.W.C.A. of Great Britain; Y.W.C.A. of Scotland.
    Twenty-six delegates attended the conference representing the organisations listed above, with the following exceptions: The Church of Scotland Women's Guild; National Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs; Women's Group on Public Welfare. Expenses paid to the delegates averages 11s. each for fares and 9s. 6d. for subsistence. Arrangements

    207
    will be made for similar meetings in other cities in Scotland if women's organisations ask for them, as they asked for this one.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is some disappointment that while the Co-operative Women's Guild was invited to attend these meetings, none of the representatives of any of the political parties were invited, and as they represent a large number of Edinburgh women they very properly felt disappointed because of that omission? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, too, that the Housewives' League was not invited, and is he prepared on future occasions to give a wider opportunity for disseminating information which the Economic Information Unit seeks to impart to the public?
    Mrs. Jean Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, while the hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) was chairman of the Scottish Council of Industry, not one woman was ever on the Council? Can he explain this "new look" on the part of Sir Galahad?
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Financial Secretary explain to the House what interest the Electrical Association for Women represented?

    Wages and Profits
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he has any statement to make on his latest talks with the T.U.C. Crisis Committee on wage freezing and profit limitation.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Douglas Jay): No, Sir. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer recently held one of his periodical meetings with representatives of the Trades Union Congress.
    Mr. Osborne: Is the Minister aware that that answer is quite unacceptable? Is he aware that is was not a periodical conference, but a special conference last Thursday? Was the Chancellor able to convince the minority of the T.U.C. that the present crisis is a real one? Did the Chancellor come back with the assurance that the extra 10 per cent, production which he requires will be forthcoming?
    Mr. Jay: This was one of my right hon. and learned Friend's normal discussions with the Trades Union Congress, and it passed off in the normal way.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Minister assist by giving advice to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it would be a splendid lead to the T.U.C. if the Government set an example by freezing the income of the Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland?
    Mr. Gallacher: Would the Minister be good enough to advise the Chancellor of the Exchequer that he would convince a minority on the General Council if he made a real big, slashing cut in profits and prices?

    Co-operative Societies (Taxation)
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he has any estimate of the difference in payment that would be made between the contribution of the Co-operative societies in taxation in a given year and that which the societies would be liable to if they were taxed in the same manner as private enterprise is taxed.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: There is no difference in the measure of the Income Tax charge. It is only in the case of the Profits Tax that the charge is different, for the Cooperative society is not liable to the higher rate on its payments in respect of interest on share capital. If the interest on share capital were charged to the higher rate the net yield would be about £500,000
    Mr. De la Bére: Are we to understand that the Co-operative societies are not given somewhat favourable discrimination over private enterprise?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: That is so.
    Mr. De la Béreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of Income Tax revenue accrues to the Exchequer from private enterprise industry and trade and what from co-operative production and distribution.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mr. De la Bére: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman does not like this question, and cannot really think of a suitable answer?
    Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend say whether he is taking any steps to remove the restrictions on co-operative trade imposed by monopoly firms, which

    209
    prevent the Co-operatives from making an increased contribution to the national Revenue?

    Tobacco Cultivation
    Mr. Beechmanasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will take steps to allow tobacco to be freely cultivated in this country, in order to save foreign exchange.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: My right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not prepared to repeal the Excise Duty on home-grown tobacco. Amateur attempts to grow small amounts of tobacco for personal consumption will, however, for the present be allowed to proceed freely.
    Mr. Beechman: Is the Minister aware that there is a superstition, fostered over generations by the Excise, that tobacco cannot be grown or cured in this country, whereas it can be easily grown by old age pensioners?

    German Traders (Sterling)
    Mr. Errollasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether sterling earned by Germans trading in the Anglo-American zone of Germany is freely convertible.
    Mr. Jay: Sterling resulting from trade between the Bizonal area and the sterling area is not at the disposal of individual German exporters, but is held by the Joint Foreign Exchange Agency. This sterling is convertible to the extent that the net amount so held at the end of any quarter exceeds £1½ million. The German exporter receives payment in Reichsmarks.
    Mr. Erroll: Why are the terms of trade so unfavourable for this country exporting to Germany?
    Mr. Jay: The terms of trade are not unfavourable; it is a mutual arrangement. If the sterling area have a surplus, we earn dollars; if the sterling area has a deficit, we pay dollars.

    Income Tax (Post-War Credits)
    Lieut. - Commander Gurney Braithwaiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in how many cases ex-officers of His Majesty's Forces have been
    210
    permitted to set off Post-War Credits against claims for arrears of Income Tax.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the arrangements announced by the late Chancellor of the Exchequer on 29th October, 1946, for setting off arrears of Income Tax against the Post-War Credit for 1945–46. I regret that information as to the number of cases in which this has been done is not available.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it the case that Post-War Credits can now be released irrespective of the age of the applicant, provided he is in debt to the Government, and if he is solvent he has to wait until he is 65 years of age? Is that the case?
    Hon. Members: Answer.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: On a point of Order, in view of the silence of the Financial Secretary—
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: The short answer is that that is not the case.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is not this a case of discrimination in favour of one beneficiary against another beneficiary?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: This practice has been going on for at least 18 months. It was announced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in October, 1946. It is only in certain circumstances, to help the taxpayers, that the Post-War Credits for this last year in which they were paid are set off in this particular way.
    Mr. Jennings: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that if one section of the community can set off Post-War Credits against arrears, it is high time we should all have our quota?
    Lieut. - Commander Braithwaite: To give the right hon. Gentleman the chance of giving the long instead of the short answer, I beg to give notice that I shall endeavour to raise this matter on the Whitsuntide Adjournment.

    Polish Assets (Claims)
    Sir Arthur Salterasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will arrange that such of the remaining Polish assets in this country as are claimed by the Polish Government are used for part

    211
    settlement of the claims upon that Government in respect of its financial indebtedness or compensation for industries and other British property nationalised in Poland.
    Mr. Jay: I will bear the hon. Member's point in mind in negotiations with the Polish Government.
    Sir A. Salter: Will the Minister watch the settlement of financial indebtedness between Poland and ourselves with a view to stopping what is at present an almost entirely one-track flow of money, which we really cannot afford?
    Mr. Jay: I cannot agree that it is a wholly one-track flow, but I will bear in mind the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman.

    Brewers' Profits
    Mr. James Hudsonasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the annual profits of the licensed trade for the year ended December, 1939; and for each subsequent year to December, 1947.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the profits of the brewers for accounting years ending in the Income Tax years 1938–39 to 1946–47 as soon as the information can be collected.
    Mr. Hudson: As the Chancellor of the Exchequer, from returns given by the brewers themselves, must be aware that there has been a considerable increase, what steps has he taken to bring this point to the attention of the brewers, and to ure an undertaking of a decrease in their profits?
    Mr. Assheton: Would the Financial Secretary be good enough to add a column showing the amount of tax paid in connection with this matter?
    Mr. Cecil Poole: Could we also have the comparable figures for the mineral water manufacturers?

    Marshall Aid (Distribution)
    Sir W. Smithersasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent His Majesty's Government are free to spend the £331,000,000 of Marshall aid; to what extent that expenditure is already decided by the terms of the aid; and the amounts of both these categories.
    Mr. Jay: The distribution of Marshall aid, both as between countries and as between commodities, will be determined by the Economic Co-operation Administrator. The figures recently published in the Press were drawn from documents submitted by the United States Administration to the Congress illustrating the possible effect of the legislation proposed, and were specifically described as tentative and illustrative and not binding upon the Economic Co-operation Administrator.
    Sir W. Smithers: In view of the fact that the Government squandered the American Loan—
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Nonsense.
    Sir W. Smithers: —can the Minister assure us that Marshall aid will only be used for essential and absolutely vital purposes? Is he also aware that I will do all in my power to try to get conditions imposed in America to prevent Marshall aid going down the Socialist drain?
    Mr. Speaker: Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.
    Sir W. Smithers: On a point of Order; in view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Sterling Balances (Egypt)
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyreasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that £80 million has beers released from sterling balances to Egypt between 14th July, 1947, and 1st February, 1948; and how much of this sum has been made convertible, and released for payments to transferable accounts, respectively.
    Mr. Jay: Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, I cannot distinguish between sterling released from Egyptian blocked balances and other sterling currently accruing to Egyptian No. 1 account. Any sums released from the balances are available for payment to Egyptian transferable accounts and thus are freely available for payments for current transactions to other transferable account countries. Exact details of Egyptian transfers to American account between 14th July and 20th August are not readily available, but the amount is small. Between 20th August, 1947, and 1st February, 1948, dollar facilities to the equivalent of £7·75 million were made available to Egypt against payment in transferable account sterling.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: As the Governor of the National Bank of Egypt made it clear that £80 million had been released from blocked sterling balances, is the hon. Gentleman aware that all this sum constitutes unrequited exports, and has to be borne by our own production, and as our treaties lay down a maximum of £55 million, can the hon. Gentleman say where the extra £25 million has come from?
    Mr. Jay: The sum of £80 million does not constitute unrequited exports. That sum has not been spent; it has been largely transferred from one Egyptian account to another.
    Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Will the hon. Gentleman say where the extra £25 million came from?
    Mr. Jay: That is another question.

  TRANSJORDAN AND PALESTINE
  Mr. Stanley(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he has any statement to make on the reported declaration of war by the King of Transjordan.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): In the absence of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, I have been asked to reply. My right hon. Friend has received no confirmation of Press reports that King Abdullah has declared war on Zionism.
  Mr. Stanley: In view of the very circumstantial accounts today of events which were supposed to have taken place yesterday, surely by now the hon. Gentleman will either have had a confirmation or a denial?
  Mr. Mayhew: No, Sir. We want considered and accurate reports from our representatives, and we are awaiting those reports. At present we have no information.
  Mr. Stanley: Can the hon. Gentleman say when he thinks he will be able to answer this perfectly simple question, in order that I might put it down again?
  Mr. Mayhew: We have been in communication both with the High Commissioner and the Minister at Amman, and we
  214
  are expecting reports at any time. We will be willing to answer any Private Notice Question which is accepted.
  Mr. Janner: Will my hon. Friend intimate to the Minister there that it is essential that the Treaty of Alliance which has been entered into by ourselves and Transjordan shall be properly respected? Will my hon. Friend point out that we are spending considerable sums of money in training the men who might possibly be used in the event of a war taking place between Transjordan and us—[HON. MEMBERS: "Us?"] Would not a war against Palestine at the present moment be a war against this country? [An HON. MEMBER: "No."] Of course it would.
  Mr. Ivor Thomas: Does my hon. Friend's reply also apply to the report that the Arabs desire to take over the protection of the Holy Places in Jerusalem?
  Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that that is another point, but we have no confirmation of these Press reports. Neither have we confirmation of the report that Transjordan troops have entered Palestine.
  Mr. Gallacher: Has the Under-Secretary information or no information on the question whether the troops of Transjordan have entered Jericho?
  Mr. Mayhew: We have no confirmation of that. I am sure that if the facts warrant it, when we have discovered them, my right hon. Friend will be willing to make a statement.
  Mr. Eden: Will the Under-Secretary represent to his right hon. Friend the desirability, in view of these many reports which are going about, some of them or a disturbing character, of him making a special effort to give a considered statement after Question Time tomorrow?
  Mr. Mayhew: We certainly have that in mind and if the facts warrant it, we will consider that.
  Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that King Abdullah is bound to us by a Treaty of Alliance, and is subsidised to the extent of £2 million a year, does that not constitute an obligation to check the warlike activities of this monarch, especially when they are directed against a British mandated territory?

NOTICES OF MOTION (MEMBERS' NAMES)
Captain John Crowder: May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, whether you will consider giving some further directions to the Clerks regarding the handing in of Motions with lists of names attached; namely, that the Clerks be empowered to ask for some concrete evidence, such as the actual signatures, that the Members whose names appear on the list have agreed to support such a Motion, before their names are printed on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. and gallant Member, who gave me notice of this Question. I have gone into it and I find it very difficult to lay down that nothing but a list of signatures be put in, because to be quite frank I believe that the Clerks at the Table would be spending their time sending for Members to ask, "Is this, or is this not, your signature?" I am often grateful when, in the correspondence I receive, the signature is also typewritten.
The hon. and gallant Member has raised an important point, however. I propose to instruct the Clerks that when a list of names is put in it should be authorised by the definite signature of the Member who hands it in. He will then himself be responsible for having seen those whose names are on the list and for it being more or less what I should call certified correct, not "E. and O.E." as is said in bankers' documents. The list will be certified correct in the sense that the hon. Member who signs the list has been authorised by each individual Member whose name he has put in—that each Member has instructed him. I hope that that will meet the situation. I will certainly watch the matter.
Captain Crowder: Thank you very much, Sir.
Mr. Eden: This is a new departure, and while I am not querying it, may I ask, Sir, whether you rule that in all circumstances an Amendment must be signed by the Member whose name is first on the Paper or can it be authorised by any Member whose name is on the Paper?
Mr. Speaker: That is what I meant. For instance, representatives of parties on both sides of the House put in Amendments, which are put on the Paper by a Whip usually, in the case of a Committee upstairs. It would be better if the Whip signed the Paper when he put in the names. But I am not thinking so much of Amendments as of Motions. Motions sometimes have a hundred names to them, and it would be a rather difficult task for the Clerks if they had to check all the names and ascertain if they were correct. As I say, I shall watch the situation.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Rankin: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that tomorrow is being devoted to Scottish Business, two items of which are of great interest and importance, might I ask my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council whether he would agree to a suspension of the Rule tomorrow?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): I follow my hon. Friend's point. I will give the matter consideration.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  Considered in Committee [Progress 26th April].
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]

FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Parliamentary Constituencies.)
3.38 p.m.
Mr. Spence: I beg to move, in page 118, line 23, column 1, to leave out "Buchan," and to insert "East Aberdeenshire."
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if this and the next Amendment in my name and the names of my hon. Friends were discussed together—in line 27, column 1, leave out "Dee and Don," and insert "West Aberdeenshire."
The reason for the Amendments is that the recommendations made by the Boundary Commission regarding the renaming of the Aberdeenshire constituencies have proved extremely unpopular with the people of Aberdeenshire. For that reason we suggest that we might consider this Amendment in the light of popular feeling. I might put the matter in this way: a large majority are opposed to the new names, a small minority is indifferent, but no one is in favour of the new names. We are most anxious to preserve the name of Aberdeenshire as a constituency name on the Floor of the House of Commons. Without going into further details, I express the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to see his way to accept the Amendment.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I have given consideration to the point raised by the hon. Gentleman and the inquiries which I have made seem to confirm the point he has put. Therefore, I shall have very great pleasure in accepting the Amendments.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: As one who has the honour to represent the area which could, I suppose, be described as the area of the Dee and Don, may I express
218
my pleasure at the concession which the Secretary of State for Scotland has made, and say that it will give great satisfaction in Aberdeen City and throughout Aberdeenshire that the county name is to be preserved?
Mr. Charles Williams: I am not in any way objecting to this Amendment, but may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has made quite certain —as we have had one or two rather startling examples recently—that what will be West Aberdeen is really West Aberdeen, and not East, and that in the same way East is not West? I am not sure whether the right hon. Gentleman has gone into it, although I feel certain that my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will be able to describe in exact detail how far down South-West would have to go before it became South and how far South-East would go before it became South. It really would be rather awkward if at another time and stage we were informed that what was called West or East was really North or South.
Mr. McKie: It is seldom that I find myself in disagreement with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), but I can assure him that, so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, on this question they are more likely to show geographical accuracy than even the Home Office. I would like to say how glad I am that the right hon. Gentleman saw fit to accept these two Amendments. I for one would deeply deplore it if we were to set a precedent in this direction, so far as the essential constituencies are concerned, whereby in future county names might have been withheld from the constituency designation. I am sure that we should not be interpreting the wish of the people in so doing. I cannot claim to speak with authority about Aberdeenshire, but I am satisfied with what my hon. Friends have said, and that if the right hon. Gentleman had held to the original designation there would have been a storm of controversy.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In line 27, column 1, leave out "Dee and Don," and insert "West Aberdeenshire."
3.45 P.m.
Mr. Maclay: I beg to move, in page 119, line 5, column 2, at the end to insert:
"except the burgh of Inverbervie."
I think it would be convenient if we discussed the whole group of Amendments in my name together. The object of this Amendment is to restore the constituency of the Montrose District of Burghs which has been abolished by the present proposals that we are discussing. It would also have the effect of adding an extra seat to the 71 Scottish seats, and I realise that that may not necessarily be completely acceptable. The difficulty has been that to make the necessary adjustment would involve highly complicated juggling with the figures involving five constituencies in the North-East area of Scotland and an Ayrshire seat, because a seat has been taken away from the North-East area of Scotland and has been put into Ayrshire.
The main burden of my argument is that while, numerically, there may have been a case for reducing the number of seats in Angus and Kincardine, numerically there is no case for increasing the number of seats in Ayrshire. So it boils down to not taking a seat away from North-East Scotland in order to find one for Ayrshire. It is true that, on a strict mathematical application of the formula to Scotland, one seat has to be taken away from the North-East area. That is the point I wish to argue in some detail but I would point out before so doing that I believe I am speaking for every constituent of mine, of every shade of opinion. That was borne out by the public inquiry that was held, which clearly established two main points. One was that there was a strong community of interest between the burghs making up the present constituency, and the second main point was that there was great value in an undivided representation of these burghs as distinct from dividing the burghs into two groups and putting them into two large county areas.
I will not elaborate that argument this afternoon. I did so on an earlier occasion, on Second Reading. The point I would like to make is this. On the question of mathematical requirements the result of the local public inquiry made it clear that our general argument of community of interest was established, but it
220
seemed to the Boundary Commission impossible to retain the status quo, which was what we were, in effect, requesting, because of the mathematical requirements of the original instructions. The Home Secretary has made a substantial point on more than one occasion that Scotland, with its 71 seats, is achieving better representation than the English and Welsh equivalents, and that I think is mathematically correct. I would suggest there is, quite logically, a strong case for carrying that principle a further step, inside Scotland. After all, if Scotland has 71 seats, which are rather in excess of its mathematical equivalent, there must be some good reason. It is perhaps Scotland's special contribution to this House and its geographical nature, or other possible reasons, but surely there is a strong case for carrying the argument forward, inside Scotland, and seeing that we get the best possible representation for Scotland as a whole without paying excessive regard to pure mathematics.
As they stand, the present proposals give no less than 22 seats to Lanark and Glasgow, and the total representation of what one might call the industrial and heavily populated area of Scotland is 46 seats. Fife, which is in a special category, because it is becoming increasingly industrialised, has four, That is 50 seats for the central belt of Scotland, already heavily populated and industrialised. The whole of the rest of Scotland has only 21 seats. Surely, every party, and Members of every shade of opinion, have been arguing for years that one of the most imperative needs in Scotland is to redistribute population and industry throughout the whole country. We hear a great deal about the de-population of the Highlands, and I would suggest, particularly today when Governments are taking such an active part in this question of industry—in fact, it is impossible for industry to move without the sanction of a Government Department—full and adequate Parliamentary representation is extremely necessary, if one is to get the proper assistance for industry to move away from the industrial area. That is the main substance of my argument on numbers.
I do not attempt to say that mathematically we can justify three seats in Angus and Kincardine which would be the result if my proposal was accepted.

221
However, on the evidence of recent years, with the beginning of the flow back of population to that area, there is every case for not taking a Member away from there and giving the seat to Ayrshire which cannot be shown to need an extra seat. I would not expect my exact proposal to be completely acceptable, because it deals only with the Parliamentary county of Angus and Kincardine. To make a proper job of this, and to meet the general case about the progressive under-representation of the non-industrial belt of Scotland, it would be necessary to look again at the position in Aberdeenshire and then to study carefully the effect of these new proposals on Ayrshire. It should be possible to produce a perfectly equitable redistribution which would leave Scotland with 71 seats and enable us to revert to the status quo before the Boundary Commission reported.
I close by saying that Montrose Burghs in its present form has a very long history. It has been precisely as it is now since 1832 and, with only a slight alteration, it has been in the same form since 1708. It has a long record of prominent representatives in Parliament, including such diverse characters as Joseph Hume and Lord Morley. If its present incumbent is not up to standard, that cannot be held against the constituency. I sincerely hope that this constituency, with its long and honourable tradition, including the fact that never since 1832 has it returned any Member other than a Liberal, will be considered. I hope that the Secretary of State will give sympathetic consideration to my argument and possibly ask the Boundary Commission to reconsider the whole of this area together with Ayrshire, and, in effect, accept what I propose.
Major Ramsay: I heartily agree with everything said by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). He put the case most clearly. I confirm what he said about community of interest in Angus. Local interests have been upset by the proposals of the Boundary Commission. I also wish to make a few remarks about the North-East of Scotland generally. That area is vitally important in our Scottish economy. It is not only a great food producer, but we hope that it will become a great industrial producer. There are industries there now and, if the area gets all the attention it deserves, I hope that it will go
222
ahead as a flourishing part of the community. I agree that it is difficult to submit alternatives to the proposals of the Boundary Commission. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to go into the matter with a view to finding out whether he can maintain the present number of Members in the North-East of Scotland. It may be that as a result he would need another Member, perhaps in the industrial belt or in Ayrshire. If he did, there is no reason why he should do the wrong thing by the North-East. We could have another Scottish Member. The position was worked out rather inaccurately yesterday by the Home Secretary. He based his argument entirely on mathematics. I do not believe that mathematics are the essence of the argument in a case such as this. There are very wide areas to be covered in the North-East of Scotland with varying interests which require attention. I sincerely support my hon. Friend in his plea that the right hon. Gentleman should consider this matter further.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I wish the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) had confined his remarks to making a case, whether mathematical or otherwise, on the merits of the question without trying to commit an act of aggression against Ayrshire. In the latter part of his speech he claimed apparently that because Joseph Hume and Lord Morley, people of great repute to whom I pay tribute, represented his part of the country, special consideration should be given to that area. If we act on that argument and ignore mathematics entirely, I will claim another two seats for Ayrshire on the strength of Robert Burns and Keir Hardie. The hon. Gentleman's argument about the drift of population should not influence the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider taking away a seat from Ayrshire. In Ayrshire the position is not theoretical. The plan: ping authorities have already made practical proposals for a much bigger increase of population in Ayrshire than can ever be considered in Montrose. Although I do not object to my hon. Friend's claim for Montrose, I suggest that we should rule out immediately the suggestion that because Montrose Burghs wishes to be enfranchised, Ayrshire should be disfranchised.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: As the Member who, under present proposals, would

223
have my own county of Kincardine taking over three of the five burghs in Montrose Burghs, I wish to say a few words. I heartily support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). He advanced three main reasons in support of his contention that the proposals of the Government should be looked at again. His first reason was the community of interest between the burghs concerned. I heartily agree with him. Places like Brechin, Forfar, Inverbervie, Arbroath, and indeed Montrose itself, have a great community of interest. As the hon. Member said, they have been associated in one Parliamentary constituency for over 115 years, and that is very strong ground for keeping them as they are now. His second ground was that there is a conflict of interest between the burghs and the surrounding countryside. I have often told my hon. Friend that I do not see eye to eye with him on that topic. I have had the honour to represent the county town of Stonehaven. I found no great conflict of interest between the people of the county town and those of the countryside. The people from the country come into the county town for their markets and meetings and many other purposes. The same position exists at Montrose.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: And in Ayrshire.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It may be that the same applies in Ayrshire. I entirely agree with the hon. Member's third point. The under-representation of the constituencies in the non-industrial belt is a serious matter. I disagree completely with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) when he says that if the Amendment were accepted he would claim two extra seats for the industrial area of Scotland. That area is already over-represented and we ought not to consider increasing the number of seats there.
There is one other ground which I wish to advance. Under the present proposals we are doing something which is quite unnatural. We are bringing the county of Kincardine south and associating it with the county of Angus when, in all other respects, it is associated northwards with the county of Aberdeen, I think that is very bad, because, in local government and in everything else, Kincardine goes
224
with Aberdeen. It is used to going that way, and we would be doing something quite unnatural to dissociate the county of Kincardine from the whole of Aberdeenshire, compelling the people to make new affiliations elsewhere. I think that is a point which should be borne in mind. While I cannot in detail support the exact wording of the proposal of my hon. Friend, I am altogether with him in his suggestion that this matter ought to be reconsidered. The whole of North-East Scotland ought to be looked at again, and if I am asked what is the right solution, I would say let it be the status quo.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Maclay: May I deal with two points? When I used the word "conflict" as between burgh and county, I should not have done so. I do not suggest there is conflict; there is community of market and interests. It is, however, very difficult for an hon. Member trying to represent a series of burghs, all of which are actively interested in the development of light industries, and, at the same time, trying also to represent very large agricultural areas. I know that hon. Members do it in various parts of the country, but I say that, because it happens in same places, there is no reason for pushing that process on to others. I have believed for many years, and, in speaking in this Debate I repeat, that it is difficult to keep a balance when we get burghs mixed up with counties, and I gravely doubt whether in these days we can keep the balance between the industrial districts and agricultural interests. As regards Ayrshire, I think it may be a little difficult to increase the number of Scottish seats over 71, but, if Ayrshire is going to receive additional population, there may be, in due course, good reason for giving another two seats. At present, however, I do not think the figures justify it.
Mr. Woodburn: I can sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, but this is not really a question of the Government doing anything. The Government have brought in this Bill, and, so far as Scotland is concerned, have practically confined themselves to the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. Therefore, the arguments are against the Boundary Commission and not against the Government.

225
The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment has quite rightly concluded that it is not likely that Scotland can claim more than 71 seats, but he must have learned from the Home Secretary that England, relatively speaking, feels itself much under-represented compared with Scotland on a mere mathematical basis. I agree with him entirely that this is not a matter which can be settled completely by arithmetic, because, at the Speaker's Conference, when these matters were considered, clearly the question of geography and contours had to be taken into account.
It is ridiculous to compare the representation of Ross and Cromarty with the representation of a burgh or a compact group of burghs like the Montrose Burghs. It is quite true that the constituency of the Montrose Burghs is disappearing, and I think every hon. Member who found himself in that position would have a feeling of sorrow at parting with old traditions, but it is quite impossible to have progress without change. The argument of the hon. Gentleman is an argument not to have this Bill at all, but to leave everything as it is. If we are to have changes, then somebody must lose if someone else gains. As one of the hon. Members who is losing something like 6,000 friends and voters, I have a very keen sympathy with other people who are also losing, but I have to face the fact that, if there is to be a re-distribution and fair representation for everybody, somebody must lose, and there must be a stage when the population, in some cases, must break with old traditions. The area of the Montrose Burghs cannot claim special consideration because of its geographical contours, and it would not justify special consideration in the same way as the Highlands or the Western part of the country. The contour of this part of the country is not much different from that of the adjacent areas.
It is quite true that the Government are taking steps to get the population moving into the countryside, and that may take place. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the present is not a static arrangement. The Boundary Commission are permanent, and, as changes take place, so can the Boundary Commission alter their recommendations to the House. No doubt, in due time, it what the hon. Gentleman hopes for actually takes place
226
in his district, he will be able to secure the extra Member. Possibly some of the congested districts which he mentioned will be so reduced that they will be able to part with a Member with entire fairness. I express my regret that I cannot accept the Amendment, because, as the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, its acceptance evidently requires a complete redistribution in Scotland again. We should start with these constituencies of Ayrshire and West Aberdeen and completely alter the representation, and then, in regard to the industrial areas, it would mean a complete re-organisation. Scotland has been left far less disturbed than England and Wales, and we stand by the Boundary Commission's proposals, which we think were sound.
Mr. Maclay: We should have advanced our arguments with greater diffidence had it not been for the fact that there has been a departure from the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in the actions of the Government, which undoubtedly affects the whole issue. We fell that, after the Boundary Commission had covered the whole country and had reported, hon. Members were pretty well bound to accept their decisions, particularly after public local inquiries had been held. We now find that the Government are engaged in departing very substantially from the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, and it is on that policy that I put forward my case. Another point which I do not think the Secretary of State has fully met is one which was referred to by all hon. Members who have spoken and which concerns the under-representation of the non-industrial areas. What the Secretary of State says is that mathematics really must rule the matter. If that is the case, and if that is the decision of the Government, I would have been inclined to accept it had it not been that we have had these continued disturbances of the Report of the Boundary Commission. I think there was a very strong case for considering the matter on the mathematical basis, and I hope that the Secretary of State will have a look at it again from that point of view. I can give him some figures to bear out my case.
Mr. Woodburn: I am sorry that I did not answer the particular point which the hon. Gentleman made, but, before I do so, I think he has misunderstood what

227
has happened in England and Wales. The hon. Gentleman probably did not hear the Home Secretary explain that he has accepted the alternative recommendations of the Boundary Commission which were based on the question of policy and not on the question of alteration of boundaries. In regard to the point which the hon. Gentleman made, it has always been the complaint of country areas that burgh Members did not understand their needs. Therefore, the finest education for a burgh Member is to have country constituents, so that when he comes here he will be able to take a balanced view of the whole population and not be lop-sided one way or another.
Mr. C. Williams: I wonder if I might try to be helpful and make a suggestion. It seems quite obvious that the whole difficulty could be overcome if Scotland could have one more Member. I am not arguing for the balance to be upset, but, as I see the Home Secretary is here, I wanted to ask him whether it would not be perfectly easy, as this is a case which ought to be met, if possible, to give Scotland one more Member and Plymouth one more Member. That would he quite fair. I put that suggestion forward in the interests of peace and common fairness and I understand that almost everyone in the Committee agrees. Perhaps the Ministers will think it over between now and the Report stage, and may be able to put forward something really sensible.
Mr. Maclay: I think the Secretary of State has been sticking very closely to his brief, but there may be a chance of altering this matter later. In the hope that it will be reconsidered between now and the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lieut.-Col. Sir Thomas Moore: I beg to move, in page 119, to leave out lines 25 to 45, and to insert:

"1. Ayr—The burghs of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, the parish of Monkton and the electoral division of Dundonald in the district of Ayr.

2. Bute and North Ayrshire—

(i) The county of Bute, inclusive of all the burghs situated therein;

(ii) the burghs of Largs;

(iii) the district of Kilbirnie.

3. Cunningham and Irvine—

(i) The burghs of Irvine, Kilwinning, Stewarton, Ardrossan and Saltcoats;

(ii) the districts of Irvine and Saltcoats.

228

4. Kilmarnock—

(i) The burghs of Kilmarnock, Darvel, Galston and Newmilns and Greenholm;

(ii) the districts of Newmilns and Kilmarnock."

This Amendment is the first of a series of five Amendments standing in my name, and I think it might be convenient to discuss them together, as they all concern the same constituency. The other Amendments are minor ones, mainly concerned with changes of name. If King Solomon gained his reputation for wisdom by suggesting the division of a child into two parts, then undoubtedly the Boundary Commission have made an all-time record for wisdom, because they have divided my constituency into three parts. I am hoping to develop an argument which will convince the right hon. Gentleman that the Boundary Commission have literally and actually failed in the duty which was imposed on them, and that it is now in his power to rectify that failure.
I would like to say how much I agree with the remarks of the present Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay). We do not want another seat in Ayrshire. We were all satisfied that we were most adequately representing our constituents, and we never had any complaints—except possibly the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes)—that we had failed to represent them. Personally, I feel it a matter of great regret having to sever friendships which have been built up over the last 23 years. "My old Dutch" and I have been together all that time without having had one quarrel or one cause for complaint on either side. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will realise the feelings with which I view the proposals in the Bill.
This series of Amendments would not interfere with the present composition of the adjacent constituencies in Ayrshire, and therefore I feel that I shall not be infringing on any one's susceptibilities and that I shall be allowed to make my own speech without having any interruptions from the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. These Amendments are merely intended to redress some of the anomalies referred to in the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. Indeed, I go further and say that my Amendments are necessary in order to give real effect to the aims of the Boundary Commission

229
itself. Those aims, as I understood them, were threefold. They were, first, to tidy up the country geographically, secondly, to equalise these five constituencies numerically, and thirdly, to preserve the general character and interests of these constituencies. In their recommendations, which are now incorporated in the Bill, the Boundary Commission have achieved the first two aims; they have undoubtedly tidied up the country, and they have to a large extent equalised numerically the representations in the five combined constituencies; but they have undoubtedly failed in the last—they have not preserved the general character and interest of the constituencies.
4.15 p.m.
If the proposed Amendments are accepted, and if my argument convinces the right hon. Gentleman, the following changes will be involved. The old constituency of Ayr would consist of the burghs of Ayr, Prestwick and Troon, the parish of Monkton and the electoral division of Dundonald in the district of Ayr. The proposed new constituency of Cunningham and Irvine—a stupid name—would consist of the burghs of Irvine, Kilwinning, Stewarton, Ardrossan and Saltcoats and the districts of Irvine and Saltcoats. North Ayrshire, which is represented by my hon. and gallant Friend, South Ayrshire and Kilmarnock Burghs would remain almost as at present, geographically, numerically and politically, with the exception of the unimportant change that would be involved by my proposals.
I have deliberately not mentioned the district of Ayr, to avoid any infringement upon the constituency of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire. It might well be decided by the right hon. Gentleman to incorporate it into the old Ayr constituency because, without unbalancing the constituency of the hon. Member, it would undoubtedly round off the new Division which is to be called Ayr. None of the arguments which I am using is in any way personal. I shall not live for ever and eventually I shall be succeeded by somebody else. It is not in my own interest that I am advancing these arguments, but in the general interest of the Ayrshire community. The arguments are brief. Ayr Burghs has for 30 years been an almost entirely urban district consisting of seaports, harbours, flourishing
230
industries, seaside and holiday amenities and attractions, and some very good commercial industries. Under the new scheme it would receive substantial additions in the way of agricultural interests, coalmining districts and other odds and ends which would destroy the characteristics it has enjoyed for 30 years. I hold this to be foreign to the intentions of the Commission and it also flouts the undertakings given by the Home Secretary on Second Reading, and also by the Lord Chancellor on Second Reading in another place. Both said it was their intention not to disturb historical interests or flout local susceptibilities. In the proposals under the Bill, these undertakings are being disregarded.
If the Amendments which I am proposing are approved and accepted, they will ensure that both the old constituency of Ayr and the new constituency of Cunningham and Irvine will retain their present characteristics as well as the general industrial and social character which they have preserved for so long. They would also ensure that North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire and Kilmarnock would undergo practically no change. I am informed, and have every reason to believe, that these proposals meet with the general assent of the communities concerned. I hope that I have made out a convincing case which the right hon. Gentleman will find no difficulty in accepting.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) that the name "Cunningham and Irvine" for the new constituency is long-winded. I would have a certain amount of sympathy in advance with the future Socialist Member for that division, who would have to be called "the hon. Member for Cunningham and Irvine" instead of by the simpler name of Central Ayrshire.
Sir T. Moore: That relates to the next Amendment.
Mr. Hughes: I understand that the hon. and gallant Member adduced an argument on that matter. On the whole, I have to dissociate myself from the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member: I do not think they are supported by any of the authorities in the constituency. For example, there has been no opposition to the recommendations of the Boundary

231
Commission from the Ayrshire County Council. I believe that the Boundary Commission has done its work strictly and objectively and without any political considerations. I do not see that in these days there is any argument for retaining the present characteristics of constituencies because of something which has happened in the remote historical past. The Secretary of State was perfectly justified in saying that we have to break with tradition when common sense so demands.
I believe that we are really doing a good service to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs in transferring to him certain villages in the district of Ayr. He will have in the new constituency a healthy infiltration of miners. The inhabitants of places like Annbank and Tarbolton will not be anxious to go into Ayr Burghs to be represented by the hon. and gallant Member; they would rather stay where they are. We understand their allegiance to South Ayrshire, but we realise it will mean an infiltration of new blood into Ayr Burghs, which might conceivably change its political representation. On strictly objective considerations, I believe that these recommendations should be accepted. Indeed, the party with which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. Mac-Andrew) is connected has not raised any serious representation, as is shown from the fact that the hon. and gallant Member is not here to support his colleague from Ayr Burghs.
Sir T. Moore: I have consulted the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern (Sir C. MacAndrew). He entirely agrees with my proposals on the Order Paper.
Mr. Hughes: If the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr and Bute, Northern, entirely agrees with the proposals, he certainly has not emphasised his support by being present to reinforce the rather flimsy arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs. We have to look upon this matter, not from a party angle, but from the view of accepting the decision of an impartial body. Although I very much regret that the 3,000 miners will leave my constituency and go to support the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, I believe that this proposal has been part and parcel of a really objectively thought-out plan.
Mr. William Ross: I think we can all understand the feelings of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) on the loss of a constituency which he has represented for so long. It is difficult, however, to understand his new claims to be able to supplant the Boundary Commission in judging just how we shall fit in the new Member in Ayrshire. So far, our discussions have generally been on the loss of constituencies; but in Ayrshire we are getting an extra Member. I feel that, in dividing Ayrshire, the Boundary Commission have done a very good job, so much so that there has been very little criticism in Ayrshire of what they have done.
The only complaint I have had is the matter which the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs is raising later regarding the name of the new constituency. I cannot, however, accept his proposed changes in so far as they affect my own constituency because, whilst under the report of the Boundary Commission I shall lose Mauchline, Catrine and Sorn, which I would very much like to keep. I do not see why, in place of them, I should receive, from the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, Stewarton and Dunlop, which have not been part of the Kilmarnock constituency. If he had consulted me I would have made that point quite clear. I do feel, however, that it will be quite a loss for him to lose Troon and I can understand the effect it will have on the new Ayr constituency in offsetting the influx of people from Mossblown, Annbank and Whitletts. I can see the hon. and gallant Member will be looking with regret on the vanishing support which he had there. There was bound to be a certain amount of complaint and regret at loss of friendship in this matter of division. In the case which has been presented by the hon. and gallant Member, however, I do not feel there is sufficient justification for overturning the report of the Boundary Commission. I suggest that the Secretary of State should leave well alone.
Mr. McKie: I was very interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). From one angle, I welcome the fact that some 3,000 of his present constituents will go to make up the new constituency which has been represented hitherto so efficiently by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mem-

233
ber for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I rejoice to think that some of the present supporters of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire are so dissatisfied with him in their present Division that they will welcome the chance, if they eventually go into the new Division, of registering their dissatisfaction with his representation in Parliament by swelling the ranks of those who will make the biggest majority that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs has ever had. That was the only sentiment in the speech of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire with which I was in any agreement.
I have a close knowledge of the Ayr Burghs constituency. I have known it all my life. I have known a great many people who had the honour to be electors in one or other part of the burgh which has hitherto made up the constituency. I would take the guidance of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs as regards local feeling and sentiment rather than—and I say this without offence—the somewhat perverted and shallow views of the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire which he has brought to bear during the discussion today and, indeed, generally brings to bear upon any subject on which he gives the House of Commons the benefit of his views.
4.30 p.m.
The hon. Gentleman congratulated the Secretary of State for Scotland upon having said that in the rearrangement and regrouping of the Scottish constituencies we must not be afraid, if need be, to break old traditions. The Secretary of State said this afternoon—I hope I am quoting him accurately—that if we are to have progress we must have change. Certainly, but I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that change does not of necessity mean progress. I would ask him to keep that fact in mind when considering this question of the boundaries of the new Ayr Burghs constituency. I do not think any hon. Member opposite will gainsay me when I say that tradition has always been very highly prized and long cherished by people in Scotland, particularly the people of Southern Scotland. This is all the more remarkable when we consider the strong radical views of the Southern Scots. That is a matter which the right hon. Gentleman will do well to bear in mind when redrawing the boundaries of the Ayr Burghs.
234
The right hon. Gentleman must consider whether the country will gain by the provision already in the Bill or whether it would not be wiser to consider the suggestions made by my hon. and gallant Friend who has in support of him the majority of the electors in these various parts of Ayrshire, who will be very vitally affected if the Bill goes through as at present drafted. Let not the right hon. Gentleman listen to the tempting blandishments of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, who said that it would be good to have extraneous elements brought from the countryside into the burgh divisions. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman used the same argument himself in the previous Amendment.
If these people were only coming from the agricultural districts I, for one, would not mind so much; neither would my hon. and gallant Friend, because there would certainly be a greater harmony of interest between those coming from rural parishes and the average type of elector in the present Ayr burghs. If, on the other hand, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has his way, we shall not have that community of interest. If electors are brought in from the mining areas there will certainly be no desire at all to see continuity of interest, unless they are so dissatisfied with the representation of the present Member for South Ayrshire that they will readily seek an opportunity of registering different political views at the next election. I hope the Secretary of State will have something to say by way of making at all events, some compromise on these proposals.
Mr. Woodburn: I can only express my gratitude to all the hon. Members affected by these changes for having themselves tried to replace the Boundary Commission by doing the job all over again. I observe that this effort has been confined to those more ingenious Members such as the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). We have had no representations from anyone else; neither have the people in the constituencies been consulted by the hon. and gallant Member on these proposed changes. Therefore, there is no evidence to support the suggestion of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) that there is any support in that area for these proposals.
The hon. and gallant Member's present constituency cannot be described as a

235
rational one. Indeed, one would need to be something of a kangaroo to reach all the different places by jumping over all the other places en route. Whatever else may be said, the Boundary Commission have made a more homogeneous area so that the hon. and gallant Member can reach the people on foot if necessary. That would have its advantages from the point of view of enabling him to know the people better, and I am quite sure that once he gets to know the miners at Ann-bank and in the surrounding areas he will find that he has got a lot of fine people in his constituency.
Sir T. Moore: I agree; I have many good friends among the miners.
Mr. Woodburn: He will find that he has got people who are playing a great part in creating the wellbeing of this country. We must recognise that Ayrshire is a developing county, and that it will be one of the great coal producing areas in Scotland. The Boundary Commission have foreseen these developments, and have planned the division of the constituencies accordingly.
As to the comparison between the efforts of the hon. and gallant Gentleman to redraft the boundaries, and those of the Boundary Commission themselves, I am bound to say that from the point of view of the rules given to the Boundary Commission by Parliament, their decisions and recommendations comply more closely with the desires of Parliament than do the proposals of the hon. and gallant Gentleman. For that reason, and for the reason that, generally speaking, the constituencies so arranged are more homogeneous and can, by common sense, be justified as a rational distribution of the constituencies, I cannot accept the hon. and gallant Gentleman's proposal, and I must reject his Amendment.
Sir T. Moore: Much as I regret the temporary decision reached by the right hon. Gentleman, I shall not delay the proceedings of the Committee. However, as we know, second thoughts are nearly always wisest and best; so I hope that before the Report stage the right hon. Gentleman will have second thoughts. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 119, line 27, column 2, to leave out "Cunningham and Irvine," and to insert "Central Ayrshire."
As the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, and as I know from correspondence that I have had with him, this is a very simple Amendment. It has no political significance whatsoever. It is merely intended to deal with the territorial designation of the new constituency which the Boundary Commissioners have created in Ayrshire. The first idea was to call this constituency Irvine and Troon. That was not inaccurate as a description, because Troon and Irvine are the two chief burghs in the new constituency, although, of course, substantial rural areas are also now included. However, for some reason that no one can ascertain, the Commissioners had second thoughts—certainly not better and wiser second thoughts—and they changed the name from "Irvine and Troon" to "Cunningham and Irvine." No one knows why. It is really a duplication of description. Irvine is a burgh in the Cunningham district. Troon is a burgh in the Kyle district. Therefore, to call the constituency "Cunningham and Irvine" is almost the same as calling it "Irvine and Troon."
I would also point out that as the Man College continues to attract new residents to Troon to obtain the splendid and cheap education that they can get there, Troon will become a dominating burgh in the new constituency one day. Therefore, to eliminate Troon altogether is sheer nonsense. Another point is that Cunningham has no significance in the county, and certainly none outside it. To preserve the name "Cunningham" for some abstruse reason is beyond any justification that I can think of. Therefore, this Amendment would solve those difficulties. "Central Ayrshire" is an accurate and literal description. It involves no local jealousies, and I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that it is obviously appropriate. He would then have North Ayrshire, South Ayrshire, Central Ayrshire, Kilmarnock Burghs and Ayr Burghs as they now exist, all playing a part, all easily recognisable by a territorial designation. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will see the merits of my suggestion.
Mr. Woodburn: I am rather sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman was depre-

237
ciating the name "Cunningham." It is a very distinguished name.
Sir T. Moore: I was not depreciating it.
Mr. Woodburn: At the beginning of the war one could hardly read about a naval battle or a naval victory without reading of the name of Cunningham. The Cunningham; played a considerable part in the history of Scotland, as well as giving the name to a district. I gather that the Boundary Commission thought that it would be a very colourful and, distinctive name to give to this constituency. I have looked into the matter, and I find that there is no great enthusiasm for the change of name and that generally speaking the evidence seems to be in favour of giving it the name of "Central Ayrshire." Therefore, I have pleasure in accepting the Amendment.
Sir T. Moore: I am obliged.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments made.
Sir T. Moore: I beg to move, in page 120, to leave out lines 23 to 31, and to insert:

"(a) County Constituency.

1. Dunbartonshire—

(i) The burghs of Cove, Kilcreggan, Helensburgh and Milngavie.

(ii) The districts of Helensburgh, Old Kilpatrick and Vale of Leven.

(iii) The districts of Kirkintilloch, Cumbernauld and New Kilpatrick.

(b) Burgh Constituency.

2. Dunbarton District of Burghs—The burghs of Clydebank, Dumbarton and Kirkintilloch."

It may be wondered why I am going outside my natural boundaries in dealing with this Amendment. This Bill proposes to abolish altogether the present Dumbarton Burghs constituency, which has for so long and so well been represented by the right hon. Gentleman who is the present Member—an old friend and a new Privy Councillor to whom I take this opportunity of paying my official respects. It might, therefore, be asked why this Amendment has not been moved by him. Candidly, I cannot answer that question, but I can claim every justification for gaining his vocal support after I have explained the reasons for the Amendment. Instead of the present set-up, which consists of the County of Dun-
238
barton and the Dumbarton Burghs, it is to be divided into two sections of Dunbartonshire—East and West—so a whole tradition of over 150 years is to be destroyed practically overnight. My Amendment seeks to retain the existing arrangement of the county and the burgh constituencies, and I believe that when the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) has heard my argument he will support me.
4.45 P.m.
I listened carefully to the speech of the Home Secretary during Second Reading, and I also listened to the speech of the Lord Chancellor when moving the Second Reading in another place. I should like to quote those speeches, because they are very clear and unambiguous. The Home Secretary declared that community of interest was more important than mathematical considerations, and that communities which did not wish to be severed should remain political entities. The Lord Chancellor said:
"We intend to avoid splitting up old historical associations and groups."
Well, the proposals that have been inserted in the Bill, which my Amendment seeks to correct, precisely violate those most admirable sentiments.
How did this anomaly come about? When the Boundary Commission first considered Dunbartonshire they came to certain conclusions, and made certain recommendations which, as far as I can gather as a result of my investigations, were approved by everybody—or at least, generally acceptable to both local authorities and to all political parties concerned. Then some one in the county council protested. Of course, there is always someone who will protest against every proposal, whether good or bad. Someone on the county council made a protest against the first proposals of the Boundary Commission, and as a result an inquiry was instituted and new proposals were formulated. I should like to make clear that these new proposals are fiercely resented by large and important sections of all the communities affected.
I would point out that this inquiry was held at the very height of the holiday season—31st July—and only 10 days' notice was given, so that it was quite impossible for the councillors to meet in the interim and consider their attitude to be expressed at the inquiry. Furthermore,

239
many of the councillors thought it was unnecessary to attend the inquiry because they had already agreed with the original proposals. Finally, the detailed proposals submitted to the inquiry by the county clerk had not previously been in front of the county council. I hold that that is a monstrous invasion of the rights and responsibilities of the democratically elected councillors. I do not intend to weary the Committee with a detailed analysis of the proposals in the Bill, although I have all the figures should anyone seek to challenge what I have said in support of my Amendment.
I will telescope my arguments under four headings. Firstly, a county constituency with a continuity of character extending over 150 years disappears. Secondly, an area with an almost equal balance between industrial and rural electorate is replaced by a division in which the urban is to the rural as 2½ is to one—completely unbalanced. Thirdly, the principle of tradition and community of interest stressed by the Home Secretary and the Lord Chancellor has been grossly disregarded. Fourthly, historical associations are flouted. I wish to make quite clear that few, if any, of the authorities in the proposed constituencies had any real knowledge of what the proposals were. No doubt hon. Members will have read recently in the Press how, when a Gallup poll was taken, it was discovered that 20 per cent. of our total population did not know of the existence of the United Nations. One can well understand from that how many people did not know of the existence of these proposals—which are comparatively insignificant—particularly as only 10 days' notice was given of the local inquiry.
This whole matter has been badly handled. I do not believe that the proposal to divide Dunbartonshire into East and West constituencies has the support of any substantial or authoritative body of opinion in the county. Indeed, I believe that the proposals are definitely opposed. The Boundary Commission made a false step here, and the local inquiry which was subsequently held did not give sufficient notice of its meeting, and the submissions made by the county clerk were not those approved by the county council itself. For all those reasons, I believe that I have made out a sound, if not, indeed, a cast-iron case for the retention of the existing
240
constituencies. I hope that the Secretary of State, with that sense of justice which I like to associate with him, will see fit to accept the Amendment.
Mr. Kirkwood: I have listened with interest to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), who has said that this constituency is over 150 years old. When I fought the constituency in 1918, that was the first time that there was a constituency of Dumbarton Burghs.
Sir T. Moore: I was referring to Dunbartonshire, the county constituency, when I said there was a continuity of 150 years. I thought I had made that clear.
Mr. Kirkwood: It was Kilmarnock Burghs. As far as I know, all the authorities concerned are quite satisfied with this re-arrangement of the constituencies.
Sir T. Moore: Oh, no.
Mr. Kirkwood: Personally, I am very sorry at what has happened. I had a unique constituency; I thought the best in Scotland.
Sir T. Moore: Except Ayr Burghs.
Mr. Kirkwood: My constituency contained two towns, Dumbarton and Clydebank, which are eight miles apart, and I have to jump over the county from Clydebank to go to Dumbarton. I shall be very sorry to part with either. I have made many friends, and in nearly 26 years as the representative of the constituency I have seen a complete revolution take place, because Dumbarton used to be solid Tory.
Sir T. Moore: Like its present Member.
Mr. Kirkwood: That is all gone. The Socialists are now in control in both places. That has all happened in my lifetime.
Mr. Rankin: Due to the right hon. Member.
Mr. Kirkwood: Well, I have played my part anyway, second to none. I think that the proposal in the Bill is a fairer division of the constituency, because the county area has a quite different type of individual from the towns. It has greatly changed in my time. I remember when there was practically no Clydebank,

241
before Singer's left Bridgeton and went down to Clydebank, or before J. C. Thomson's, now John Brown's, went there. I think it is much fairer that the towns should be one, and that the other side of the constituency should be arranged as suggested in the Bill; that is, on the East side, the burghs of Clydebank, Kirkintilloch, Milngavie, Cumbernauld, Kirkintolloch and New Kilpatrick. I expect that will be my constituency. Then on the west side, the burghs of Dumbarton, Cove, Kilcreggan and Helensburgh, Old Kilpatrick and the Vale of Leven. That will make a far better labour constituency than it was before. With the regret that I am sorry to part with Dumbarton, I wholeheartedly support the recommendation in the Bill.
Mr. McKinlay: I join in the expression of regret with my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton' Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood), that after so many years his constituency is to be abolished. But I cannot offer any congratulation to the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I would observe in passing that I thought the hon. and gallant Member for Argyll (Major McCallum) was put out because the British Broadcasting Corporation did not mention in the Scottish Home Service the fact that he intended to raise this matter, as is their wont from time to time. The hon. and gallant Member's object is neither vegetable nor mineral: it is political. I can only assume that his distorted picture of what transpired after the original recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners came from the headquarters of his party in Glasgow. The Commission's report was objected to by a Tory county councillor, who instructed the county clerk to appear. Am I correct?
Sir T. Moore: Quite correct.
Mr. McKinlay: I stood outside the whole controversy, because I took the view that the division of a constituency did not so much concern the sitting Member. The only equitable way to divide constituencies is to wait till the sitting Members die, after which any new proposals can become operative. It so happens that the member of the county council who moved that the matter be the subject of a public inquiry was a Tory from Helensburgh. On the way out that day one of his colleagues said to him, "You see what you have done. You
242
have handed both seats away to the Labour Party." From what the hon. and gallant Member has just quoted, I gather that he has been burning the midnight oil reading the correspondence columns of the "Glasgow Herald," because when the report of the Commission and the report of the independent tribunal were issued, many people in Dunbartonshire County discovered for the first time that it was incompatible for anyone who knew anything about industrial conditions to represent the rural population of Dunbartonshire County.
5.0 p.m.
Because of the amending Bill made necessary after the first Commission's Report the Tory association got busy and, if I may say so, humiliated their own county clerk by passing a resolution rescinding a previous decision and instructing the county clerk to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to let them have a new tribunal. The county clerk was, I presume, to go to whoever presided, and say, "My apologies. What I said last time was all wrong. My county council did not mean it. I have come along to make representations on their behalf and to say that in the first instance the Commission's recommendation was correct." Dunbarton county is about 62 miles long—it is not so much as the crow flies but along its winding roads the distance is considerably more. My hon. and gallant Friend, trying to enlist the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs, said that this county was going to be disintegrated, to be torn in half. My right hon. Friend said he had to jump eight miles between Clydebank and Dumbarton, but the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, whose knowledge of the geography of Dunbarton county is strangely lacking, asks that the Commission's Report should be accepted and that my right hon. Friend in his old age should jump 20 miles from Clydebank to Kirkintilloch. If both of us come to the next Parliament we shall pass one another on the road—I shall take in one part of the county and my right hon. Friend will be representing the mass of the industrial population.
It is good to know these things, and, as I said at the beginning, this is neither mineral nor vegetable, it is political. I challenge my hon. and gallant Friend on that. He has been briefed by his political party to raise this objection. He has not

243
been briefed by the clerk of the county of Dunbarton, nor the town clerk of the borough of Dumbarton, nor the town clerk of either Kirkintilloch or Clydebank. Am I right? For seven years in this House I have been the mouthpiece of the Dunbarton County Council. It is passing strange, but on this occasion apparently they have overlooked that fact. I had to present the county council's attitude on the question of the Loch Sloy hydroelectric scheme, and I thought they were right. Without regard to politics I have carried out the requests of the county council as sent through the county clerk, or by the town clerk of Milngavie or Kirkintilloch, but on this occasion neither my right hon. Friend nor myself was approached. We must be lacking in political stature. We have not reached the Olympian heights of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs.
My advice to the Secretary of State is, if he has not the history of what took place in Dunbartonshire before him, to compare my statement to this Committee with the concoction served up by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, and then I am quite satisfied what the result will be. In this new set-up, where the county is cut, and on the basis of the district councils, it was the only logical geographical division of the county of Dunbarton. Neither my right hon. Friends nor myself may be here as representatives of that county in the next Parliament, but the question which hon. Members must address to themselves is not, "What is the balance of political opinion as between the urban and the rural areas?" but "What is the balance between the residential and the non-residential, and what is the best geographical basis to give a workable constituency?" I do not think anyone can find fault with the recommendations of the Dunbarton County Council, which were accepted by the Commissioners, and I ask hon. Members to believe me when I say that while we have heard a good deal about political logrolling during the discussions on Amendments to this Bill, this is the most blatant example of political log-rolling that has taken place.
Sir T. Moore: On a point of Order. I must ask for your protection, Mr. Beaumont. I do not know whether the hon. Member is charging me with log-
244
rolling but if he is I must ask you to take some action.
The Deputy-Chairman (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I do not know that the hon. and gallant Member has been charged with political log-rolling. Furthermore, I should require a definition of "log-rolling."
Mr. McKinlay: I do not think the use of the term "log-rolling" is out of Order.
Sir T. Moore: It is offensive.
Mr. McKinlay: If it is out of Order for the hon. Member for Dunbarton county to use it, then, with equal if not more force, it is out of Order for the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) to use it.
Sir T. Moore: Except that in this case it is both offensive and untrue.
The Deputy-Chairman: I would venture to suggest that we should leave this point and get on with the Amendment.
Mr. McKinlay: If I have been offensive I apologise. I apologise if there are more sensitive ears in this Committee than I ever dreamed there were. All that I am suggesting is that if the Dunbarton authorities had desired to oppose what appears in this Bill my right hon. Friend the Member for Dumbarton Burghs and myself were the obvious instruments to use. The authorities did not communicate with us, they did not ask us to oppose it, and, even if we had no other evidence, we can only assume, therefore, that they are quite satisfied with what is in the Bill.
Mr. Woodburn: I think the Committee will have gathered that the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) might conceivably cause a little political controversy, but I am sure that neither he nor my hon. Friends will expect me to enter into the rather controversial atmosphere that has developed on what is, after all, a judicial decision by the Boundary Commission. It is true that there has been a bit of coming and going on this decision, and also true, as my hon. Friend has said, that the Dunbarton County Council's first thoughts were accepted by the Boundary Commission, but that the county council later changed its views and wanted a further inquiry. I have gone pretty care-

245
fully into the matter, and I am satisfied that after the second occasion the Boundary Commission did receive several representations and took those representations into account. I should like to assure the hon. and gallant Member that whatever may be the feelings of Members on both sides of this Committee in regard to the division of constituencies, the Boundary Commission were actuated by no motives of that kind, but made the decision on the best practical basis and they came to the conclusion that the representations that were made later were not justified and would have created an unbalanced constituency.
I happen to know a little about this constituency, for part of it is on the bounds of my own constituency at, I think, Castle Cary and the Vale of Leven, and I have some idea of what it would be like to fight an election campaign over an area of that kind. Moreover, it not only goes from Castle Cary to Dumbarton but goes right up to the top of Loch Long, and that is a long journey, especially on a winter's night. In spite of the fact that after this our elections may be in May, it is still a long journey, and it would be an impracticable change from that point of view. From my own knowledge of the constituency I think the Boundary Commission's decision is a good one, and having gone into what the hon. and gallant Member put forward in his correspondence and the remarks which he made today, I am bound to say that I cannot advise the Committee to disagree with the Boundary Commission and must advise them to reject the Amendment.
Commander Galbraith: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman has reached the decision which he has just announced. I listened with great interest to the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) detailing to us all that went on during this controversy, but I shall not allude to that; and let me assure him and the other Members of the Committee that I have not been briefed by anyone in this matter. Neither am I mineral or vegetable or something else, because my roots go back pretty deep in Dunbartonshire and into the town of Dumbarton itself, and what I feel about this is that the political aspect does not really come in here. What we have got now are two constituencies which it seems to me might swing either way.
246
Before, we had one constituency which the right hon. Gentleman has held for a long number of years and which one might suppose would be loyal to him so long as he goes forward for election, and on the other side we had a constituency which some people thought was opposed to the Government but, as it so happens, the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire sits on the Government benches, and it seems to me that we are not making much political difference by the way the county has been divided up.
What I cannot quite understand is the reference by the Secretary of State for Scotland to the difficulty of the long distances. They are not so long by comparison with the distances which some other Members have to travel. I should have thought the great difficulty lay in any Member of Parliament representing great industrial areas with their many industrial problems—some of which the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) deals with so often and so accurately in connection with the engineering industry—being able to look after their interests and at the same time look after the interests of a wide countryside, which has completely different problems. From that point of view I should have thought that the first decision of the Boundary Commission was the right one. It did leave the right hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs with his eight miles to go and it would have given him a few miles to go the other way too, but he would not have minded that, it would not have worried him at all. The difficulty which we have to get over, as I see it, is how one man can represent all the varied interests which appear in these two constituencies I do not believe that it is possible for any one individual to give adequate representation to the great and different interests that exist. I ask the Secretary of State to consider it from that point of view. It is not so much distance or the convenience of the Members but the giving of representation to the people who live in those constituencies. Again, I do not believe it is possible for any human being to represent a burgh like Clydebank and at the same time the farming interests miles away from that area.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. Kirkwood: I would say, in reply to the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok

247
(Commander Galbraith) that both the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) and I are quite capable of looking after the interests of all the people in the shire. We were practically born and bred in Dunbartonshire, and we know it inside out, so that it is not something new to us or something which we do not know. There is not a village or a township in it where I have not addressed a meeting in the last 30 years, even before I represented any part of it in Parliament. We have permeated that place with Socialist ideas with the result that we are here today representing that shire. We will see to it that these ideas continue to be propagated. The arguments of the Opposition are put forward in order to appeal to the people on the farms in the hope that they will think we are not capable of representing their interests. It is all part of the game. The hon. and gallant Member for Pollok has his eye on the General Election even though it is a distance ahead, and that is why I wish to draw attention to the fact that we who represent Dunbartonshire are well able to look after the interests of the whole of the people.
Mr. Scollan: I would not have intervened in this Dunbartonshire squabble had it not been for a remark made by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith). The arguments which he adduced cannot be allowed to pass without challenge. He has tried to tell this Committee and the country that a person who represents an industrial area is totally incapable of representing an agricultural or fishery area. I would remind the hon. and gallant Gentleman that when he and I stood for Parliament, we had to satisfy the people in our constituencies that we were capable of dealing with a number of questions, including those of the finances of the nation, tariffs and other things pertaining thereto, fisheries, industry—
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must not go into a detailed list. It has nothing to do with the Amendment now being debated.
Mr. Scollan: There was the question of industry, of shipbuilding, engineering, lacemaking, flax work, agriculture, fishing, and all these things—
The Deputy-Chairman: I cannot allow the hon. Member to go through long categories like that. It is all right to mention one or two but that is all.
Mr. Scollen: I am replying to the argument made by the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok in which you, Mr. Beaumont, did not see fit to intervene.
The Deputy-Chairman: That is a reflection on the Chair and it cannot be allowed. I feel sure it was not intended.
Mr. Scollan: I am sorry. I did not intend it as a reflection on the Chair.
The Deputy-Chairman: The hon. Gentleman was replying to the arguments of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) who did not elaborate all these industries.
Mr. Scollan: I am very sorry, Mr. Beaumont, that you will not permit the elaboration, because it is sometimes necessary to elaborate in order to get a point clear. I have sat in Parliament on many occasions and listened to long and wearisome elaborations which have been overdone. On this particular occasion I want to answer the argument as to what an hon. Member is capable of representing. Before he is elected to this House he must satisfy the electors that he is quite competent to deal with everyone of these particular things not only within his own constituency, but within the orbit of the whole nation. There are subjects which are colonial, and Imperial as well as national with which he has to deal. For a Member of this House to come forward at this time of the day with the kind of argument we have just heard from the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok shows that he is very hard up for an argument to try to discredit his opponents. Those who represent Dumbarton Burghs and Dunbartonshire in this House are worthy representatives and always have been.
Mr. Rankin: In a sentence I want to point out that the actual presence of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok (Commander Galbraith) in this Committee destroys the very argument he put up, because he represents a constituency, which is not only composed of a section that is highly industrial but of a section that is completely non-industrial. In the new arrangements which are being made this will also apply in the—
The Deputy-Chairman: I can see where this argument is going to lead. We are not discussing the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Pollok but that of the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay).
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 123, line 36, to leave out the first "Circus Place," and to insert, "Hanson Street."
The necessity for this Amendment and the three which follow has arisen because, since the Boundary Commission made their recommendations, the proposed street which was to be the boundary is now to be closed by a factory being built across its line. Glasgow Town Connell, in view of this, have asked for a rearrangement of the boundary line, and this will involve a slight rearrangement of the constituency as recommended by the Boundary Commission.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments made.
Mr. Neil Maclean: I beg to move, in page 125, line 15, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 40, and to insert:
"the River Clyde; thence southward along the centre of Govan Road and the centre of White-field Road, and the centre of Carillon Road to the centre of the London Midland and Scottish Railway (Paisley); thence along the centre of the said railway to the centre of Paisley Road, west; thence south-westward along the centre of Paisley Road, west; to Hillington Road; thence north-westward along the centre of Hillington Road to the city boundary; thence northward and north-westward along the city boundary to the centre line of the River Clyde; thence south-eastward along the centre line of the River Clyde to the point of commencement."
The Deputy-Chairman: I propose, that along with the Amendment which the hon. Member has moved, the Committee should discuss the Amendment in page 129, line 28, to leave out from "of," to the end of line 49, and to insert:
"Pollokshaws Road; thence south-westward along the centre of Pollokshaws Road to Nithsdale Road; thence north-westward along the centre of Nithsdale Road to the centre of Gower Street; thence north-westward along the centre of Gower Street to the centre of the London Midland and Scottish Railway; thence north-westward along the centre of the London Midland and Scottish Railway to Carillon Street; thence north-westward along the centre of Carillon Street to Whitefield Road; thence northward along the centre of Whitefield Road and Govan Road to a point at the centre of
250
the River Clyde; thence south-eastward along the centre of the River Clyde to the point of commencement."
This Amendment also stands in the name of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean).
Mr. Maclean: The second Amendment is complementary to the first and depends upon whether the first is accepted. The purpose of the Amendment to retain in my constituency the part which is being taken away and which is the old and historic portion of the Govan constituency, whose history can be traced back almost to the year 600 A.D. It is about time that the people who are appointed to consider the rearrangement of constituencies for geographical areas were instructed to consider the circumstances, historical associations and social habit of the people in those areas. This has not been done by the Commissioners in this instance, and that is why we have to consider this Amendment.
The Amendment covers three constituencies—Govan, Tradeston and Pollok. One of the things about the constituencies in Glasgow on the south side of the river is that Gorbals, Tradeston and Govan take up the entire river front. Behind them are the other constituencies of Cathcart and Pollok. The logical arrangement with regard to the extension of the constituencies was to go southwards and in the constituency of Gorbals the Commissioners have recommended that it should go southward and take in part of the Govan Hill Ward. With regard to Govan the recommendation is that Govan also should go southward and take in part of the building sites that are located southward of the Govan constituency.
However, the Tradeston constituency is not to go southward, as would have been logical, but is to go down to the river front and take away a large part of the Govan constituency. This I consider to be nonsensical, apart altogether from the manner in which it is proposed. What is proposed here is the extension of one constituency to take in part of another, which is older and more historical than the one which is taking it in. That is nonsense, as I told the Commissioners when I met them in St. Andrew's House, Edinburgh. Everything had been completed by that time. Boundaries had been drafted, and the maps completed,

251
and the Commissioners declined to go further into the matter.
The point of the Amendment is that the constituency of Tradeston should go southward in the same manner as the constituencies of Govan and Gorbals, and that is the attitude which has been taken up by everyone who recognises what has been done. I tried to get an interview with the Commissioners, and finally, when they were compelled to receive me following representations by Mr. Speaker, I told them that if there was no alternative I would bring the matter before Parliament and try to have it remedied. This is the place where a constituency, which has a historical connection so far back, can be given consideration along the lines I am suggesting. The constituency has developed until today it is looked upon as one of the most important shipbuilding and engineering constituencies in the country. It is wrong that this constituency should be broken up in this fashion and that a complete ward, the larger part of the constituency, should be taken away. That is the part which was originally named Govan. When I was a boy one could run about the fields in that constituency, but it is now all built up in the spread of Glasgow. To do what is proposed to an old place like Govan is an insult to the people of Govan and to the intelligence to the people of this country.
5.30 p.m.
Mr. Pickthorn: I feel that the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) ought to have some support from a university Member. On almost every Amendment which has been moved so far, the hon. Member for the constituency concerned has explained that that constituency ought to be treated as a very special case because of its historic and corporate importance, and I feel that that particular line of argument has not been perhaps put more eloquently by any of the very numerous hon. Members who have put it, than it was put by the hon. Member who has just addressed the Committee. I think it would be a pity if a university Member did not underline and emphasise and reinforce his argument, and perhaps it is not wholly out of Order to express the hope that, in pursuance of that line of argument, he and the other hon. Members who have been using it to-
252
day and yesterday will on the Report stage move to put universities back.
Mr. Gallacher: I would like to reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean), but I would not reinforce the argument of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) on the dual vote. Govan is an historic constituency and it has a peculiar history of its own in association with Glasgow, because before Reform there was one representative for Renfrew, Rutherglen, Govan and Glasgow, and Govan was able to manipulate Renfrew and Rutherglen and get the representation. Thus this constituency has always played an important part at Westminster. When its long history is taken into account, surely it is very undesirable to make this alteration in the manner proposed?
Mr. Woodburn: I listened with a considerable amount of sympathy to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean). No one could fail to grieve to a certain extent at the breaks with a great many traditions which are taking place in these readjustments. I am all in favour of traditions if they are honourable and justifiable and in accordance with common sense. The hon. Member for Govan has pointed out Govan's historic connection, and he has represented Govan for nearly 30 years. One can understand that a break of that kind is a very serious wrench, and very considerable and good reasons must be put forward to justify it.
The Boundary Commission are reinforced in their decision by the readjustment of the wards of Glasgow and the changes that have taken place in Glasgow itself; and in re-examining the problem, I cannot do so simply from one point of view, but must take into account the point of view of the Glasgow Corporation and the readjustment of the ward boundaries in Glasgow. My hon. Friend's suggestion would mean that, instead of one ward being cut up, two would be cut up—one in the Pollok constituency and the other in the Tradeston constituency—and on balance the Commission came to the conclusion that it was necessary to adhere to their decision.
It would be impossible for me to accept my hon. Friend's Amendment. It has not been favourably considered by the local authority and so far, it has not been

253
supported by anyone except himself. Clearly, however much I sympathise with his point of view, it would be quite impossible for me, merely on those grounds, to accept the Amendment and reject the conclusions of those who have gone into it and of the Corporation. I cannot see that there is any reference here to the universities. Even their tradition might have had some justification if it had not been broken by its misuse.
Mr. Maclean: The Secretary of State said that my proposal would be likely to divide a ward in Tradeston. It does not divide a ward in Tradeston, but takes away a part of the Pollok Division. He might bear in mind that about half a dozen wards in Glasgow are divided up among the constituencies in Glasgow, so that this would be no exception.
Mr. McKie: I share the disappointment which no doubt the hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) feels at the way, his Amendment has been turned down by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is fair to add that in resisting this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman did not use the same somewhat ruthless means which he has used towards Amendments coming from this side of the Committee. The hon. Member for Govan is the father of this House so far as Scottish Members are concerned, so that nearly everything he says must have the due consideration of all hon. Members. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member buttressing his argument with very sound historical facts. He took us back to the dim beginnings of the ancient kingdom of Strathclyde in the year 600, when St. Mungo, sometimes called Kentigern, could fish in the Molendinar Burn. I was delighted to hear the hon. Member showing such sound traditional and historical knowledge. I do not say it offensively, but I would never have believed it, till I heard him presenting his arguments.
I was also impressed by the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland, in resisting this Amendment, paid much more regard to the traditional point of view than he did on Amendments which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) moved in relation to a constituency which, as the hon. Member for Govan will agree, has a history as well, although it is not as long as that of the Govan constituency. It
254
seems to me that the Secretary of State is impressed by the traditional argument only when it is addressed to him by hon. Members on his own side. I sincerely hope that as we proceed on our somewhat lengthy way this evening, perhaps far into the stilly watches of the night, the Secretary of State will show that he is not going to be impressed merely by arguments which come from his side of the Committee, but that he will also be impressed by similar arguments which are presented from this side. I very much hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be duly impressed by the necessity for doing that, and I also hope that the matter which the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) mentioned will not be disregarded when the appropriate moment comes on the Report stage, and that an Amendment to reinsert the university representation will be put down—
The Deputy-Chairman: This is not an appropriate time to discuss that subject.
Mr. McKinlay: I appeal to my right hon. Friend to give us an undertaking that he will have another look at this matter before the later stages of the Bill. I am not going to ask that Govan should be retained because it was the place where I was born—that, indeed, may be an additional reason why it should be obliterated as a constituency. When I first saw the Commissioner's recommendations and noticed that it was even proposed to eliminate the name "Govan," it conveyed to me that there had been a wrong approach to the matter because, if my history of Glasgow and its environs, is correct, Govan was Govan at the time of St. Kentigern, and that is a long while ago; but that is no reason why it should be retained as a Parliamentary constituency known as Govan.
What surprised me most in the Secretary of State's reply was that it implied that the Glasgow Corporation agreed with the Commissioner's recommendations. That is not my impression. If it was automatic that when a readjustment of wards took place there should be an, automatic regrouping of constituencies, it would imply that two wards could be linked together to form a constituency, but in this case two and a half wards have been linked together. I do not even think that the boundary which is proposed is

255
a good one. I do not know who the advisers to the Commission were, but it appears to me that they said, "There are the proposals of the Glasgow Corporation for the readjustment of the boundaries; we will automatically take those readjustments." That is all wrong. In a constituency which I represented at one time and which is now represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Partick (Sir A. Young), and which has historical associations like Govan, the name "Partick" disappears and Scotstoun, which was the name of a local mansion house, is substituted for the ancient name of Partick. To say the least, the Commissioners showed a woeful lack of appreciation of local sensitiveness and local associations, and I believe that they could have been better advised about the creation of the new constituency. My hon. Friend is being given a sop in that instead of obliterating the name of Govan, the Government are restoring it to a constituency nine-tenths of which is not even part of the original Govan.
I ask my right hon. Friend to undertake that in the interim between now and the later stages he will take steps to get definite information from the Glasgow Corporation as to their attitude. It would not do any harm to give us the undertaking and, in the meantime, he might even be able to convince my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) that this is the best that can be done. I would not like this proposal to go through the House and leave a sense of grievance. There is no political question here. Both constituencies are safe for the next 20 years, as they have been in the past 20 years, but that is not the point; the point is that, knowing the geography of the district as well as any members of the Commission, I believe they have made a mistake and that there should be a re-adjustment. I ask my right hon Friend to give us at least an undertaking that he will re-examine the position between now and the Report stage
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Scollan: I have sympathy with the sentiments of the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Maclean) on the passing of the constituency, but there is a real difficulty here. I know the locality well and my home will now be brought within the new
256
Govan. The difficulty is that Govan was a boundary constituency for many years and, outside that boundary, the city has developed tremendously, leaving the Pollok Division and the East Renfrew Division running into the City of Glasgow right round Govan, and only bounded by the River Clyde. Obviously these developments and extensions cannot go on indefinitely without some rearrangement of the constituencies, and I would like somebody to tell us how that can be done without moving the old boundary constituency further along the new boundary. While the sentiments of the hon. Member for Govan for his own constituency must be respected, the practical solution of the problem is to move the boundary constituency on to the new boundary. That is all that is being done. If, however, somebody can tell us how it can be re-arranged without moving the boundary on to the new boundary, I shall be glad to know.
Mr. Maclean: I would like to correct my hon. Friend in case what he has said should mislead other hon. Members. It is the old part of Govan that is being transferred into the Tradeston Division and away from the Govan constituency.
Mr. Woodburn: Clearly this is a matter of detail which we cannot settle in the Committee this afternoon. Neither the public nor the Glasgow Corporation has had an opportunity of studying my hon. Friend's proposal. The hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) has pointed out some of the difficulties. The Glasgow corporation have put forward a scheme of redistribution of wards, and the Boundary Commission have drawn their boundaries on the basis of the Glasgow Corporation's re-adjustment of the ward boundaries—
Mr. Maclean: No, the Boundary Commission have split several wards into two in order to make up the necessary voting s strength in the constituencies.
Mr. Woodburn: Some of the old wards, presumably, have been reorganised, and they are apparently split into two. In the new ward boundaries they are not split into two. We cannot discuss the hon. Member's proposal today, for it must be considered by all the parties concerned. I suggest that he should consult the Glasgow Corporation and the people concerned and, if in due course he comes

257
along with concrete proposals which will satisfy everybody, then, as the hon. Member for West Renfrew said, the matter would take on a different aspect. However, without the other people involved being consulted, I cannot today accept an Amendment which would have such far-reaching consequences to ward boundaries and readjustments.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. Gilzean: I beg to move, in page 131, line 35, to leave out from "of," to the end of line 51, and to insert:
"Park Road; thence in a westerly direction along the centre of Park Road to middle of Dalkeith Road; thence in a northerly direction along Dalkeith Road to the junction with Preston Street; thence in a westerly direction along the middle of Preston Street to its junction with Lord Russell Place; thence in a northerly direction to the junction with the Melville Drive, along the middle of Melville Drive to the end of Melville Drive; thence along Leven Terrace; thence by Bruntsfield Links to Wrights Houses; thence in a westerly direction along the centre of Barclay Terrace to a point in."
I am satisfied that this job might have been done better. When I say that, I hope no one will think I am being hypercritical of the Commission, because I understand the difficult task which must have been theirs. My Amendment proposes to revert to the old boundary line between Central Edinburgh and South Edinburgh, and will have the effect of putting back something which it is proposed to take out, and giving South Edinburgh something which, in my opinion, is quite alien to Central Edinburgh.
Central Edinburgh is the ancient Royalty. It embraces everything that made up Edinburgh over 200 years ago, and, consequently, is very old. The result is that it is confronted continually with a falling population, which means that in the long run the difference has to be made up in some other direction. I would like the Secretary of State to pay particular attention to this: the present proposal of the local authority is to decant no less than 13,000 persons out of that part of the city into South Edinburgh—the constituency that is taking away a part of Central Edinburgh. It appears to me that not sufficient attention has been paid to the fact that, in the immediate future, there will be a considerable exodus from Central Edinburgh
258
into South Edinburgh and that, consequently, Central Edinburgh will have the experience of becoming smaller and smaller all the time.
I suggest, therefore, that the Secretary of State looks at this to see if some adjustment cannot be made which will have the effect of maintaining an electoral balance, because in a short time there will be again complete unbalance. Hon. Members will understand that if one takes 13,000 people out of a constituency which, because it is surrounded by other constituencies, has no way of making up its population, in a short time it will again be a very small constituency electorally. At present, it has only 34,000 electors, against the normal 50,000. By this change it will have its electorate increased again, only to be brought down again immediately by the process of taking people away from where they should not be, to a place which will be much better for them. However, that does not alter the fact that the constituency will always be in a state of unbalance unless something is done to maintain it. The proposal of the Commission is actually taking away parts that have a probable life of at least another 80 to 100 years, and that is very unwise.
I believe that a much better set-up could be secured, a set-up that has nothing to do with politics but simply seeks to maintain the balance of numbers in constituencies. I take it for granted that the whole object of redistribution is to redress unbalance, and in a situation where it is no sooner redressed than it gets out of balance again, there is every reason to take a second look at the problem.
Mr. Woodburn: I have examined this Amendment carefully. Unlike the previous one, it is a proposal which has been considered by all the parties represented on the Edinburgh Town Council. The representatives there are of the opinion that no change should be made in the scheme recommended by the Boundary Commission, and that the proposals of the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean) would upset the ward boundaries. His argument about readjusting the population is a correct one, but he is rather anticipating that problem by intensifying its present condition. According to my information, his suggested splitting up of the two wards

259
would reduce, by at least 1,500, the electorate of South Edinburgh, which is already quite low at 42,694, and would increase still further the Central Edinburgh electorate, which is 52,841. In other words, instead of adjusting the balance, it would intensify the unbalance if this were done immediately.
It is quite true that in future the Boundary Commission have made allowances for South Edinburgh growing and Central Edinburgh decreasing, but that will take a little time. Moreover, the Boundary Commission is in permanent session and, therefore, as that change takes place, the Commission will take cognizance of the change and will no doubt made recommendations. Therefore, in view of the opposition of the authorities in Edinburgh to the readjustments suggested by my hon. Friend, and the fact that it does not improve the relationships of the numerical position of the two constituencies, I must ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Gilzean: Despite the fact that I cannot agree with all the arguments put forward by my right hon. Friend, I have no desire to press this matter, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Mr. McKie: Naturally, I do not want to pit my judgment against the eminent authorities quoted by the Secretary of State, but I sympathise with the view put forward by the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. Gilzean), about the unique character of the Central Division of the Scottish Metropolis. His constituency is of the greatest interest to me, because when I first entered political life, I was the unsuccessful Conservative candidate there in 1929, so I can subscribe to every word he said, in moving his Amendment, as to the way in which this Division has consistently suffered from shrinking electoral numbers. When I contested that Division in 1929, there were, speaking from memory, 45,000 or 47,000 electors. That number had shrunk at the Election of 1935 and by the time the last electoral role was prepared, before the outbreak of the Second World War, to something like 30,000 electors.
6.0 p.m.
I associate myself with what the hon. Member has said about preserving the
260
historical character of this Central Division of the Scottish Metropolis, including, as it does, all that is best in the ancient city. Despite what eminent authorities, quoted by the right hon. Gentleman, have said against the Amendment, rather the reverse practice has been resorted to, in regard to the Central Division of the Scottish capital, from that which was adopted in regard to central divisions of other large towns. There, the Commissioners have proceeded on the principle of stretching the boundaries of the central divisions, whereas in Edinburgh they are working on what may be described as the contractual principle. The hon. Gentleman has shown us very plainly that he fears that the same kind of shrinkage may take place in future as in the last two decades.
Amendment negatived.
Lord John Hope: I beg to move, in page 138, line 4, to leave out from "Granton," to the end of line 24, and to insert:
"Square thence in a southerly direction to West Granton Road, thence along the centre of West Granton Road to the junction with Granton Crescent and Pilton Drive; thence along the centre of Pilton Drive to its junction with Ferry Road."
The object of this Amendment, which is in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for West Edinburgh (Lieut.-Commander Hutchison), is to provide a more rational and clear-cut boundary line between Leith and West Edinburgh. There is a rather odd story attached to this case. When, at the suggestion of the Boundary Commission, the corporation drew up a scheme of redistribution of Parliamentary constituencies and municipal wards in the City, they used an old map which showed a small stream called the "Wardie Burn." This burn was duly designated as the dividing line between the two constituencies. No sooner had that been done than the authorities discovered that the burn no longer existed as, years ago, it had been put into a pipe. Instead of selecting some other prominent geographical feature or obvious line of delimitation, such as a main road or railway, for a boundary line, they endeavoured to follow the course of the invisible burn. As anyone who looks at the Post Office map can see, the result has been that the boundary winds its way

261
in completely aimless fashion through alleys and streets and is very confusing to follow. This Amendment provides a clear-cut line between Leith and West Edinburgh by using the important main thoroughfares of West Granton Road and Pilton Drive.
The adoption of this Amendment still leaves Granton Harbour and the industrial area of Granton in West Edinburgh, and there would be no question of Granton being joined to Leith. The suggested scheme of division would transfer several thousand more electors to the Leith Division from West Edinburgh. This, in itself, is an eminently reasonable proposition because, according to the Report of the Boundary Commission, there are already about 4,000 more electors in West Edinburgh than in Leith. I would also remind the Committee that while West Edinburgh is increasing in population, due to new building operations, Leith is likely to diminish in population owing to the clearance of certain bad housing areas. For these reasons, to which I think the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy) would agree, I hope the Amendment will be accepted.
Mr. Woodburn: I agree that it is possible to put up a case for the Amendment, and if it had been put up to the Boundary Commission and had fitted in with the existing wards there might have been considerable argument for its acceptance. But one of the difficulties is that the proposal would dislocate the whole of the ward arrangements of the City of Edinburgh. It would make the electorate of one ward 8,800 and convert another ward into an electorate of 20,300. That would dislocate the proposals of the Edinburgh Corporation in the readjustment of ward boundaries and, moreover, I have information that the committee of the Edinburgh Corporation concerned with this matter are definitely opposed to such a change being made. They are in favour of the recommendations of the Boundary Commission. Since it is not for me to act as a dictator in matters of dispute of that kind, and as the Boundary Commission have acted in their most judicial manner in dealing with this matter, I am compelled to ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Willis: My right hon. Friend refuses to accept the Amendment on the ground that it would
262
interfere with the arrangements for the division of the wards, but, at the same time, he has told us that the Boundary Commission will be in continuous session to make adjustments. Whenever they want to make adjustments they will be interfering with ward boundaries. What is the strength of the argument that this would interfere with existing ward boundaries? Whenever the Boundary Commission make proposals they will interfere with ward boundaries.
Mr. Woodburn: My understanding 1s that as far as possible the Boundary Commission do not split a ward between two' constituencies. If a change has to be made presumably a ward will be taken] out completely and put into another constituency, so that the electoral arrangements for local elections will work equally smoothly with Parliamentary elections. It would complicate matters if a ward were divided, and so far as possible the Commission, when considering constituencies, avoid interfering with the electoral arrangements of the locality.
Mr. Willis: That means that we are limited to adjustments which can only exclude or take in a ward. Sometimes that could mean a substantial adjustment of several thousand electors.
Lord John Hope: In view of what the Secretary of State has said, I think we have no alternative but to accept this inconvenient but distinguished boundary line of a drain pipe. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lieut. Colonel Sir Walter Smiles: I beg to move, in page 141, line 15, column 2, to leave out "and."
Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. Would it be possible to discuss with this Amendment the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) in line i8, column 2, to leave out "and," as both are concerned with the rearrangement of the same two constituencies?
The Deputy-Chairman: That would be advisable, and at the same time we could consider the other Amendments which deal with the same subject.
Sir W. Smiles: I certainly agree that it would be a good thing if these Amendments can be considered together. When

263
the Report of the Boundary Commission came out, I and my friends from Comber, Portavogie and Strangford were dissatisfied with the Report, but were prepared to accept it because we realised that the Commission had gone very fully and impartially into the question. I was astonished to find that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) was also dissatisfied, and we put down these Amendments. The constituency of County Down is a very large constituency, with an electorate of 148,000. These Amendments deal only with the internal 'divisions of County Down, and do not in anyway affect the neighbouring constituencies of Armagh, Antrim, or Belfast. The suggested alteration would sever a lot of localities which are united by close ties. For instance, Strangford is to be separated from Portaferry. The estuary is a very narrow run through, but although the tide there is the second or third fastest tide in the British Isles, very often one may see a boat, sometimes carrying a motorcar, or cattle, crossing the estuary. It has been a disappointment that Strangford and Portaferry are to be separated.
Communications are very much better from north to south than across the county. Quite naturally so, because all the roads and railways tend to converge upon the great City of Belfast. Then there is Downpatrick, which is excluded from North Down. Downpatrick is our county town, where we go for the Grand Jury, which still exists in Northern Ireland. It is now to be severed from some of the adjacent districts.
6.15 p.m.
Last, but not least, is the question of the fishing industry. We shall have before us, on Thursday, a Bill about the white fish industry. During the last two weekends I have been discussing that Bill with the members of the fishing industry who are interested in it. In the winter it happens nearly every week-end that the boats from Portavogie, which is in the north, have to run for shelter into Ardglass. There are also herring curing industries in Ardglass and Portavogie. Even this morning, before I flew over, I was receiving complaints about the proposed separation between those two ports of Portavogie and Ardglass. It will make for a good deal of trouble and difficulty in future if the present constituency is
264
separated in the manner proposed in the Bill, which will have the effect of making the boundary line run from north to south, making East Down and West Down constituencies rather than, as at present, North Down and South Down constituencies. For these reasons I think it would be wise if the Home Secretary accepted this and the other Amendment.
Mr. Mulvey: What the Boundary Commissioners proposed was apparently no more satisfactory to the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) than it was to most of the people belonging to my party in County Down. The hon. and gallant Member seeks to create new Divisions, one East and one West. My proposal is to effect some change in the two Divisions proposed by the Boundary Commission by the transfer of Moira rural district to North Down rather than to leave it in South Down. There is a disparity of about 4,000 between the proposed electorates, the figures being 72,040 for North Down and 76,000 for South Down. When we consider areas, that of the South Down constituency proposed by the Boundary Commissioners is practically double the size of that of North Down. The area of South Down will be about 414,000 acres and the area of North Down win be 220,000 acres.
The change I suggest is to break up Moira rural district and transfer five of the electoral units in that rural district to North Down, and two of the units to South Down. That will reduce the disparity in the electorate as between the two divisions by more than one thousand. The areas will not be much affected; South Down will still be practically twice the size of North Down. I agree with the Boundary Commission that North Down is the most industrial area of the county. There is, between the electorate of 72,000 for North Down and 76,000 for South Down, a disparity, but there is a proposal by Belfast City Council to take in the rural area of Castlereagh, or a portion of it, to extend the City of Belfast. If that happens in the near future, and if, also, the claims of South Down for new industries are conceded, the electorates will be readjusted in a short time.
I suggest that the Home Secretary should accept my Amendment as being the more reasonable and as endeavouring to equalise the electorate as between the two

265
Divisions. Further, Moira rural district is not in communication with the south of the county. Transport and communications are with the north of the county and with Belfast. Moira should definitely be in North Down. Moira rural district is a portion of the Armagh Union. The adjoining county is County Armagh and Moira rural district is controlled from County Armagh, the council offices being in Lurgan, in that county. I took up that matter when I was before the Boundary Commission, and I explained to them why Moira should be included in North Down. Evidently, they did not accept the view that Moira's associations and communications are with North Down. Moira should be incorporated in North Down, and the scheme which I have suggested should be accepted as the more reasonable one—one which makes for more equality in the size of the electorates.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): Both the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles) and the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey), who have spoken to their respective Amendments, have made it quite clear that they have carefully studied the report of the Boundary Commission on this subject. The hon. and gallant Member for Down at least paid a tribute—I am not sure whether the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone did the same —to the care and impartiality with which the Commissioners have gone into this whole matter. In arguing their cases here today both Members really put forward almost exactly the considerations which were put before the Boundary Commission, and which are set out quite fully on either side by the Boundary Commission in paragraph 17 of their Report. There is little I can do except reiterate, in reply, the counter-arguments which were also put in the Boundary Commission's Report, and which led them to the conclusion to which they came.
Perhaps I might mention the opening sentence of the Boundary Commission's Report in respect of this particular county. It says:
"The division which we recommend results in two constituencies with electorates of, respectively, 72,040 and 76,353. No other reasonably practicable boundary produces an equally even balance of numbers of electorate while maintaining the integrity of county districts."
266
That sentence states, in fact, the conclusion reached by the Boundary Commission after they had considered proposals which, with small alterations, are substantially the same as those put forward by the two hon. Members today. I need not go through all the arguments. The hon. and gallant Member for Down, as he himself explained, is really proposing to divide the Division into East and West,. instead of North and South.
One of the arguments which made the strongest appeal to me as the Member for Grimsby was the one which affected fishing. I would point out to the hon. and gallant Member that even under the proposal which he has put before the Committee the whole coast line of this area would not be in a single constituency. As for the question of the precise port into which fishing vessels may run in a storm, I can hardly think that whether they run into a port in one constituency or another is really of great relevance to the division of the present constituency.
Members will have noticed that the Boundary Commissioners speak of maintaining the integrity of county districts. I do not think that either of the proposals to which we have listened do that as effectively as does that of the Boundary Commission. So far as the main arguments of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone are concerned, particularly in regard to the stronger ties which he alleges the rural district of Moira has with the north than with the south, I can only say that that argument was examined by the Commission. In their Report the Commission say they do not really feel it is correct, nor do they feel that there is any substantial point in the question of communications. Although it may be true that the communications north and south are more numerous than those which run east and west they are, nevertheless, perfectly adequate in both directions, and the Boundary Commission did not think that the question of communications was sufficiently important to induce them to alter the decision to which otherwise they felt inclined to come.
To refer to one further point in regard to the proposals of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone, he based himself, to some extent, upon what was likely to happen in the immediate neighbourhood of Belfast in the near future. On many occasions in this Debate my right

267
hon. Friend has had to make it clear that in coming to a decision about present boundaries we cannot be drawn very far into prophecies as to the future. The Boundary Commission also took that view.
Finally, if there was agreement on all sides as to how the Boundary Commission's Report should be altered, it might be felt that the matter ought to be looked into again. But the fact that we are now discussing two Amendments relating to the same constituency which are very different in intent, and the fact that there is really little relationship between the arguments put forward on the one hand and the other, shows that in this obviously difficult question the Boundary Commission came to a reasonable conclusion, from which it would not be possible for us to depart. Therefore, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept either of these Amendments.
Sir W. Smiles: In view of the Under-Secretary's reply, and to save the time of the Committee, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Mulvey: I beg to move, in page 141, line 36, column r, to leave out "North Tyrone and Magherafelt," and to insert "Mid-Ulster."
The object of this Amendment is to restore the name given at the outset to this constituency by the Boundary Commission. It is a rather novel Amendment in so far as there has been no other Amendment on the Order Paper during the time we have been discussing this Bill in Committee which has sought to effect the aim of this Amendment. Yesterday and today we have had Amendments seeking to change the nomenclature of constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission, but this is an Amendment to restore the name given by the Commission to this constituency at the outset. In their preliminary Report the Commission gave it the title "Mid-Ulster "—a very appropriate title because the constituency is in the heart of Northern Ireland.
6.3o p.m.
Why is it that the Boundary Commission changed the name from "Mid-Ulster" to "North Tyrone and Maghera-
268
felt"? In the Report of the Commission it states:
"For the name of the northern constituency our original proposal was 'Mid-Ulster,' which had at least the merit of brevity. We received, however, strong representations from several quarters, in particular from a Member of the Imperial Parliament who resides in the new proposed constituency, that the name 'Mid-Ulster' was not suitable; that it was not geographically accurate if 'Ulster' is taken in the political sense which it would inevitably connote in this context; and that it would be invidious to use the word 'Ulster in the title of one constituency alone, and that one, moreover, a constituency which is not typical or representative of Northern Ireland as a whole."
The Commission's Report went on to say:
"We think that there is substance in these objections."
I do not wish to make any comment about the Commission, except to say that they have turned a complete volte-face to satisfy the desire of a Unionist Member of Parliament in Northern Ireland and some of his friends. There is no getting away from that fact. It is admitted by the Boundary Commission in their Report.
The Member of the Imperial Parliament residing in the constituency—and I am glad to see him in his place this evening—is the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir Ronald Ross). The hon. Member and I are good friends in a social sense, and I hope we shall continue to be so; we may differ politically, but we are good friends socially. Why the hon. Member for Londonderry suggested to the Boundary Commission that they should change the name from "Mid-Ulster" to "North Tyrone and Magherafelt" will certainly interest hon. Members of the Committee. He did so—and I hope I am not doing him any injustice in saying this —because the constituency is a purely Nationalist or Labour constituency, and he did not like the fact that a Division should be represented by a Nationalist or Labour representative, representing the heart of Northern Ireland.
I would like to draw an analogy which might arise in similar circumstances in England. We in Ireland have the country divided into provinces, which go back to the days of early civilisation. Historically and traditionally they show that the country, as a nation, is apart altogether from this country. In England there are no provinces. Suppose we were to take the county of York, which is a county as large

269
as Northern Ireland, and we were to assume that the majority of the electorate are of the Conservative brand and that the Boundary Commission are setting about the re-division of the county. They select a constituency in the centre of that county, to be called "Central Yorkshire." If the Unionists, or Conservatives, of Yorkshire went to the Boundary Commission and said, "You should not mention the name 'Central Yorkshire,' because it is not in accord with the political aspect of Yorkshire as a whole," what would be said of that statement?
I do not wish to put forward further arguments in favour of this Amendment. Anyone who looks at the map will see that the constituency is in the centre of Northern Ireland. No one can dispute that. There are several newspapers in Northern Ireland—I have been connected with one for 40 years—but I do not know of one bearing the word "Ulster" in its title, except two newspapers published in the constituency—the "Ulster Herald," and the still more appropriately named "Mid-Ulster Mail"—which largely supports the party of the hon. Member opposite. I will not waste the time of the Committee further, but I would ask the Home Secretary seriously to consider this change in a constituency situated in the heart of Northern Ireland, and to accept my Amendment.
Mr. Younger: I think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) has sufficiently indicated that this is not, any more than the previous question, likely to be a matter of general agreement between all parties in Northern Ireland. He was good enough to read out a passage from the Boundary Commissioners' Report, in which they described the considerations which they had in mind in altering their first choice of "Mid-Ulster"—which, they said, was chosen for the purpose of brevity—to the somewhat more difficult title of "North Tyrone and Magherafelt"—if a mere Scotsman may attempt to pronounce such a word —which is now in the Schedule before the Committee.
This is not the first time that I have found myself compelled to stand here and enter reluctantly into a Northern Ireland quarrel. I do not want to enter into it any further than I must. But I think it is difficult to ask the Committee to do otherwise than to accept the con-
270
sidered judgment of the people who heard the pros and cons on the spot, who saw the proposers and objectors, and who reached the conclusions that have been reached. as to the considerations in the Schedule. For that reason I cannot, on what is at present before me, recommend the Committee to accept the present Amendment.
Mr. Carmichael: Like the Under-Secretary, I enter into a discussion of this kind with great, reluctance, but if we are to pass judgment— and we in this Committee have a right to pass judgment—we should do it on the facts presented. I think that hon. Members are bound to admit that the evidence presented to this Committee today is overwhelmingly in favour of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey). It is strengthened by the Boundary Commission itself. I do not think that it is a sound argument to say that their first reason for choosing the title of "Mid-Ulster" was because it was a convenient name. Surely, the Boundary Commission, when making its decision as to the name of the constituency, had in mind something more fundamental than the mere easy presentation of the name of the constituency. While it may be right and proper that people in an area should themselves come to an understanding, this Committee is the final authority. We have to weigh our opinions seriously and our decisions seriously, and there is no doubt about the argument presented. I think that the hon. Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) might have intervened earlier. I think he was entitled to speak immediately following the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone—
Sir Ronald Ross: I wanted to hear what the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) said.
Mr. Carmichael: The hon. Member will hear it now, whether he wants to or not. It would appear that political influences have been at work and have deliberately exercised their powers to deny to the people concerned with this Amendment their right of proper designation. We have had overwhelming evidence of that, and I know because I come from a part of the country that has a very close relationship with Ireland, both North and South. I know full well that it is a common desire of a

271
certain section of the community not to create the impression that in Northern Ireland there is any Nationalist or Labour opinion at all. That is the general desire. But here we discover that the majority of the people concerned are Nationalist. From my own experience the Nationalists, in the main, have always been very sympathetic to the Labour movement. I do not think we can say the same thing about the people in Northern Ireland who are represented by the hon. Member for Londonderry. I say that from my own experience in my own city, and in Belfast. The newspapers in the area are designated as "Ulster" papers. We shall be doing a very great injustice to the people of that part of Ireland if we do not take stock of these facts.
We shall be more than delighted to hear the speech of the hon. Member for Londonderry, and other hon. Members will be more than competent to deal with it and answer it. If we are to get a decision tonight I hope that more evidence will be forthcoming, that the Home Secretary will go into the matter. If my right hon. Friend intends to speak tonight I would like him to be more detailed in telling us how the Boundary Commission, on whom we have been resting our judgment all day, came to alter their original decision. Just imagine addressing the hon. Member for that constituency as "the hon. Member for North Tyrone and—" I should require an interpreter to be on the spot to interpret the name. I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr. Scollan: One point has influenced me very greatly. The Boundary Commission, sitting on the question of fixing boundaries, who gave the constituency a new name did so without any influence at all being brought to bear upon them. They approached the question in a perfectly neutral manner and with no bias of any kind in their minds. That was the proper spirit in which to approach a problem of this kind. They decided that the name of the new constituency should be "Mid-Ulster." Immediately they had done so, along comes the age-old fued. Somebody impregnated with the age-old feud says, "You cannot do that. We have a feud. This has been going on since the days of King William, and we must perpetuate it. We shall not allow anybody to stop it. It must be perpetu-
272
ated for all time, and consequently if you decide upon the name 'Mid-Ulster' you will lead people all over the world to believe that the people of Ulster are Nationalist at heart because of this. "Then the Boundary Commission begin to take stock of the situation. They say," Can we afford to cast off the age long prejudice; would it be wise to do so? Obviously, if we cast them off we might open a door that would stop all this nonsense which has being going on in Ireland for centuries. Then there would be nothing to fight about at election time. It would be far better to have the name 'North Tyrone and Magherafelt.' If they could fight about nothing else, they could fight about that name." On balance, the impartial neutral attitude of the Commission is the one which we should support.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Bing: I am sure that all hon. Members regret that the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) has not addressed in public to this Committee the very powerful arguments which he must have addressed in private to the Boundary Commissioners in order to cause them to change their views. But we ought not to treat this matter as a political question. It would be better if we looked at it from the point of view of history and considered whether or not this constituency had a right to this title. I do not know whether hon. Gentlemen opposite are aware of the Red Hand of Ulster, where it comes from, or where the O'Neills came from. I sometimes think that they have the story of the Red Hand of Ulster wrong. There are two definitions of the Red Hand. There is the Ulster one which is closely connected with the constituency and there is another which perhaps explains the absence of some hon. Gentlemen opposite. In certain circumstances, the Red Hand is a badge never to be expunged until the bearer has passed by way of penance seven years in a cave without companions, without shaving and without uttering a single word. That may be why so many hon. Members opposite who represent Northern Ireland constituencies are absent today. But that is not the reason why this badge is used in regard to Ulster—
The Chairman: I do not think that the question of a badge has anything to do

273
with the question of what shall be the appropriate name for this constituency.
Mr. Bing: With the utmost respect, I would point out that the badge originates in this constituency. The name of Ulster comes from this constituency, this very area of which we are speaking. The home of the O'Neills, Dungannon, is situated in this constituency. Donaghmore is in the constituency whence came Walker of Derry. In this constituency many of the defenders of Derry, afterwards exiled for their unfortunate views, lived. In Strabane—this is extremely interesting and—
The Chairman: Many of the hon. Member's speeches are extremely interesting, but they are not all relevant. If the hon. Gentleman would be relevant, the Committee would be obliged.
Mr. Bing: I was going to say that from Strabane comes James Dunlap, who gave the name of Ulster to many places in America and who was, oddly enough, the first printer of the Declaration of Independence, a man who made the name of Ulster known throughout the new world. In honour of him alone I should have thought that from a purely historical viewpoint we might have preserved in this constituency, which is the actual centre of historical Ulster, the name of Ulster.
Sir Ronald Ross: I hope that the Committee will excuse me for not speaking earlier, but I wished to hear the collective wisdom of other hon. Members and to see what objections there were to the name suggested. As for the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), he is always so kind in displaying so much attention to Ulster, although Ulster is more interested in whether he pays for his own ticket on his frequent visits there.
Mr. Bing: I have always done so.
Sir R. Ross: Good. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] What am Ito withdraw:
Mr. Carmichael: On a point of Order. Is it in Order to infer that a Member of this House, travelling in Northern Ireland, tends to travel without a ticket when he should have one? I can enjoy humour with the rest of hon. Members, but I think that the inference is that the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing) has been in Ireland and that, on
274
occasions, he would travel without a ticket. That is the inference of the statement.
The Chairman: If the hon. Baronet made any such statement, having regard to the disavowal of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Bing), I am sure that he would be willing to withdraw.
Sir R. Ross: Certainly. I withdraw any suggestion that the hon. Member is one of those who travel without a ticket. I was wondering whether he came as a private investigator or as one representing a political point of view and, if so, what. However, the hon. Gentleman is just as badly informed on archaeology as he generally is on politics. The Red Hand came from the Lough Neagh area where one of the O'Neills is supposed to have chopped off his hand and thrown it on to the land. Ire was in a boat race and it appears that the winner would be the first person to touch the land. This O'Neill is supposed to have chopped off his hand and thrown it ashore. I wish that I could have the attention of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) because I am going to say a most horrible thing about him. He does not come from Ulster at all. One can detect and enjoy the mellifluous phrases of a Connaught accent when the hon. Member addresses the Committee. In the words of Clause 67 of this Bill, he may be deemed to have landed in Ulster. He came to Ulster from Connaught. Is he ashamed of the name of Tyrone? Is he ashamed of Magherafelt?
Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Baronet ashamed of the name of Ulster?
Sir R. Ross: Far from it, but I would be if it were miscalled, misplaced or unsuitably used. The factor which I think influenced the Boundary Commission more than anything else was that this is the only constituency of all the Northern Ireland constituencies where the town or county was not used. Other names include Armagh, North Down and South Down, but here for some reason the first suggestion was Mid-Ulster. Certainly this does not happen to be the middle of Ulster. It is not particularly characteristic of Ulster. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael), who no doubt has made himself popular with his Irish friends by his speech today, does not know very much about it. The name which I would

275
have preferred, and which I think I urged upon the Boundary Commission, was that of Sperrin. Most of the constituency is in the Sperrin Mountains. Unfortunately, my powers of persuasion were not as great as hon. Members opposite attributed to me. I did not suggest North Tyrone and Magherafelt. That was the thought of the Boundary Commission. Probably it is the best name they could get if they felt they were unable to accept my suggestion.
I am much distressed to think that the hon. Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone should fight shy of representing North Tyrone and Magherafelt, though I agree that Magherafelt has probably more people who take my view in politics than the hon. Gentleman supposes, as he may find out. Probably the simplest solution to this question would be to leave things ac they are proposed by the Boundary Commission.
Mr. Mulvey: What was the reason why the hon. Member suggested to the Boundary Commission that they should not accept Mid-Ulster as the name for this constituency?
Sir R. Ross: I have done my best to explain.
Mr. James Hudson: As a mere Englishman and a foreigner, I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the unsatisfactory explanation given by the Under-Secretary. Of this more than any part of the country, it is less justifiable to say that we cannot do things unless we get the agreement of all parties. Whenever did we get the agreement of all parties on an Ulster matter? Nor is it justifiable to say that the people who heard the pros and cons on the spot should decide. We hear the pros and cons from hon. Members who are interested in the matter. I am
most interested to know why the hon. Member who seems to have had the most influence with the Boundary Commission—behind closed doors—should have suggested the name of a group of hills or mountains as the appropriate name for this constituency. He did not suggest a similar course in the case of the hon. and gallant Member for Down (Sir W. Smiles). The Mourne Mountains would give an appropriate name to that constituency. That was not suggested there; why should it have been put forward with reference to Ulster?
I shall not be supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Fermanagh and Tyrone (Mr. Mulvey) or by hon. Gentlemen opposite when I recall that the real Ulster is something much more than the six counties that are in Northern Ireland. I do not forget that, nor do I forget the geographical centre of that Ulster. I believe that the name Mid-Ulster would be correct geographically and historically and would be a more appropriate name than any other which has been suggested. I hope that the Home Secretary will be willing to listen to the representations of my hon. Friend, especially as we are still waiting for a settlement in a number of other constituencies.
Mr. Younger: Having heard the further argument, having listened to the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ealing (Mr. J. Hudson) and, not least, having had the benefit of the argument of the hon. Baronet the Member for Londonderry (Sir R. Ross) which revealed the nakedness of the land, I am prepared to accept the Amendment.
Question put, "That the words North Tyrone and Magherafelt' stand part of the Schedule."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 112; Noes. 276.

Division No. 133.

AYES.

6.59 p.m.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M.

Anderson, Rt. Hn. Sir J. (Scot. Univ.)

Cole, T. L.

Gage, C.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Barlow, Sir J.

Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow)

Glyn, Sir R.

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Beechman, N. A.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grimston, R. V.

Bossom, A. C

Davidson, Viscountess

Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

Bowen, R.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

Haughton, S. G.

Bower, N.

Donner, P. W.

Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir C.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A

Drayton, G. B.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Drewe, C.

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Hollis, M. C.

Challen, C.

Eccles, D. M.

Howard, Hon. A.

Hudson, Rt. Hon. R. S. (Southport)

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

Hurd, A.

Osborne, C.

Studholme, H. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Sutcliffe, H.

Jennings, R.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Keeling, E. H.

Pickthorn, K

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Pitman, I. J.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Touche, G. C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Turton, R. H.

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Prescott, Stanley

Vane, W. M. F.

Low, A. R. W.

Raikes, H. V.

Wadsworth, G.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Rayner, Brig. R.

Walker-Smith, D.

McFarlane, C. S.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Reid, Rt. Hon. J. S. C (Hillhead)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Renton, D.

Webbe, Sir H. (Abbey)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Wheatley, Colonel M. J. (Dorset, E.)

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

White, Sir D. (Fareham)

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Ropner, Col. L.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Maitland, Comdr. J. W

Sanderson, Sir F.

York, C.

Marples, A. E

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)

Mellor, Sir J.

Scott, Lord W.

Molson, A. H. E.

Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter Smiles and

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Spence, H. R.

Sir Ronald Ross.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

NOES.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Hubbard, T.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Daggar, G.

Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)

Allen, Scholefietd (Crewe)

Daines, P.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Alpass, J. H.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Attewell, H. C.

Davies, Haydn (St. Pancras, S.W.)

Irving, W. J. (Tottenham, N.)

Austin, H. Lewis

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Awbery, S. S.

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Jeger,, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)

Ayles, W. H.

Deer, G.

Johnston, Douglas

Bacon, Miss A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Baird, J.

Diamond, J.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Balfour, A.

Dobbie, W.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Barstow, P. G.

Dodds, N. N.

Keenan, W.

Barton, C.

Donovan, T.

Kendall, W. D

Battley, J. R.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Kenyon, C.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Dumpleton, C. W

King, E. M.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Dye, S.

Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E

Benson, G.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Kinley, J.

Beswick, F.

Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough, E.)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

Edwards, Rt. Hon. Sir C. (Bedwellty)

Lang, G.

Bing, G. H. C.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Binns, J.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Levy, B. W.

Blackburn, A. R.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Lewis, A. W. J. (Upton)

Blenkinsop, A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Blyton, W. R.

Ewart, R.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Boardman, H.

Farthing, W. J.

Logan, D. G.

Bottomley, A. G.

Fernyhough, E.

Lyne, A. W

Bowden, Flg. Offr. H. W.

Fletcher, E. G. M. (Islington, E.)

McAdam, W

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Follick, M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge)

Foot, M. M.

McGhee, H. G.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Fraser. T. (Hamilton)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Bramall, E. A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

McKinlay, A. S.

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Gibbins, J

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Gilzean, A.

McLeavy, F.

Burden, T. W.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Burke, W. A.

Gooch, E. G.

Mallalieu, J. P. W (Huddersfield)

Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.)

Gordon-Walker, P. C.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Carmichael, James

Grey, C. F.

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Chamberlain, R. A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Mellish, R. J.

Champion, A. J.

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Messer, F.

Chetwynd, G. R

Gunter, R. J.

Middleton, Mrs. L

Cluse, W. S.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

Mikardo, Ian

Cobb, F. A.

Hale, Leslie

Monstow, W

Cocks, F. S.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Moody, A. S

Coldrick, W.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Morley, R.

Collick, P.

Hardy, E. A.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Collindridge, F.

Harrison, J.

Morris, Lt.-Col. H. (Sheffield, C.)

Collins, V. J.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Colman, Miss G. M

Haworth, J.

Mort, D. L.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Herbison, Miss M.

Moyle, A.

Cook, T. F.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Mulvey, A.

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G

Hicks, G.

Murray, J. D

Corlett, Dr. J.

Hobson, C. R.

Naylor, T. E

Cove, W. G.

Holman, P.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Crawley, A.

Hoy, J.

Nichol, Mrs. M E. (Bradford, N.)

278

279

Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford)

Sharp, Granville

Vernon, Maj. W. F

Oldfield, W. H.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Viant, S. P.

Oliver, G. H.

Shurmer, P.

Walker, G. H.

Orbach, M.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

Paget, R. T.

Simmons, C. J.

Wallace, H. W. (Walthamstow, E.)

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

Skeffington, A. M

Warbey, W. N.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Skinnard, F. W.

Watkins, T. E.

Palmer, A. M. F

Smith, C. (Colchester)

Watson, W. M.

Parker, J.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Parkin, B. T.

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham, S.)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Snow, J. W.

West, D. G.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Soskice, Sir Frank

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J

Pearson, A.

Sparks, J. A.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. J. T. (Edinb'gh, E.)

Peart, T. F.

Stamford, W.

White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)

Perrins, W.

Steele, T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W

Plans-Mills, J. F. F.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Wigg, George

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Stokes, R. R.

Wilkes, L.

Popplewell, E

Stross, Dr. B.

Wilkins, W. A.

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Stubbs, A. E.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Swingler, S.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Price, M. Philips

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Pritt, D. N.

Symonds, A. L.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Pryde, D. J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Pursey, Cmdr. H

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)

Randall, H E.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Rankin, J.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Willis, E.

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Woods, G. S

Richards, R

Thurtle, Ernest

Wyatt, W.

Robens, A.

Tiffany, S.

Yates, V. F

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Timmons, J.

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Titterington, M. F

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Royle, C.

Tolley, L.

Zilliacus, K.

Scollan, T.

Turner-Samuels, M.

Scott-Elliot, W

Ungoed-Thomas, L

TELLERS FOR THE NOES

Segal, Dr. S.

Usborne, Henry

Mr. Joseph Henderson and

Mr. Hannan.

Question put, and agreed to.

Word "Mid-Ulster" there inserted. Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, as amended.)
Amendment made: In page 144, line 22, leave out "591," and to insert "613."
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Proceedings at Parliamentary Elections.)
Mr. Harry Thorneycroft: I beg to move, in page 146, line 19, column 3, to leave out "last."
I would like to mention also the following Amendment—in line 20, column 3, to leave out "a day." Both these Amendments concern the period of delivery of nomination papers.
The Temporary Chairman (Sir Basil Neven-Spence): Perhaps it would be convenient if the hon. Member dealt at the same time with the Amendment in line 24, column 2, to leave out from "on," to "the," in line 28.
Mr. Thorneycroft: At present the delivery of nomination papers is governed by the Ballot Act, 1872, and the Representation of the People Act, 1918. The
280
time now allowed is two hours between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on any day not later than the eighth day after the proclamation summoning the new Parliament, with an additional hour for withdrawals. I am of opinion that the present arrangement is sufficiently accommodating to meet the convenience of all political parties, and I should like to know the reasons for the proposed revolutionary change. There has been no agitation from people who take part in Parliamentary Elections as candidates that they have been denied the right of nomination as a result of existing arrangements. If there were any such obstructive arrangements, I should like the right hon. Gentleman to say so.
7.15 p.m.
If, as the Bill suggests, the period of nomination is to cover eight days, the returning officer will be twiddling his thumbs for a long time waiting for something to turn up, because it is well known at election times very often some weeks beforehand, who is going to contest the election. Consequently, the returning officer, or the representative of the local authority deputed to serve in his stead, would be wasting his time. We do not want to see these duties being performed by officers of the local authority. It is a serious responsibility and should be conducted by an elected person, such as the

281
mayor or lord mayor, as the case may be; he, rather than an officer of the local authority, should scrutinise the validity of the papers.
I am not aware of the reasons for the proposed changes, from which it would appear that the returning officer would suffer great inconvenience. As a rule a returning officer has his engagements fixed well into his year of office. It may well be that he would be denied the opportunity or right of presiding at meetings of the local authority or at other functions if he were committed to attend election.
For these reasons, I feel there is no need for such an extended period as eight days to be prescribed for this purpose. If in the past it has been possible for this matter to be dealt with in two hours on one particular day, with one hour allowed for, withdrawals, a period of, let us say, five hours on one day—or, at the most, five hours on two days—would be quite enough time in which the candidates could deliver their nominations, and it would give time also for withdrawal. I have consulted the returning officers of many local authorities, and this Amendment has the blessing and support of the Association of Municipal Corporations.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): The Speaker's Conference, in Item 13 of their Report of July, 1944, recommended that:
"it should be made lawful for nomination papers to be lodged with the Returning Officer at any time between the issue of the writ and nomination day."
To give effect to this, the Carr Committee, in paragraph 7 of their final Report, recommended:
"a provision allowing nomination papers to be delivered between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m. on any week day other than Saturday and between 10 a.m. and 12 noon on Saturday, on any day between that on which the notice of election is published and the day of nomination."
Part I of the Third Schedule gives effect to these recommendations. At present, and in every Parliamentary Election in which I have taken part, the nomination papers are filled up; the agent sends or takes them to the office of the returning officer and submits them to him; the clerks in the office check the names against the register and, if anything is
282
wrong, there is ample time for the matter to be put right. That is the practice, no matter what the law may be. The agent, or the person he has sent with the paper, nowadays takes it back to the central committee room and keeps it there; on the day fixed for nominations under the existing law, the candidate comes in with his agent, his proposer and his seconder; the farce is then gone through of again examining the paper and, to the great surprise of everyone, it is found that the first check was quite accurate and that the nomination paper is valid,
I suggest that what is the actual practice-is the common sense way of conducting, the election. I am asked to believe that the mayor or the lord mayor, of his own' knowledge and volition, decides whether it is a good or a bad nomination paper. May I be preserved from any mayor or lord mayor—and I hope my constituency will soon have a lord mayor—who undertakes unaided to adjudicate upon a nomination paper. Everyone knows that, in practice, in boroughs where the mayor, or the chairman of the urban district council in some cases, is the returning officer in these matters, he acts on the advice of the returning officer. I suggest that there again the practice is the thing that should guide us. It seems to me to be in every way desirable that the arrangement recommended by the Speaker's Conference, as arranged by the Carr Committee and embodied in the Bill, should be adopted in future.
I am certain that if there is a desire for one particular paper to be handed in, with the mayor present in his robes, and the local Press photographer also present in the room, quite illegally, but obviously being there in order to afford both the mayor and the candidate suitable publicity, no one will have any objection, and' I have no doubt that each of the candidates will arrange that it shall take place at a suitable time. I suggest that this is, one of the cases in which the actual practice at elections, which is convenient to all concerned, might advantageously be embodied in the law. That is why we have put the Third Schedule in the form of which it appears in the Bill.
Mr. H. Thorneycroft: In view of the Home Secretary's explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 146, column 2, to leave out lines 50 to 58.
This Amendment has the effect of cutting out the proviso at the bottom of page 146. As the law is today, there is every reason to have this proviso, which says that
"any objection to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate shall be made at or immediately after the time of the delivery of the nomination paper."
Under the law, as the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft) said, there are only two hours in which these nomination papers can be officially handed in and objections made to them. Under the new arrangement, of course, there will be eight days. It seems rather unreasonable that an objection must be handed in immediately after the handing in of the nomination paper, which may, of course, be on the first of the eight days, leaving semen more to go in which it seems reasonable that an objection might be made.
For instance, let us imagine that someone wishes to make an objection. He will not know exactly when the nomination paper is to be handed in. He does know it at present, because the time is limited to two hours. In all the circumstances, it seems reasonable that this proviso should be deleted so that objections can be handed in up to the very last moment it is possible to hand in nomination papers. I hope I have made the point clear.
Mr. Ede: This proviso is re-enacted from Rule 6 of the Ballot Act. I agree with the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) that the arguments which I have just used, substantiating the earlier part of the Third Schedule, to some extent invalidate this provision. I propose, therefore, on the Report stage to put down some words which will indicate a time before the closing of nominations during which objections can he heard. What we have endeavoured to secure by the previous part of this Schedule is that a candidate shall not he ruled out by some quite technical objection taken, let us say, 10 minutes before the time for closing nominations.
I agree that there must be opportunity afforded to persons who are entitled to do so to make objections, and not be ruled out on the ground that the paper was
284
delivered the previous day and they were not there when it was handed in and that the paper had already been adjudicated upon. I think it will be possible to find words to secure the right to make objections and ensure that the person who wants to make the objection and the person who, on behalf of the candidate, might desire to answer the objection shall be able to meet in the presence of the returning officer so that the matter can be properly adjudicated upon. I hope, that with that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not feel it necessary to press the Amendment.
Mr. Grimston: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said I shall not press the Amendment. I rather thought I heard him say that he would have to lay down a limit of time at the moment before the close of nominations. I hardly think that will do. If a would-be objector comes along a minute before closing time, he must still have a chance to object. I may have misheard the right hon. Gentleman, but subject to that reservation—
Mr. Ede: Before the hon. Gentleman withdraws the Amendment, may I say that, of course, if a man is so foolish as to stroll up a minute before closing time, he must then run the risk of having his nomination paper ruled out on a technical ground. There have been times in quite recent history when, during the two hours, owing to the breakdown of a motor car bringing nomination papers, candidates have sometimes run it very close, and possibly there are cases where candidates have been just too late to get their nomination papers in. That is the kind of thing we desire to avoid, and which we have avoided by giving the prolonged time for the deposit of nomination papers. I think the candidate who has taken the precaution of handing in his nomination paper well in advance should be relieved from the possibility of having a technical objection taken at the last minute; but where a man likes to run the risk of trying to spring a surprise on the constituency by making a dramatic appearance at the last moment, he must run that risk.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Before the Amendment is withdrawn, I would like to ask the Home Secretary to consider again a matter which was raised a moment or so ago, whether he is not allowing too long a period. I suggest that this proviso illustrates the kind of practical difficulty

285
which may arise. If an election agent and those concerned have to be on the alert for the whole of eight days, which may well be the case, is not the right hon. Gentleman really over-complicating the matter? There may be a good case for lengthening the time, but I ask the right hon. Gentleman, when he works out the wording of a new proviso, to consider also whether he has not made the period too long, because I can see complications arising.
Mr. Ede: I feel that the best thing would be to fix a period on the last morning during which, objections would be considered, and for papers handed in up to that time to be considered during that period only. Any paper handed in after that period had expired and before the time for the closing of the poll should, in my opinion, run the risk of being thrown out, because it would be too late to have the paper rectified.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Hurd: I beg to move, in page i47, line 35, after "residence" to insert "nationality at birth."
The purpose of this Amendment is to show more clearly the nature of a candidate's British nationality. Under the present law, of course, a candidate has to be a British subject. This Amendment is designed to make it necessary for the candidate to declare whether he is British by birth or British by naturalisation—born in maybe Roumania, Poland or the United States. I have moved this Amendment because today many people strongly feel the need for preserving the British character of the British Parliament. We should all recognise that there is something in loyalty to the land of one's birth. We should also recognise that Communism has become an international conspiracy, and that the day may come when the British Parliament has to face the alien forces of Communism.
I submit to the Committee that in a crisis a man's judgment may be affected by his early upbringing. If his roots are in Bratislava, Warsaw or Belgrade, a man's actions in a crisis in Parliament may not be in the best interests of Britain. For very good reasons we are admitting
286
large numbers of foreigners—and admitting them freely. We have had, I think, 95,000 new foreign workers brought in during the past year, and they will soon be qualifying for naturalisation.
I want to see that the electors do not unknowingly elect to the British Parliament candidates whose roots are far from Britain. That is all this Amendment seeks to do. There is nothing vicious in it. It is simply informative so far as the electors are concerned. It does not exclude anyone from becoming a candidate for Parliament, but it does ensure that the electors know a little about the man or woman for whom they are asked to vote. I need not say any more: I think I have made my point of view clear.
Mr. Gallacher: I must take exception to the very foolish remarks of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), that Communism is an international conspiracy, and that apparently it has something to do with this Schedule. As far as this country is concerned, Communism is a theory of society based on the proposition that the land and the means of wealth, distribution and production should belong to the people. That is all it is. Communism had its roots here, in England, when the peasants rose against the foreigners who had come and taken possession of this country. It will be found that in the early days of Parliament most of those represented by the other side of the Committee were foreigners—people not British by birth, but by residence.
There is no need for such an Amendment to be made in this Schedule. If a man or woman is good enough to be given British citizenship, then that man or woman is good enough to be elected to Parliament, irrespective of political views. I do not know what the political views of people naturalised in this country may be; they may be true blue Tory, they may be evanescent Liberals, or they may be mild moderate Labour—or they may reach a logical conclusion and accept the views of our forebears. Nobody ought to be so foolish as to propose that a person granted British nationality by naturalisation should be denied the ordinary rights of citizenship, or have to declare in a statement where he was born. What is important is not where he was born, but that he is a naturalised citizen,

287
and is accepted as a naturalised citizen. That should be enough. The only purpose of making people declare where they were born would be the hope of creating prejudice against them. That is the only reason there can be, because it does not matter to the particular interest for which the candidate is standing.
In the last Parliament there was an hon. Member whose family were originally Germans, then they had become Americans, and then they had become English. The hon. Member was not born in England, yet nobody would have suggested that she should have to put on her nomination paper where she was born. There is no sense in that at all. The only reason for that sort of thing would be to try to create prejudice against the candidate, prejudice for which there was no justification. If a candidate is naturalised his character is there, his work is there, other candidates will have knowledge of him, and the electors will be able to understand and discuss his views; whether he was born in Britain, Ireland, Belgium or Poland is quite irrelevant to the question at issue, and no consideration should be given to it.
Mr. Baker White: I hope the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his argument, save on the point of conspiracy, in connection with which I suggest that it might be a good thing if he were to read the spy trial report of the Royal Commission in Canada, from which he may be able to decide whether or not Communism is an international conspiracy. Under our electoral laws it is possible for a complete stranger to go to any constituency and offer himself as a candidate for Parliament. It seems desirable that the electors should be enabled to know as much as possible about that candidate. Under the law of the land it is comparatively easy to change a name, so the name is no guide. Curiously enough, the nationality at birth has to be declared when applying for the majority, if not all, of Government appointments. Similarly, the nationality at birth has to be declared when applying for a passport.
Mr. Hurd: It is shown on the passport.
Mr. Baker White: As my hon. Friend points out, it has to be shown on the
288
passport permanently when one is travelling about the world. Today, we are faced with a completely new situation. Many thousands of men and women are coming into this country from abroad, and, unlike prisoners of war, they will not go away again, but they are coming here to stay for good. Just as the Huguenots and the Flemish peoples were absorbed into the life of this country, so will they, in due time, be absorbed. It may well be that some may wish to stand for Parliament. If they do, the public should know where they come from, and their original nationality. Therefore I support the Amendment.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: I want to support the point of view of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), because I rather resent the idea of Communism, which is merely an old English word, and a New Testament idea, being mixed up with the Communist Party or the Communist International. The theory of Communism, of which there is so much ignorance in this House, is not new; it is not a conspiracy, and it certainly is not the monopoly of any political party, but I rather suspect that the motive underlying this Amendment represents the point of view and the mental outlook of the Fascists. This is the sort of thing of which Hitler approved. Hitler demanded race purity; in Germany the whole idea was to create prejudice against the Jews. It is part and parcel of the mentality of the person who looks upon a foreigner as an inferior being.
The hon. Member did not take that view when we welcomed to our shores a potential father of a future King of England. That attitude was not adopted towards the Duke of Edinburgh because he was born a Greek. Nobody raised the question of his nationality, and I fail to see why there should be this national prejudice. [HON. MEMBERS: No."] I do not wish to misjudge the hon. Member, but the idea is, I believe, that there must be something anti-British about anybody who happens to have had the misfortune to have been born in another country. If that attitude is to be taken up we may get to the position when those who are all in favour of race purity will be saying that the man's father and his grandfather and his great-grandfather ought to have been British, with all this stupid business of creating prejudice

289
against a person because he happens to have been born in a particular territory. I hope that this reactionary Amendment will be rejected, not because I have any sympathy with the ideological attitude of the Communist Party, but because I do not believe that we should try to excite racial passions or racial prejudices in an election.
Mr. Ede: In my view a person is either a British subject or he is not. If a person is not a British subject he is not entitled to be nominated as a candidate for Parliament. If he is a British subject that, in my view, suffices, and I, as one who is responsible for having to admit into British nationality persons who are other than British subjects by birth, would deprecate an action which differentiated, after naturalisation, between one British subject and another. It is up to the electors of a constituency, by heckling, by attending at meetings, and by such other ways as may be open to them, to ascertain whether the candidate before them is a person to whom they should give their suffrages. If he is a British subject it is my view that there is no ground for him to have to state on his nomination paper how he came to be a British subject. There are some people who, if they had to put in their nationality at birth, would put Welsh; there are even some who would put Scottish. I have never described myself as English, although, so far as I can trace my ancestry back it is entirely English on both sides —which, of course, is a great disqualification for anything in England.
I suggest that this Amendment is not really worthy of a Parliament which, from time to time, has been saved by persons who were not of British nationality at birth. I wonder what the hon. Member for the Queen's University of Belfast (Professor Savory) would say if it were suggested that William III ought not to be held in veneration because he was not a British subject at birth, and that the great generals who served under him at the Battle of the Boyne ought not to be regarded as protectors and protagonists of British liberty because they also were born in Holland. I advise the Committee to reject this Amendment.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. A. R. W. Low: The right hon. Gentleman has, I think, imputed motives to my hon. Friends and myself which we do not have.
Mr. Shurmer: Why put down the Amendment?
Mr. Low: The right hon. Gentleman seems to think that we regard it as a dishonourable think to have been born outside England. That is not the point at all. We think, and I feel that my hon. Friend made it clear, that that is a matter of information which should, with advantage to the electorate, be made known to them at the time of nomination. That, it seems to me, is the point of this Amendment. It is then for the electorate to decide whether they think such a person should come to the House of Commons or not. There really is not any question of necessarily holding a man born outside this country in less honour or less esteem than a man born in the country. All the arguments the right hon. Gentleman put to us were very good arguments—as one of my hon. Friends said in a low aside—for getting Dr. Schacht here as Chancellor of the Exchequer at the moment but they did not seem to have anything to do with—
Mr. Ede: Dr. Schacht is not a British subject, and he could not become a British subject unless he had resided here for five years.
Mr. Low: I quite appreciate that. The right hon. Gentleman has reminded us of the advantages to this country of bringing William of Orange here, and I was taking him up on that. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would tackle one point of great substance which was put to him: Why should we insist upon knowing this information about a man when he applies for a passport, or when he applies for certain situations under Government, and not insist upon knowing when he is applying to become a Member of the House of Commons? The right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have answered that point at all. If he has a satisfactory answer on that point perhaps we might begin to understand his case a little better than I do at present.
Mr. Grimston: I do not think the Home Secretary has quite grasped what lies behind the Amendment. The hon. Member for North Blackpool (Mr. Low) has touched on one point. It is also the fact that anybody who is applying for His Majesty's commission in any of the Armed Forces has to disclose his nationality at birth. That has been the

291
practice for some time. I find it very difficult to see why, when a person who is applying for a position in the Services has to disclose that information, it is regarded as raising prejudice if we ask that a would-be Member of Parliament should disclose the same information to his constituents. There is another point. The Home Secretary said that electors find these things out by heckling a candidate at election time. I should have thought it would be very much better to have the information straight out on the nomination paper, instead of encouraging inquiries about that sort of thing at meetings. Everything ought to be done to remove personalities from politics when an election campaign is being fought, and that is what this Amendment would do. If anybody who was not a British subject at birth had to declare it on his nomination paper everybody would know it, and there the matter would rest.
I do not believe that this disclosure of information would prejudice a candidate. It would be much more prejudicial if it were dragged out of him by personal haggling during the course of the campaign. I cannot understand what is the objection to a person who is seeking to become a Member of this House being asked to disclose his nationality at birth. It passes my comprehension. I have observed in this Debate that the proposal seems to fill the Communist Party with horror. The most violent objection to this Amendment was raised by the Communist Party.
Mr. Gallacher Mr. Gallacher rose—
Mr. Grimston: I will give way in one moment. What is the real objection to this proposal? We have not received a satisfactory answer to that question.
Mr. Gallacher: The hon. Gentleman must not have been paying attention to the arguments put forward by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd). His argument was that this Amendment was necessary in the Bill to keep a candidate who was a Communist, but who was not born in this country, from getting into Parliament.
Mr. Grimston: If that were the reason for the Amendment I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would not have been afraid of it, and would have been ready to accept it.
Mr. Gallacher: It is such a nonsensical argument.
Mr. Grimston: No adequate reason has been given why this proposal should not be accepted. We must have regard to what is happening today. The Government are in the forefront in warning us of the dangers occurring in Eastern Europe, and which is creeping ever closer to this country. Then they resist an Amendment which asks for the disclosure of the nationality of a Parliamentary candidate.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I was unimpressed by the answer of the Home Secretary. Apparently there are two reasons for opposing the Amendment. The first is that the person who was born abroad and wishes to stand for Parliament in this country should be ashamed of that fact. But he is ashamed of the fact he is not the right sort of person to put himself forward at an election. The second reason is one which we continually find quite common among hon. Members opposite—a fundamental distrust of the common sense of the British electorate. If we trust the electorate—and they are capable of coming to a private judgment on these matters—why not tell them the facts? The very fact that hon. Members opposite say that the country of origin of a candidate should be concealed seems to me to suggest that the electorate would draw a false idea from this disclosure. That is wholly in line with the other analogies drawn about this Amendment.
Mr. Keeling: I recall a by-election in which the Conservative candidate was not born in the country, and his opponents got out placards which announced that fact. That would be more unfair to a candidate, whatever party he belonged to, than the simple specific statement on the nomination paper of the country of his birth.
Amendment negatived.
M. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 147, line 37, to leave out "shall not, "and to insert "may."
I would draw the attention of the Committee to the wording of the paragraph of the Schedule:
"The description shall not refer to the candidate's political activities, and need not refer to his rank, profession or calling so long

293
as, with the other particulars of the candidate, it is sufficient to identify him."
It will be noted that it says that
"The description shall not refer to the candidate's political activities, and need not refer to his rank."
On the nomination paper his rank may be stated, so that we may get a person described as a major in the Army, a solicitor, a clergyman, and so on. Suppose that a candidate's calling is political activity. It says in the paragraph that the description shall not refer to a candidate's political activity. But the calling of the candidate might be a Communist Party organiser, or a Communist Party propagandist. To make the paragraph intelligent and sensible we should adopt what is suggested in the Amendment, which would make it clear that the political activities and the profession of a candidate may be mentioned.
Mr. Younger: This is a relatively small point, but one in which the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher), as in a great many other cases, is in a very small minority. A suggestion was made some time ago that political labels should be attached to the candidates, and the great majority of the representatives of the country's political parties were in agreement that this was not necessary nor advisable. It has always been the theory and practice in this country to vote for candidates and not for party lists. I do not know of any person—or groups of persons—beyond the hon. Member for West Fife who would suggest it would be suitable to include the political activity of the candidate in a nomination paper. The Carr Committee, which reported on this matter, took the same view as I am expressing, and said that in any event the nomination should describe the candidate and not the cause. Identification is the main purpose of a nomination paper, but this Amendment is intended to describe the suitability or otherwise of a candidate for election. That is to be determined by other means during election. As political labels are sometimes matters of dispute it would add to the confusion rather than to the clarity of the position, and I recommend the Committee to reject the Amendment.
Mr. Gallacher: On a nomination paper, according to line 38, there could be a candidate named John Smith, described
294
as a clergyman, and John Brown as a solicitor. Is it not possible also to have Peter Dawson described as a Labour Party or Communist Party organiser? Is not that his calling or profession?
Mr. Younger: I do not want to be taken as attempting to give an authoritative interpretation of this paragraph, but it would be probably legitimate to put "political organiser" or just "organiser" and not to specify any further.
Mr. Gallacher: In view of the explanation given by the Under-Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: I beg to move, in page 47, line 39, after "is," to insert:
"in the opinion of the returning officer sufficient and not more than."
If you, Sir Basil, and the Committee approve, I would also like to deal with the next Amendment, in line 41, after "long," insert:
"or if in the opinion of the returning officer it is not sufficient or is more than sufficient to identify the candidate."
It is important that a returning officer should have a certain discretion in dealing with the description a candidate inserts in the nomination, and the returning officer ought to be entitled to alter or substitute a description which does more than identify the candidate. These Amendments are put down at the suggestion of the Association of Municipal Corporations because it is felt that they will help returning officers to deal with the practical difficulties which have been met in the past.
Mr. Younger: I am not out of sympathy with the purposes of these Amendments but I suggest that they are not really necessary. As the matter now stands, everything the hon. Member wishes to have is already provided. In the first place, the returning officer is entitled to require that the nomination paper should have the particulars which are required by law, and paragraph 2 (3) of Part II indicates the particulars required. Sub-paragraph (4) states:
"If the description is unduly long, the returning officer after consultation (if possible) with the candidate … may shorten it or substitute another."

295
Therefore, on the one hand, if the description is insufficient to identify the candidate, the returning officer naturally invalidates the nomination because it does not comply with the requirements laid down by law. On the other hand, if it is too long he also has a discretion to exercise and may substitute another description. I do not know that the Amendments would add very much to that but, in so far as they did, I am not quite certain that it is really desirable that the discretion of the returning officer should override the wishes of the candidate as to the precise wording to be put in. There is not very much between us and I suggest that because sufficient discretion is already given to the returning officer and because this further discretion is not really required by the returning officer, the matter might well be left as it is.
Mr. Keeling: Has the Under-Secretary already received and considered representations from the Association of Municipal Corporations, and if he has not, will be undertake to consider anything which he receives before the Report stage?
Mr. Younger: We have received representations along the lines of the Amendments from the Association of Municipal Corporations—I do not know whether something else may be coming—but it seems to us that the point in which the Association is interested is already covered by what I have said.
Mr. Keeling: If, after considering what has been said this evening, the Association sends further representations, will they be considered?
Mr. Younger: I am prepared to agree to that. If some new considerations are sent to us, they will be considered.
Mr. Keeling: On that understanding I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 147, line 46, at the end, to insert:
"(2) Where a nomination paper bears the signatures of more than the required number of persons as proposing, seconding or assenting to the nomination of a candidate, the signature or signatures (up to the required number) appearing first on the paper in each category shall be taken into account to the exclusion of any others in that category."
296
The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that where a minimum number of signatures is required on a candidate's nomination, it shall also be the maximum. In a case where it is eight, no more than the first eight shall be considered, subsequent signatures being disregarded. This is a matter on which there will be general agreement, and I believe that the Association of Municipal Corporations is of that view.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 148, line 7, leave out "disregarded," and insert "inoperative."— [Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 148, line 49, to leave out from first "is," to "or," and to insert:
"one of the candidates nominated by a nomination paper."
I move this Amendment in order to get an explanation of what appears to be a considerable anomaly when paragraph 8 is read with paragraph 9. Paragraph 8 says:
"No person shall be entitled to attend the proceedings during the time for delivery of nomination papers or making objections thereto unless he is a person standing nominated as a candidate or …"
Paragraph 9 reads:
"Where a nomination paper and the candidate's consent thereto is delivered and a deposit is made in accordance with this Act, the candidate shall be deemed to stand nominated …"
Reading those together it appears that a candidate cannot take his own nomination paper to the returning officer. I am sure that is not intended and I may be reading the language wrongly, but I have studied it very carefully and it appears that when we take the definition of a person standing nominated as a candidate under paragraph 9, it amounts to the fact that he cannot take his own nomination paper to the returning officer and cannot make an objection to a nomination handed in before his own. I hope I have made the point I am querying clear to the Under-Secretary. The object of this Amendment is to get an explanation of this apparent contradiction.
Mr. Younger: I think I take the hon. Gentleman's point. Certainly the intention is not the one he indicated. Paragraph 2 (I) on page 147 reads:

297
"Each candidate shall be nominated by a separate nomination paper delivered by the candidate himself …
Therefore, the suggestion that he cannot himself be present at the proceedings for the purpose of delivering his own nomination paper does not hold water. From the point of view of being present in attendance when he is not himself delivering his own paper, it is reasonable that he should not merely have delivered a nomination paper but that he should have fulfilled the other conditions as to consent and deposit and be the candidate who, in accordance with paragraph 9 (I) stands nominated. It does not seem to me unreasonable that that should be so. This is a matter of drafting, and we will see to it that paragraphs 8 (I) and 9 (I) are looked at again to make sure that there shall be no mistake about it. I do not think there is much substance in this point, and that as a matter of drafting it is all right, but I will look at it, and on that assurance perhaps the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.
Mr. Grimston: I am making no complaints of the conditions under which a person must be nominated before he can make an objection. All I am arguing is the point that, these two paragraphs, read to me as though they are actually preventing the person delivering his own nomination paper, and I think they will read the same to the hon. Member. However, in view of the assurance that he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 149, line 39, to leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The Committee will see that where the returning officer is satisfied that a candidate is out of the United Kingdom, a telegram purporting to have been sent by him shall have the same effect as a notice signed by him, and an attestation will not be required. This seems to us to open rather a wide loophole for abuse. If a candidate is out of the country at the time when it is necessary for him to be nominated, under this sub-paragraph all that is necessary to withdraw his candidature is for a telegram to arrive withdrawing it, and no attestation or identification is necessary, as is the case if a candidate withdraws when he is in the country. It would be possible for any-
298
body to send such a telegram and that would finish the matter. It ought to have been possible to arrange for the candidate to do it through a consul, or in some other way, in order that there should be no risk of a telegram being sent feloniously withdrawing a man's candidature without his knowledge. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider deleting this subparagraph, and that between now and Report he will find some form of words which, whilst not making it too difficult for a person abroad to withdraw his candidature, will at least ensure that it is done genuinely.
8.15 p.m.
Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman is on to a point of some substance. The reason for the present provision in the Bill is that there was a kind of precedent for it in that, under the Local Government Act of 1933, a candidate who is out of the United Kingdom may consent to his nomination by this method of a telegram which does not require any attestation. However, that is only partially a precedent. I think it is desirable that there should be some means available to a candidate outside the country to withdraw if he so wishes. The hon. Gentleman suggested that it might be done through a Consul, but there are certain other possibilities. It might, for instance, be possible to say that he could do it through his proposer. That would put him somewhat in the hands of his proposer, and it would be open to some abuse, but to rather less than in the case of an entirely unattested telegram. I appreciate the danger of a telegram arriving and being taken at its face value, and that this is a matter at which we ought to look again. I have not gone into it sufficiently myself to offer any real indication of what the solution might be, and it will require a good deal of consideration, but we will see if something can be put down.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I should be glad to leave it to him between now and Report to look into the method by which we can achieve our object. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, in page 150, line 7, to leave out from "select," to the end of the paragraph.

299
This is a minor Amendment but it has some substance in it. It seeks to remedy the obligation which requires that the details of three nomination papers in respect of each candidate must be published. It is in the nature of an insurance, but it is usual for the returning officer to select one only which has been published. I suggest that it would be useful to keep to the earlier practice in which only the name of the proposer and seconder of one paper has been published. There might be a number of candidates at each election, and for the returning officer to have to publish particulars from three nomination papers in respect of quite a number of candidates, would seem to be using up rather more paper and to involve more printing than might be necessary.
Mr. Younger: This is one of several Amendments which show that at the time of an election there is inevitably some slight conflict of interest between those hard-worked persons who have to organise the election and the candidates who are standing in the election. The candidates may want an almost unreasonable amount of work done, on the one hand, to assist their case and, on the other hand, the hard-pressed organisers may wish to reduce work to a minimum. When considering this matter the Carr Committee reached as a compromise what now stands in the Bill, that is to say, that there should be up to three nomination papers if the candidate so requires. It is true that the principal reason for having more than one paper is to ensure that if there is a defect in one, the other will stand. There is also something in the propaganda point that candidates like to show that they have a considerable volume of support. As I say, the Carr Committee recommended that it might be reasonable to allow up to three, and I would suggest to the Committee that although this is not a thing on which one can be dogmatic, it is not an unreasonable imposition to put upon the persons organising an election while, on the other hand, it is something which many candidates would wish to have. I suggest, therefore, that this Amendment should not be pressed.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 150, line 9, leave out from "statement," to end of line 11, and insert:
300
"the names of the persons subscribing a second and third nomination paper."—[Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, in page 151, line 16, to leave out paragraph 16.
The Deputy-Chairman: If convenient to the Committee I propose to allow a discussion on the other Amendments dealing with this subject.
Mr. Butcher: That would give the right hon. Gentleman an opportunity of making a statement on how he envisages future elections may be worked and whether this obligation should be placed on the returning officer. The principal purpose behind this Amendment is to draw attention to the extraordinary amount of additional work to be thrown on returning officers and to make quite clear to the right hon. Gentleman that there are grave fears that it will be almost impossible to comply with the requirements of this paragraph.
We know that immediately we decide to contest an election we have to start preparing poll cards and arrange for them to be sent to electors as soon as possible. We can start preparations earlier than the returning officer, because he must wait until the close of nominations before giving final instructions to the printers. There is always the possibility of a last minute candidate, and while at present, if there is a mistake, it is the responsibility of the candidate, the position will be entirely reversed by the responsibility being put on to the returning officer to see that poll cards are sent out. In large cities a returning officer will have to send out anything from a quarter of a million to three-quarters of a million poll cards, and as the poll may commence at 7 o'clock in the morning on the ninth day after the close of nominations, the cards would have to be posted on the seventh day to give the Post Office a chance of delivering them before polling started. One of the seven days may be a Saturday, and there is no post on Sundays.
Considerable difficulty will be experienced in the comparatively short time available in recruiting the large staff required for this work, and we are in a further difficulty because at present the printing trade is working a five-day week. At certain times of the year there are power cuts, which make it very difficult to get the work done in time, and there is in this trade a disinclination to work

301
overtime, which also puts additional burdens on the returning officer.
The Home Secretary may not feel able to accept this suggestion, but I hope he will be able to give some assurance that any work done in advance of nomination day, in order to ease the rush which will take place, will be paid for by the Treasury. I should be glad to hear that he has had consultations with the Minister of Labour to see in what way assistance may be given to returning officers in this matter.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the Schedule stands, there appears to be no provision to ensure that the poll cards are sent out in sufficient time. The hon. Member for Holland with Boston (Mr. Butcher) referred to the manifest and notorious fact that there are great printing difficulties today and, in view of the prescribed time-table, there will be a comparatively small margin of time in certain districts. Consideration might be given to the suggestion that a provision should be inserted for a date before which it must be the duty of the returning officer to send out the poll cards. That would provide a stimulus. If one has to do a job in a fixed time, it often results in overcoming difficulties which otherwise would appear insuperable. It seems desirable that there should be some time-limit.
As I read the second paragraph, a poll card has to be sent to the qualifying address regardless of whether ordinary correspondence is going there. It may be that the Post Office have a standing order for the redirection of correspondence. Does the paragraph mean that, notwithstanding such an instruction, this provision will not be complied with unless the poll card is sent to the qualifying address? If so, there is a risk of the poll card going astray. If a person is relying on all his correspondence being forwarded, he naturally will not look for mail at his other address, and there is the possibility that if the words mean what they seem to mean the poll card may go astray. Paragraph (3) says:
"Provided that if the elector's name, qualifying address and electoral number are shown on the envelope in which the poll card is sent, and are referred to in the poll card as being there shown, they need not be repeated in the poll card."
It is common experience that most people, when they receive a communica-
302
tion through the post, tear up the envelope before reading the contents. In this case they will probably read the contents after having destroyed the envelope containing the electoral number—
Mr. Tolley: No.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It is the experience of many people. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Tolley) may disagree. He is a very punctilious person, but there may be other persons without his high standard of accuracy in dealing with correspondence. It is not an unknown practice for people to open an envelope, throw it away, and then read the contents.
Mr. Tolley: The hon. Member says that it is a general practice. From what experience does he say that?
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My opinion on the matter is probably no better and no worse than that of the hon. Member. From my point of view it is not necessary to say that that is a general practice if it is a practice which is at all common. I suggest that it is a rather frequent practice, that there are hon. Members who do precisely that. It is a reasonable practice in dealing with correspondence, particularly on the part of people who have to deal with a large volume of correspondence. If I am correct in what I have said about that practice, the value of having an electoral number will be lost. It may be that it is intended that this shall be done by postcard. If so, the difficulty is eliminated, but it seems to be a possible cause of confusion on a matter on which it is highly desirable that every sort of confusion should be minimised. The possibility of error, when circulating say, 30 million of these documents to every sort and type of person in the country, is very real. That is why I thought that point was worthy of consideration by the Home Secretary.
Mr. H. Thorneycroft: I wish to ask my right hon. Friend to take into consideration the Amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland), in line 31, to leave out subhead (d), which requires
"particulars of the candidates in the form and order in which they appear in the ballot paper."

303
to be set out on the poll card. We in the very large cities are seriously concerned about this. We are not trying to run away from our responsibility. As a matter of fact, I think that political parties will be very pleased to get rid of this anxious job of supplying poll cards for the electorate, but we ask my right hon. Friend to give consideration to the returning officers, whose responsibility it will be to supply the particulars on the poll card.
The chief difficulty which we envisage will be a shortage of time, as has been pointed out by previous speakers. Possibly there will be not more than two or three days available to the returning officer, who will have the job of furnishing the particulars that are required on the poll card. The name of the constituency can be printed. The name of the elector, the qualifying address, and the electoral number will have to be written in. The date and hours of the poll and the situation of the elector's polling station can either be printed or rubber stamped, but this provision of Subhead (d)
"the particulars of the candidates in the form and order in which they will appear in the ballot paper "
will present a real difficulty, because it must be remembered that we shall not know the particulars of the candidates who are nominated until after the time for nominations has expired.
I wish to place before the Committee what the position would be in Manchester. The returning officer would be called upon to print, and also to have written out, more than 500,000 poll cards. We have already carried out a test there, and we found that even our best clerks could not write more than 100 poll cards an hour. It would take 60 clerks two days to complete those particulars, and the returning officers are afraid that they would be unable properly to carry out that task. Therefore, we ask for the deletion of the particulars required under Subhead (d). Every candidate contesting either a by-election or a General Election must be well known, for his name will be blazoned forth on the walls and hoardings all over the constituency, and the newspapers, handbills and his election address will probably convey to the electors that he is taking part in the election.
304
We suggest that these particulars might safely be omitted from the returning officer's poll card. If my hon. Friend is not prepared to give favourable consideration to that proposal we suggest that he might extend from nine to fourteen days the time during which the returning officer would have the opportunity to get a proper staff to do this work. We in Manchester have some recollection of the inefficiency of the casual staff there last year, when the question of our Sunday cinemas poll was brought up on the Floor of the House, due to the fact that the casual staff recruited by the returning officer were completely incapable of facing up to the duties with which they were charged. We ask that if this duty is to be discharged efficiently, particularly as the returning officer will be responsible in law for any mistakes made, my right hon. Friend should omit this provision under Subhead (d) or else allow a period of four days in excess of the nine days that is provided in the Bill.
Mr. Ede: It is advantageous that we should have this preliminary discussion before we proceed to discuss individual Amendments to this paragraph.
The Deputy-Chairman: We are having a general discussion on all the Amendments. There will be no subsequent discussion on the individual Amendments which are being considered with the one before the Committee.
Mr. Willis: On a point of Order. If the Home Secretary is now replying, I wish to point out that neither I nor my hon. Friends have spoken on the Amendment in our name, to leave out lines 33 to 36.
Mr. Ede: I thought it would be well if I gave a preliminary indication of what are our views on this subject at this moment. After hon. Members who have not yet spoken have had an opportunity to do so perhaps they would not mind if I intervened again, if necessary. We are in Committee so that there will be no difficulty in that respect. We have first to ask ourselves what the elector wants to have on his poll card—what is its advantage to him? I think that in these days he wants to know three things—the place where he is to vote, the hours between which he can vote, and what is his number on the register. In my experience that is what most electors want to know and wish to obtain from their poll cards. All these

305
three things will be within the knowledge of the returning officer. As a rule, he will know where the polling place is before the candidates do; he will know the hours of the poll, and he will also know the elector's number on the electoral roll.
Does the elector, in these days, want to know on the poll card the names of the candidates? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] My own view is that in the majority of cases he does not. The poll card will be different from that issued by the candidates, which generally says, "If you wish to vote for so-and-so—" or, "If you wish to vote for a particular party, please mark your paper thus," and on the poll card there is a reproduction of the ballot paper with a cross opposite the name of the candidate of the party which issues the card. There are generally some remarks at the bottom, such as, "Do not make any other mark on your ballot paper. If you spoil your ballot paper please ask for another," and, generally, there is a request to the elector to vote early, to which I understand that in the old days in Ireland there used to be added "—and often."
Mr. Gallaeher Mr. Gallaeher rose—
Mr. Ede: I suggest that it would be better if I made a connected statement. If, at the end of that statement, there are any further points which hon. Members wish to put they can speak, and I will endeavour to reply to them. If we now have a series of interruptions some points may quite easily be forgotten. I am not over impressed by what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties of the returning officer in getting out the poll cards. All of us who have been candidates know that, as a rule, that between the time when we discover where the polling places are, and who the candidates are, we have, by voluntary labour, managed to get the poll cards out and delivered to the constituents. It may be that professional writers of poll cards may work rather less quickly than voluntary writers of poll cards.
I do not think that there are many urban constituencies where the address is written. My own experience of urban constituencies is that there is a rubber stamp by which the name of the road is written in, and the electoral number is printed on by one of those devices by which cards can be numbered in rotation. All that has to be added is possibly the
306
name of the elector, and the number of the house in the road in which he happens to reside, and in respect of which he appears on the electoral roll. I cannot think that the completion of that is beyond the resources of the returning officer, if he is not hampered by having to wait for the names of the candidates.
I was asked the other day about a prohibition in the Bill against issuing of a duplicate poll card with intent to deceive. It was said, "If I put on the back of my election address, as I have done in the past, 'If you wish to vote for me, place a mark on the ballot paper, thus,'" and then he prints his name in thick type, and his opponent's name in thin type, with a cross against his own name, would that be a duplicate poll card with intent to deceive? At the time I did not think there was any intention to deceive in it, because, quite obviously, the thickness of the type of his own name, and the thinness of the type of the other candidate's name, indicated his own idea of the relative importance of the two candidates. I do not think that that would amount to the issue of a duplicate poll card, and I suggest that the candidates themselves can be well left to issue that kind of thing. If we leave the names of the candidates off the poll cards it would not then be a duplicate of the poll cards.
The hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made an interesting suggestion, and one which I think is well worth considering. He said that the poll card might be issued in the form of a post-card, that is to say, the front of the poll card would bear the name and address of the elector, and on the back would appear the information about the electoral number, put on by the mechanical process which I have described, the date and time of the poll and the polling station. I think that is the information which the elector wants, and which he is entitled to have as official information.
8.45 p.m.
The other night I mentioned a difficulty in which candidates sometimes find themselves when the polling station happens to have one entrance in a main road and another entrance in a flank road, and sometimes at one election it is alluded to as being in the main road and at the next election it is alluded to as being in the

307
flank road, so that candidates are sometimes in doubt, up to the last minute, as to which description will be used for the polling station. The returning officer knows which description he will give, and it will be up to him to see that the description given on the poll card is the description which will appear on the printed notices at the polling station, which he is bound to issue.
I do not propose to accept the first Amendment that appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir Richard Acland). I do not think we want to compel a returning officer to issue poll cards when, in fact, no poll is to be taken. Under the scheme which I have outlined he could still get on with the job of preparing poll cards, in the event of there being a contest, and it would be a legitimate expense which he could charge against his election funds, if he had incurred that expenditure, and it was unnecessary.
As to the first Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), I think it will be desirable to prescribe in the regulations a period before the poll by which these documents should be posted. I hope that some of the difficulties that we encounter at present will not be so continuous that we need to legislate in a way that indicates that we regard some of the difficulties as being permanent, involving ourselves in an amending Act if we want to bring future requirements into line with what the circumstances will then be.
As to the second Amendment in the name of the right hon. Member for North Leeds, the obligation of the returning officer is to put the poll card in the post. What happens to it after that is not his concern, and we have not given any indication in the Bill as to what the postmaster is to do, other than that he is to discharge his ordinary duty as a servant of the Crown in securing a prompt and efficient delivery of the material submitted to His Majesty's mails. If he knows that the elector has moved, and in the ordinary course of his duties he is, in fact, forwarding correspondence addressed to the new address of the elector, it would appear to be appropriate that he should continue to do that. I do not think that we need to put it into the Statute, although I would see that the
308
Postmaster-General, in the course of the instructions which he gives to his servants during an election, would indicate to them that they should treat these pieces of postal matter in the same way that they treat other pieces of postal matter sent to the same address.
The first Amendment standing in my own name, in page 151, line 28, to leave out, "electoral number," and to insert, "number on the register," is merely a technical Amendment to get the right definition into the Bill. I have indicated that I am disposed to accept the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr.H. Thorneycroft) —
Mr. McGhee: No.
Mr. Ede: The hon. Member may not be inclined to accept it, but I am inclined to accept it. For the reasons which I have given, I suggest that it is reasonable, and that it will assist returning officers in carrying out this work with efficiency. If the names of the candidates go on, there will be nothing but the names of the candidates. On an official poll card there can be no indication of the way in which a vote should be recorded, which is the great advantage of the party poll card which can well be put on the back of the election address or on some other document issued by the candidate. Lines 33 to 36 will disappear if my suggestion is carried out. The poll card would probably be best sent out as a postcard, but in any event sufficient time would be allowed for the poll card to be properly prepared. I do not accept the view of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames, that when people get a postal communication the first thing they do is to tear up the envelope. I can assure him that every envelope that comes into my house is carefully opened and used again, in accordance with the desire of the Government.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Would not the right hon. Gentleman qualify that statement by some reference to the original condition of the envelope?
Mr. Ede: No. After it is delivered to me it is used again. It would be desirable, if possible, not to use envelopes but to use postcards, so that on the one document, in the way I have suggested, the postman could get his information and

309
the elector would get the information he requires when he goes to the polling station. I have given an indication of the course I would suggest, at this stage, that the Committee should adopt. I think it will meet the objections which have been raised on behalf of public officials who are under an obligation to carry out this work if the duty is placed upon them. It will enable them to discharge their duties with that degree of accuracy which we have a right to expect.
Mr. Gallacher: Did I gather that the right hon. Gentleman said that a candidate could issue a duplicate of the ballot paper with a cross by his own name and with some words at the bottom? It is generally understood in Scotland that it is illegal to issue a polling card with anything more on it than the candidate's own name and a cross. Other names cannot be put on the card.
Mr. Ede: The more I am brought in touch with the practice in Scotland, the more I realise what extraordinary things can be done. I speak in the presence of a considerable number of English Members. Every one of us has issued a poll card on which we have set out the names of the candidates with the intimation, in my case:
"If you wish to vote Labour, please vote, thus."
Then followed the names of the candidates. On occasions, I did not give the names of other candidates. If they want advertising, let them pay for it themselves. Against the name of the candidate in whose support the card is issued, a cross is placed. There is an injunction not to put any other mark, and so on. I have never heard that contested in England as being other than a perfectly legal document. I very much doubt if there is any candidate who has contested an English constituency who has not issued a poll card in the way I have indicated.
Mr. Daines: I find myself in a difficulty, because Clause 35(2) states:
"No person shall for the purpose of promoting or procuring the election of any candidate at a parliamentary election issue any poll card or document so closely resembling an official poll card as to be calculated to deceive."
I am a mere layman, and I am glad to see that we have access to the legal lumin-
310
aries who generally advise us on these matters. It appears to me that Clause 35 would debar anybody from issuing anything resembling a poll card. My other point is that I much regret that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft). I have great respect for returning officers and their staffs, but it is a little farfetched to say that with all the facilities a returning officer has in his municipal capacity he cannot get his work done in the time. As an experienced election agent, the right hon. Gentleman knows that every candidate who has an organisation or a semblance of an organisation tackles the question of addressing the poll cards as one of many jobs. The argument is unconvincing. If my first point is right—that the legality is rather doubtful—then before we leave this Schedule we must be certain of our position. I repeat that I am not at all convinced by the argument from the municipal corporations. It is a bad argument which does not bear analysis. We should be quite clear on the effect which Clause 35(2) has on the Amendment.
Mr. Ede: Paragraph 16(3) of this Schedule says:
"The official poll card shall be in the pre scribed form. …."
If the Amendments which I have indicated were accepted, the result would be that the prescribed form would not include a table setting out the names of the candidates, so that a paper giving the names of the candidates could not be a duplicate of the poll card, because that information would be excluded from the poll card.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. W. Ross: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman is willing to accept the Amendment to leave out lines 33 to 36, but I do not see how the acceptance of that Amendment hinges upon the leaving out of subhead (d). I consider that, in leaving out subhead (d), he is detracting from the value of the poll card as originally envisaged. While it may be assisting the returning officer, I think the whole purpose of these poll cards is to assist the electors. We want all the information of that kind which we can get, and one of the most important pieces of information is the names of the candidates. In so readily accepting this

311
Amendment, my right hon. Friend has under-estimated the feelings of the Committee in the matter, and I ask him very sincerely to think once again about it. I must say that I was attracted by the idea of a postcard, which seems a sensible one, and, if the postcard does contain the full information, I think it would meet the desires of the Committee.
Mr. Willis: I support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I am not quite sure, as he seems to be, that the Home Secretary has accepted our Amendment.
Mr. Ede Mr. Ede indicated assent.
Mr. Willis: I apologise. I want to oppose the idea that the names of the candidates must not be on the polling card. In my experience as election agent, candidate and all sorts of things, I have seen large numbers of people coming to the polling stations with various documents in their hands to enable them to remember the name of the candidate for whom they were going to vote. I have seen others come to the polling station who asked who the candidates were. When the name of one candidate was suggested, the answer was "No, that is not the one," but, when another name was mentioned, the reply was "Yes, that is the man." This makes it fairly clear that, while the Home Secretary may be correct in saying that a large number of electors know the person for whom they are going to vote and do not need to be reminded of that candidate's name, there are quite a number of people who take something with them in order to keep that name in mind. In these cases I think it is desirable that the polling cards should give them all the information which they require.
Mr. Carmichael: It so happens that I disagree with my hon. Friends the Members for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis). I think the Home Secretary mentioned all the guidance necessary for the electors. I entirely disagree with the idea that the candidates' name should be put on the poll card, and I think it would be unwise to do that. In this Bill we have gone a long way in the education of the electorate to their responsibilities, in that the State, as a
312
whole, will accept responsibility for giving guidance to the electorate regarding the polling station and the numbers on the cards.
If I could find an argument showing why it is necessary to put certain names on the card, I would accept it. Is it because people are illiterate? I have probably as much experience of electioneering as anybody in the House—and probably more than most—and I say that it is just the illiterate people who get the cards specially marked and take them along to their friends or the agents within the precincts of the polling station to get the necessary guidance. Everybody knows that at every election all kinds of agencies can be at work for particular candidates, and I say that, if we are anxious to make it clear to the people where they can vote—and it is very important, because of the changing of boundaries and polling stations—it is wise to keep those persons well informed as to where they can record their votes. To save time, it is important that electors should know their numbers.
There is no political or party significance in giving the names of the polling stations or the names and numbers of electors on the register, but it tends to give publicity to the persons who are associated with the campaign. In all elections there is the possibility of the free candidate, in which connection some of my friends have been in difficulties. To give free candidates publicity and responsibility during a campaign might be very disturbing. If the Home Secretary or anybody else can give me any guidance on the importance at polling time for the names of all the candidates to be on the card, I will accept it. I am prepared to be guided and advised if I can be shown sound reasons. So far, the important concessions relate to the number of an elector on the register and the place at which he votes. I shall be happy to withdraw any comment I have made if any useful information can be given, but I have not heard any so far.
Mrs. Braddock: I support my hon. Friends who wish to retain paragraph 16 (3), (d). There may be people with strong opinions who have no full party support, but who are able, nevertheless, to find the necessary money to put down to contest an election, who

313
might have difficulty in putting the full election propaganda campaign into operation. If that were so, none of the electors would know who were the candidates unless they went to the municipal offices to look at the copy of the ballot paper. Many people would have no knowledge of the number of candidates, or any particulars regarding them, unless such information was sent through the particular political party.
On many occasions in the past a propaganda fight has taken place at an election. A party has perhaps not had the necessary finance to supply to every elector details of their particular candidate. The same position might well occur again. If, however, the names are recorded on an official card sent out by the authority, everybody will know the names of the candidates, which will appear on the ballot paper. It is important that we should remember the rights of minorities, of people who think they have a reason for standing at a Parliamentary Election but who may not have sufficient money to send out propaganda. We should not, of course, include on the card that is sent out the name of the political party for which a person is standing, I have been in elections when, for various reasons, we have not been able to deliver the whole of the literature available in support of the candidate. In such circumstances many people would not know the names of the candidates.
If we are to do the job properly, and if the authority is to be responsible for supplying to the electors, through the postal services, particulars of the candidates, then we ought to include on the poll card as much information as possible for the guidance of electors. The Home Secretary ought to reconsider this matter; otherwise there may arise some difficult situations in which nobody will know the name of a candidate representing a minority party which is unable to put into operation the whole of the propaganda which larger parties can set in motion during elections.
Mr. Pryde: The Home Secretary is to be congratulated on the very fine job which he is doing in piloting this Bill through its various stages. The introduction of official poll cards is a great stride forward, but I would like my right hon. Friend to think again, because I can assure him
314
that the omission of the names of candidates from the poll cards would take away 80 per cent, of the value of those cards. We should not spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar. If a job is worth doing, it is worth doing well. I urge upon my right hon. Friend to do the job as a good workman should do it, and to ensure that the names of the candidates are on the official poll card.
Mr. McGhee: I appeal to the Home Secretary to ensure that the names of candidates are put on the poll card. I can see no reason why all the particulars, such as the name of the elector, his number, the situation of the polling booth, and so on, should not be put on one side of the card, and the names of the candidates on the other side. After all, we are trying to make it easy for people to vote, and, therefore, the names of the candidates ought to appear on the card. I am very surprised that my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft) should have raised this matter at all, because the returning officer will have a full three weeks in which to do this work. He can write up all the particulars as to the polling booths, the elector's name and address, his electoral number and so on, and the names of the candidates can be printed on the other side of the poll card after the eighth day and during the period between nomination day and polling day. There would be no trouble about that. I appeal to the Home Secretary to do this job well, and to keep the names of the candidates on the poll card.
Mr. Spence: I would ask hon. Members to consider on what principle people vote. Surely, they do not vote for a name. They vote for a name which represents a party. I do not think a name on the poll card can be of any value unless there is also on the poll card the party for which that name stands. The inclusion on the poll card of the names by themselves cannot be of any benefit, and I hope the Home Secretary will reject the Amendment of the hon. Member for Clayton (Mr. H. Thorneycroft).
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Butcher: I think the statement made by the Home Secretary is one which will be received with considerable satisfaction in all parts of the Committee. I have listened with attention to the

315
arguments put forward by the hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mrs. Braddock), but I would ask her to address her mind to this consideration. We are all eager to make clear to the electorate that an election is to take place, and that it is their civic duty to take part in the election. Therefore, the publicity provided by the returning officers and by the State should be directed to the election. What she is asking—I think in her desire to prevent any disadvantage occurring to minority parties—is that the State should carry it one stage further and start giving publicity to persons as well. I suggest that there is a clear line to be drawn between the two things.
It is the duty of the State to draw people's attention to an election, which is to take place at a certain time and at a certain place, to indicate the polling hours, and to make it as easy as possible for people to exercise their vote. Having done that, it is for candidates who submit themselves to the electors to put their own case, and to bring their own names, views and party affiliations sufficiently before the electors. I think that is a matter which the hon. Lady has not had in mind, and I feel that on reflection she will be able to agree with the Home Secretary. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 151, line 28, to leave out "electoral number," and to insert "number on the register."
Mr. Watkins: Has the Home Secretary given consideration to the numbers on the poll cards? Where polling stations cover two districts, and where the numbers start from one, or 60 or 250, is it intended to insert, or to advise to be inserted, the polling district letter in addition to the number?
Mr. Ede: Oh, yes. It would be A 650 or B 279, as the case may be.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In line 31, leave out subhead (d).
Leave out lines 33 to 36.—[Mr. Ede.]
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 152, line 10, to
316
leave out from the first "register," to the end of line 11.
I move this Amendment in order to obtain an explanation. The Committee will see at line 9:
"the expression 'electoral number' means a person's number in the said register or, pending the publication of the register, his number (if any) in the electors' list therefor."
I find some difficulty in understanding how an electoral number can be a "number (if any)." Indeed, I do not quite see the purpose of the second part of that definition at all. There may be some purpose which has escaped me, but as it stands I would put the case thus. First, there is no reason for the last line and a half at all; and, if there is a reason, it can hardly be a reason for his "number (if any)" being part of the definition of a number. I hope that someone has a brief which will enable that matter to be cleared up. I confess that we merely desire to have the wording accurate.
Mr. Younger: This definition at the top of page 152 applies only to the electoral numbers of persons subscribing the nomination paper by virtue of paragraph 3 (2) on page 147. It is desirable for identification purposes that if possible a number should go on and that number should be the one on the register. As the Committee know, at the time of the nomination it may well be that the register which is to be used will not be published. In saying that that may well be the situation, I might add that it is highly unlikely, but it is possible. Therefore, the number on the register cannot be opposite the name of the person subscribing the nomination paper. Nevertheless, there may be electoral lists in existence which are being used for the time being for identification purposes. If there is a number on that list it is advantageous that the number should go on purely for identification purposes.
The reason for the words, "if any" is, I understand, that at the present time, contrary to the pre-war practice, the lists do not have numbers, though it is likely that on future occasions they will have numbers. That is why the words have been included in this definition. It is a simple point, and we have to have some provision if the register to be used is not available when the nomination time comes.
Mr. Reid: I confess that it had not occurred to me that that was the reason, and I hope we shall not be faced with an election in which there has not been publication of the register until after the day of nomination. The task of anyone fighting that election would be quite intolerable in those circumstances, and I hope that whatever may be put into the Bill for the sake of dealing with possible emergencies the Home Secretary will take every possible step to see that it does not happen because of the confusion which it would cause. I am sure the Home Secretary will do that and, therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Mr. Gallacher: I beg to move, in page 152, line 26, after "words," to insert "or numbers."
With this Amendment I propose to include the Amendment which follows, in line 35, at end, insert:
"(d) No words or numbers whatever shall be printed or marked on the back of any ballot paper."
The Chairman: I am sorry but the second Amendment is out of Order.
Mr. Gallacher: I will deal with the one Amendment and maybe by inference I can deal with the other. It is obviously undesirable that any words or numbers should be on the front of the ballot paper. Only one thing is essential for balloting, and that is the official embossed, perforated stamp clear enough so that there can be no doubt in the recipient's mind that the official stamp is there. It should be understood that there is no need for any other mark. People who occupy particular positions have come to me and possibly to other Members of the Committee, too, to ask whether it was not possible by words or numbers on the ballot paper for someone whom they did not want to know about it, getting to know how they voted.
Certainly the numbers on the ballot paper, make it clear that all who vote are known to the returning officer if he compares these numbers with the register. I am quite certain that the returning officer would not give away that information, but nevertheless the fear is in the minds of many people. People come to me and ask me if it is absolutely certain that the numbers on the ballot paper do not
318
mean that it will be known how they vote I have always tried to reassure them. There is no need for marks on the ballot paper other than the official stamp, and I ask the Home Secretary to accept this Amendment and also the spirit of the Amendment which is out of Order because its spirit is not out of Order even though the words may be.
Mr. Younger: All sides of the Committee share the anxiety of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) that there should be no fear in anybody's mind that they can be identified and the way they voted discovered. At the same time it is necessary that when a court comes to consider an election petition, there should be some means of finding out the particulars of a certain ballot paper, and that is the reason why these provisions are in the Bill. There are ample safeguards against any possible abuse of this system. I have never heard of any suggestion that there is such a fear in people's minds.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for West Fife knows the precautions which are taken, but under the present law the marked counterfoils which contain the numbers have to be sealed up immediately after the close of the ballot and the used ballot papers immediately on the completion of the counting of the votes. The sealed packets then have to be sent, in the case of Parliamentary elections, to the clerk of the Crown in Chancery, or, in Scotland, to the Sheriff's clerk, and in the case of local government elections, to the clerk of the local authority, by whom they must be kept, in the case of Parliamentary elections, for a year, and in the case of local elections, six months, and then destroyed. The sealed packets may only be opened by the order of the court, on the court being satisfied on evidence of the need for it. The Committee will agree that that is a very complete safeguard and in the absence of any evidence whatever that there has been abuse or that there is fear of abuse of the system, I think the hon. Gentleman can set his mind at rest, and I suggest that he should not press this Amendment.
Mr. C. Williams: It is indeed refreshing to find the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) doing something to safeguard the secrecy of the ballot. That has always been the dearest tradition of the

319
Tory Party. I am not altogether surprised at this move on his part because his is a small party and it is always to the advantage of a small party to have secrecy in the ballot. I congratulate him on his industry and on having moved this Amendment.
To come to the Under-Secretary, here again I am surprised and interested to note that the Members of the Socialist Party, who in the main are so far removed from anything to do with labour as they sit on the Front Bench, are in favour of secrecy in the ballot. I congratulate them on this sign of democracy. They are rather far removed from the general principles of democracy and I am glad to be able to say on this occasion, as someone who has had during his life a number of elections in one way or another, that I believe the regulations for the secrecy of the ballot on the whole are fairly complete. I say quite frankly that this House of Commons, or any House of Commons, can never spend too much time in seeing that the secrecy of the ballot is absolutely complete and perfect.
9.30 p.m.
As far as my party are concerned, we, of all parties, tend today to benefit by the great secrecy of the ballot, and we always have benefited. For that reason it is only right that at any rate one Member of the Tory Party should proclaim what is our everlasting faith, that there is no harm, on an Amendment such as we have here, in looking into this matter of secrecy and, if there is any possible leakage, having it stopped. I am glad the matter has been raised, and that the Under-Secretary has been able to give, from his brief, some information that the arrangements are reasonably perfect. It is a matter for continual and close scrutiny, and we must never let any prejudice against this or that section of the House of Commons go against the fact that, in the main, the hon. Gentleman who moved this Amendment and the hon. Gentleman who put the Government's position, have, not too effusively, supported the secrecy of the ballot.
Mr. Gallacher: Before withdrawing the Amendment, I would like to say that I am somewhat comforted by the statement of the Under-Secretary with regard to the secrecy of the ballot, and I am encouraged by the hon. Member for
320
Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) who said that we want absolute secrecy of the ballot. I might mention that at the last election the Scottish bishops issued a warning to my constituents that in no circumstances should they vote for me, otherwise they would go without a stop to the lake of fire. Many of them asked me whether the ballot was secret, and whether there was any possibility of being found out. I was able to assure them that it was, but since the Italian elections I am not so certain because they now have a slogan—"God can see you but Stalin can't."
Hon. Members: Order.
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman—
Mr. Gallacher: I want to withdraw the Amendment.
The Chairman: No doubt. The hon. Gentleman can do so, but he must not be irrelevant as he was a moment ago.
Mr. Gallacher: Anyhow, apparently the voting can be seen, and I want to ask the Minister if he can try to stop this leak. With that request, I propose to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 152, line 35, at the end, to insert:
"(2) Where two or more candidates have the same Christian names and surnames, the descriptions of those candidates shall be printed in large type on the ballot paper, as well as their Christian names and surnames, and if their descriptions are also the same their residences shall also be so printed."
There is, under the present law, provision to avoid confusion where two or more candidates have the same surname, but there is no provision where the first name is the same. That is a situation which not infrequently arises in certain parts of the country, and this Amendment would meet it.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This seems a very good Amendment where there are only two candidates, and their names and descriptions are similar. But what is the position to be where two such candidates are also opposed by a third with a different name? Is it proposed that the two with the same name are to have their descriptions printed in large type, and the third candidate without any particulars after his? It might very well strike the ordinary elector as making the ballot paper look

321
rather odd, suggesting, that the third person had less to be said for him than either of the other two.
Mr. Ede: If these names are to be printed in large and thick type, with the greater amount of detail after them—I understand, for instance, that occasionally, in a Welsh local government election, there are two "Thomas Joneses" of the same profession—it is clearly desirable that the electors must be able to see who is who of these two. Filling up the space with this great mass of writing in thick type would, if anything, give advantage to the candidate whose surname appeared only in the thick type in the appropriate space on the ballot paper. My name being short I have always found it a great advantage on a ballot paper and on election posters. I do not think that the third candidate will suffer from any disability. It is necessary to distinguish between the two people whose only difference on the ballot paper is the address. The man whose name is quite distinct gains by having it clearly set out in the whole of the space.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I do not agree with, the Home Secretary that there is an advantage to the third person, but even assuming that he is right, let us face this question from that point of view. Is it right to give that third person prominence? Would it not be much more satisfactory, where this procedure has to be followed, that the same particulars should be printed in respect of all the candidates? If the Home Secretary is right, the third person will be deprived of this advantage; if I am right, the other two will be deprived of the advantage. But we are all agreed that it is highly undesirable that anybody should get an advantage from the arrangement of the ballot paper.
Mr. Sydney Silverman: I would like to suggest that there is an easy way out of this difficulty, and one which will enable the Committee to act consistently with what it did a little while ago. The easiest way to secure that no candidate shall have an advantage over any other candidate is not to have any names on the ballot paper at all. We have already come to the conclusion that elections are not about names, because, under the present law, all that appears on the ballot paper is the names of the candidates; the only choice the elector has when he goes into the polling booth,
322
which is the operative act in an election, is a sheet of paper with the names of the candidates upon it. I understand that on a previous Amendment we decided that that did not matter and that the election was not about that at all, but about something else which was undefined and that all one needed to do in giving notice to the electors that an election was to take place was to tell them where and when and at what hours it was to take place. It was not regarded as necessary to tell them between whom it was to take place. In that case, why should the elector have more information in the polling booths than when he was told that an election was to take place? The two things seem to be on exactly the same footing. The poll card is to direct his attention to the time and place of the election, and the ballot paper is to enable him to make his choice. I cannot see on what principle we distinguish between the two documents. To be consistent we ought to do what we did on a previous Amendment; all our difficulties would be completely satisfied if there were a completely blank paper in front of the elector. He would then be unprejudiced, and no one would have an unfair advantage over anyone else.
Mr. Butcher: I was not quite clear how far the suggestion of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) should be carried, whether the elector should write the name of the candidate of his choice on the ballot paper, or merely put a cross on it which, in the absence of a name, would be misconstrued as to its intent. I think the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made a perfectly proper point when he suggested that any discrimination between the candidates coming forward would be invidious, that it would be either advantageous or disadvantageous, and something which should not be the subject of doubt in any election. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will say that where it is necessary to print the particulars of one candidate in a certain way, all other candidates mentioned on the same ballot paper at that election shall be printed in an exactly similar manner.
Mr. McKinlay: So far as I gather no one can make up his mind why there should be heavy type. Is it a distinguishing mark, or not? A person can read a

323
name and description of a candidate in normal type. What difference could it make to print them in normal type? I shudder to think of a list of candidates printed like a football pool coupon, on which an elector would proceed to mark two home and one away. When he saw the heavy type he would assume that some of the permutation experts had been drafting the paper. Joking apart, is there any reason why there should be heavy type on the ballot paper at all? I may be dense, but I am not alone in that respect so far as this Amendment is concerned. We should have an adequate reason why this dangerous practice is to be followed.
9.45 P.m.
Mr. S. O. Davies: I am not satisfied with the Home Secretary's explanation, because he has overlooked the fact that, in these days, hoardings and posters have a great influence on the minds of the people. The names that are printed in the biggest type are invariably regarded as being the most important. People who may be a little indifferent will have presented to them, on going into the polling booth, a ballot paper containing the names of perhaps four candidates, two of which will stand out in big print as if they were stars from Hollywood, and the other two in much smaller print. It is no use the Home Secretary trying to persuade us that that will not have a psychological effect upon the people.
He gave an illustration which obviously referred to Wales, about two Thomas Joneses. He need not worry on that score. That happens, but we generally get out of any difficulty by letting the people know that one Thomas Jones is from Llanuchlyn and the other from Llanerchymedd, and the thing is settled. We do not need to worry about the identity of names in Wales. That is something which we always resolve. Seriously, I am not satisfied, and I would not be satisfied if I were to go to the polling booth as an ardent supporter of the candidate who was outstandingly the best in the field, and found his name there in small print, with no description associated with him, while his opponent had his name and his description in large type.
Mr. Ede: I do not think that the subject merits as much time as is being spent on
324
it, but I will endeavour again to put the position as I see it. When one gets a ballot paper, in which, as a rule, the candidates are of different Christian names and surnames, one finds the surname of each candidate printed in bold type and underneath is the candidate's full name, his address and the description. This Amendment has been suggested to us from Wales, because we are told that difficulty has occurred in Wales on occasion—
Mr. S. Silverman: The Home Secretary says that the ballot paper in the normal case bears the candidate's address. It does not.
Mr. Stanley Prescott: Or description.
Mr. Ede: I have seen it there. At any rate there is a surname printed in bold type, and, underneath, are certain other details relating to the candidate, printed in small type.
Mr. Prescott: No.
Mr. Ede: Let us proceed by stages. It is not unknown in Wales for the surname and Christian name of two candidates at the same election to be the same. There is no advantage in having Christian names printed in a type which will draw attention to the distinction between the two candidates. It is therefore necessary to try to do something else, so that the elector shall know for which of the two he is voting. I have here the form of ballot paper from the Ballot Act, 1872. They give the example as I thought. "John Brown, 52 High Street, Bristol, merchant." Let us assume that there are two John Brown's in the election, and that "John Brown" has now been printed in large type on the ballot paper. The elector still does not know which of the John Browns is Red and which is Blue. We then propose that we shall add his description. Let us assume that both of them have the same description. It is true, of course, that with each addition we make the chances of similarity become less. We have a description, and it so happens that they are both grocers, or both milkmen, or both undertakers, and we have not got any further. We then say, as a last resort that we will print the address at which the man lives. I do not think that we can imagine that there would be two men so exactly alike,

325
one living upstairs and the other down in the same house and thus having the same address.
I understand the point of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). He thinks it might be an advantage, or a disadvantage, that all these particulars should be printed in heavy type, and that there should be a third candidate, "Thomas Smith," who is the only "Smith" on the ballot paper. I will consider between now and the Report stage whether it is desirable for these successive particulars to be entered with regard to two candidates, and if there should be other candidates, that they should receive similar treatment. I think the advantage would be with the candidate whose surname is there, but I realise that it is desirable that the ballot paper should be an impartial document, and should not give an advantage to anyone. I am quite sure a simple Amendment on the Report stage will enable that to be secured.
Mr. C. Williams: I wish to support the right hon. Gentleman. I do it because I notice that there is a certain amount of opposition to the right hon. Gentleman in the Committee as a whole. I happen to have a name which has been copied to a vast extent in Wales. It has always been one of my great fears that the Liberals and Socialists would hunt Wales to find a Liberal who was called Charles Williams and also a Socialist who was called Charles Williams. The three names would be put on the ballot paper, and my electors would not know who was the really highly qualified and highly proper person for whom to vote, and they might vote for either of these two immigrants from Wales. That has been one of the things of which I have always been rather afraid might happen in my case because I bear the great disadvantage of carrying a name which is rather commonly copied in other parts of the country.
The Home Secretary out of the kindness of his heart has overcome one of the difficulties which I fear in an election in the future. It is a very natural wish on this side of the Committee—owing to the cunning of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite in getting little bits here and there on these occasions—that all the candidates should have equally large print and equal descriptions. I thought that the hon. Member for Nelson
326
and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was treating this matter rather lightly in the speech which he made. We are rather accustomed to hear speeches from him—but I will not say any more about that. [Interruption.] I do not interrupt him and I seldom speak for much more than one column, whereas the hon. Member very seldom speaks less than four columns. I seem to have it on brevity on every occasion. The hon. Lady the Member for the Exchange Division of Liverpool (Mrs. Braddock) is also muttering. Does she wish to interrupt me, or is this one of the occasions when she wishes to sing to me?
The Chairman: This is one of the occasions when I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be relevant.
Mr. Williams: I was subject to a little interruption. I will keep my eye on you, Major Milner, so that these diversions, attractive though they may be, will have no further effect. I am glad that the Home Secretary has stuck, to his guns. This Amendment is necessary. This is one of the very rare occasions on which I congratulate the Government and the Home Secretary on having done what every reasonable person would consider to be the right thing.
Mr. David Renton: My own experience at the last Election compels me to support the Home Secretary. My two opponents had similar names—Waters and Walston. Many people think the only reason I was elected was because my name was distinctive. The great disadvantage from which both people suffer when they have similar names is obvious. As far as possible, it should be removed in the way suggested by the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. S. Silverman: I do not want to prolong the Debate, but I would like my right hon. Friend to repeat the actual facts about what a ballot paper looks like. I do not know how long it is since he voted in an election. I suppose that, like myself, he votes whenever he has the opportunity. My own recollection is quite clear. Nevertheless, it may be mistaken; but, mistaken or not, it is clear that on a ballot paper where the surnames are different there appears nothing but the names of the candidates. The surnames are in capitals and the

327
other names are in small letters. I feel sure that that is the normal practice, but I may be mistaken.
Mr. Ede: I would hesitate to instruct the hon. Gentleman in the law. He asked me a question and I quoted from the Ballot Act of 1872. It is true that I have not often voted in Parliamentary elections in recent years because I have been a candidate in one part of the country and my home has been in another. I had an opportunity of voting recently. The prescribed form of ballot paper for a Parliamentary election gives the surname of the candidate in heavy type and underneath, abstracted from the nomination paper, is his full name, address and description. In local government elections I understand that only the surname is printed, but in Parliamentary elections the Ballot Act requires that the other particulars shall be on the paper
Mr. McKie: I hesitate to intervene after the Home Secretary, but I would like to speak as one of the very few Members who resides in his own constituency—[Interruption]—as one of the minority in this House who resides in his own constituency, and as one always registered as an elector who always exercises the privilege of the franchise, even though it is in favour of himself. The Home Secretary is absolutely right in his reply to the hon. Member.
The Chairman: The remarks of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and those of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) appear to have nothing to do with the Amendment. I must ask them to enable the Committee to get on. There have been a good many irrelevant speeches, and unless the hon. Gentleman has some really relevant remarks to make, I think he should resume his seat.
10.0 p.m.
Mr. McKie: As an elector in my own constituency I have the opportunity sometimes of placing a cross against my own name and of seeing the ballot paper perhaps more often than either the Home Secretary or his hon. Friend, and I can therefore subscribe to what the Home Secretary has said. I thought he did not seem to be sure what the position was, and I only took advantage of the opportunity,
328
having more recently seen the Parliamentary ballot paper than either the right hon. Gentleman or his hon. Friend, to underline what the Home Secretary said, and to say that it is absolutely accurate that there is always a full description of the candidate.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 152, line 42, leave out from "officer," to "as," in line 43.—[Mr. Ede.]
Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 153, line 4, to leave out from "by," to "a," in line 5.
Paragraph 5 of Part III of the Third Schedule enables the presiding officer in certain circumstances to put a number of questions to a person coming to the polling booth. These questions are, or may be: "Are you the person registered in the register?" etc., and, in the case of a proxy:
"Are you the husband (wife), parent, grandparent, brother (sister), child or grandchild of C.D.?"
If that question is not answered in the affirmative, the voter may then be asked—
"Have you at this election already voted in this constituency on behalf of two persons of whom you are neither the husband (wife), parent, grandparents, brother (sister), child or grandchild?"
These rather puzzling questions may be put by the presiding officer, and they must be put by the presiding officer if he is required to put them by a candidate or by a candidate's election or polling agent. There is a further provision which is new to us in election law, so far as we are aware; it is that these questions must be put by the presiding officer if he is required to do so by two Parliamentary electors of the constituency. The only persons who have a right to be present in a polling booth, apart from the electors in the actual course of casting their votes, are officials, on the one hand, and the candidates, election agent and the polling agents, on the other; and we are puzzled to find out who are these two Parliamentary electors present in the polling booth who may require the presiding officer to put these questions to people who come to cast their votes, and who may, in fact, compel the presiding officer to put these questions by demanding that they shall be put. Seeing that Parliamentary electors have not got the right to hang about in polling booths,

329
we are very puzzled why these words are inserted in the Schedule.
Mr. Younger: I think it is probably the case that the words which have raised doubt in the minds of the right hon. Gentlemen opposite would not very frequently be required or be effective, but they are not, in fact, new. They arc copied from paragraph 16 of the Third Schedule of the Local Government Act, 1933. I think it is unlikely that they would be operated, but at the same time electors may well be on the spot at the time, electors who may be there on their own business and who have no right to be there for any purpose other than for voting. They may be there, and all that happens, if this request is made, is that these questions are asked. I do not think there is any danger in allowing this arrangement to stand. It is conceivable, however, that two persons who were present when somebody else arrived might think that person was guilty of impersonation; they might give this information and make the request to the presiding officer, but I do not think any harm would be done. This procedure has been part of local government law since 1933. I am not aware of any complaint having arisen, or of any reason why this arrangement should not be copied into the Schedule. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that it is a perfectly reasonable provision although it is one which is not likely to he frequently used.
Mr. Peake: I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Under-Secretary that this matter might be looked at again before the Report stage. In my view, it is a completely new provision so far as Parliamentary Elections are concerned. It introduces some measure of doubt whether Parliamentary electors have the right to hang about in polling booths; certainly they do not have that right. They are not given that right under the Schedule and I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether these words cannot be taken out.
Mr. C. Williams: I would like to add a few remarks in support of my right hon. Friend the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). The reason that has been given, quite fairly, I think, is that this procedure is already being used in local government elections. Two electors at a local government election can be a com-
330
paratively small matter compared with the congestion at a polling booth during a General Election. Although this happens to be the law for local government elections, it would be a bad thing if two electors could be in a position to do what my right hon. Friend has said at a General Election. It may be true that such an arrangement has not caused difficulty at local government elections; but we must safeguard against such action in case it is developed and used generally. I appreciate the intimation by the right hon. Gentleman that he will look into this matter again. There is a great deal in this Amendment and the consequences can be entirely different in a General Election from those at a local government election.
Mr. Ede: I am prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 153, line 30, leave out "neither," and insert "not".—[Mr. Ede:]
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 153, line 48, after "a," to insert "candidate or his election or."
We have just been discussing the power of a candidate and his election agent to secure the interrogation of someone whom they suspect is about to exercise his or her vote improperly. Under the paragraph to which this Amendment refers, the power to challenge a person who is suspected of having exercised his vote improperly is restricted to the polling agent. We wish to insert these words so as to bring the matter into line with what we have previously been discussing. We cannot understand why, if a person is thought to be about to commit an offence, he can be challenged by the candidate or his election agent, but that after the offence has been committed he can only be challenged by the polling agent. I would be glad if the Home Secretary could explain the distinction.
Mr. Ede: The candidate and his agent are likely to be very fleeting visitors to any particular polling station during the course of the election. As a rule, they travel round the constituency trying to cheer up their supporters by walking into the polling stations and seeing that everything is going on satisfactorily, whereas the polling agent is present for the express purpose of detecting personation and

331
drawing the attention of the presiding officer to any irregularities of that nature which might occur. He appears to be the appropriate person to exercise the function.
I would have thought it would be desirable that the presiding officer should have to deal with one person who is generally with him throughout the whole day, rather than have to take into account something that he is requested to do by an accidental visitor. The candidate and his agent as a rule do not want to hang about any particular polling station for more than a few minutes. They are usually anxious to get on to the next polling station, whereas the polling agent is there throughout the day. This appears to be the sort of legitimate function that should fall to him, and he should be well acquainted with the special responsibility which he bears in this matter. After all, asking for the arrest of a person is a pretty responsible duty to undertake.
Mr. Grimston: I appreciate what the Home Secretary has said, but I think that all he has said applies just as well to paragraph 5 (r) which we have just been discussing. The right hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. I agree with what he says about the fleeting visits of the candidate and his agent, and all the rest of it, but though they visit these places fleetingly they are empowered to ask for the interrogation of a person before he has committed a wrongful act. I still cannot see why, if that is the case, it should not be put on all fours in this subsequent paragraph.
Mr. Ede: I should have thought there was a substantial difference. If they ask for questions to be put, and it then turns out that an offence has been committed, I think that the polling agent should be the person to take the next step. I do not think that this responsibility should be put on to the candidate or his agent. It is one thing just to go into a polling booth and request that a certain person should be questioned. It may even be done by the candidate to ascertain whether the presiding officer knows all the rules of the game and how it ought to be played. That seems to me to be very different from waiting about to make quite sure that an offence has been committed and then asking for the arrest of a person.
Mr. Pritt: I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this point. It seems to me that the very seriousness of an offence might be sufficient ground for providing that the candidate or his agent should take the responsibility. A polling agent may be a sensible and shrewd person who would take the responsibility, but suppose he was a little timid; the candidate would be sent for, and the polling agent would say to him or to his agent, "This is your election; one of you is the candidate and the other is the agent. This is a serious matter. I think an offence has been committed. Will you please take the responsibility?" I do not say that the candidate or his agent should be corn-polled to do so, but I think it is a pity that they should not be included in this provision.
10.15 p.m.
Mr. Walkden: I have myself seen something like this, and I would submit that the Home Secretary's argument is very fair and reasonable. When there are 13 or 14 polling stations how, in Heaven's name, can the ordinary registration agent of candidate visit the polling stations more than once, or may be twice, in one day? There was a particular Division near my home in Lancashire where they used to say, "Vote early. Vote often," and sometimes they managed to do it. But there was always the threat that one side or the other would challenge whoever was likely to vote contrary to the provisions of the Act. I submit that the agent referred to in what the Home Secretary is defending is the fit and proper person to put this into effect. While we might like to include the candidate or his agent, it would be far better to use the term indicated in the Schedule.
Mr. Ede: Perhaps I might help the Committee by pointing out that under Rule 51 of the Ballot Act it is possible for the candidate himself to undertake the duties of a polling agent, so that he will be a polling agent, not at one particular polling booth, but throughout the constituency. Similarly, there is nothing to prevent the election agent being appointed a polling agent under Section 85 of the Parliamentary Voters Registration Act, 1843, and so acquiring the power, if he has any particular reason for doing so. The real answer to the point raised by the

333
hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Grimston) is that, if either the agent or the candidate desires to be in a position to exercise this power he can, under the existing law, acquire that power.
I am bound to say that if I were a candidate I should hesitate to arm myself with this particular power, because obviously it might leave very nasty feelings behind among particular electors if the candidate himself intervened with a request for the arrest of an elector. It appears that without any Amendment of this Bill it is possible for both these gentlemen to appoint themselves polling agents, and in that way they can acquire the powers if they so desire. I think that, to some extent, that answers the point made by the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). However, between now and the Report stage I will consider whether it is desirable, whether I can do it without casting doubt on previous Acts of Parliament, and whether I can put something in the Bill to indicate that this power exists.
Mr. Grimston: The Home Secretary will realise that what he has just said rather destroys the case he put up before. However, in view of his undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 155, line 30, to leave out subhead (c).
Subhead (c) appears to give the returning officer power to allow any person to attend the count, merely at his discretion. This seems a wide discretion to give him. Perhaps the Under-Secretary would tell us the reason why there is this wide discretionary power?
Mr. Younger: It is not, I think, strictly correct to say that subhead (c) gives the power to certain classes of persons to attend. In fact, the power is given by Rule 33 of the Ballot Act. All this subhead does is to say that if there are any persons who, by virtue of that provision of the Ballot Act, are in attendance they shall make the same declaration of secrecy, and shall he subject to the same conditions as other people. Actually the power of the returning officer in his discretion to allow certain persons to be present is not given by this Schedule
334
or by this Bill. It is an old power which has existed since the time of the Ballot Act, and this Amendment is one which we could not accept, because it would leave there the people who have a right to be there and would not affect the discretion to the returning officer.
Mr. Grimston: In view of the Under-Secretary's explanation, for which I am obliged, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Further Amendment made: In page 155, line 33, leave out from "officer," to "as," in line 34.—[Mr. Younger.]
Miss Herbison: I beg to move, in page 156, line 3, to leave out "(except in special circumstances)"
We in Scotland are afraid that if these words are retained, they will do away with the benefits which this Schedule will give. We are afraid that the returning officers in Scotland may make use of these powers to have an inadequate number of scrutineers when the counting is being carried out. We have been told from time to time in Scotland that the premises in which the count takes place are too small to provide accommodation for the number of persons we consider adequate. Very often it is held in the sheriff's office instead of in a hall of sufficient size, and it is because of this, that I and my hon. Friends put down this Amendment. We ask the Home Secretary to examine it very carefully with a view to seeing that there will be no opportunity given to returning officers in Scotland or in any part of Great Britain to refuse accommodation to an adequate number of representatives.
Mr. Younger: It certainly is not the intention of my right hon. Friend that the phrase "except in special circumstances" should allow the provisions of these paragraphs to be nullified except when there is a very good reason. The Committee will be aware that there is a good deal of anxiety on the part of many of the authorities concerned in running elections and organising counts lest there may be at the count an undue number of persons standing around and so crowding the space available that the officials are unable to do their job. The Carr Committee discussed this at length and found conflicting points of view. They arrived at

335
something of a compromise, which has been adopted in this Bill. My right hon. Friend will see that when instructions are issued to the returning officers it will be made plain that it is only where it is impracticable for reasons of space that the provisions of these paragraphs should be departed from. We think it right that a certain amount of discretion should be given to the returning officer, but it is not the intention that the strict terms of the paragraphs should be departed from except on very rare occasions.
Mr. Carmichael: It is the very point that the Under-Secretary has made in regard to adequate space about which we are so anxious. Let me outline to the Committee the practice in Glasgow, though it does not apply all over Scotland. Only the agent, the candidate and one other person can attend the count. The candidate's wife cannot do so, or if she does, one of the other three persons is excluded, because there can be no more than three persons. If these words are retained, in many parts of Scotland, it can be argued, as the counting takes place in the sheriff court building and under the guidance of the sheriff substitutes, that those rooms are quite inadequate to take in the number suggested in this paragraph. From my long experience I can say that this is a very serious handicap. There may be eight tables and anything from 30 to 40 people counting the votes, and the three persons will have to make the effort to try to watch the counting. In recent years, because of many circumstances, all kinds of persons have been employed in the counting of votes and many of them—I say this in no disrespectful way—have not been too competent at that type of job.
I want to be perfectly fair. In some parts of the country, though I do not say all of them—I have seen it in the West Lothian area—any number of people watch the counting of the votes and yet that is denied to the big towns. My hon. Friend the Member for North Lanark (Miss Herbison) is correct in her reference to limiting the number to the candidate, the agent and one other. If these words are left in, except for the short statement by the Home Secretary, we shall get no advantage. I would like the assurance of the Home Secretary that we can get
336
this operating in Scotland as in other parts of the country.
Mr. Ede: Once again I have to express my surprise at the stories I hear from Scotland. I accept what my hon. Friends say about the difficulties which confront them there. The proper thing to do is to place in this Schedule an obligation on the returning officer to take for the purposes of the counting premises which are adequate to comply with the Schedule. I know that big cities like to have all the counts conducted in one room, and there are reasons why that is desirable, but it may very well be that in a big city in these days of large electorates there will not be any one room which is adequate in which to carry that out.
Although it will probably involve some other difficulties, arrangements should be made in those cases for the votes in the different constituencies in a city to be counted in some place other than the very small kind of building to which allusion has been made. I suggest to my hon. Friends that if some instructions to returning officers of the kind I have indicated are put into the Bill and appropriate instructions are issued to returning officers, it would be quite safe to leave these words in the Bill, because even with the best will in the world, there might in some county divisions be difficulty in getting a hall big enough to accommodate the full complement of counting agents. I hope that my hon. Friends will feel that I have listened to these stories from across the Border sympathetically and am endeavouring to do what I can to meet our desire that elections on both sides of the border shall be conducted in such a way as to give confidence to the candidates and the parties interested in the election.
Miss Herbison: In view of what my right hon. Friend has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
10.30 p.m.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 156, line 6, to leave out from the beginning, to "shall," and to insert:
"Persons attending the counting of votes by virtue of paragraph t of this Part of this Schedule."
The object of this Amendment is to extend to the candidate, his spouse and the election agent the facilities which the returning officer has to make available to counting agents.
Mr. Younger: This point is very similar to one that was raised a short time ago. It is open to the candidate, his agent or anybody else to be a counting agent if they so wish. It does seem that, with the provision made in this Schedule for quite a considerable number of persons to have facilities for checking, it is rather unreasonable to add to the burden of those conducting the count. It is specifically provided that any person is entitled to act as a counting agent—candidate, agent, wife, or anybody else. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that that is sufficient.
Mr. Grimston: I cannot say that I find this a very convincing argument, because the hon. Gentleman will remember that on the last occasion the Home Secretary destroyed his own case by the argument that has been advanced. It is not a matter of great importance, however, and I do not press it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 156, line 10, at the end, to insert:
"(4) In particular, where the votes are counted by sorting the ballot papers according to the candidate for whom the vote is given and then counting the number of ballot papers for each candidate, the counting agents shall be entitled to satisfy themselves that the ballot papers are sorted right."
This Amendment merely makes explicit the right to ensure that sorting has been correctly carried out which is desired by persons attending the count. They may well be entitled to it in any event, but it is often asked for and sometimes, in our experience, refused. It is worth while putting in the Bill.
Mr. John Paton: I know it is the intention to make the matter more explicit, but I would prefer to see it in less ambiguous terms. I direct the attention of the Committee to the last two words of the proposed Amendment—"sorted right." I should have thought it much more appropriate, coming from the Home Secretary, if the ballot papers had been sorted left and not sorted right. The ballot papers might be "rightly sorted," but surely never "sorted right."
Mr. Ede: I think my hon. Friend has made a good point.
Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: He is right.
Mr. Ede: In these matters the Left generally is right. If I might be allowed to change the last word, I would move it as "rightly." It is desirable it should be an adverb rather than an adjective.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 156, line 22, to leave out from "may," to "require," in line 23, and to insert:
"if present when the counting or any recount of the votes is completed."
I think that this Amendment and the two subsequent Amendments might be taken together. The point is that any request for a re-count should clearly he made before the election is publicly declared. As the matter stands, that might not always occur, because in some cases the public declaration might be made before the ballot papers were sealed. I think that the formula which is introduced by these three Amendments will make it quite clear that the re-count must be requested immediately, and will, therefore, always take place before the count has been announced.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 156, line 24, leave out "one or more times," and insert "or again recounted."
In line 25, at end, insert:
"(2) No step shall be taken on the completion of the counting or any recount of the votes until the candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by this paragraph."
In page 157, line 45, after "Part I, "insert" or II."—[Mr. Younger.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of local elections rules.)
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 159, line 2, after "officer," to insert "or mayor."
This is a drafting Amendment to cover cases where there is a borough council election in a borough which is divided into wards and where the returning officers in the wards are aldermen but where the mayor is responsible for the whole.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 159, line 17, at the end, to insert:

339
"(4) Nothing in sub-paragraph (I) of the foregoing paragraph or in this paragraph shall require any steps to be taken on a Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday, Bank Holiday or day appointed for public thanksgiving or mourning."
This is merely to ensure that a registration officer will not be required to prepare certain lists on Sundays or on public holidays, just as exception is made for other matters on these days.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 159, line 31, leave out "elector," and insert "electors."
In page 160, line 15, after "or," insert "as."
In page 161, line 16, at end, insert:
"Supplementary
6. Where the expression "returning officer or mayor," is used in this Schedule, the reference to the mayor shall apply, and shall only apply, in the case of an election of borough councillors under the Local Government Act, 1933, and in the case of any such election paragraph 10 of Part I of the Second Schedule to that Act (which provides for the case where there is no mayor or the mayor is unable to act) shall apply for the purpose of this Schedule as it applies for the purpose of that Schedule."—[Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 161, line 29, at the end, to insert:
"(4) Where a nomination paper bears the signatures of more than the required number of persons as proposing, seconding or assenting to the nomination of a candidate, the signature or signatures (up to the required number) appearing first on the paper in each category shall be taken into account to the exclusion of any others in that category."
This Amendment has the same effect as regards local government elections as the Amendment already in the Bill with regard to Parliamentary elections.
Amendment agreed to.
Consequential Amendments made.
Mr. Grimston: I beg to move, in page 162, line 10, at the end, to insert:
"(9) A candidate's election agent shall be entitled to attend proceedings during the time for delivery of nomination papers or making objections thereto."
This Amendment is designed to bring the procedure of local government elections into line with the procedure of Parliamentary elections.
Mr. Ede: This Amendment attempts to bring the law in local government elec-
340
tions more or less into line with Parliamentary elections. At the present time no one has the right to attend and object at local government elections. The validity of nomination papers is determined by the mayor or the returning officer, and his decisions are then notified to the candidates. The difference between Parliamentary and local government elections was enacted deliberately. Until the Local Government Act, 1933, came into force, for the elections of borough councils the mayor was required to attend at the town hall for a short period of one day to decide the validity of objections to nomination papers, and any candidate or election agent had the right to attend. The decision of the mayor had to be given in writing. This decision applied also to county council elections. In my local government days before the 1914–18 war, I attended with the opposing candidate. We examined each other's nomination papers in the hope of finding some defect in one or other of them in order to avoid the expense of a contested election. On the other hand, since 1894 no such provision applied to urban or rural council elections.
The matter was considered by the Local Government and Public Health Consolidation Committee, known as the Chelmsford Committee, which in paragraph 23 of their Interim Report of March, 1933, came down against this procedure being applied to local government elections. I think the mayor, who will be advised by the town clerk as to the validity of nomination papers, is quite competent to discharge this function, and I should have thought that it was not desirable now to re-enact a provision which Parliament, advised after careful consideration, removed from the Statute Book as recently as 1933.
Mr. Grimston: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of his explanation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Consequential Amendments made.
Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 163, line 31, to leave out from "may," to "require," in line 32, and to insert:
"if present when the counting or any recount of the votes is completed."
This Amendment and the next two Amendments are similar to the ones with

341
which we dealt a few minutes ago in respect of Parliamentary elections. These relate in regard to any request for a recount in local government elections.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 163, line 33, leave out "one or more times," and insert "or again recounted."
In line 34, at end, insert:
"(3) No steps shall be taken on the completion of the counting or any recount of the votes until the candidates and election agents present at the completion thereof have been given a reasonable opportunity to exercise the right conferred by the last foregoing sub-paragraph."
In page 164, line 41, at end, insert:
"(5) In particular, where the votes are counted by sorting the ballot papers according to the candidate for whom the vote is given and then counting the number of ballot papers for each candidate, the counting agents shall be entitled to satisfy themselves that the ballot papers are sorted right."—[Mr. Younger.]
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page 164, line 41, at the end, to add:
"12. This Part of this Schedule shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect as if sub-paragraphs (6), (7) and (8) of paragraph t, sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 3 and paragraph 4 were omitted."
The paragraphs which it is proposed to leave out so far as Scotland is concerned are unnecessary, inasmuch as they refer to the statement of persons nominated which is published in England, while no such paper is published in Scotland.
Amendment agreed to.
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fifth Schedule agreed to.

SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Effect "of change of date of local government elections in England and Wales.)
Amendments made: In page 166, line 8, leave out "retirement," and insert "election."
In line 13, leave out "election," and insert "retirement."—[Mr. Younger.]
Mr. Butcher: I beg to move, in page 166, line 35, to leave out from the beginning to "and," and to insert:
"on the fourth day after the day of election."
In moving this Amendment, I should like also to speak on the following
342
Amendment in my name and that of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), because they deal with the same subject. In the past it has been the custom for borough councillors to go out of office on election day and for their successors to come in on that day. I understand that that system has worked well, but county councils have been accustomed to a different system whereby the day of retirement is subsequent to the day of election. The new councillor does not come in until after a short period, and that system, I understand, has also worked well. But these dates of retirement should, we think, be brought into line.
Paragraph 2 (2) of this Schedule states that the retirement of borough councillors shall take place at the commencement of the annual meeting, and it is rather unfortunate that a defeated member of a borough council should remain a member of that council up to eleven—or possibly eighteen—days after the election, during which time he will, presumably, be able to attend meetings, and during which time the town clerk will be able to summon him to meetings. He would, of course, go out of office immediately the annual meeting started, but the victorious candidate could not participate in the work of the council until the annual meeting, although much useful work, such as the setting up of committees, and so on, is done before that meeting takes place. I hope that the Home Secretary will see his way clear to bring the practice for county councils and borough councils into line, so that the successful candidates shall take office on the fourth day after election. So far as county councillors are concerned, that is provided for in paragraph (1) of the Schedule.
Mr. Younger: My right hon. Friend is prepared to accept this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 166, line 36, leave out "at that time," and insert "on the said fourth day."— [Mr. Butcher.]
In line 37, at end, insert "and."
In line 17, at end, insert:
"(5) In a borough having a sheriff, the appointment of a sheriff due to take place at the annual meeting in the year nineteen hundred and forty-eight shall be postponed till the annual meeting in the following year and subsequent appointments shall, notwith-

343
standing anything in section one hundred and seventy of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882, be made at the annual meeting; and in relation to sheriffs going out of office at the annual meeting in that or any subsequent year the interval between two consecutive annual meetings shall be deemed to be a year for the purposes of section five of the Sheriffs Act, 1887 (which provides that the same person shall not be appointed twice in three years if he has served a full year)."—[Mr. Younger.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and minor amendments as to local government in Scotland.)
Amendments made: In page 168, line 27, column 2, leave out from "forty-nine," to end of line 39, and insert:
"and after paragraph (e) there shall be inserted the following paragraph:—
(f) The foregoing provisions of this Section shall apply to the court of appeal for a burgh being a county of a city with the substitution respectively, for references to meetings of the county council and to elections of county councillors of references to meetings of the town council and to elections of town councillors."
In line 43, at end, insert:
"Section forty. For the word 'April,' there shall be substituted the word 'March.'"
In page 169, line 9, at beginning, insert "Section two. In Subsection (1)."
In line 41, column 2, at end, insert:
"and for the word 'forty-eight,' there shall be substituted the word forty-nine'."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions which may be contained in regulations as to registration, etc.)
Amendments made: In page 170, line 6, after "borough," insert "metropolitan borough."
In line 42, at end, insert:
"or of the fact that he is a returning officer, deputy returning officer or acting as returning officer at any election."
In line 43, leave out "the," and insert "a."
In page 171, line 30, leave out "by the public."—[Mr. Younger.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

"Section forty

Section twenty-five:

Section thirty-two:

—

Subsections (1) and (2)

Subsections (1)(b) and (c)"

—[Mr. Younger.]

Consequential Amendments made.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Forms.)
Amendments made: In page 172, line 5, after "George," insert "the Sixth."
In line 16, leave out "on."
In page 173, leave out lines 12 and 13, and insert:
"as otherwise stated in relation to my [the candidate's] personal expenses."—[Mr. Younger.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptation and interpretation of enactments, etc.)
Amendments made: In page 175, line r8, leave out "whose clerk is registration officer," and insert:
"of any county or county borough in which the constituency in question is wholly or partly situated and, where more than one council is concerned, shall be paid by them in such proportion as the Secretary of State may direct; and any expenses payable by virtue of this sub-paragraph—

(a) by a county council shall be paid out of the poor rate as as county at large charge;

(b) by the council of a county borough shall be paid out of the rate or fund out of which the general expenses of the council are paid."

In page 176, line 1, leave out "subsections (2) and (3)," and insert "subsection (2)."
Leave out lines 19 to 22.
In line 37, at end, insert:
"3. In the Sheriffs Act, 1887, the expression 'writ,' shall be taken as not including a writ for a parliamentary election."
In page 177, line 15, after "to," insert" jurors books for."—[Mr. Younger.]
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

ELEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(References in Corrupt Practices Act and Local Elections Act.)
Amendments made: In page 178, line 21, column r, after "17," insert "and subsection."
Leave out lines 45 and 46.
In line 49, at end, insert:
Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 180, line 34, at the end, to insert:

"7 Geo. 2. c. 16.

An Act for the better regulating the election of members to serve in the House of Commons for that Part of Great Britain called Scotland: and for incapacitating the Judges of the Court of Session, Court of Justiciary and Barons of the Court of Exchequer in Scotland to be elected or to sit or vote as Members of the House of Commons.

Section eight.

32 Geo. 3. c. 63.

The Scottish Episcopalians Relief Act, 1792.

Section seven, and Section thirteen so far as relating to incapacity to vote."

This Amendment deletes two obsolete provisions of a former enactment.
Mr. McKie: I should be glad if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary would explain the reason for the repeal of Sections 7 and 13 of the Scottish Episcopalians Relief Act, 1792. As far as I can gather, these two Sections are obsolete, but it seems a little late, after 160 years, to repeal these Sections of a former Act. I am asking for a little more light to be given on this. I want to see that no in-

"60 Geo. 3 and I Geo. 4. c. II

The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1820.

The whole Act.

1 & 2 Geo. 4. c. 58.

The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1821."

The whole Act."

There is a list of amendments in my name which is associated with the Twelfth Schedule, in conjunction with which we made a very thorough search of Public General Acts in order to ascertain what archaic and obsolete provisions there were which might with advantage be included in this Section. The long list that follows is some indication of the results of our industry since the Bill was printed and I believe it covers the whole of these archaic and obsolete provisions of the law. I would, of course, be prepared to answer questions on any one of them if it was thought to be necessary, but I hope the Committee will take my word for it.
Mr. Butcher: The right hon. Gentleman has shown characteristic courtesy to the House in dealing with this matter and I think he has shown great capacity of explanation. I do not want to press him for further explanations, but I should like to test the offer he has made by referring him to the Amendment, in page 185, line 25, "after thirty-four," insert "except as respects the City of London." Can he tell us how the City of London would be affected in this matter?
346
justice is done to a small but very gallant body of nonconformists in Scotland.
Mr. Fraser: These provisions are obsolete. These Sections in the Act of 1792 impose a disability to vote on ministers who fail to pray for the Royal Family. I think the hon. Member will agree that these provisions are obsolete.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 180, line 34, at the end to insert:
Mr. Ede: It is consequential on securing the application of Part III to the City of London. The effect is to continue in operation, as respects the City, Section 74 of the Municipal Corporations (Corrupt Practices) Act of 1884, as to the manner of reckoning the number of electors for the purpose of determining the amount of election expenses. I hope that explanation will satisfy the hon. Member.
Mr. Parker: I welcome the activity of the Secretary of State in regard to these obsolete statutes and his proposal to repeal them so that we reach a position in which laws are drawn up with some regard to the welfare of the people. It would be a pity if between now and the Report stage, the Home Secretary did not also go into the question of the rules in regard to people who are to be candidates and have that sorted out at the same time. By that means we would get rid of some of the obsolete rules prohibiting people from becoming candidates. I do not want to make the same speech as I made on the Second Reading, but a certain number of anomalies remain which ban people from being candidates, and I hope the Home Secretary will undertake

347
an overhaul of the law dealing with that point. It would not involve an enormous amount of work compared with that already done on this Bill, and I hope he will look into it.
Amendment agreed to.

"2 & 3 Will. 4. c. 65.

The Representation of the people (Scotland) Act, 1832

Section thirty-one; in Section thirty-six the words 'to vote or' where those words first occur."

In page 181, line 30, column 3, leave out "Section one," and insert, "The whole Act."
In page 182, line 10, column 3, leave out "Section seven," and insert, "The whole Act."
In line 14, column 3, after first "Section," insert "Section thirty-seven."
In column 3, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert:
"The whole Act, except Sections one, two, twenty-three, twenty-eight, twenty-nine and thirty-one to thirty-five and Schedules E and F."
In line 29, column 3, leave out "Section nine," and insert:
"The whole Act except Section thirteen."
In page 183, line 14, column 3, after "thirteen," insert, "Section fourteen."
In line 19, after first "Section," insert, "Section twenty-nine."
In line 46, column 3, leave out "Section eight," and insert, "The whole Act."

"50 & 51 Vict. c. 55.

The Sheriffs Act, 1887.

In Section thirty-one the words 'and of the laws relating to the election of members to serve in Parliament'"

In line 51, column 3, after "Section," insert, "five; Section."
In page 186, line 5, column 3, leave out from "meeting," to "Subsection," in line 8, and insert:
"Section twenty-two; Section twenty-five."
In line II, column 3, leave out from "Schedule," to end of line 15, and insert:

"62 & 63 Vict. c. 14.

The London Government Act, 1899.

In Subsection (1) of Section eleven the words 'list of voters and of'."

In line 26, column 3, after, "except," insert:
"Sections nineteen and forty-three in so far as. they re-enact regulation 16 of Section two

"10 & II Geo. 5. c. 26.

The Sheriffs (Ireland) Act, 1920.

In Subsection (1) of Section two the words '(includind his powers and duties as returning officer)'".

In line 49, at end, insert:

"12 & 13 Geo. 5. c. 31.

The Universities (Scotland) Act, 1922.

In Section two, the proviso.

Further Amendments made:
In page 180, column 3, leave out lines 35 to 38, and insert:
"The whole Act, except section seventy-four."
In line 43, at end, insert:
In line 52, column 3, leave out "Section," and insert, "Sections four and."
In page 184, line 8, column 3, leave out "and," and insert "Section eighty-one."
In line 8, column 3, at end, insert:
"and in Section one hundred and seventy the words 'on the ninth of November' in Subsection (1) and the words 'at the quarterly meeting of the council' in Subsection (2)."
In page 185, line 14, column 3, after "meeting," insert, "Section eighteen."
In line 20, column 3, leave out "(8)," and insert, "(9)."
In line 25, column 3, after "thirty-four," insert:
"except as respects the City of London."
In line 36, column 3, leave out "Section sixteen," and insert, "The whole Act."
In line 42, at end insert:
"except so far as relates to Sections two and three of the Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854, and Sections one and two of the Corrupt and Illegal Practices Prevention Act, 1883."
In line 18, column 3, at end, insert:
"and in Section five the words from 'of ballot boxes,' to 'elections and.'"
In line 20, at end, insert:
of the Universities Elections Amendment (Scotland) Act, 1881, and."
In line 39, at end, insert:
In page 187, line 28, column 3, after "seventy," insert:
"in Section seventy-nine the words from 'or if,' to 'the meeting.'"
In line 33, column 3, leave out "Procedure," and insert "Proceeding."
In page 188, line 36, column 3, after "forty-six," insert "Subsection (2) of Section fifty;."
In page 189, line 35, column 3, after "elections," insert:
"in Subsection (5) of Section thirty-one the words from 'in Section thirteen,' to "1922,'the words' or an assistant returning officer,' and the words from and nothing,' onwards"
In line 47, column 3, leave out "(2)." and insert "(3)."

"Act of the Irish Parliament

35 Geo. 3. c. 29

An Act for regulating the election of members to serve in Parliament, and for repealing the several Acts therein mentioned.

The whole Act.

Order in Council.

S.R. & O., 1922. No. 1352.

The Government of Ireland (Election Laws Adaptation) (Northern Ireland) Order, 1922.

In Article 3, sub-paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of paragraph (1) and paragraph (2)."

—[Mr. Ede.]

Schedule, as amended agreed to.

NEW SCHEDULE.—(Obsolete Enactments.)

Session and Chapter

Title or Short Title

Provision ceasing to have effect

7 & 8 Will. 3. c. 7.

An Act to prevent false and double returns of members to serve in Parliament.

The provisions as to procuring returns in Sections three and four.

32 Geo. 3. c. 63

The Scottish Episcopalians Relief Act, 1792.

The provisions as to incapacity to vote at elections in Sections seven and thirteen.

60 Geo. 3 & 1 Geo. 4. c. 11.

The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1820.

The provisions as to the attendance of constables at the poll and the expenses of the election in Sections twenty-two and twenty-six.

1 & 2 Geo. 4. c. 58.

The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1821.

Section three (which relates to payments to the returning officer and other officers).

4 Geo. 4. e. 55

The Parliamentary Elections (Ireland) Act, 1823.

The provisions as to the attendance of constables at the poll in Sections sixty-three and sixty-six and the provisions as to procuring returns in Section seventy-three.

16 & 17 Vict. c. 28.

The County Elections (Scotland) Act, 1853.

Section four (which relates to the provision of polling stations).

16 & 17 Vict. c. 68.

The Parliamentary Elections Act, 1853.

Section six (which relates to the provision of polling stations).

17 & 18 Vict, c. 102.

The Corrupt Practices Prevention Act, 1854.

Section eight (which relates to the employ ment of special constables on polling day).

30 & 31 Vict, c. 102.

The Representation of the People Act, 1867.

Section thirty-seven (which relates to the provision of polling stations) and Section forty-nine (which relates to the corrupt payment of rates by way of bribery).

31 & 32 Vict, c. 46.

The Boundary Act, 1868.

Sections eleven and twelve (which deal with the limits of coastal constituencies and the marking of boundaries).

In line 54, column 3, after "other." insert "rule 3."
In page 190, line 9, column 3, leave out "'those rules' onwards," and insert:
"'these rules,' to the end of paragraph (i) of the sub-paragraph."
In line 3o, column 3, at beginning, insert:
"In Section sixty-one, in Subsection (1), paragraph (a)."
In line 32,. column 3, after "(a)," insert:
"in Part II of the Second Schedule, column 3."
In line 33, column 3, leave out:
"sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 2"
In line 56, at end, add:

Session and Chapter

Title or Short Title

Provision ceasing to have effect

31 & 32 Vict. c. 49.

The Representation of the People (Ireland) Act, 1868.

Section eight (which disqualifies for voting electors employed by a candidate) and Section ten (which relates to the provision of polling stations).

35 & 36 Vict. C 33.

The Ballot Act, 1872.

Section fourteen (which relates to the use of municipal ballot boxes, &c, for parliamentary elections).

41 & 42 Vict. c. 26.

The Parliamentary and Municipal Registration Act, 1878.

Sections eleven and thirteen (which contain provisions as to furnishing and obtaining information).

48 & 49 Vict. c. 15.

The Registration Act, 1885

Section sixteen (which contains provisions as to furnishing and obtaining information).

48 & 49 Vict. c. 17.

The Parliamentary Registration (Ireland) Act, 1885.

Section sixteen (which provides for information of deaths to be furnished to the registration officer).

54 & 55 Vict. c. 49.

The Returning Officers (Scotland) Act, 1891.

The provisions in Section five as to the use at parliamentary elections of ballot boxes, fittings and compartments provided for other elections.

Act of the Irish Parliament

35 Geo. 3. c. 29

An Act for regulating the election of members to serve in Parliament, and for repealing the several Acts therein mentioned.

The provisions as to procuring returns in Section fourteen, and those of Sections nineteen and twenty-three (which relate to treating and other matters dealt with by the parliamentary corrupt practices Act).

—[Mr. Ede.]

Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Ede: I beg to move, "That the Schedule be read a Second time."
This new Schedule deals with matters which are actually contained somewhere or other in the body of the Bill. This new Schedule of obsolete enactments is to tidy up the law, and will involve the repeal of certain laws relating to elections which are, in fact, no longer operative, but for some reason or another have never previously attracted the attention of the draftsman and have been left on the Statute Book. They are of no effect, but possibly on occasions they hinder the work of students of the law who are anxious to ascertain their exact position.
Schedule read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
Mi. Ivor Thomas Mi. Ivor Thomas (Keighley) rose—
The Chairman: Is it a point of Order?
Thomas: I was hoping it was a point of substance on the new Schedule.
The Chairman: I have collected the voices on the new Schedule.
Mr. Thomas: I did not catch your eye at the time, Major Milner, but I was not clear as to the position. I should like
352
to say that there are a certain number of other obsolete enactments to which I ought to draw the attention of the Home Secretary. For example—
The Chairman: I am sorry, but we have approved the new Schedule. Perhaps the hon. Member would communicate any points he has in mind to the Home Secretary.
Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered upon Monday next; and to be printed. [Bill 76.]

COLONIAL FURNITURE (IMPORTATION)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]
11.6 p.m.
Mr. Keeling: I wish to draw attention to the embargo placed on the importation of Colonial furniture, especially that made in Nigeria and the Gold Coast. I am glad to see that the Secretary for Overseas Trade is in his place, but I regret that no representative of the Colonial Office is present. I am aware that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary are abroad, but the Colonial Office are so closely involved in this matter that I regret they have not

353
asked some other Minister to represent them. The Colonial Office have often paid lip-service to the economic development of the Colonies, as being inherent in the principle of trusteeship on which our administration is based. In the Debate on the Colonial Estimates last year, the Secretary of State said that any failure to develop the economic possibilities of the Colonies became intolerable when they could contribute to the needs of the world. Last year also, a Report on the Colonial Empire said:
"The encouragement of soundly conceived secondary industries in the Colonies is an essential part of colonial development policy."
The Report added that such industries should compete with similar industries elsewhere. That is exactly this case. In the Gold Coast an industrial development corporation has, in fact, already been set up and furniture-making is one of its declared aims. The Colonial Office therefore have a responsibility in this matter which they cannot shuffle off on to the Board of Trade.
What is the attitude of the Board of Trade? Up to date, though they have not imposed any formal embargo on the importation of colonial furniture, what they have said amounts in practice to an embargo. On l0th February, in reply to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Dodds-Parker), the President of the Board of Trade said:
"Imports of Gold Coast furniture …"
and no doubt this applies to Nigerian furniture also—
"… can only be allowed if it can be sold at utility prices."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, I0th February, 1948; Vol. 447, C. 36.]
Now West African furniture is far superior to British utility furniture. I have here some photographs which I will pass round to show its excellent quality. It obviously could not be sold at the prices of British utility furniture. The prices must be higher, though not much higher. Therefore I think I am right in saying that in effect there is an embargo on the importation of Colonial furniture.
Why is this condition about price imposed by the Board of Trade? Fifteen months ago the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, when he was President of the Board of Trade, said that this was only fair to British manufacturers, who are restricted to making utility furniture for
354
home consumption and are not allowed to make furniture of this substantial West African type. I have no desire to be unjust to British manufacturers, and I have taken steps to ascertain why they have applied pressure to the Board of Trade to keep out this African furniture.
The reason is partly psychological and sentimental. They think that if they are not allowed to make good furniture, then good furniture from West Africa ought not to be admitted to this country. My reply is that they would be in no way injured. The demand for furniture is enormous—far in excess of what can be supplied from all quarters. The only people who can get what are called priority dockets are newly-married couples and bombed-out people moving into new quarters. Time after time in the last year or two requests in this House for an extension of the priority classes have been refused. It is obvious that all conceivable supplies of furniture for many years will not meet the demand.
Another reason for the British manufacturers' opposition is that they think that any timber available in West Africa should be sent as timber, to keep the British factories busy, and should not be made into furniture in Africa. My reply to that is two-fold. First, my information is that more logs of West African timber are available than can be cut in the sawmills here; and, secondly, if the Board of Trade, at the instance of the British manufacturers, say that West African timber must be imported as such, and not as furniture, what becomes of our professions that our Colonial administration is based on trusteeship for the people of the Colonies? What is the good of setting up a Gold Coast Development Corporation to encourage furniture-making if furniture is not to be made for export? During the war the people of the Gold Coast sent a handsome present of furniture to this country for the use of people who had lost their chattels in air raids. For that help in our hour of need it seems a pretty poor return to tell the people of the Gold Coast now that we will not buy their furniture because it might reduce the production of British furniture. I therefore challenge the Colonial Office to defend an embargo on the importation of manufactured Colonial goods urgently required by people here, imposed because the British manufacturers object.
Dr. Morgan: Can the hon. Member tell me what is the rate of wages the workers in the West African factories, compared with the rates paid here?
Mr. Keeling: I cannot, but I can tell the hon. Member that it has been very much raised. I do not see that it is relevant. Such an attitude as that adopted by the Board of Trade, and acquiesced in apparently by the Colonial Office, produces a feeling of frustration in the Colonies, and it is a factor in the political unrest which has manifested itself in West Africa. Economic development would help to allay that unrest. In the Gold Coast and in Nigeria there are many ex-Service men, trained in the Army as craftsmen, but not enough jobs for them or for the educated or semi-educated men who do not want to work merely as hewers of wood and drawers of water. If imports into Britain were allowed, the needs of the people of this country could be linked with a development of real value to the people of the Colonies.
We have promised to increase technical education in the Colonies. If that increase takes place the number of craftsmen and the possibilities of manufacture will grow. However, I do not want to exaggerate the possibilities. It will be many years before large quantities of furniture are available from West Africa, and that fact in itself is a reason why the fears of British manufacturers are groundless. The problem of seasoning the timber has to be dealt with. It would probably be necessary to establish kiln drying in the Colonies. But this is exactly the sort of thing that a Government-sponsored development corporation could and should encourage. I have already said that I have no desire to injure the British manufacturers or the British workers, and that I believe they would not be injured by the importation of West African furniture. If, however, they fear they would be injured, I have this suggestion to make. I suggest that we should allow the British manufacturers to make a small amount of non-utility furniture for the home market. That would enable them to make furniture for export at a reduced cost, and it would also remove any feeling of unfairness they may have about the importation of non-utility furniture.
356
My last word is this. Whatever the hon. Gentleman who is to reply may say, I believe one thing is certain—that the present restriction is so unreasonable, so unfair, alike to the British public crying out for furniture and to the Colonies crying out for industrial development, that it cannot long continue in the face of public opinion.
11.17 p.m.
Mr. George Porter: I have taken advantage of the kindness of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) in passing round these photographs, and have looked at them. As one who has some knowledge of the subject, I say that I see very little difference in the construction or appearance of the West African furniture photographed and the utility furniture we are now producing in this country.
Mr. Keeling: If the hon. Gentleman will come to my house I shall show him two chests of drawers made of West African mahogany, one from the Gold Coast and one from Nigeria, which, I think, will convince him, as they have convinced British manufacturers to whom I have shown them, that they are far superior to utility furniture.
Mr. Porter: That is obvious, because they are made of solid wood—African mahogany. I am talking of the appearance of the furniture and the methods of construction, which seem to be entirely the same as those of utility furniture. The hon. Member, in handing around these photographs, handed out another photograph which shows the type of person concerned in making this African furniture. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Dr. Morgan) put a question just now about the wages of the workers in Africa, which affect the costs of production. I see here a picture of an African worker who has no clothes but a loin cloth.
I think those concerned, with the import of that furniture to this country should first concern themselves with the conditions of production in West Africa. I think the West African workers should have the advantage of having this furniture the hon. Member suggests should be sent here. The conditions of the West African workers, their amenities, clothing, food, furniture, housing, everything, are contrary to the type of thing

357
we expect for our own workers in this country. I hope that whoever is to reply to this Debate will say that there will be no facilitation of production in the Colonies in conditions that would not be allowed in this country, but rather that he will encourage the possibility of bringing logs over here and using them in this country. We have drying kilns in this country. We have complete mills of woodworking machinery and every process necessary in the production of furniture, which do not exist in West Africa. If we want to help the people who require furniture, and those who make and sell furniture in this country, it would be better if we suggested means of bringing in more timber.
Mr. Dodds-Parker: If we pushed the argument of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. G. Porter) to its logical conclusion, we should refuse to accept the groundnuts and other products the Government propose to produce in West Africa by the type of labour to which he refers. We should refuse to accept any of these products from countries overseas in which people are obliged to work in a climate in which, frankly, a loincloth is the most suitable article to wear.
Mr. G. Porter: There is no possibility of developing the argument to prove I am wrong. Would the hon. Member ask why we have to import groundnuts if it were possible immediately to make margarine there and bring it to this country instead of the nuts?
Mr. Dodds-Parker: That in fact is one of the things which may well happen in these countries. One of the objectives with which this Party is concerned is to raise the standard of living of the people. We want to see them eating margarine rather than peanut butter, if they wish to do so. It seems to us that if the Government continue with this policy of refusing to allow the development of secondary industries in the Colonial Empire, there is going to be a very considerable restriction on those individuals who in wartime were trained as artisans, many of them ex-Service men, to get work producing articles of this type. As my hon. Friend has said, this furniture is of a pleasing and simple design. I hope the Government, by seeking to continue the prohibition of the
358
import of this furniture, will not stop the beginning of a useful secondary industry in West Africa, whose products the people of this country need and are prepared to pay for, and which in time will be used in West Africa and elsewhere within the tropical dependencies. I think it will be detrimental to those artisans who learned a trade in wartime if there is no outlet in peacetime for their skill.
I feel that we must attempt to maintain in our Colonial Empire some freedom of movement of trade, which is already being further restricted throughout the world. Lip service is paid at the moment to all sorts of efforts to free trade. I hope action will be taken to support these efforts, but as far as I can see, it is a denial of Western Union and the economic integration of the West we are aiming at, if we cannot insist on a certain amount of freedom of trade in our own Colonial Empire. What hope is there of 16 countries agreeing to freedom of trade if we cannot sanction such a small matter as this within our own Colonial Empire? One practical suggestion: is it not possible for the right hon. Gentleman to look again at this matter and see whether this furniture could not be classed as utility furniture and allowed entry up to a certain point in that category? There could hardly be a simpler or cheaper design. I ask him if he can give us an indication of the possibility of classifying this as utility furniture and importing it under such a licence?
11.25 p.m.
Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The sentiments expressed by the hon. Members opposite have, I am sure, the support of hon. Members on all sides of the House. It is our desire to develop trade in the way the Colonial Office has indicated, and I shall hope to show that we have done so. The suggestion has been made that there is an embargo upon the import of furniture. But there has never been an embargo upon the import of furniture. There has, in effect, never been an embargo, and there is no embargo today.
Mr. Keeling: In effect there is.
Mr. Bottomley: Let me go through the history of this matter carefully. At the end of 1945 we had this position. Men and women were coming out of the Forces

359
and were resuming happy married life again. There was also a demand for furniture from bombed out people who wanted to set up homes again and to buy furniture. But at that time, many of the furniture factories which had been engaged in wartime production were not yet making furniture again. The Government decided that they would welcome furniture from all sources, including West Africa. But it is a fact that when it came to deciding policy, there was no offer from that territory. If there had been, we would have taken all that was forthcoming. We would have encouraged the import of furniture from that territory because, unlike other countries from which we were able to get furniture, there was no balance of payment difficulty with West Africa.
Later on, it happened that the utility furniture scheme, and the scheme for providing units, partly succeeded, and we began to find that the difficulty was not so much to get supplies as to get the currency with which to obtain supplies of timber to enable us to provide still more furniture. Because of that, we felt that we had to call a halt. It was not fair to impose restrictions upon the home industry without imposing similar restrictions upon imports from the industry outside this country. It is true that we had, in connection with trade talks which were then proceeding, to accept furniture, even though we had decided that there were difficulties in the way of doing so. But at the same time, we laid down that the furniture we accepted must be of the same design, and on the same price basis, as the utility furniture made in this country. Bilateral arrangements were made for the countries involved to accept less essential goods in return for the furniture. But to the extent that we accepted this furniture, we did make provision for West Africa, and other parts of the Commonwealth and the Colonies particularly, to send us equal supplies of furniture. So there was, in fact, no embargo. We do, in the case of our own industry, have to see that utility furniture, with its specified price and design, is produced if we are going to meet all requirements; and it would not be fair to our manufacturers to allow others to develop their industry in such a way as to give them an advantage over our own people.
360
In the case of West Africa, moreover, we did consider that it would be to West Africa's disadvantage if she produced non-utility furniture, for then there would be Purchase Tax of 66⅔ per cent. upon it, and that would send up the price considerably. The hon. Member who, a moment ago, referred to wages, is right, but I am sure that on this basis, in spite of labour costs, competition could not take place. With regard to utility furniture generally, I am sure that the fact that labour costs are lower in West Africa would enable them to send in utility furniture at competitive prices without a deal of difficulty. I agree with the hon. Member who raised this question that the furniture is of good quality. I have had an opportunity of seeing some of it, and if that furniture could be made to our utility design it would have the same opportunity of getting on the market, as our own furniture does, and would enjoy the same opportunity as the furniture from other countries enjoys as a result of bilateral deals.
The import licences granted for furniture which is handled by the trade association to which the hon. Gentleman referred, cannot I am afraid, at the moment, be unconditional. We must insist on things being based on the present utility method of production.
Mr. Keeling: Can the Overseas Secretary say how many import licences for Colonial furniture have been given?
Mr. Bottomley: I cannot give an answer offhand.
Mr. Keeling: The answer is, "None."
Mr. Bottomley: I would not say that. Licences would be given for utility furniture, but not for furniture not complying with our rules and regulations. It would be unfair to allow manufacturers outside this country to have a better basis for production than the manufacturers here. It is not that the regulations are made for the sake of making regulations. They are the best way of making sure that the people get the furniture at the right price and in the best possible fashion.
These regulations, I agree, are irksome, and it would be much better to do away with them, but labour costs, and the fact that the admission of non-utility furniture would make competition very much more difficult make them necessary. We want to help West African industry. It is well

361
known that they are released from the obligation to pay the 20 per cent. duty imposed on the ordinary foreign trade. It does seem to me that there are opportunities for this furniture to come from West Africa. It is good furniture. It is a secondary industry there, and I agree that it is desirable to develop it. To the extent to which it can be developed within the framework of the regulations applied in this country to our own manufacturers it is to be encouraged. But if we are asked to go outside the regulations that would be bad not only for our industry here but the industry in West Africa. It would not give the kind of development to which the hon. Gentleman pays service.
It would be improper for it to go out that this House is not in sympathy with this form of colonial development. The House certainly is in sympathy, and by the way in which we have been tackling this problem we are more likely to encourage development in the right way. By helping them to face up to the difficulties that exist we do a much better service than by encouraging them to feel they can build up an industry on non-competitive lines which cannot have the results which hon. Members want. I ask them to do all they can in saying that if West Africa is to produce furniture to the type, design and price required in order to give a reasonable opportunity of competing and developing their industry within the Commonwealth alongside their colleagues in British industry, they should accept the standards laid down. The hon. Gentleman has talked of
362
the trade association which, I am sure, share these views. The common interest of the Government, the trade and the Colonial Office, whose interest is in this part of the Commonwealth, is one which gives the best service to West Africa and I hope hon. Members think that is so and will encourage them in the way I have suggested.
11.35 p.m.
Mr. Erroll: I have seldom heard a more obstructive, stone-walling speech than that given by the Secretary for Overseas Trade tonight. There has not been a word about the consumers of this country, although there has been a great deal about the protection of manufacturers; there has not been one word about the opportunities of the Gold Coast to enter the furniture trade in this country and pay that tax. Who are the Board of Trade to decide, if the Gold Coast like to enter competitively and pay the tax on non-utility furniture? Why should not furniture manufacturers in this country import raw timber from West Africa and manufacture it if they wish to do so?
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. Deputy-Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-four Minutes to Twelve o'Clock.

  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
  NATIONAL INSURANCE (PERSONAL CASE)
EMPLOYMENT
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
  Employment Exchange, Walham Green
  Employment Exchange, Walham Green
  King's Roll Scheme
  King's Roll Scheme
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
SCOTLAND
  Shop Tenants (Eviction)
  Shop Tenants (Eviction)
  Plaster Shortage
  Plaster Shortage
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WIDOWS)
  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS (WIDOWS)
BRITISH ARMY
  Arrests and Charges
  Arrests and Charges
  Battle Area (Eastern Command)
  Battle Area (Eastern Command)
  Stanford Battle Area
  Stanford Battle Area
  Private House, Egremont
  Private House, Egremont
  Troops, Germany (Document)
  Troops, Germany (Document)
  Military Equipment (Arab Legion)
  Military Equipment (Arab Legion)
  Durham Light Infantry (Transfers)
  Durham Light Infantry (Transfers)
  Personal Case
  Personal Case
  FOREIGN TRAVEL (AUSTRIA)
  FOREIGN TRAVEL (AUSTRIA)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Exchange Control, Ceylon
  Exchange Control, Ceylon
  Steel Allocations
  Steel Allocations
  International Monetary Fund
  International Monetary Fund
  Gift Parcels
  Gift Parcels
  Ex-Officers (Income Tax)
  Ex-Officers (Income Tax)
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
  CENTRAL OFFICE OF INFORMATION
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Token Imports
  Token Imports
  Unsold Export Goods (Stock)
  Unsold Export Goods (Stock)
  Film Industry (Output)
  Film Industry (Output)
  Overseas Advertising
  Overseas Advertising
  Clothing Stocks
  Clothing Stocks
  Christmas Crackers
  Christmas Crackers
  Production
  Production
  Trading Estates (Chairmen)
  Trading Estates (Chairmen)
  Formaldehyde Production (S.W. Area)
  Formaldehyde Production (S.W. Area)
  Capital Goods, Exports (Poland)
  Capital Goods, Exports (Poland)
  Czechoslovak Assets
  Czechoslovak Assets
  Rayon and Woollen Goods
  Rayon and Woollen Goods
  American Textile Mission
  American Textile Mission
  Textile Machinery
  Textile Machinery
  DEFENCE WORKS, WOOLACOMBE
  DEFENCE WORKS, WOOLACOMBE
  WAR DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIR)
  WAR DAMAGED HOUSES (REPAIR)
  WATER SUPPLY, NEWARK
  WATER SUPPLY, NEWARK
  PUBLIC HEALTH (HOSPITALS)
  PUBLIC HEALTH (HOSPITALS)
  HEALTH SERVICE
  HEALTH SERVICE
  IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS
  IRISH SWEEPSTAKE TICKETS
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  U.N.E.S.C.O.
  FEEDINGSTUFFS (PIGEON CLUBS)
  FEEDINGSTUFFS (PIGEON CLUBS)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

SHOREHAM HARBOUR BILL.
Read 2a.
SOUTH LANCASHIRE TRANSPORT BILL. [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES BILL. [H.L.]
2.37 p.m.
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON): My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to consolidate the Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Acts, 1924 to 1947, and so much of the Holidays with Pay Act, 1938, as enables a wage regulating authority to make provision for holidays and holiday remuneration for workers employed in agriculture in England and Wales; and to move that it be read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

AIR AMBULANCE SERVICES.
2.38 p.m.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the question standing on the Order Paper in the name of my noble friend Lord Polwarth.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government to which islands off the Coast of Great Britain an air ambulance service is available (distinguishing between those already served by a scheduled air service and those not so served):
What number and type of aircraft are available for this service, and where they are based:
What are the arrangements by winch the service can be summoned in case of need:
What number of cases have been evacuated by this means in each of the last three years: and
What extensions of the service are contemplated.]
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON had also given Notice of his intention to put the following question:
To ask His Majesty's Government in what circumstances British European Airways Corporation failed to answer a summons for an air ambulance to convey two patients requiring urgent medical attention from Westray to Kirkwall on 12th and 13th April.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, with the permission of the noble Lord perhaps I may deal in one reply with the question he has addressed to me on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Polwarth, and that of which he has given Notice on his own behalf. They deal with different aspects of the same subject. Before proceeding to give the answers to the detailed questions raised by the noble Lords I should explain that the responsibility for the provision of air ambulance services in Scotland at present rests with the county councils, but the Department for Health for Scotland will be assuming this responsibility as from July 5, 1948, when the National Health Service is to come into operation. Neither the Corporations nor I have statutory obligations to provide ambulance services but, as part of the general policy of the Government to develop social services in the public interest, I am taking all possible measures, in co-operation with the Health Departments, to secure and extend the provision by British European Airways of adequate ambulance services to the various islands off the coast of Great Britain. The operation of these services, however, depends on the provision of adequate landing grounds; and here again it is not my responsibility but the responsibility of the Health Departments or local authorities, as the case may be, to provide these facilities.

387
Air ambulance services are at present available to Islay, Tiree, Barra, Benbecula, Stornoway, Orkneys and Shetlands, South Harris (Northton Beach), North Uist (Sollas), Isle of Man, Scilly Isles, Alderney, Jersey and Guernsey. Consideration, in conjunction with the Department of Health for Scotland, is now being given to the extension of the facility to the islands of Mull, Coll, Colonsay, Fair Isle and Foula. With the exception of one D.H. Dragon, which is based at Inverness and is used primarily for emergency ambulance work, British European Airways use their D.H. Rapides, which can be quickly converted into air ambulances by methods which have been evolved in conjunction with the St. Andrew Ambulance Association. The D.H. Rapides in Scotland are based at Renfrew and Aberdeen and those provided for services off the English coast operate from their normal bases at Speke, Land's End and Jersey. In addition, the Royal Air Force have available two Anson aircraft fitted as air ambulances, one based at Hendon and the other at Kinloss, for the movement of sick Service personnel. They can also be used in emergency to transport civilians, if British European Airways resources should not be available.
Whilst no record is available of the number of cases which have been evacuated from islands off the English coast, the numbers conveyed from the Scottish Islands afford considerable evidence of the effectiveness and steady growth of the services. The figures are: 1945, 94 cases; 1946, 146 cases; 1947, 168 cases. An air ambulance can be summoned by telephone or telegraph by any doctor whose name is included in the approved list supplied to the Corporation by the Department of Health for Scotland, in conjunction with the Scottish county councils concerned. With regard to the particular case mentioned by Lord Fairfax, the dimensions of the air strip at Westray are insufficient for the safe operation of a D.H. Rapide which was the only aircraft available at the time.
LORD FAIRFAX OF CAMERON: My Lords, whilst thanking the noble Lord for his comprehensive reply, I should like to ask him what has happened to the D.H. Dragon which was stationed at Inverness and was removed about a month ago. I
388
understand that it was quite capable of landing at Westray.
LORD NATHAN: The D.H. Dragon was removed for the purpose of being reconditioned and will be replaced.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, arising out of that answer, will the Minister consider finding out the details of the Australian "Flying Doctor" ambulance scheme, whereby very small aircraft can be used in most parts of Australia to land on ordinary fields and not only on properly prepared landing grounds?
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, correctly, the Department of Health are responsible for the provision of airfields. If so, can he distinguish between airfields to be used for ambulance services and other airfields.
LORD NATHAN: I will look into the question and let the noble Earl hear from me upon the particular point to which he refers.
LORD SALTOUN: May we have it put into the OFFICIAL REPORT so that we can all see it?
LORD NATHAN: I will arrange for a Written Answer to be given.

IMPRISONMENT OF CONVICTED MURDERERS.
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I beg to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, what is the number of convicted murderers whose sentence was reduced to imprisonment for life, and who have been released from imprisonment during the last ten years; and what is the average length of imprisonment which these convicts in fact served.]
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, during the ten years from April 1, 1938, to March 31, 1948, there were released from prison 104 persons convicted of murder whose capital sentences had been commuted to penal

389
servitude for life, and one who on conviction of murder had been sentenced to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure. As there were amongst the 105 one who had been detained for twenty years, two who had been detained for fifteen years and several who were released after a few months' detention—including, for example, survivors of suicide pacts—an average figure would be of no value. There were 24 who had been detained for periods of between ten and fifteen years, 52 whose periods of detention had been between five and ten years and 28 whose periods of detention varied from two or three months to five years. Amongst those released during this period there are a number who, owing to wartime conditions, were released at earlier dates than would otherwise have been authorised.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while thanking the noble and learned Viscount for the answer which he has given, may I ask him, on those figures, whether the 24 who have been released within ten or fifteen years, and the 5 who have been released—if I followed him correctly—in under ten years, include any of the mercy releases of persons sentenced under suicide pacts or in cases where the individual killed was really in a hopeless condition?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am afraid that I have not the knowledge to go further than the information which was in my answer. I will certainly find out and let the noble and learned Viscount know.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I do not wish to press the Lord Chancellor further at this stage, because I realise that the question I have put, although important, may have implications to which grave consideration needs to be applied. I merely note that the noble and learned Viscount has not been provided with an answer to my simple question as to what is the average length of imprisonment served by those who have been released after committing a murder in the last ten years. I will not ask him to say anything more now, but I would note the fact that that question has not been answered.

SUNDAY ENTERTAINMENTS ACT, 1932.
URBAN DISTRICT OF AMPTHILL ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF BARNET ORDER;
URBAN DISTRICT OF WELLS-NEXT-THE-SEA ORDER.
LORD WALKDEN: My Lords, I beg to move that these Orders be approved.
Moved, That the Orders made under the Act by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, for extending Section one of the Act to the said areas, be approved.—(Lord Walkden.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
2.48 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I rise to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It is some ten years since a project was put forward for a comprehensive review of our criminal procedure and practice, and it is more than twenty years since such a review has, in fact, been carried through. The present Bill constitutes such a comprehensive review, and during the last few years—as, indeed, throughout the whole period of twenty years—much work has been done on this question by various Committees and by the Home Office. I should like at the outset to pay my tribute to the work which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, did. Although this Bill modifies in many and important respects the proposals which he made, and although we think that, in some respects at any rate, we have improved on his proposals, the fact remains that a large part of this Bill is due to the work and activities of the noble Viscount.
The Bill contains much complicated detail. It deals with all sorts of matters which are, like the dictionary, a trifle disconnected. It therefore becomes very difficult in a Second Reading speech to deal adequately with the topic in hand. I propose merely to deal with the broad outline of these proposals, conscious of the fact that we shall have a Committee stage, and we shall then be able to give time and consideration to these individual

391
matters. We are fortunate to-day—and we shall be fortunate on the Committee stage if we have it—to have the assistance of some of those who have great experience in this matter. Particularly, I may refer to the Lord Chief Justice, whose knowledge of this subject is unique. I very much hope that he will be able to give us a good deal of his time when we come to the consideration of various matters on Committee.
If I may touch a personal note for a moment, this subject of prison reform and penology has been one which has been of great interest to me for many years past. It was when Mr. Bridgeman, as he then was, was Home Secretary that I first started my visits to prisons. I received every encouragement from him, and I have received every encouragement from successive Home Secretaries. I think I may say that I have visited nearly all the prisons in this country and Scotland, as well as those of many foreign countries. When I started twenty-five years ago it all seemed so easy. I thought the lines upon which reform should be carried through were so clear and so simple. I confess that, having now learned a good deal about the subject, I am baffled and perplexed about many of the solutions which we ought to adopt.
I think the difficulty arises from the fact that we want to carry out two objects at the same time. In the first place, obviously, we want to try to reform the prisoner. We want to restore his self-respect, and we want to ensure that when he goes out again he can stand on his own feet as a useful, responsible member of society. On the other hand, we want so to arrange our affairs as to deter prospective criminals from embarking upon crime. Those two horses, the deterrent and the reformatory, are especially difficult to drive in double harness. If one or other is given his head, the vehicle which you are driving is likely to be ditched. In the course of my investigations I have many times heard the cynic say: "Of course, the whole trouble is this, that half the people ought never to be there and the other half ought never to come out." Like most aphorisms, that one contains just a fraction of truth. At all events, I am quite sure that we can all of us agree on this. The greatest mistake we can make is, unless it is
392
absolutely necessary, to send young people to prison for a first offence: and that—if we are honest with ourselves, and it perhaps contains an admission of failure—for two reasons. In the first place the young person in prison will be contaminated by evil associations and, secondly, he may think that prison is not so bad after all. Have we also not heard it said: "They cry when they come to prison for the first time; they laugh when they go to prison for the second time." Therefore, in discussing this matter to-day, I should like to start with the young offender. Let me here say, before I start upon any particular topic, that I hope most devoutly that the merits of this Bill will not be lost or obscured by a discussion of the interesting topic of whether we should or should not suspend the death penalty. The Bill contains so much that is admittedly good that we should consider it on its own merits.
The first question about the young offender is the question of remand. It is often necessary, before he is adjudged guilty, that a young person should be remanded in custody. Under the existing law, a young person up to the age of 17 must go to a remand home unless he is certified as being too depraved or too unruly for that treatment. But so far as people over 17 are concerned, there is nothing for them at the present time but prison if they are remanded in custody. Clause 26 of this Bill contemplates for all under 21 that there shall be either remand homes or remand centres, which shall be set up as opportunity offers, and when the necessary accommodation is available. Let us hope then that there will no longer be, for those under 21, any question of remand to prison. I wish we could contemplate a similar provision about imprisonment, but, unhappily for some of those under 21 or even 17, there is no other course available. All I would say, speaking for my colleagues on the Bench—and I am sure they will agree with me—is that prison for these young people should be regarded as absolutely the last resort. Accordingly, in Clause 17 of the Bill, it is provided that, before imprisonment is imposed on a young person, the court must be satisfied, having regard to all the circumstances and facts relating to the individual, that there is no other way of dealing with the case. At the present time, the law is that a young person under the age of 14 cannot be sent to prison

393
The Bill proposes to increase that age to 15. The Bill proposes that, so far as magistrates' courts are concerned, they shall not send a young person to prison under the age of 17.
The fact that we are eliminating, or trying to eliminate, prison, presupposes that there are available other methods to deal with these people, such, for instance as the approved school order, Borstal, fine, binding over or probation. But this Bill proposes a further course. It proposes that for those between 14 and 21 we shall establish detention centres to which these young people can go for periods of three months—or, exceptionally, six months—where they can have the benefit of a sharp reminder, by discipline and hard work, that they must put themselves straight. The success of any such scheme depends primarily not upon the bricks and mortar, but upon the staff and upon the régime. We must do everything we can to see that we provide, in addition to the buildings, a highly qualified and highly trained staff and régime. Then we must also try to provide and strengthen the provision for probation homes at which we can give suitable training to these young people, or probation hostels where the young person sleeps at night and from which he goes out to his work in the day-time. I believe we may not unreasonably hope that it will be done on these lines. Accordingly, Clause 74 of the Bill authorises the Secretary of State to finance similar homes for this purpose.
Clauses 42 and 43 provide that these homes shall be subject to the inspection of his inspectors and that he shall have the right to approve the persons who are in charge of the homes. The idea is not at all unlike the idea which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, had of what he called, I think, the "Howard Homes," but we consider that the present arrangement is likely to be more efficient and more practical. Then if, in the last resort, it is necessary to send a person to prison, the Bill provides that there shall be a system of release on licence under supervision by an appropriate authority. I hope that in time, when we have provided these buildings, it may become possible to restrict still further the right of justices to imprison young persons. Accordingly Clause 17 provides that if and when the Home Secretary is satisfied that
394
he has the necessary facilities, he may propose a resolution to both Houses of Parliament and, on receiving the approval of both Houses, may extend this provision.
The Bill deals with probation. It largely consolidates the existing law, but consolidates it with considerable improvements in all directions. Clause 5 is an illustration. Clause 5 provides that it may be required that a young person, with his consent, shall be put under medical care in order that he can have mental treatment. Clause 12 provides that a conviction must precede a probation order, but that in effect the conviction can be wiped out so long as there is satisfactory conduct during the probationary period. I think all of us who have studied the work of the probation officers would like to pay a tribute to the work they have done. They have made a most valuable contribution in this field, and I am perfectly certain that anything we can do to strengthen their hands in this matter is work well done. Again, with regard to the Borstal system, we largely consolidate the existing law, but consolidate it with considerable amendments. In the first place we say that the minimum sentence must now be twelve months and that the system under which to-day young people up to the age of 23 can be sent to Borstal shall be changed so that the age is cut down to 21. I think that nearly all Judges with experience in this matter would agree that this is a wise reform. We provide further that the courts shall have power to sentence to Borstal wherever they think it advisable in the interests of the offender so to do.
I pass from the young to the old—and I am thinking particularly of the hardened offender. At the present time the machinery under the Prevention of Crimes Act—an Act of 1908—is not working satisfactorily. Perhaps it is because a sentence of penal servitude for the particular crime has to be passed before a sentence of preventive detention can be given; perhaps it is because the offender has to be charged on indictment accusing him of being an habitual criminal. At any rate, the effect is that there are today in our prisons only thirty persons in all undergoing preventive detention. Accordingly, we provide in the Bill, under Clause 20, that in the cases there specified

395
a person may be sent directly to preventive detention for a period of from two to four years. In exceptional cases, where the record of the offender is really bad, we provide that it may be from five to fourteen years. That is a drastic power, but experience has shown, I think, that it is necessary, and for this reason: that if you have a man who has shown by his record that he intends to lead a life of crime, then it is only fair that the community should be protected from his activities for a long period. Clause 48 of the Bill provides that during this period of preventive detention the Home Secretary may make special rules as to treatment and the like.
The clauses of the Bill which abolish the old phrases "penal servitude," "hard labour," "divisions," and so on, are, I think, merely a recognition of the fact that to-day those differences have ceased in practice to matter. The abolition of penal servitude, incidentally, involves the abolition of the "ticket-of-leave" system, which, in my belief, has involved considerable hardships in certain cases. In place of it we provide, under Clause 21, that a person who is released from prison may have to keep some Society (to be approved by the Home Office) acquainted with his movements and address; and it is only if he fails in that respect that he will come under any obligation to report to the police.
There are many procedural changes in the Bill. For instance, the courts may, under this Bill, inflict fines in cases of felony; and they may allow time to pay the fines. There is an extended power to grant bail; there is a simplification of the procedure as to appeals, and a change in the procedure with regard to the taking of finger-prints of persons retained in custody. I think sufficient safeguards are provided to ensure that the power will not be abused. Clause 37 contains a very useful provision enabling the police to give merely formal evidence by production of documents. Clause 40 is a clause which I have long wanted to see, and I commend it to your Lordships. It provides that the Judge may order the payment of costs of a successful defendant, whether in the court of first instance or in the Court of Criminal Appeal. There is no doubt that it is sometimes a great hardship for a man
396
who is accused and who is put to considerable expense in defending himself, not to be able to recover costs. I hope the machinery of Clause 40 will be made wide use of in appropriate cases. I have selected more or less at random some of the provisions of the Bill. I hope none of your Lordships will think that because I have not selected others, the others are not important. I think I have said enough to show that the Bill contains a collection of very useful matters, each of which will be discussed on the Committee stage, if your Lordships so desire.
There are two more controversial matters on the Bill which I want to discuss quite briefly. The first is the abolition of whipping. When the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, brought in his Bill some ten years ago, this was a matter of great debate and great concern. I think all of us acknowledge it to be the fact that, during the discussions on this Bill in another place, there were very few speakers who supported whipping; it certainly is the fact that there was no Division in favour of it. Consequently, I suggest to your Lordships that that being the state of opinion on the matter, we should be wise to accept the clause, for better or for worse, whatever we may think.
That brings me to the other topic, the question of the desirability of doing away with the death penalty. To be quite frank with your Lordships, I must confess that here I find myself in a somewhat embarrassing position—for this reason. I am accustomed, at least in this House, to speak for a united Party, but it is the fact that in this House, as in another place, many of my colleagues whose opinions I have come greatly to value take a view which is diametrically opposite to my own. I think I should be careful how I use an occasion when I happen to be the Government speaker to advocate a point of view which, for them at any rate, strikes a completely false note. On the other hand, holding as I do this great office, and being for the time being the head of the Judiciary, I owe it to myself and to your Lordships to make it quite plain that I am not in favour of the proposed change.
I entirely understand the motives which have led other people to take a different view. Of course, a hanging is a grim and horrible business. And so, my Lords, is murder. I feel that there is only one possible justification for retaining

397
capital punishment—namely, that one believes that capital punishment acts as a deterrent, and therefore cuts down the number of murders which otherwise would be committed. It is because I believe that that I am opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. I cannot prove it. In the nature of things, no one can ever prove it. It must be a matter of impression and of one's own personal opinion. I have told your Lordships my personal opinion. Others feel that the fact that there is this penalty, with all its grim squalor, makes these cases loom far larger in the public estimation and attention than they otherwise would. These squalid stories become repugnant to everybody. They are unhealthy; they are morbid; and, if we did not have this punishment, that would not be the fact. That is their point of view. They reinforce their point of view by a consideration of the experience of foreign countries. If one looks at the evidence of these foreign countries it is fair to say that there is a good deal to be said for the point of view that, notwithstanding the abolition of the death penalty, the number of murders has not gone up. But consider for a moment, if you will, what is the alternative penalty, because that is what matters.
Let us take the case of Belgium, which is often quoted. I am giving your Lordships these facts from the Report of the 1929 Commission. And let me say, in parenthesis, that I as much as anybody was responsible for setting up that Commission. Therefore, I had no very strong views about the matter at that time; I was anxious to find out the facts. What is the position in Belgium? In Belgium the position is that a murderer who is sentenced nominally to imprisonment for life is usually allowed out after some twenty-five years, but he serves the first ten of the twenty-five years in solitary confinement. You will find, in the evidence given before that Commission, evidence of a man who had spent thirty-six years in solitary confinement. Speaking for myself, I do not for a moment doubt that there are fates worse than death, and I am quite certain that nobody in this House or in another place would for one moment tolerate the conception of any such penalty as that. Logically, one is perfectly entitled to say, "Look at what has happened in Belgium." One can say, "Well,
398
you see, the abolition of the death penalty had no ill-effects; there are no more murders." On the other hand, if one says that, then, logically, one must be prepared to say, "I will accept the Belgian remedy."Yet none of us would accept that. Therefore, I come to the conclusion that, logically, it is fallacious to rely on the experience of foreign countries, unless one is to accept the remedy which they propound.
On the other hand, I realise the morbid attraction which is brought to these cases at the present time by reason of the death penalty. I further realise how inexpedient and wrong it is that we should use a penalty if it is repugnant to a large section of public opinion. The recent vote has shown that this penalty is now repugnant to a large section of public opinion. I was responsible for—at least, I agreed with—the advice which the Home Secretary gave to another place on this matter, and I was also responsible for saying that I agreed to this matter being left to a free vote of the House. If the free vote of the House had been given in the way that I think right, I should certainly have relied upon it. Equally, as the free vote of the House has been given the other way, I must rely upon that. Otherwise I should find myself in the position of a batsman who has been given "out" by a decision of the umpire. He may think it a bad decision but, when the umpire's finger goes up, his duty is to walk back to the pavilion.
We shall try this experiment. I have no doubt about that. If, contrary to my fears, the experiment turns out to be a success, no one will be more ready to admit his error than I. But I cannot feel that the present time, when we have this distressing wave of crime, when we have gangsters going about with arms to a greater extent than ever before, is a wise moment to try this experiment. Since it has been decided, however, that it is the right thing to do, let us now go forward. At any rate, I for myself accept the decision. None of us wants to go on with this horrible business if we can do without it, and therefore, so far as I am concerned, I support the conclusion which has been reached. No one can assert with any degree of certainty what will happen, but this I will say—and this bears upon some of the figures which the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, asked me about to-day—that it is quite certain that

399
a Home Secretary in the future, operating under the new system, may have to take a different view with regard to the period which these people shall serve than that which has hitherto prevailed. We may then find that we shall get very different results.
I have tried to present fairly the two points of view. There are, as I have said, many people, for whose judgment I have a great regard, who feel strongly about this matter. No one can say whether they are right or wrong until we try. Therefore I would say, "Let us try." I try with misgiving, I try with anxiety, but also I try with the hope that my worst fears may not be realised. If we pass this Bill now we shall all be wiser about the matter in a few years' time. That, at any rate, is the view which I desire to present to your Lordships. I thought it right not to conceal my own point of view and to present the other point of view fairly, and to leave your Lordships in no doubt at all as to what I feel is the right thing for me to do in these circumstances. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.23 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, it is clear from what the Lord Chancellor has just said that this important Bill contains many clauses which reformers would unquestionably welcome and approve—subject, of course, to close examination of the Bill in Committee. Added on to it, and inserted at the head of it, however, is another proposal—inserted contrary to the judgment of the Cabinet, contrary to the advice which was given after mature consideration on behalf of the Cabinet, and, as the Lord Chancellor has just told us, contrary (and indeed diametrically opposed) to the view which he, with his great responsibility, has been led to form.
I would like first to say a word about those parts of the Bill which I think may be sure of welcome and approval in this House, but I cannot avoid a preliminary comment on the highly disputed matter which is introduced as the first clause. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend that we must not allow the presence of that first clause to overshadow the whole of the Bill. This is not a Bill like some measures, which on
400
Second Reading can be discussed simply by considering some general overriding principle which the clauses work out in detail. If, for example, we have a Bill for the nationalisation of an industry, or a Bill for the disestablishment of a Church, it is proper on Second Reading to confine oneself to the general considerations which that proposal evokes. But this Bill is a collection or bundle of proposals—most of them I think meritorious—which do not form a common proposition, and some of which have very little to do, or indeed nothing to do, with anything else. To take a simple example, the clause in the Bill which says that a man may have his finger-prints taken if he is arrested by the police has no sort of connection with the valuable proposals for improving our treatment of adolescent and juvenile wrongdoers. Indeed, the proposed taking of fingerprints does not, I think, apply to children under 14. Whether or not that particular proposal about taking finger-prints will result in the arrest by the police of people who otherwise might have been only summoned, is a question which no doubt we shall consider when the Committee stage is taken.
On the general matter of the Bill, excluding for the moment Clause 1—and at this stage I do not intend to say anything either on the clause about flogging, which I have no doubt will be a matter for serious consideration later—I am glad that the Lord Chancellor began by acknowledging, as we all should, that the origin, and I think the inspiration, of the body of the Bill is largely due to my noble friend Lord Templewood. His Bill, which was introduced just ten years ago, when he was Home Secretary in an earlier Government, was a result of the energy and interest which he put into the subject of penal reform. It was the gathering up of various conclusions that had been reached after close study by a series of Committees and Commissions which had dealt with various aspects of the subject and, I must not omit, after close consideration with the Prison Commissioners, who speak with great experience and who contributed a great deal. I have always deeply sympathised with my noble friend Lord Templewood, and on public grounds have also regretted, that his finely conceived effort of ten years ago did not

401
reach the Statute Book. It is worth remembering that his Bill not only received its Second Reading in another place, with general consent and approval, but also passed through a long and detailed Committee stage, during which the general approval was at no time withheld. Then, the preoccupations of the House of Commons in the growing gloom of worsening international relations made it impossible to carry the Bill further. I see around me now many who were in the other place during that time. They will confirm my words when I say that there has seldom been a Bill of first-class importance which has commanded throughout so general and so warm support as did the measure of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood. Indeed, this was so strikingly the case—and perhaps it is worth while making this particular quotation—that after the war broke out, on November 9, 1939, Mr. Attlee, who was then Leader of the Opposition, asked the Government whether, even in war time, the Bill could not be proceeded with
"in view of the general desire that the important reforms contained in the Bill should be passed and that all that work should not be lost."
It must be a great satisfaction to Lord Templewood that, ten years later, so much of the good work in which he played a primary part is likely to achieve fruition.
Now we have that Bill, as I have said, in some respects restated, with additions, alterations and remissions. It is the Bill in a new dress—perhaps we may say the Bill with the "New Look." I am not sure what view will be taken in Committee of some of the changes. I can see arguments for some of them. I am not quite so sure about some of the others. But, at any rate, the clauses of the Bill—apart from one or two which I have especially excepted—are such as we shall undoubtedly desire with all our hearts to adopt. I am glad that there are members in this House—the noble Lord, Lord Holden, for example, is one—who have an intimate acquaintance with such branches of this subject as the probation system, and we may be sure that our discussions hereafter will not only be of great interest but will be carried on by many who know the subject well. The proposition that by every possible effort one should avoid sending young people to prison, and that this resolve should be
402
expressed in statutory language and in some cases, by prohibition, seems to me as one who has taken a great deal of interest in these subjects, one of the greatest importance.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred to the remand of children and young persons—usually by magistrates' courts. The child or the adolescent comes before a magistrates' court. It is impossible to deal with the whole of the case and to reach a conclusion then and there. Often inquiries have to be made and some postponement is absolutely necessary. What is to be done with this young creature in the meantime? I rejoice that we should be making provisions which will define that matter more precisely and more in accordance, I am sure, with the opinion and conviction of those who have seriously studied it. I was a little doubtful when, as I understood him, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said that the present law did not permit magistrates to send children to prison on remand. It may be so, but I must confess that I think I recall a case—and I protested about it in your Lordships' House at the time—in which a child who had been before a magistrates' court was found on remand in Oxford prison—a prison for old offenders, grown up men. The result of such imprisonment is likely to be perfectly scandalous. The child goes in, it may be, in considerable dread. He finds that instead of being severely treated he is regarded as a pet. He comes out of this experience with the proud consciousness that he has met some of the "old lags," and, in many cases, his whole attitude both to prison and to crime is prejudiced. All that we shall have to go into in detail.
I would make this further observation: that we must not suppose we are reaching a millennium. Of course, there are clauses in the Bill, perfectly admirable in themselves, which will certainly require the provision of remand centres. I do not know whether the provision of remand homes will be required, but I think every authority ought to have one available. If those interested will look at Clause 18 they will see what seems to me an admirable enactment: that a court dealing with
"a person who is not less than fourteen but under twenty-one years of age"

403
may
"if it has been notified by the Secretary of State that a detention centre is available for the reception from that court of persons of his class or description order him to be detained in a detention centre…."
To carry that out may involve building. We cannot hope to get this new scheme in complete working order without a good deal being done to provide the means by which some of these excellent provisions are to be translated into law.
I do not want to detain the House—especially after the characteristically clear statement of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—about these comparatively uncontroversial but excellent clauses, but I do want to spend a few minutes, if I may, in making a respectful suggestion for a new clause, which, so far as I can see, would be within the purposes of the Bill, for, as the title shows, one of its purposes is
"to amend the law relating to the proceedings of criminal courts."
I hope that before this Bill is presented for the Royal Assent it may include a clause which will get rid, once and for all, of what I regard as a preposterous anachronism which attaches to your Lordships' House.
The House is no doubt aware that if a Peer of the Realm is charged with committing a felony, he has, at the present time, to be tried in a special court called the Court of the Lord High Steward, assembled, I suppose, in existing circumstances, in the corridor outside—certainly there would be no room for it here. On the last occasion when it assembled, not so very long ago, in 1936, it was attended by 200 to 300 peers, all wearing their robes. It consists, if I may say so with respect to your Lordships' House, of a mob of persons, presided over by the Lord Chancellor under a special Commission, carrying a white wand, which he solemnly breaks across his knee at the end of the proceedings to show that the Court is for the time being discharged. The Peer has to face this unpleasant experience. He may be innocent, but he cannot say, "Waive all this, and treat me like anybody else." The existing law is that he must be tried by this grotesque and antiquated arrangement. It is a Court, but it is a very ancient Court, and it is high time that provisions were made that a Peer who is charged with a felony should
404
be treated in the same way as anybody else.
In case any noble Lords should be contemplating a breach of the criminal law (which I do not for a moment assume), I would like to point out for your Lordships' information that it would be very useful to learn accurately the difference between a misdemeanour and a felony. If it is a misdemeanour, you go to the Old Bailey and stand in the dock like anybody else. Obtaining money by false pretences is a misdemeanour. Stealing, however, is a felony. The line between those two is sometimes difficult to draw. Take the best legal advice before you commit yourselves to an undesirable form of crime! But there are other absurdities quite as ridiculous. According to the books the rule does not apply to an Irish Peer who is a Member of the House of Commons. To other Irish Peers who are Members of your Lordships' House it does apply. To put it in a more personal form—although each case I take is, of course, the very wildest hypothesis—if Lord Winterton were to commit a felony, he would go to the Central Criminal Court, but if the Lord Chairman of Committees, the Earl of Drogheda, equally improbably, were to be "caught out" in such a case, he would appear before the Court of the Lord High Steward. And still more extraordinary! I see opposite me the Bench of Bishops, and perhaps I may be allowed to mention this, as possibly it will be a piece of information: the Spiritual Peers of this House are not regarded in law as noble by blood. The consequence is that, in the inconceivable case of any member of that Order committing a crime, either felony or misdemeanour, and I will add, being found out, he would be tried just like any common man.
On the other hand, however—and this is most extraordinary—it is a tradition and right of the Spiritual Peers to attend in this crowd of persons drawn from this House to try a Peer, but with this refinement: that while they attend and take part, they ask leave to withdraw before sentence is pronounced. Is it not high time that we took advantage of this Bill and got rid of all that? If I am able to carry out my present purpose I shall, on my own account—it is not a matter on which I have been able to consult my fellows—put down as a new clause an

405
Amendment to that effect, and I hope it may receive special consideration from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor.
Finally, my Lords, I come to Clause 1 of the Bill. It is really impossible for us not to refer to it on Second Reading, and I think we all feel that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was completely justified in making some reference to it himself to-day. I do not wish to criticise. His position is a very difficult one. But consider the history of this clause for a moment. It was introduced into the Bill on Report stage in another place in most unusual circumstances. The Home Secretary, who may be regarded as having a special background on this subject, pointed out that Lord Templewood's Bill of 1938 did not contain any provision interfering with capital punishment. It was true that ten years ago there was an Amendment moved which would have had much the effect of the present Clause 1, but the then Home Secretary resisted the Amendment and resisted it successfully. In regard to the present Bill, the Home Secretary told the House of Commons—and I have thought it well to extract the exact words he said—that:
"The Government have given most careful consideration as to the course which should be pursued on this occasion."
He then gave figures which showed that crimes involving serious violence had substantially increased since 1938. He showed how, in the last few years, to an increasing extent, criminals engaged in violent crime had adopted the practice of carrying lethal weapons, usually firearms, and he went on to say:
"The Government…"
that is, the Lord Chancellor's Government, the Cabinet—
"feel that they cannot, in these circumstances, regard the time as opportune to include in the Bill a provision for the suspension or abolition of the Death Penalty."
When, on Report stage in another place, the proposal which is now Clause 1 of this Bill was brought forward, the Home Secretary repeated, in even more urgent terms, the view of the Cabinet that the proposal should not be adopted; but on a free vote of the House the clause was inserted in the Bill by 245 votes to 222.
When your Lordships come to Committee, I think you will have to consider
406
this clause very seriously indeed. I hope that on all sides, including the Government side, it will be decided by a free vote. What we have here in our hands may be the safety or jeopardy of citizens outside, and nobody who takes his matter seriously can regard that as a mere matter of Party discipline. I was glad to notice that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, whatever he may have said about Clause 1, did not roundly assert that the case in its favour was overwhelming. I took occasion—possibly some of your Lordships may have noticed it—to criticise an assertion which occurred in one of our leading journals. What I did not know at that time, but what I have learned since—and it is certainly a very interesting matter—is that the sentence:
"The case for the suspension of capital punishment is overwhelming,"
though it appeared in the leading articles of The Times which I read, and which I suppose many people near London read, had no place whatever in the earlier editions of that revered newspaper which went to Scotland or the North of England. I have had quite a number of letters, and, indeed, some communications from noble Lords who come from those northern parts, to tell me that my letter seemed to have a certain argumentative value, but that when they looked back they could not find the sentence about which I complained.
Those of your Lordships (if there are any) who still take an interest in textual criticism may perhaps speculate as to how that came about. It looks to me very much as though the original author of the article had written it without that sentence—which, incidentally, made complete nonsense of the conclusion, because if the case was overwhelming, why should the House of Lords be told that they would be perfectly justified in throwing it out? I think that at a later stage some editorial blue pencil must have been used to express the view which I, perhaps rather fiercely, ventured to controvert. Nobody, I think, will say in this House in this debate that the case is overwhelming. The truth is that it is a case that has to be carefully and impartially weighed. And I, who have at the present time formed an opinion against Clause 1, am perfectly willing and wish to weigh other arguments as impartially as I can.

407
While that is so, I hope that I may be forgiven in my turn—though in a much humbler position than the Lord Chancellor—for telling the House in a few sentences my personal view on this matter. I was not one of the ex-Home Secretaries who were privileged with an invitation to give evidence before the Committee of 1930 presided over by the Reverend James Barr, and neither was Mr. Winston Churchill, although both of us had had experience in the Home Office. Since then I have done my best to discharge my duty in that office again. If I may speak of myself for one moment, I am a man who has had the duty of prosecuting, and at other times of defending, in the courts in a number of cases of murder. Looking back, I do not know which of those two duties was the more trying and exacting. I have given much thought to this question, both from the practical and the theoretical point of view. I think I may claim that I am a man whose make-up is such that I find unduly drastic treatment, even of one who has offended, something which arouses my deepest feelings of resentment and indignation. If there is anybody in this debate, or out of it, who can convince me that my view is wrong, nobody will be more relieved than I.
Without arguing the case in detail—which would be quite improper at this stage—I may be forgiven if I endeavour to put forward four of the considerations which weigh with me. All I ask is that other people should weigh them too. The first is one which I think has been very little considered; at any rate, it has been very little expressed. It has to do with the man who is not a murderer at all. I entirely agree with my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack that the practical question is whether our existing law, which requires a murderer on conviction to be sentenced to death by the Judge, operates as a deterrent—not necessarily as a deterrent in all cases, but as a deterrent in quite a number of cases—and so discourages additional murders. It may be that in some cases it does not operate as a deterrent. I can well understand the force of the argument that when a man, in the heat of passion or provocation, is in the act of perpetrating the crime, the deterrent force of our existing law at that moment is, at least, doubtful. But I am sure that even in that
408
case our long practice may not operate, perhaps unconsciously, in the mind of the perpetrator. So much has been learned in recent years of these subconscious reactions that it is widely appreciated now that, even if a man is not realising it at the time, the traditions of the society in which he lives have, in fact, an influence on him. I do not admit that it can never operate then.
But have we not to consider the influence of the present law on quite another type of person? There are many people who have a strong reason for wishing that somebody else were dead, and they are not all murderers. There are those whose lives are not controlled, as they should be, by moral consideration, to whom the disappearance of another human being would seem to bring untold relief. There may be a man who is in a torment of anxiety because he has had a mistress and he is going to marry another lady. Is it not certain that such a man may well say to himself: "I wish she were out of the way. What a relief it would be to me if I heard to-morrow that she had dropped dead!"? Take a second example, a man who is utterly worn out with attending to some aged or half-witted person, who can never be other than an almost intolerable burden, and of whom it might be said he would be better dead. These people do not as a rule commit murder; it is the rarest case, I suppose, that they do. But are you sure that some of them, if they are without sufficient moral foundations, do not toy with the idea? And among the influences which dissuade them and force them to put such wickedness aside, you must ask yourself how much is due to the fact that, in the long tradition of our society, murder stands completely apart from other crimes. In every other ordinary crime the sentence is within the discretion of the Judge, subject to a maximum. In this case, and in this case alone, the sentence is automatic. It marks the crime as a crime that stands out beyond all others, bringing the threat of dreadful doom upon the perpetrator if he is detected, threatening his name and even the name of his family with terrible consequences. I ask myself: Does the existence of that terrible consequence bring any pause to the man who is sorely tempted to use violent means to get rid of the one and only obstacle to his relief?

409
I think we should ask ourselves whether, in those circumstances, it is reasonably safe to say that the prospect of a term of imprisonment is equally operative as a deterrent. No statistics will tell us the answer to that question. The answer is in the judgment and the common sense of individuals. We have all suffered from temptations of one kind or another, and we have to ask ourselves whether there are not people, communing with what they should do, who, because of the existence of the death penalty, reject Lady Macbeth's exhortation to "screw your courage to the sticking-place" and do the deed. Some of your Lordships may not think this consideration important. I mention it as one that has been little urged in the debate, and, searching my own heart and trying to judge the actions of fallible and perhaps wicked creatures, I am only sure that that consideration weighs with me.
We must all realise that murders are not all of the same nature. Where there has been serious provocation or extenuating circumstances, the Home Secretary—and I have served in that office—after long and careful consideration and with the advice available of men best able to help him, not only advises a reprieve but rejoices to advise a reprieve. In my experience, he searches diligently to find such materials, if he can, in the discharge of his agonising duty. But can cold-blooded, deliberate, coolly planned murder be classified and dealt with in the same way—the poisoner who plans, by secret and wicked means, by stealthy doses, to destroy the life of his wife or his enemy, waiting for his victim's death in agony, the man who plots in advance every detail of his crime, deliberately and coolly, and plans every detail of a supposed alibi? How can one regard that class of case as governed by the same considerations as the first? Our law is one which places responsibility for drawing that distinction into the hands of a responsible Minister of State, and my own experience leads me to think that on the whole that is a better way than endeavouring to define the difference by words in an Act of Parliament, the exact meaning and application of which may lead to dispute.
There is a third consideration. We shall have to ask ourselves: What is society to do with such a person as the cold-blooded deliberate murderer, if the utmost penalty is the penalty of imprisonment? The
410
answer which the Lord Chancellor gave me to-day is very illuminating on that, and some of his observations bear closely upon it. We have to realise, and everybody has to realise, that in this country, in actual fact, there is no such thing as imprisonment for life. It has been one of the results of the teaching of modern penologists, and many thoughtful men, that to shut a person up completely for the whole of his life, without the prospect of earning one day's remission for good conduct, condemned there until he rots in the grave, is one of the most horrible, bestial, barbaric treatments that was ever invented by one man to impose upon another I agree entirely with the Lord Chancellor that it is a doom far worse than death. We have long ago swept that away. You may visit the Château of Touraine; you may see the place where some notorious victim has been kept, year after year, shut up in a cage or in a dungeon. Thank Heaven we long ago got rid of all that in this country. Solitary confinement, shutting the man up so that he shall see no other human being, except perhaps the warder or chaplain, is a cruelty which no civilised society would justify.
Secondly, we have to ask ourselves how we are to deal with these cases which, under this clause, will be what one might call "let off." My own study of the science of penology, such as it is, leaves me, as it has left every reformer in that field, with the view that such a doom is worse than death. No one with practical knowledge of our modern prison system would deny that it would be a grave reversal of enlightened prison treatment if the man is to have no hope of earning remission by good conduct but is to be left endlessly in the confines of a convict establishment, with no prospect of release at any time. Yet, if you do let him out, what is the kind of man you are letting out? Not a murderer who is now reprieved and who may well, at any rate in the course of time, have appreciated that he must control his murderous impulses, but possibly a man of a very different kind. I am afraid we are placing a great strain on our credulity if we think every such person can be reformed in the course of serving a sentence in prison.
Lastly, we shall have to ask ourselves whether the years immediately before us are really wisely chosen for the purpose

411
of making this experiment. The police force is under-manned; the policeman is armed with a truncheon; and I, with some knowledge of the administration of the Metropolitan Police, would deplore bitterly the idea that we were likely now to have a police force in this country whose members go about carrying lethal weapons. The police deserve all our support in their difficult task. But what is the position they will be in if this step is taken? As the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said, there is a new type of criminal abroad. It is a sad reflection that, to a large extent, these are men who during years of war have been actually trained for the purpose of perpetrating sudden slaughter. These people are now carrying weapons, and it seems to me that we shall have to consider seriously whether the years immediately following the present are the years in which this so-called "experiment" should be tried. What about the warders in the gaols? What, indeed, about the other inhabitants of the gaols? A convict prison may well contain a man who has committed the shocking crime of defrauding his ward of great sums of money to line his own pockets; a man who has amassed wealth by a fraudulent series of company promotions; and many other types of persons. Such persons despise, loathe, and condemn the cold-blooded murderer just as much as you or I; and I think it needs very great consideration before you decide to house these people together.
I apologise for putting these observations at this stage and I will not detain your Lordships longer. But I sincerely desire to know how these considerations—and there are others—are really to be met. I would end by saying this. To my mind we have no right, on the material before us, to risk an experiment which may put in jeopardy innocent human lives. It is all very well to argue these things out as though they were abstract propositions, but I conceive that Parliament is here to protect the interests of everybody so far as it can; and when I heard the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor say just now in his speech, "No one can say whether we are right or wrong until we have tried," I shuddered. By what right are we to say: "Let us try this experiment. No one can tell whether we are right or wrong
412
until we have tried; and if at the end of the period more human lives have been sacrificed, well, that is just the luck of the thing, and we can consider whether we will go back"?
I do not agree that the onus of this matter is on those who desire to maintain the present law. When the evidence given is examined, and when some of the statements that were made to secure the vote in the other place are examined, I do not think that they will be found to throw any burden of proof upon those who seek in this matter for more serious reasons than at present exist. All this has nothing to do with the general merits of this Bill. If I have transgressed by dealing with this matter at too much length, I apologise; but I regard it as one of those issues on which there is nothing which gives the slightest encouragement to the idea that public approval has been given to the change. I think that these considerations are so important that it is necessary to mention them even on the Second Reading of the Bill.
4.16 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not propose to address you at great length, and I intend to devote my observations almost entirely to the one subject which is uppermost in the minds of all of us, and that is the proposed suspension for five years of the death penalty, provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill which now comes before us. I would, however, preface my observations by paying a tribute to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, for his great exertions in preparing the original Criminal Justice Bill, and to congratulate him on the fact that he now sees in this measure those efforts coming to fruition. I do not underestimate the importance or value of the Bill. It is one of the great virtues of this Bill, taken as a whole, that on the Second Reading stage it is unnecessary to dwell upon any of the provisions.
One clause, however, I would mention in passing, since it may prove to be controversial when we reach the Committee stage, and that is the clause for the abolition of whipping of adults as a judicial sentence. Like every other living ex-Home Secretary, I consider that that penalty should be abolished, and I welcome that clause. The expert Committee who carefully investigated this matter, after long deliberation and in an elaborate Report, unanimously recommended the abolition

413
of whipping as a judicial sentence. It exists in no civilised country in the world except here in England and Wales (it does not exist even in Scotland), in one or two of the British Dominions, and, I believe, in the States of Delaware and Maryland, in the United States. It is the last relic of the system of physical torture as a punishment for crime which came down to us from the Middle Ages; and the whole of it has now been abolished with this one exception.
With regard to the death penalty, like the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, I speak with the responsibility of having held the office of Home Secretary in this country, though it is true only for a period of a little over two years; but for five years I was High Commissioner for Palestine, where I had to deal with death sentences which, in proportion to population, were far more numerous there than in this country. I should be glad indeed if I could support any proposal which would relieve others who hold in this country the office of Home Secretary from the mental strain which devolves upon the Secretary of State when he is dealing with these cases. His is a single responsibility. The jurymen who try the case have the duty only of finding as to the facts. The judge has no discrimination and, when a verdict of guilty is brought in, his task under the law is only to pronounce sentence. The Court of Criminal Appeal, if they find no legal grounds on which to reverse the sentence, can take no action. They do not have to consider the case on its merits. The advisers in the Home Office who prepare most careful and elaborate reports on each case in turn are, of course, only advisers. His Majesty the King, in whom is vested the prerogative of pardon under the Constitution, acts always on the advice of his Minister. It is the Home Secretary alone who has to decide whether a man shall live or die.
It is in the light of those feelings that all of us who have been through that moral strain must come to our opinion and our conclusion upon this issue. Nevertheless, we have the same duty of advising Parliament, in so far as it rests upon us to advise, as we had to execute that duty itself; and we must do it without being swayed in our judgment by the very natural feelings that we must retain, having passed through such ordeals. In
414
my view two false arguments are used in support of the proposal for the abolition of the death penalty which may be put aside at the outset. One is that, as a matter of conscience, it is always wrong to take a human life, in any circumstances. Indeed, if that view were held, it would decide the matter straight away. That is the error of the pacifists who will not take up arms in any war for any purpose, and who would submit to seeing their country conquered and oppressed by an armed enemy rather than engage in resistance. The advocates of this clause have not carried that principle into effect, because they leave the death penalty still remaining for treason and for piracy.
The other argument, which I think is obviously a false one, is that because murders still continue the death penalty is no deterrent. That reasoning would lead to the abolition of any penalty for any crime, since crimes have still continued and trials have taken place. For example, take a comparatively trivial offence like shoplifting. It might be said that those who are guilty of shoplifting are subject to the harsh and, in many ways, barbarous punishment of imprisonment; that imprisonment has proved to be no deterrent because there are still cases of shoplifting; and, therefore, that you might as well substitute a fine. Since the one is not a deterrent, what does it matter whether you have the sentence or not? There is no such thing as a negative statistic. No statistician can count the number of crimes that have not been committed but which might have been committed; and therefore that argument also should be put aside.
Of greater weight is the experience of other countries. That, indeed, should lead us to be ready to reconsider the whole matter. But that experience is not uniform. In several of the States of America, the death penalty was abolished but, after experience of the result, was re-established. After a careful reading of the debate on this matter in another place a few weeks ago, I do not see that anyone has referred to the experience of France. There, M. Grévy, who was President from 1879–1887, was a convinced opponent of the death penalty and reprieved the great majority of the cases that came before him. However, public

415
opinion in France by 1887 had insisted that the death penalty should be applied. Later, M. Fallières, who assumed office in 1906, holding the view of M. Grévy, reprieved all the cases that came before him in his first two years. But here again, in September, 1908, a vote in the French Chamber had the effect of requiring him to stop that practice, and capital punishment which had been suspended was restored. And it continues to-day.
I am greatly influenced in this matter by the consideration of whether public opinion in this country now approves of the abolition of the death penalty, because this is a matter in which we must carry public opinion with us. If the general opinion of the nation is hostile, we may possibly have shocking results, if outrageous crimes are committed and if the only penalty to be inflicted is a period of years of imprisonment. Happily, we in this country have been free from political assassinations, but other countries have not. One does not know whether, in times of tumult and great controversy, and possibly of distress, we might not have political crimes such as bomb-throwing, leading to a number of deaths. Such things might occur. And if they did, and the death penalty were abolished, it might be difficult to protect the person who was supposed to have committed the crime from the fury of the crowd—as events in history have often shown us. It is essential that we should do as we do now, and that in such an event the police should make it their business to rescue for trial the person who is apparently the author of such an outrage. A crowd, acting in a state of extreme excitement, may easily lay hands on a person who is quite innocent, and a man who may be proved afterwards to have had nothing to do with the offence may suffer at their hands. Therefore, arrest and judicial trial are essential in every civilised country.
Secondly, there are the cases of policemen who are killed in the execution of their duty; and not only the police but all private individuals who, as good citizens, come to the assistance of the police—as, for instance, in the recent Antiquis case, where an innocent person, quite unconcerned, helping to obstruct the path of a criminal who had committed a murder, was shot and killed. Subsequently, your Lordships will recall, the murderer was
416
executed. Then there is the position of the prison warders, because a man already serving a life sentence has no further penalty to fear if he murders a warder. Once the death penalty has been abolished nothing worse can be done to him than would be done otherwise, except that he may be kept a few years longer in prison. No adequate deterrent is there to protect the lives of the prison staffs. Fourthly, there are murders such as those instanced by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as being of a planned and callous character, long prepared and deliberately carried out. There has been more than one case both here, in France, and possibly elsewhere, of persons who have been convicted of a series of murders, frequently of the same character. Those cases stand in a special grade of horror.
What public opinion is in this country has been illustrated by a poll taken last year. The Gallup Polls are often extraordinarily revealing of the mood of the people. Sometimes they may err, but as a rule they have proved to a considerable extent to be reliable. In June of last year the question of capital punishment was put to the usual sample of the whole population—people of all classes, ages and Parties, and of all districts. The results given in percentages, were that 68 said that they approved the retention of the death penalty, 25 said that they favoured its abolition, and 8 expressed no opinion. Strangely enough, those tests were also applied in several other countries, and in Canada the result was identical—68 per cent. again were in favour of retention. In France also there was a striking similarity—once more 68 per cent. In all three cases the number was the same, though the figures of those who expressed no opinion and those who were against differed. In the United States opinion was divided evenly, and in other countries the death penalty had been abolished and a poll was not taken. If those figures had been the other way—if 68 per cent. had expressed opinion in favour of the abolition—then I am quite certain that the advocates of immediate abolition would have quoted them as conclusive proof that the time was ripe. But if these tests are reliable, since two-thirds of those questioned have declared that they favour the retention of the death penalty, then I think it is legitimate to quote the fact in favour of that opinion being carried into effect.

417
But it is not only the ordinary man in the street who has expressed that opinion. The Home Secretary, in one of the declarations he made in the debate in another place but one which I think the noble Viscount did not actually quote, said:
"The Government find, after the most careful review of this subject, that they cannot recommend the House to support the clause…We believe that the time is not ripe for undertaking this particular reform. I do not myself believe that public opinion in the country is in favour of this clause at this time."
I do not, however, hold the view that we have to choose between the clause in the Bill or leaving things just as they are. I do not think that this proposal for the suspension of the death penalty for five years has any logic in it. Time is not the test. What we need is discrimination in its application. It has often been suggested that the law should create two degrees of murder. We have, of course, two degrees already in the distinction between manslaughter and murder. For my own part, after giving some study to the question, I doubt whether it would be possible to frame an adequate definition whereby to divide the first degree from the second degree. It is very difficult to frame a definition which would include those four categories which I have suggested and, at the same time, exclude others. However, the machinery exists for making this particular discrimination—namely, in the discretion vested in the Home Secretary. It is a very flexible and adaptable machinery and it is, in fact, now in operation, for reprieves are as numerous as executions.
The Home Office was kind enough to provide me a few months ago with some figures. I have not since asked them to include those for last year, 1947, but the figures I have are for the twelve years 1935 to 1946. During those years 273 sentences of death were passed. Of that number 113 were executed, 136 were reprieved and, in addition, there were 24 who were found to be insane. The average is that 23 death sentences are passed each year, 10 of the criminals are executed, 11 are reprieved, and 2 are found to be insane. I made a suggestion when I had the privilege of giving evidence before the Select Committee in 1930 which I adhere to now, and I submit it to your Lordships for consideration. It is that the practice under which the Home Secretary acts should be changed. Now he
418
intervenes only where there is definite reason why the law, as it is said, should not take its course. Of course, if there is any doubt as to the man's guilt, then there can be no doubt as to the Home Secretary's action. Where there is doubt there can be no doubt; for the fact that there is doubt should decide the matter for the Home Secretary. Where also there are clearly extenuating circumstances, such as a recommendation to mercy from the jury, then the Home Secretary would hesitate long before he refused to accept that recommendation; but otherwise, unless he finds specific grounds for intervention, the law takes its course and the prisoner is executed.
The suggestion I would submit is that the contrary should be the case, and that the practice should be established that the Home Secretary should reprieve except in such cases as the four categories that I have mentioned. If it is thought that such a penalty may be exacted, persons might not be tempted to commit similar crimes. Uncertainty would remain in the minds of criminal individuals as to whether they would be hanged or not, and that would perhaps be quite a good thing. I suggested in my evidence eighteen years ago that this might be brought about by a Resolution to that effect passed by the House of Commons; but on consideration I have some little doubt about it, first, because I am not sure that it would not be regarded as an interference with the Royal Prerogative, and secondly, because your Lordships' House would probably insist upon the right of a similar Resolution, and might take a different view from the other place. But it is not essential that any formal act should be performed at all. We have the good British custom of letting our law follow upon our practice. The declaration of a principle very often follows upon the adoption of a certain practice, rather than preceding it. What would be needed would be a declaration of the Government of the day, with an expression of the opinion of both Houses, as to its desirability, together with the consent of His Majesty; and an undertaking might be given that the whole matter should be considered afresh at the end of five years.
When we are asked to follow the example of other countries, let us remember that, so far as I know, none of those countries suddenly passed a law to abolish

419
the death penalty. There may have been exceptions—I am not sure—but all those about which I have seen particulars have proceeded along these lines: that they have left capital punishment on their Statute books, but have allowed it to fall into abeyance through administrative action. The last execution in Holland took place in 1860. In Belgium it was in 1863, although I believe that Belgium still has capital punishment on its Statute Book. In Norway it was in 1875; and in Denmark in 1892. The right honourable gentleman Sir John Anderson, who has had great experience in this matter, recommended this course at the end of his speech in the House of Commons, using a single sentence, which he did not elaborate. He ended his speech by saying:
"A much better and safer method would be an administrative adjustment of the criterion upon which the Prerogative of mercy is recommended by the Home Secretary."
The late Sir Alexander Paterson, who has also been quoted in this connection, advocated not abolition but allowing the matter to fall into abeyance. The Select Committee of the House of Commons on Capital Punishment on the last page of their Report in 1930 made some conditional recommendations. They said that should Parliament decide to maintain the death penalty, certain Recommendations should be made. The fourth of these Recommendations reads:
"That there might be a still larger exercise of the Royal Prerogative, and a raising of the line that has come through precedent to mark the limit of its application; and that such a raising of the line could be effected through a Resolution of the House of Commons."
That was similar to the advice which I had given in the evidence to which I have referred. As to the desirability of this being done by Resolution of the House of Commons, perhaps that is a matter which requires further consideration. As to the action to be taken by your Lordships, that will be decided only when we come to the Committee stage. I have no doubt that the course then taken will depend very greatly on the opinions expressed on one side or the other in the present debate on Second Reading.
I do not agree with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in saying that your Lordships' House should regard themselves as precluded from
420
judging this matter on its specific merits by reason of the fact that the House of Commons, on a free vote, has taken a particular course. There are cases in which your Lordships' House subordinates its judgment as to what is right and desirable owing to its own constitutional position. Such a case is one in which a Government whose Bill is under discussion have had a clear mandate from the people for the policy which is being carried into effect. That cannot be claimed in this case. If it had been so, how would it have been possible for the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary to vote against this clause, and for the Government as a whole to advise the House of Commons not to accept it. Nor can it be said, in view of that circumstance and the attitude of the Government themselves, that the general weight of the House of Commons was behind this proposal. Consequently, I submit, it is the duty of your Lordships not to take into account the Parliamentary situation at the moment. Your Lordships House must bear its own responsibility for taking what in its opinion is the right course in the presence of history and in accordance with what it may consider to be the wishes of the nation.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER: My Lords, it may be thought fitting that some opinion should be expressed from these Benches in regard to a measure which has been so long in preparation and is so wide in its scope and so obviously humane in its intention as the measure which we are now considering. It may also reasonably be supposed that on these Benches we ought to be characteristically more concerned with the sphere of grace than with the sphere of law, with such matters as repentance and forgiveness rather than with crime and punishment. But circumstances to-day combine to show that those two spheres are profoundly interdependent. The prison reformers and the law reformers increasingly recognise the value of spiritual and moral appeals in their treatment of offenders; and preachers and moralists alike have cause to realise that their appeals are little likely to be heard, or even understood, in societies in which there is a growing disrespect for law and in which anarchy increases.

421
This Bill contains many provisions, the wisdom or the value of which I lack the expert judicial experience to assess. But the heart and core of the Bill is fairly plain, and it has been made lucid by the speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I am sure we are all sorry that discussion on one particular subject should so cloud the general debate on this great measure. It has, I take it, a two-fold intention. The first is to treat the hardened offender pretty seriously and severely, by extending the period of his detention and by applying to him a richer selection of vigorous treatments, while on the other side the Bill is designed to extend and increase the probation method of dealing with those who are likely to respond to gentler and kindlier handling. I am sure that I speak for the majority on these Benches in extending a most sincere and warm welcome to this measure and in joining in the tributes which have been paid to its original begetter, Lord Templewood.
That said, there are one or two doubts in my mind concerning this Bill—not very serious, perhaps, but worth mentioning—in regard to which I should be grateful for some reassurance. I am sure that many of us will agree that this Bill has been so long in gestation that it is a little unfortunate in the time of its birth—in more ways than one. I am bound to ask myself whether this may not be another Bill some of the provisions of which it may be impossible to carry out owing to the exigencies of the time, and other provisions of which, if carried out, owing to the exigencies of the time may be in danger of turning confusion into chaos.
I recall that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor rebuked the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in the debate on the gracious Speech eighteen months ago, for expressing regret that this Bill had not by then been brought forward. The Lord Chancellor said in effect: "Ah! but this Bill involves a great deal of building, and I think it ought to be put off until building on a large scale, as we hope, becomes possible again." The Bill certainly does involve a great deal of building. A vast number of remand hostels, homes, detention centres and prisons will be necessary, and I ask myself: Has the situation so changed that
422
we can embark on this elaborate programme in the near future? Again, it is essential, for the purposes of this Bill, that there should be accommodation for hardened offenders who will be serving immensely longer terms of imprisonment. Go into any of our prisons to-day, and you will find the governors completely at a loss because their establishments are so overcrowded. In some cases two or three prisoners are sleeping together in one cell. We cannot take advantage of the many existing methods of special treatment because governors of the prisons cannot secure the accommodation which is necessary.
We have had experience of some other measures which have done harm as well as good through being hurried forward without regard to the times. Some of us feel that rather deeply with regard to the raising of the school leaving age, that its consequences have been fraught with dangers for schools and also for children. Some of us feel that the National Health Service Act may yet have the effect for a time of depriving people of adequate medical assistance, with the entirely praiseworthy intention of some day or other providing medical attention for all. Some of these measures seem to have behind them a kind of momentum which carries them forward regardless of contemporary conditions to which they have to be applied.
This Bill is unfortunate in the time of its birth. It seems to me that although, when it was first thought of, it could reasonably lave been urged that the treatment of offenders had a certain priority claim upon public attention, that would be a difficult statement to uphold now. The people who have a priority on our attention to-day are not the people in prison, but the people who ought to be there and are not—the great number of criminals who at the present time are allowed to go scot-free and who are bringing the law, and the power of enforcing it in this country, into serious discredit. I would make this point very seriously It is difficult to exaggerate the profound ill-effects on the public conscience which this temporary collapse of the law is bringing about. I know that that is no final argument against this Bill and of course I do not suggest it as such. But I feel that those who promote this Bill

423
ought to conceive themselves as under a serious obligation to press forward far more effectively than they have done hitherto with the enlargement of the police force, building it up and making it really effective. I ask them whether honestly and truly they think that the inclusion of Clause 1 will assist them in that supremely important work. I think it is bound to make their work much more difficult.
I realise that the central interest in this Bill lies, rather unfortunately, in Clause 1. And I feel at a disadvantage in trying to say something on that great subject from these Benches, and from my point of view, without more having been said in support of it. It makes one feel that one is flogging a dying if not a dead horse. I cannot but feel there is more to be said in favour of the first clause as it stands than has so far been mentioned in your Lordships' House. I want to be quite honest. The most difficult argument to counter, though it does not control my mind, is the fact that capital punishment takes away permanently all possibility of reforming in this life the person who is affected. The fact that this is a difficult subject is evidenced by the way in which even Christian thinkers have differed about it through the years. That is significant, because it may reasonably be thought that a belief in the future life is a decisive factor, at one point, on the view we take. I do not forget that St. Augustine, as quoted in the Report of the Committee, and our greatly revered leader, William Temple, in evidence before the Committee, took a view contrary to that which has been defended to-day. I do not know what view William Temple would have taken if he had been giving his evidence now, in these post-war years. As to St. Augustine, the death penalty in his time was administered in a very different way from that in which it is administered to-day.
I shall not try to make the various points which I should have tried to make, and which have been effectively made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—and still more, perhaps, from my point of view, by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel—but I will underline what was said about taking the decision on this subject on its merits. It is unthinkable
424
that this House should allow its opinion on this subject to be governed by thoughts of what effect it may have on the Parliament Bill, or any consequence of that kind. The country is waiting for an honest expression of your Lordships' mind on this subject, and it would be wrong not to see that they have it. I should like to emphasise again, and even more strongly, the point that in the administration of the death penalty we have at this time in this country an extraordinarily rich and flexible system and mode of action. It has been evolved, bit by bit, partly through statutory changes and partly through experience as people went along, but which, when you think about it, is an extraordinarily rich and, I believe, satisfactory provision. I say this as one who has been privileged to see pastorally a good deal of several murderers after they have been condemned to death. There is so much opportunity (more opportunity than the public either realise or, perhaps, can be allowed to realise) for the exercise of mercy, as well as for the satisfaction of justice. We must be satisfied by the strongest possible reasons that we are not interfering arbitrarily and needlessly in so happy a balance of forces as are embodied in our administration of the death penalty at this time. I think we should be wise to leave the question to the day—if ever such a day comes—when no British jury can be found to find any one guilty of murder without a recommendation to mercy.
Again, I should like to emphasise, from the point of view of one who sits on these Benches, the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, about the inadequacy of the principle of the sacredness of life—at any rate as stated in another place in such an unqualified manner. That does not seem to me, in its unqualified form, either a reasonable or a Christian principle. Of course Christians believe in the sacredness of human life and, to some extent, in the sacredness of all life. But it has never been a characteristic of Christian belief to say there is nothing sufficiently sacred to allow of life being surrendered or taken for its sake. If anyone is interested in the official view of the Church of England on this subject, I may recall the modest language of the Thirty-seventh Article of Religion, which says that for sufficiently

425
heinous offences Christian men may be put to death. I would go further and recall the words, and the author of the words:
"It were better for him if a great millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea."
I find it difficult for anyone to suggest that those words imply an unqualified reverence for human life as such.
If I do not take up too much of your Lordships' time, I would venture to add a few suggestions for the consideration of your Lordships. First of all, I would suggest that we ought all to beware in thinking about the death penalty, lest the almost pathological fear of punishment in almost any form which is so common to-day enters into our judgment and, without our knowing it, affects our decision on the death penalty. No doubt there are excellent reasons for the disuse of punishment in home and school, and in other spheres. In the past it has been often used excessively and stupidly, but there are also sinister reasons behind the lost belief in punishment as something which has any essential and intrinsic value and any possible remedial effects on persons to whom it is given. God forbid that we should go back on much of the progress that has been made in regard to the use of punishment. I would, however, draw your Lordships' attention to this fact—and I think those who are most keen on prison reform will feel that this is a pertinent question—that the more we have made provision, by our prison treatment and in other ways, for appealing to the better nature of criminals, the more frequently we find that there is less better nature to which to appeal. I believe that when you look deeply into the matter, it may well be felt that one of the reasons is that we have gone too far in the way of fear of the use of punishment. It is possible even that the heyday of what I might call Patersonian optimism in this matter has, at any rate for the time being, passed. I feel that perhaps in some respects this Bill is a little infected at some points by an excessive fear of punishment. I certainly view with some alarm the extent to which the door is opened to the opinions and influence of more medical men and more psychiatrists.
But I would go further still, and take the opportunity of recalling to your Lord-
426
ships' minds what I would call the social aspect of punishment. I believe that this is one of the most relevant considerations in regard to the difficult point at issue. We all know, and yet we all tend to forget, that originally punishment is awarded by society as a kind of summons to individual members of society to make reparation and atonement for actions which, in the judgment of society as a whole, menace its well-being or its continued existence. In that sense, from the beginning right through history, punishment awarded by the community has served in the most profound way to express, to satisfy and, above all, to educate the conscience of the community. I know that, largely owing to Christian influences, there has grown up inside what I may call the objective social view and social use of punishment; a quite different use of punishment, which is governed primarily by consideration of its remedial effect upon the individual offender. But though that is perfectly right and healthy (and may that kind of development go as far as it possibly can) I suggest that it is easy to think too lightly that we can get along without the primitive framework whereby punishment is awarded by the State in a quite objective way.
I feel that this goes deep and, with all respect to previous speakers, I believe that the deepest point is not just whether the death penalty deters a certain number of people from committing murder—whether it reduces or increases by a certain fraction the number of murders—but what the effect of abolishing the death penalty on the education of the conscience of the community as a whole will be; how far it will affect the general sense of the wicked-ness of wickedness, the general sense of the criminality of crime, and the general sense that some crimes are infinitely more heinous than others. I think that in such a community as ours people's minds are affected as regards what is right and what is wrong largely by what the State penalises and the extent to which the State penalises; and that principle can only be left behind at great risk and great danger.
One other aspect of the primitive objective view of punishment is certainly the principle of equivalence; the idea that in some sense the punishment should be the equivalent of the crime. I know that it is easy to make fun of that, and to draw out its absurd aspects in primitive society, but

427
here again I believe there is a profound wisdom which, with things as they are, we neglect at our peril. Certainly there is the danger in this Bill—though I do not press the point—that if we think merely in individual terms and make the punishments so flexible that they vary with every individual, we shall, by making our system as flexible as that, make people's idea of what is right and wrong too flexible also. I am surprised, especially on reading the report of the debate in another place, at the number of Socialists who take a profoundly individualistic view of punishment. They are not alone in that, because one of the strongest exponents of the case against Clause 1 in another place was thankful that our legal system had no trace whatever of the social function of punishment left in it.
Lastly, I would refer to something that was well said by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, recalling the sense of the profound difference between the death penalty and any other kind of penalty. The death penalty has about it a vertical dimension and, therefore, in my view, is capable of arousing, and does in fact arouse among an immense number of people, what I can only describe as a quasi-religious sense of awe. I am told that there are people with perverted ambitions who want to become murderers to get notoriety, and the like. There may be such people; there probably are. But I suggest that, if that is so, the people who are responsible are the people who write up murder cases in the way that they do in the papers, rather than those who feel sincerely that capital punishment ought to remain.
I have been speaking about capital punishment and the death penalty because I believe that one cannot really discuss the suspension of the death penalty without forming a judgment in regard to the death penalty itself. I can well understand that those who wish to see the death penalty abolished will vote for the suspensory clause, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread. But, if one does not take that view, then I cannot see any real reason for supporting Clause 1 as it stands. After all, what is going to decide in the next five years whether there are a few more murders or a few less is not the mere suspension
428
of the death penalty. Many other factors will come in: for example, the strength of the police force; the number of deserters who are about trying to live on their wits; and, possibly, the question whether the spirit of enterprise is still so largely and widely diverted from legitimate channels. Beyond that, I urge that the question to be considered is not simply whether there will be a few more murders or a few less, but the whole attitude of the British people to what I have described as the criminality of crime, and to the majesty of the whole system of law from top to bottom. We cannot come to a decision about the effects of this clause on that in five years. I hope I have not detained your Lordships too long. It is with such a serious reservation, and with the one or two doubts I expressed at the start, but also with sincere appreciation of the great bulk of this measure so far as I understand it, that I support the Motion.
5.10 p.m.
LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, I have to crave your Lordships' indulgence, as this is the first occasion on which I have addressed your Lordships' House. I would not wish to do so in so important a debate as this were it not that I have had considerable experience in the administration of criminal justice. It is for that reason alone that I make the speech that I am going to make and in which I intend merely to act as a witness for the result of my experience as a Judge in criminal justice. I am not unaware that some people think that His Majesty's Judges—and perhaps Judges in general—are inclined to be hardened by the administration of criminal justice. I do not take that view, and I believe that my brethren on the Bench have as their highest ambition not only to be just Judges but to be merciful Judges.
I would remind your Lordships that it is the Judges of this country who have established the fundamental principle of the criminal law that a man is presumed to be innocent until he is proved to be guilty. That has been evolved as a principle by the Judges of this country, and not by the Legislature. I submit to your Lordships that the administration of the criminal law during the period that I have been on the Bench, at any rate, has been a merciful administration of justice, and

429
that full use has been made during that period of the system of probation and of binding over which is consolidated and to a large extent perhaps improved in the Bill which is before your Lordships' House.
Now I want to say a few words upon the question of the proposed abolition of the capital sentence, and also upon the proposed abolition of hard labour and whipping. I am quite aware that what I say about hard labour and whipping will probably not meet with the same approval of your Lordships' House as my views upon the subject of the abolition of the capital sentence, but I feel that it is my duty to express my opinion upon it. In the first place, I consider that all these punishments—the capital penalty, hard labour (in so far as it still exists, and if it exists, as I think it ought to exist) and whipping—are all the greatest deterrents. It is not because I view those punishments with equanimity that I wish them to be continued. I have the greatest horror of the capital sentence; I have the greatest horror of imprisonment; I have the greatest horror of whipping: but I have a greater horror for the crimes for which they are imposed.
I would ask your Lordships to consider the atmosphere in a criminal court in this country when a murder trial is going on. Everyone who has at any time been in a criminal court can feel the tense anxiety which is felt not only by the Judge, but by the jury, by the police and by every person who enters that court. What is it that inspires that sense of anxiety? What is it but a horror and a fear of death? Again, one hears frequently put forward as a reason for the abolition of the capital penalty the fact that the carrying out of the sentence has a terrible effect upon the prison officers, and that everyone in the prison is so shocked by the carrying out of capital sentences that the whole prison is disorganised. Is it not really the same horror of death, the same instinct for self-preservation, which inspires those who are in favour of the abolition of the capital penalty? In those circumstances, how can it be said that the fear of death is not a real deterrent, and not the greatest deterrent? Are criminals, or would-be criminals, the only people who have no horror of death? I put it to your Lordships that it is one of the fundamental characteristics of human nature
430
that the capital penalty is the thing which is most dreaded of all.
It is sometimes said by those in favour of the abolition that it is a question of conscience. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Winchester, who has just spoken, have both shown that that is not a true statement or a sound argument. I put it to your Lordships that it is not a question of conscience; it is a question of nerve. When one thinks of whether it is a question of conscience, one has to think of what one feels about imprisonment. To take away a man's freedom is surely just as contrary to one's conscience as to take away his fife. In fact, as bat great prison reformer, Sir Alexander Paterson, said in his evidence before the Committee in 1930, to condemn a man to imprisonment for more than fifteen years involved such a mental and physical deterioration in the man that it was worse than death. Therefore, it seems to me that there is only a difference in degree between imposing the capital penalty and the penalty of imprisonment. In that way, I submit that the question of conscience does not really enter into it, except, of course, in so far as every judgment that one gives is a conscientious judgment.
It seems to me a most extraordinary and irrational thing that in this Bill, whilst corporal punishment generally is abolished, it is retained for certain cases within the prisons. If corporal punishment is no deterrent, what is the point of retaining it for offences against prison officers? Is it the view of the Government that prison officers alone should be protected, and that the police and the public should not be protected? I pass then from the question of deterrents. I submit to your Lordships that these are the great deterrents: first, the capital penalty; secondly, imprisonment, and lastly, whipping.
I want now to ask—although I think the point has to some extent already been clearly and forcibly put by he noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon—is this the time in which to introduce this change in the law? The statistics which were given in another place by tire Home Secretary showed the great increase of crime, and the increase is so great that the prisons are overcrowded. Then there is the fact that we as a nation have just been join-

431
ing with other countries in putting to death our enemies in Germany. It seems to me somewhat difficult to justify putting to death your enemies—who, after all, committed their crimes in the heat of war, and against people whom they regarded as their enemies—and at practically the some time abolish the penalty of death in your own country. I would also put it to your Lordships that the time is not ripe, because there is a lack of discipline in the country which gives rise to this wave of crime; and anything which interferes with the country's ideas of discipline should be discouraged. This is a subject which was forcibly dealt with by the right reverend Prelate.
The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, also dealt with the question of what is to be done with murderers when they are released, and what punishment is to be inflicted upon them. The Bill says nothing about it. Is the sentence to be one of ten years, or of fifteen years, or of twenty years, or is it to be for life? And, of course, Clause 52 provides that the Home Secretary may order a murderer's release at any time: he may let him out in a month. There are, of course, infinite varieties of murderers; and I put it to you that the present system, with its complete flexibility, is one which should not be altered. First of all, there is the trial before a Judge and jury; and, as your Lordships know, the Judge is most anxious to explain to juries the presumption of innocence of which I have reminded your Lordships, and to go most thoroughly into every possibility of innocence on the part of the prisoner. The juries themselves are equally anxious to acquit the prisoner if they can. The criminal then goes, as a rule, before the Court of Criminal Appeal, where the case is again most anxiously examined; and then you have the completely flexible examination by the Home Secretary, who has the opportunity, if he wishes, to see the Judge who tried the case. In some instances I myself have been interviewed by the Home Secretary, and have discussed the whole case with him. He has absolute flexibility whereby to decide whether or not the prerogative of mercy should be exercised. I cannot think that any classification of murderers or of murders would be of real benefit. It is far better, in my respectful opinion, to
432
leave the matter as it is—completely at the discretion of the Home Secretary.
Now I wish to say a word or two on the subject of hard labour and whipping. I have already said that I believe that some form of severe punishment ought to be instituted, that hard labour ought to be re-introduced, and that whipping and hard labour act as most severe deterrents. The principal reason why I advocate that is that at the present time there is an absolute division between the Judge who tries the case and the prison officials who have the care of the man afterwards. If this Bill is passed, and is to apply to prisoners over twenty-one years of age, there will be no way in which the Judge can affect the sentence except by the length of time for which he imprisons the man. There are many cases in which a crime has been committed of a nature which is so shocking that the Judge feels it essential that the man should be made to remember his crime, and never to forget it. A man may have committed a crime under the influence of drink; he may be a man who is of immense importance to his family. And yet the only way in which the Judge can give that man an adequate sentence is by ordering him a long term of imprisonment—which is the very opposite of what he desires to do, because he wishes to let the man out again to his family as quickly as possible.
I remember particularly one case that I had to try, where a man who was said to be an extremely good father and an extremely good husband had, under the influence of drink, violated his own daughter of under five years of age. How is one to deal with such a case as that? What does hard labour mean? It means nothing more than a plank bed for the first fortnight of imprisonment. But now, even the name is to be taken away, and the prisoner is to go into the care of the Prison Commissioners—who probably know nothing whatever about the case, because they cannot possibly go into the facts in the same detail as the Judge does before he sentences the prisoner. The Prison Commissioners cannot see the man other than as a man who has been found guilty of indecent assault, or larceny, or burglary or whatever it may be; and they see him as a captive, not as a free man. They do not see what he has done; they see him only in a category of prisoners. They cannot in those circumstances make the punishment, as I think it should, fit the crime.

433
I am not advocating any intolerable severity of punishment, but I submit to your Lordships and to the Government that there should be some distinction in the forms of imprisonment which can be imposed by the Judge who has to try the case.
There is one further point that I wish to make. I think it would be a good thing if provision could be brought into this Bill to increase the assistance which is given by the Government to discharged prisoners. But I wanted to submit to your Lordships the reasons why I oppose the abolition of the capital penalty and of the other penalties to which I have referred. In my view, they ought to be retained, because they are fundamental punishments which the ordinary man can understand and for which he will never lose his dread.
5.29 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, it is, I feel, a great privilege to follow the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, and I wish to congratulate him on a great speech, full of wisdom and of good advice. I only hope that those in another place who voted for the abolition of capital punishment will read that speech and will gather wisdom and perhaps an altered opinion therefrom. As I am sure your Lordships would wish to do if you were in my position, I most heartily congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his magnificent speech, and look forward to being present on many occasions in the future to hear him speak again.
The decision which was come to by a free vote in another place is a very grave one. I am in entire agreement with what the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down said about the reasons for retaining the various punishments to which he referred. I hope that in the end your Lordships will reverse the decision arrived at in the other House. I do not think that much has been said about this point, but I am wondering whether any of those who voted in the way they did in another place have ever experienced the sorrow, the misery and the suffering caused in the families of people who have been brutally murdered or brutally knocked about. I cannot believe that any who have had that experience would have voted as those Members did. As I understand it, the death penalty is not imposed with any idea of punishment and vengeance. In
434
my view, the whole idea of this penalty is to stop the individual from ever committing that crime again. With regard to the imposition of fifteen years' imprisonment, I understand that there are many cases where men have come out and have committed the same offence again. For that reason, I feel that there is no quest on whatever but that we should continue the present practice.
I have not been in your Lordships' House all the afternoon so I do not know whether anybody has raised this point. However, I am told that each year there are quite a number of people who disappear and are never heard of again, I am also told that the police are very suspicious of certain people who are at large and who may be responsible for those disappearances. But there is no evidence to convict them and, therefore, they roam abroad and no doubt get an opportunity of committing the same crime again. These unknown murderers are a menace to society. We know that to-day there are one or two of them at large in this country but they cannot be caught. I was so glad to hear the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken go into some detail in regard to the great investigation that takes place at murder trials. It would seem almost impossible that there could be a miscarriage of justice, and I do not believe that there is, because if there is one iota of suspicion that the man or the woman concerned is not guilty, a reprieve is granted. There is another matter upon which I feel very strongly. We look about the world to-day and what do we see? We see the rule of law, as always understood by civilised nations, being usurped by the rule of murder. We all know the meaning of the word "liquidation." There seems to me to be no question whatever that the weakening on penalties of this sort is just pandering to those in the world who carry on their vicious persecution of people and rule by fear. I consider he present to be a most dangerous time in which to relax any penalties, particularly those for violent crimes.
The position of the police has been mentioned. The abolition of these penalties must weaken the position of the police. I understand that we are 6,000 policemen short in London to-day. What chance is there of obtaining many recruits in view of present conditions? They are

435
batting on a pretty bad wicket now, knowing that every gangster in the country is armed with a gun whilst they are not. We have recently seen instances of brutal murder which have been occasioned because of that fact. This splendid force of police should not be put into a worse position than that in which they are to-day. From the remarks of those in the police force to whom I have spoken, I believe that the last thing they want is to be armed. But I cannot see any alternative. If capital punishment is abolished, it will be necessary to take into serious consideration the question of arming our police who, after all, are responsible for the safety not only of our families but also of our possessions.
I believe that a strong and fairly treated police force would be a great safeguard against a brutal minority Government, if we should ever have one here. We see conditions in other countries where the police force has been influenced and affected by not getting proper treatment. We all know the result, and we can mention several countries where it would have been all to the advantage of the people if the police had been in a better position. After all, what is this idea? I am quite certain that the whole of this idea is merely political; it cannot be anything else. I have read various speeches and many of them seem to contain nothing but emotional politics. Do not let this noble House of ours be carried away by anything of that sort. In the totalitarian States there is this rule of murder, this liquidation. Do not let us forget that. We are a little inclined to say: "Oh, that sort of thing cannot happen here"; but I cannot believe that the Prime Minister would have made the speech he did the other day about the Communists unless he knew how dangerous the situation was in regard to the matter to which I have just referred.
I feel very strongly about this subject, and the speeches to which I have listened to-day, made by great men with great knowledge of the law, naturally appeal to a layman like myself, as I am sure they must have appealed to other members of your Lordships' House. The noble and learned Lord who has just spoken referred to the question of deterrent. A man is sentenced to death. Does not the fact that in nearly every
436
case he appeals against the sentence show his fear of death? As the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down has explained to us so well, that fear in itself is a deterrent to crime. There is just one thing I should like to suggest. I am wondering whether our present system, by which the final word is given by the Home Secretary, is not rather an unfair one. I make this suggestion: that when the trial has taken place and an appeal is lodged and is not successful, a tribunal of some of the great Judges might be set up to give the final decision. If one puts oneself in the position of a Home Secretary who has just taken office with a case coming before him, one realises that it is extremely difficult for him to come to a decision, no matter whom he can consult. I feel that if we had somebody such as I suggest to make the final decision, it would be better. Unlike the Lord Chancellor, I am not at all influenced by the way in which a minority of the members of the other place voted. In this case I shall wholeheartedly support the Cabinet view on the matter.
5.41 p.m.
LORD HOLDEN: My Lords, in warmly supporting this Bill I had not intended to refer to any controversial matter but entirely to confine my remarks to probation work. However, I think some of your Lordships might think I was burking the matter which certainly is foremost in your minds, so on this occasion I would like to be the first to say that I wholeheartedly support the abolition of whipping and capital punishment. I have done so for the past twenty years. Ever since I was a candidate for the Liberal Party in the 1929 Election I have publicly stated so, and to me it is a matter of conscience and a moral issue. I am not influenced by statistics on either side, either to prove that this suspension which is adumbrated by the Amendment in another place is likely to fail or otherwise.
Having said that, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to pass on to less controversial matters. On reading through the Bill, I think your Lordships will agree that to a large extent its successful operation depends upon the probation service. I feel there is no doubt about that. Apart, of course, from its reformatory and humane clauses, one of the main objects of the Bill is to keep young people out of

437
prison, which is obviously something which can not only mar but even ruin a young person's life. In the few short remarks I propose to address to your Lordships I would like to say one or two things on the main probation provisions of the Bill, although I do so with more trepidation than usual after the kindly remarks of the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, in regard to my supposed knowledge of the subject. Up to now, probation has been regulated mainly by the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907, and this envisaged three methods—by a dismissal, a binding over or the placing of an offender under probation. Under the new Act the word "probation" will refer only to people who are actually put on probation, that is, under a probation officer. That, I think, is a good arrangement.
Another change which I welcome is that no longer have recognisances to be demanded from offenders. Again, I am glad to see that the consent and willing co-operation of every offender of 14 years and over is to be required for a probation order, although people under 14 may be placed on probation without their being prepared to give that willing consent and co-operation. For binding over, which I think has often made for difficulty in the past, has now been substituted the power to discharge the offender, provided that no offence is committed for twelve months from the time of his charge. I am sure that this will be of great advantage in the working of the probation system. I am also glad that the Bill gives an entirely new power, that of insisting that an offender shall receive medical attention where necessary, or when the Court is satisfied on medical evidence that this is necessary. I know that psychiatry is sometimes laughed at, particularly with regard to young people, and sometimes the more old-fashioned method of the big stick is applauded and advised. Personally, I have never been one of those who believe that if you hit a young person long enough you will, in the end, make him a good citizen.
I also welcome the new procedure for probation committees, which have, of course, been in existence for a very long time. But I think there is one point particularly which will cause some difficulty—namely, that every probation committee are required to provide a sufficient number of probation officers, or at least to
438
appoint a sufficient number of probation officers, for their petty sessional division. I know, from slight experience, the great difficulty that exists of finding probation officers, and I am quite certain that hat requirement will impose on probation committees a very difficult task. I am also glad to see, as another new measure, hat one woman is to be appointed by each probation committee of every petty sessional division; and also that all women or girls who are placed on probation will have to be placed under the supervision of a woman probation officer. I would also like to welcome some of the new financial arrangements—in particular, that which enables the probation committee, under safeguard, to incur expenses without in every case obtaining the approval of the local authority concerned.
Now I must refer to a clause which causes me anxiety, despite what was said by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in a passing reference to it. It is Clause 4, subsection (1). It is a matter about which I may be entirely wrong, and I should like to be proved so. Under the present law, a court of summary jurisdiction can make a probation order without proceeding to a conviction. Under this clause that is impossible. So far as I understand it, a court of summary jurisdiction will in future be unable to make any order for probation without previously convicting an offender. May I give an example of my anxiety? A young person can now be put on probation without conviction and, when; hat person comes later in life to answer a questionnaire, perhaps for employment or particularly for the Armed Services, in answer to the question, "Have you ever been convicted in a court of law?" at the present moment he can truthfully say, "No, I have not." So far as I can see, if this clause as it is now drafted is passed, that will no longer be possible. It is within my knowledge, and I think of all of us who have had anything to do with probation work, that many people have succeeded in re-establishing themselves in society just because no conviction has been recorded against them in a court of law. If I read this clause aright I cannot help thinking that this is a retrograde rather than a progressive step for the probation service, and I know that it will cause a great deal of alarm with probation officers in London, with whom I have had certain contact.

439
At the beginning of my remarks I referred to the importance of the probation service. This Bill depends to an extreme degree on the probation service and, as a corollary of that, naturally, upon the probation officers, whether men or women. We have certainly progressed since the late days of the last century, when the probation service was a voluntary one; and one might call the probation officers missionaries of our courts of law. We have given them further facilities, particularly with regard to training, not only in this Bill but also in the Probation Officers (Superannuation) Bill, which was introduced last July by the noble Lord, Lord Walkden, and which sought to improve their condition on retirement. In my opinion, there is no finer body of public servants in this country than our probation officers. I am quite certain that, in the future, when the time arrives for larger emoluments and greater amenities to be extended to all public servants, His Majesty's Government will not forget our probation officers.
5.50 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, it is late, and I do not propose, unless I lead myself astray, to address your Lordships at any great length. In particular, I do not intend on this occasion to say anything at all about the death penalty, except this. We have been invited to try an experiment. I, for one, do not feel inclined to take part in an experiment which may be at the expense of risk to the lives of every policeman and every warder in the country. Before I pass from that to the main substance of the Bill, I would like to say one word in answer to an observation which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Holden, a moment ago. Of course, I cannot pretend to possess anything like his knowledge or to have had his experience of the probation system. But I think I ought to say (and I know this view is held by many others besides myself, people who have experience of it, though perhaps not so great experience as that of the noble Lord) that we attach very great importance to the change made by Clause 4 (1). It has always seemed to many of those who are most interested in this matter of probation that a system which pretended that a person had not been convicted when, in fact, he had,
440
was an absurd system. It was all the more absurd because it enabled the person concerned afterwards to say truthfully that he had not been convicted, although in fact he had been put on probation for the sole reason that he had committed a crime. He was, in fact, in a position to deceive a person before whom he appeared. I do not wish to enter into controversy with the noble Lord, because I greatly value his opinion, but I felt that I ought to say that before proceeding further.
To come to my main argument. We are faced, so far as we can foresee, with a wave of crime, a wave of crime which is particularly distressing, because it seems to come from the younger members of the population. It is due, no doubt, to causes which it is difficult to analyse. In the first place, probably, the disturbance of the war has had a good deal to do with it. Secondly, if I may say so respectfully in the presence of the right reverend Prelate, it is due to the weakening of the traditions of religion. Thirdly, it is due, I think, to the new view which many large sections of the population are taking of crime and punishment. There is no doubt, in my mind, that far too much now is done to fuss over, to pet and to commiserate with the criminal, and far too little to commiserate with his victim. I am sure that this induces a frame of mind which is wrong in itself and—although this is repeating what the right reverend Prelate has already said—it tends to banish the idea of punishment. Punishment, grievous as it must be to anyone to inflict it, is the essence of the criminal law. It is the essence of many other laws also, but without punishment neither the reformation, which is urged, nor the deterrents, for which we strive, can be achieved. Nor can the sense of security which is necessary to our social existence, prevail.
Ever since 1925—if I may be allowed to indulge in personal reminiscence for a moment—when I sat at the feet of the late Lord Haldane, than whom there was no more eager and zealous promoter of the probation system, I have watched that system and sympathised with it. And, within my small limits, I have put it into operation. I have no doubt that it has proved of great value, and, pausing there, I would like to repeat, merely for the discharge of my own conscience,

441
what has already been said in this House about probation officers. They perform a task which sometimes seems to me impossible. They work extremely hard, bringing both sympathy and hard-headed advice to the courts, but they do not sentimentalise over the convicted person or the person placed on probation. They do their best for him and in many cases, no doubt, put him in the right way and keep him there. While I say that about the probation officers, I would like to say a word also about another force, in another connection, the police. In my own county, at least, no session of a criminal court ever passes in which the police do not say a good word for the convicted prisoner. They are just as much the friend of the prisoner as the probation officer. I do not mean that after conviction they are his friend to the same extent as the probation officer; but they are his friend. I have never known a police officer who has failed to be helpful in the way I have mentioned. I am not now speaking of such an important court as that over which my noble friend Lord Oaksey presides, but of inferior courts such as Courts of Quarter Session and magistrates' courts. In such courts, I have never known police officers do other than their best for the prisoner. They never do anything to make his case worse than he makes it himself.
In the circumstances, what does this Bill offer to us? We have heard a chorus of congratulation about it and there are in it, no doubt, many valuable provisions. Some were mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack—the power to inflict a fine for felony, the cutting down of the Borstal age from 23 to 21, the enlargement of powers of preventive detention. All these, and particularly the last, are matters for which those who have taken an interest in punishment and in the administration of the criminal law have striven for years; and they are greatly to be welcomed. I pick these out only because the noble and learned Viscount touched upon them, but there are other matters which are also valuable. Broadly speaking, what does the Bill do? It envisages an almost bewildering series of buildings in which things are to happen. Everyone who has to do with the criminal law—and particularly who is acquainted with the work of such courts as the Courts of Quarter Ses-
442
sion and magistrates' courts—desires classification. Without classification the work of the reformation of the younger offender who must go to prison (I will say a word in a moment about sending him to prison) is impossible. In this connection, I did not say this before, so perhaps I should say it now. None of the courts with which I have been associated has ever sent anyone to prison if any other way of dealing with him could be found. I ask the House to take that for granted, as something that is common ground between us all. But, as I say, what is done in this measure?
In the first place the Bill gives legal effect to what has actually been the fact for some time—the abolition of the distinction between penal servitude and hard labour. The abolition both of the use of those words and of those systems is a fact to which it is now sought to give statutory sanction. That change seems to me to point to the fact that what has been clone in the last few years must have been irregular. The Bill abolishes—I do not know if it does so in words but it does so in fact—the old business about divisions. I admit that the distinction between penal servitude and hard labour has already disappeared in practice. I regret both changes. The convicted prisoner, whether convicted on his own confession, after pleading guilty, or by the verdict of the jury, has been heard in court. The case against him has been heard and all that can be said in his favour has been said. The police officer and the probation officer have both done their best to inform the mind of the chairman of all the circumstances of the case, so far as they know it. A report of it is probably published in the local paper, and the neighbours know about it, It seems to me desirable in those circumstances that the effective sentence to be passed on him should be the sentence of the court before which he has been tried, not a term of imprisonment subject to the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. I deeply regret that provision. Maybe it is past praying for and I am probably wailing in the wilderness, but I regret it.
Now we have before us the promised—but not more than promised—establishment of probation (that is, pure probation without hostels or homes), approved probation hostels, approved probation

443
homes, probation institutions not approved but inspected by the Secretary of State, remand centres, remand homes, detention centres, and finally, Borstal institutions. If there were any hope that any of those places would be built at any time one can foresee, and that people would be found in sufficient numbers to man them, there would be something in it. But there is not a hope. If there were, in connection with the penal system, any opportunity for building, what should be done would be to pull down one or two of the prisons I know and entirely rebuild them. To talk about setting up these places is illusory. The Bill leads us nowhere. It appears that all this is to be carried out but we will not get any advantage from it even in the lifetime of the youngest member of this House. I would like to say this about remand homes. It has been a complaint for years—a vocal and well justified complaint—that younger offenders have to be put in prison because there is no room in remand homes. The case mentioned by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, is well within my recollection and it arose simply because the boy could not be allowed loose and had to be put into Oxford prison, which is a most unsuitable place for putting any boy—I may say, a most unsuitable place for putting anyone.
Again let me remind your Lordships that I am not talking from the point of view of the Assize Court or the Old Bailey, but from the point of view of the Quarter Sessions and the magistrates' court. The Bill puts a vast complexity of work and distinctions upon the shoulders of the magistrates and their clerks, a burden of work which I am absolutely confident they cannot bear. I know the Home Office has always contained highly enlightened men with a great knowledge of all that has been tried and done in penal reform and the treatment of prisoners; but I doubt the greatness of their knowledge of the actual physical, practical work of a Quarter Sessions or Bench of magistrates. The reason I doubt it, among other things, is that some years ago my noble friend who sits on my left, Lord Roche, was appointed by the Home Secretary to be Chairman of a Committee (on which I had the honour to serve) to consider the position
444
of magistrates' clerks. There was no political idea behind the appointments and no particular recommendation was to issue from the Committee, as I regret to say has sometimes been the case on some Committees on which I have served. We reached the conclusion that until the position of the magistrates' clerk had been strengthened and the machinery at his command perfected, and until more money was available for the service of the court, the magistrates' clerk had enough, and more than enough, in his present duties.
The Committee reported before the end of the War, in 1944, and I think all members of that Committee would agree that the first step towards any improvement in the administration of justice by the magistrates' courts and by Quarter Sessions should be to act on as many of the recommendations of that Committee as are practical. I believe that all are practical, but some, I admit, are controversial. I am certain that something can be done if more money is found for the service of the court. Nothing, so far as I know, has been done. Many of the clerks are serving for less than nothing—that is literally true. Some of them are serving with insufficient money even to circulate to the magistrates the circulars which the Home Office send them. Some of them are given insufficient money to provide the books without which no criminal court can discharge its duties. God forbid that we should not give a Second Reading to the Bill; but I would suggest to the Home Office that the first business in hand is to perfect the plans whereby these things will be done, and then set about finding money to build all the institutions described in the Bill. That is all I have to say on the Bill. If your Lordships will permit me, when we come to Committee I would like to return at much greater length to the question of the death penalty and of whipping; but I will spare your Lordships any further remarks on that subject to-night.
6.8 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am the first speaker to rise and speak as a common man, and I say that on this matter the common man deserves to be heard. I adopt every word of the extremely courageous and able speech of the noble prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester. It was a magnificent speech and

445
I support every word of it. What is the condition of things to-day? Some of these cases are within my own knowledge, and some are written of in the papers. Girls in broad daylight are molested in the tubes of London and fly to the streets for safety. Women come to me and complain that their children are molested on the way from school; that they cannot get hold of the people and that, if they do, they cannot get a conviction. We have horrible cases of rape like that drawn to the attention of your Lordships by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack about a year ago. We have the revival of the highwayman, with footpads carrying on their activities within a stone's throw of His Majesty's Palace. We have burglary. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, told us on one occasion, that there were only one or two houses in his street that had not been burgled. He himself had not been exempt. I, likewise, have not been exempt. We have lonely women assaulted and murdered at their doors for other reasons. These crimes are becoming more and more common. The answer to all this is in the Bill that is now before your Lordships' House.
There are two matters of the utmost importance which are entirely neglected in this Bill. One is that the citizen has a right to be protected; and not only has he a right to be protected, but he has a right to feel that the Government of his country are willing to do everything that is necessary to protect him. If not, there will be trouble in another direction. A further matter—the right reverend Prelate made this point—is that people who suffer under the various crimes which I have mentioned to your Lordships demand that there shall be some kind of requital. It is all very well to say: "That is revenge. We are a good country; we must not practise revenge. That must not be said at all." It may be wicked to harbour sentiments of revenge, but I ask your Lordships: Is harbouring a sentiment of revenge, the natural human desire for requital, to be compared in wickedness with the acts that cause that desire? I suggest that the point we have reached to-day is that people will in the end take much stronger measures to defend themselves than they have been willing to take hitherto. They will have to do so.
446
With regard to the point of revenge, I would like to remind your Lordships that the whole principle of British law started in the theory of compensation. Your Lordships all remember that when we were at school we learned about the mythical man who tried to save up enough money to be able to afford to kill the King, but who, at the end of a long life of toil, could afford only an Archbishop. You will find the possibility of that in the Laws of Northumbria. That is the principle of compensation. If there is one defect in this Bill which stands out more than any other, it is that there is no suggestion that the Government will give any compensation to those who have suffered from the failure of the Government of the country to protect them. Think of the wretched victims of crimes like those which the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack detailed to us. It is not merely the obvious physical trouble; there may be ruptured kidneys, and all sorts of internal troubles, as the result of these acts. These people are left where they are, and are told: "There is nothing to be done for you. We cannot compensate you." Bat every possible thought and care is taken over the men who perpetrate these crimes. If there is any justice in the Criminal Justice Bill, I think that some compensation should be paid to the victims who have suffered from the failure of the Government of the country to protect them.
It is all very well to say that the severity of the punishment does not prevent crime. The severity of the punishment does prevent crime. I have searched through the English history to find which of the Saxon Kings it was of whom it was said that in his time a maid could travel with a bag of gold from one end of the country to the other without harm. I could not find who it was, but I found four likely candidates. One, of course, was King Alfred, of whom I have heard it said that he was able to hang very valuable bracelets on his roads without their being touched. King James I of Scotland earned a similar reputation. These men were merciful men, but they administered a severe code of justice, very exactly and very justly. Their mercy consisted in that fact.
It is the experience of humanity in the past that the nature of the punishment serves as a deterrent. On that point I

447
would like to say that I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, in what he said about whipping. It is not a question, as my noble friend Lord Holden said, of whipping a boy until he is good; it is the fact that you have the power of the rod behind you. I know that I differ from a lot of my noble friends on the Benches opposite, when I say that I would never send a boy to a school where the master had not the power of the rod. I agree that that is a matter of principle. But if you trust such valuable things as a boy's mind and a boy's soul to a man, I think you are very careless in your judgment if you will not trust his body to the same man. Is that a very peculiar outlook? I certainly would be glad to see some form of whipping. I entirely agree that this Bill does a great deal for young people, but I feel that gentler methods often need reinforcement.
That does not mean that I am critical of the great extension of probation. I am very much in favour of that. The longer you can reasonably keep people out of prison, the better pleased I am. I can speak with some experience, because, on His Majesty's Service and entirely without crime, I myself have done six months in prison, and I know full well what it is like. I am entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey. If you are going to make prison a much rarer thing, and keep people out of prison as long as possible, then you ought to make sure that when they do go to prison they dislike it. It seems to me to be going too much in one direction to abolish hard labour and penal servitude at the same time as you are extending probation. The prisons should be left as they are.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, in his very able speech, suggested that this is, after all, only an experiment, and that we should try it. I am quite sure that when he said that there was not far from his mind—probably it was within his mind—the very first rule that he and I learned about experiments, fiat experimentum incorpore vili—make your experiments on something that does not matter. As a representative of the common man and the more or less law-abiding citizen of the country, I am a person upon whom this experiment is to be tried. But, much more important, your Lordships will notice that the crimes
448
I have detailed, which can be found reported in any newspaper to-day, are mainly crimes against women and children. These are the people on whom the experiment is to be tried. I am certain the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would be the last person in the world to say that those two classes I have mentioned are people who do not matter.
6.20 p.m.
THE EARL OF DARNLEY: My Lords, in spite of the strictures of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, upon those who look at the matter from the point of view of conscience, I am going to devote the few minutes in which I shall inflict myself upon your Lordships to looking at this Bill, especially Clause 1, from this point of view. I would like to ask your Lordships first to acquit me of charges of attempting to be didactic, because the ideas that I am going to put over are not my own, and I am only trying humbly to forward them. In fact, although we have heard to-day some of the vast evidence that can be produced in this country by masters of evidence—and possibly the best evidence that could be heard in Europe if not in the world—I have little evidence behind me. In fact, if you asked me to prove it I should not attempt to do so. Nevertheless, I venture to suggest an alternative method of looking at this question of capital punishment. The ethical order on this subject of taking life is to me absolutely direct. It is that it is forbidden; there are no qualifications whatever.
But humanity has always retained the right to disregard or vary this order, according to the supposed needs of the moment; and so for centuries, when they have felt in danger, either from an excess of local crimes or from the coming into prominence of a possible national aggressor, they have always hanged the murderers and made war on the aggressors. That may be human nature and easily understandable—as of course it is—but it is not, I suggest with great reverence and respect, giving much credit to the Supreme Intelligence who gave the order. To my humble opinion, the limited human mind has no right to question or vary the instructions given by an Intelligence whose wisdom and ability to foresee the beneficial results of its orders cannot possibly be understood. To make out, as the world

449
has always done, that statistics of crime at home, or the aggressor character of individual nations abroad, provide a justifiable reason for breaking such a command, seems to me, in my humble opinion, to be, shall I call it, a lèse divinité of a serious character. Possibly it has been the cumulative cause of the world-wide morass of misery, murder, poverty and apprehension in which the world is now floundering, and of the consequential increase in local crime in countries such as ours.
I therefore most respectfully urge that this primary step in the preservation of human life—which is a state, after all, that no human mind can understand, and no scientist, for all his atomic skill, can reproduce—should be inaugurated forthwith, whatever the human evidence may be, in the hope that from this beginning the elimination of all crime, both internal and international, by ethical means, may be gradually moved into realisation, and that the ghastly horrors and miseries of war, and their consequential civil crime, may give way to international civil good feeling, as they assuredly will when the commands of this Supreme Wisdom are venerated and observed. It does not mean, as the noble Viscount rather suggested, that we should submit to a wave of internal crime or, as too ready critics suggest, lie down before conquests from an outside foe. It means a realisation that crime of all kinds comes from faulty human relations, which all parties have caused and which all must cure themselves, not only by ceasing to kill, but by the elimination of causes which make men and nations into murderers.
I venture to suggest to your Lordships that we should here make an act of faith, and give not a formal but an enthusiastic Second Reading to this Bill which does incorporate this important change. I hope your Lordships will acquit me for the few minutes that I have addressed you of didacticism or of any form of superiority. The quality of mercy, if it is allowed to fall as the gentle dew from Heaven, will assuredly benefit the human race. But if it is strained in the sieve of human calculation it will assuredly lose its potency.
6.25 p.m.
LORD KERSHAW: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, claimed to be the first member of your Lordships'
450
House to speak as a common man. I venture to address your Lordships as one of the great unpaid who has spent many years of his life in administering the very law that we are now considering. It seems to me that there are one or two fundamental facts that we need to bear in mind when considering this subject. Perhaps first I should say that by far the greater number of crimes are dealt with in the magistrates' courts, courts of first instance, and they have the problem in its most intimate form. Secondly, I think we should remember, when considering this very great problem, that most offenders are ordinary folk like ourselves. There is no criminal class. Criminals and law-breakers are drawn from all classes, and no one can serve on the Bench for long without realising that there are a great many people who are greater enemies of society than those who are brought before us, but who escape the law because they know how to do so. There is at this moment an exploitation of the public which this country has probably never seen before, and which is within the law. Therefore, I think of that as I am sitting on the Bench and I also think—as I believe all magistrates should—that "There but for the grace of God…." When you think of these other crimes against society which never appear as crimes in the Calendar, it enables you to deal with those unfortunates who are brought within your court much more humanely than otherwise you would.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, who said that there is a great danger of fussing over the criminal or the law-breaker and not fussing quite enough over the victim. I remember that when unemployment was quite common in this country we used to have the uneasy feeling that more was done for the discharged prisoner, by way of finding him employment, than was done for the honest man who was never within the prison gates. Those are problems that we face every day, and we have to be careful that we hold the scales evenly in whatever we wish to do for the prisoner. As a layman in these matters, I welcome Clause 8, which says that where it is inexpedient to inflict punishment and that a probation order is not appropriate, the court may discharge absolutely or conditionally. That I regard as an extremely valuable provision. I consider

451
that magistrates are too frequently liable to put people on probation because it is easy to do so. I often feel that the best thing to do for the man before me is to put him on his honour not to come up again; and, so far as I know, it works. It is better than putting him on probation and making him feel that he is constantly under the surveillance of someone.
In contradistinction to my noble friend, Lord Holden, I am in favour of a conviction being precedent to placing anybody on probation. There again, I have not the slightest doubt that owing to the laxity of the present system magistrates have not been too particular to see that the case before them was proved, if they thought that, taking the whole of the circumstances into consideration, it would be a good thing for the man or boy that he should go on probation. That is not their function. The man is there charged with a certain offence, and I think it is right that he should be convicted of that offence before any sort of treatment is meted out to him. I was reading the other day a little booklet issued by the Clarke Hall Fellowship—at a meeting of which I understand the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is to take the chair next week. James Mills, the High Prosecutor of Edinburgh, says in that booklet:
"To isolate the overt act—that is, the physical act which constitutes the law breaking; the striking of the blow or the removal of the article—to fail to see it in its context and to appreciate its motivation, may be a denial of justice."
I think that is true, and that when considering the seriousness of an offence one should pay due regard to the circumstances in which the offence occurred.
It has been my lot to consider the difficulties of working people in other quarters. One is forced to the conclusion that environment, upbringing, domestic circumstances, housing shortages and all that kind of thing, contribute to the problem that we are trying to consider here to-day. I feel, however, that in considering how generous we can be towards people who break the law, we ought to be particularly careful to distinguish between the one-offence man and people who are in positions of trust, as, for instance, policemen, postmen, dockers and railwaymen. I think that even if it is a first offence, in those cases
452
they must be made to understand the penalty that has been meted out previously, and they should be prepared to take their medicine if they break the law.
I am delighted to hear that we shall be able to make the offender pay damages or compensation. I am delighted also to hear that if imprisonment is imposed on a person under the age of twenty-one, the court will be called upon to state the reason why it is imposing imprisonment. I think that is a most useful provision. I hope, too, that we who are dealing with a case in the lower court, where the prisoner has chosen to be dealt with summarily, may at a later stage be able to pass it on to the Sessions, in order that they can give a sentence that is properly fitted to the crime with which we are dealing. We have not had that power in the past. I welcome the statement of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor that there is to be power to take evidence by certificate. This will be extremely useful and will save much valuable time for police and other people.
I am not going to detain your Lordships on the subject of capital punishment, except to say that, roughly speaking, I stand where the noble and learned Viscount stands in that matter. I have my own doubts about the abolition of capital punishment, but I am not sure that it is a subject upon which Parliament itself should not take a lead. I am not sure that it is a fitting subject for the emotional consideration that would be given by the population generally. So much depends on what has happened in a particular neighbourhood at a particular time. For instance, I am quite sure that in certain parts of North London, if the people were canvassed on this matter at the present time they would all be in favour of capital punishment, merely because a policeman was shot a few weeks ago in that neighbourhood. I am not sure, therefore, that it is not the duty of Parliament, whichever way either House chooses to go, to give the nation a lead in a matter of such importance, a matter which arouses such emotion and sentiment.
It has, however, seemed to me that there is something in the suggestion that there should be degrees of murder. It has been my lot to deal with three murderers

453
in the first instance, none of whom was subsequently hanged and none of whom was a criminal in the ordinary sense of the term. I will not harrow your Lordships with particulars except to say that it is a great pity that in each of those three cases the court had not power to prevent the terrible recitation of the death sentence. I do not agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who, if I understood him aright, suggests that the Home Secretary should reprieve unless he shows cause to the contrary. Turn this the other way round, and it would mean that the Home Secretary alone would have the power to hang—and I cannot imagine any Home Secretary wishing that power to be conferred on him. I think it is worth considering whether a formula could not be thought out to establish degrees of murder. There is a vast difference between, for instance, a mother I have before me at the present time, who murdered her child, and the thug and the gangster or the poisoner who deliberately inflicts not only death but misery and suffering on the person concerned.
In view of the peculiar way in which Clause 1 was drafted I have wondered whether, had that clause been debated and passed in the early stages of the Bill in another place, whipping would have been abolished. I am not at all sure that it would I feel that there are occasions when whipping is the only effective way of making the malefactor understand that he cannot do that sort of thing here. I have had experience of these men and I know that it is no good attempting to read the Bible to them. They are out as enemies of law and order, and they intend to be; it is their considered policy; and nothing but the fear of physical punishment will, in my judgment, change those men. That, however, is a matter that does not arouse quite the same controversy as capital punishment. I do not agree with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, who seemed to suggest that a person wishing another person dead would refrain from carrying out his wish if there were capital punishment, but would go on and carry it out if he had to face not capital punishment but a life sentence of imprisonment.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I only asked the question whether or not in some cases that might not be part of the incentive. Most results in life depend on the operation of
454
several causes. I wondered whether that might not be in some cases a practical contribution to the preventive reaction.
LORD KERSHAW: I think the noble and learned Viscount on reflection will see that the argument is not very sound.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Maybe.
LORD KERSHAW: I suggest that it is not. I have taken up all the time I wish to take at this stage. In general, I want to welcome the Bill as a great contribution to the advancement of better, wiser and saner treatment of the people who break our laws. As to the controversial part of this measure, we shall see what happens later on.
6.41 p.m.
LORD SANDHURST: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this evening, I am in a slightly more fortunate position than was the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor when he spoke earlier this afternoon. Although I am expressing the views that have been put to me by a surprising number of men who are vitally interested in this Bill—namely, our police—I am entirely in agreement with the views that they put to me, so that I have not a split mind on the subject. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor referred to the difficulty of driving two horses, "Reform "and" Deterrent," as a pair. It seems to me, and it seems to the police, that there is a grave danger hat instead of being a pair they will become a tandem with "Reform" in the lead on very long traces. It was even put to me by one man in this way: "Unless we look out, prison will become a home from home, and the next thing will be that they will be giving the beggars week-end leave." There is a lot in that. We have to remember that quite a large proportion of the criminal population come from, and are the result of, bad housing and bad homes. The effect would be to make prison more comfortable than home, and even now such people know that when they go to prison—and the magistrates' courts produce evidence of this—at least they will be warm throughout the winter. We have to watch that prison should be not only a deterrent but also a punishment.
I now come to another point which is much exercising the minds of our police; and that is what I might call the fatal Clause 1. I must say that I was alarmed

455
at the words which fell from the lips of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I noted the words at the time. He said: "We have got to try this experiment." I ask, why? The electorate have given no mandate on the subject. This House, just as much as another place, is the guardian of the interests of the electorate. As was pointed out by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, there was no overwhelming case for this reform, so I submit that there is no compulsion on us to permit its passage. We have a duty to the country. I know from my own experience in the country that at the present moment there is great alarm at the idea of doing away with the death penalty. The general view of the police is dead against this suggestion. I think it was well summed up by the Commissioner when he said that it is safer to commit murder than to cross the road. At the present moment, that is perfectly true. If you commit murder, you know that you will be out of danger of everything for the next ten or fifteen years except a natural death. Not one of us in this House can say that. So long as we are able to roam about the streets freely, as some people do, we are liable to come to a sudden and abrupt end at any moment.
There is just one final point that I have been particularly asked to make by several men on the beat; and that is with reference to the suggestion that, if the death penalty is done away with, the police should be armed. There are two questions that I have been asked to put. I did not know the answers, but the policeman did. The first question is: When an armed criminal is being sought by the police and the police are specially armed to deal with him, in how many cases is that man actually arrested by one of the armed policemen? I am told that the number is very small. The other question which I have been asked to put is this: In similar instances, in how many cases have the police used their firearms? I believe that there is only one case recently when a policeman did a "Wild West" act and shot the gun out of the criminal's hand. What the police fear is that they may be armed but, if they are, they will never dare to use those arms because, if they do shoot a man, someone
456
will at once say: "What is your justification for shooting?" However great the justification may be, someone will say that the policeman was wrong and, in the general eyes of the public, the policeman will be blamed for being "trigger happy." The question of the death penalty is vital to this country. I have no doubt in my own mind as to what is the right and the wrong of it, but even if we do abolish capital punishment, I hope that in this country we shall never arm our police.
6.49 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, "That the debate be now adjourned."—(Viscount Templewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
LORD AMMON: My Lords, before the House adjourns, I have been asked to say that, having regard to the long list of speakers on this Bill, it has been agreed on both sides that we meet at two o'clock to-morrow, instead of two-thirty p.m.
CAMBRIDGE AREA (CONSERVATION OF WATER) ORDER, 1948.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, that no Petition has been presented against the Order: Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  I.R.A. PRISONERS.
  I.R.A. PRISONERS.