Sitting of 28 April 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGE FROM THE KING THEIR MAJESTIES' SILVER WEDDING
The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee)reported His Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
The Queen and I thank you most sincerely for your congratulations on the Twenty-Fifth Anniversary of our Wedding. On this happy occasion it is particularly pleasing to receive this further expression of the affection and loyalty which you have constantly shown towards us, and we both greatly appreciate the warmth of your Address.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

  JAPAN (CHRISTIANITY)
  Mr. William Teelinģasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the frequent announcements by S.C.A.P. that the spread of Christianity in Japan is essential to the better understanding by the Japanese of the new democratic ideals for that country, he will consider inviting leaders of the Christian Churches in the United Kingdom to visit Japan and meet Japanese leading Christians.
  The Secretary of State for Foreiģn Affairs (Mr. Bevin): The initiative in such a matter lies, I am sure, with the Churches themselves. Several leading Churchmen from this country have already visited Japan. I am always ready to assist others to do the same.
  Mr. Ronald Chamberlain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us would desire to see the leaders of the Christian
  364
  Churches visiting Japan, without necessarily subscribing to the statement in the first part of the Question?
  Mr. Bevin: I must leave the Churches to run their own business. The Foreign Office is overburdened already.
  Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Secretary of State aware that Japanese Christians regard our Bishops, who believe in atomic bombing, as primitive barbarians, and will he give facilities for their missionaries to conduct Christian activities over here?
  Mr. Bevin: I am sure they would be very useful in Scotland.
  Mr. Teeling: I wanted only to make sure that transport was possible if they wanted to go.

  GERMANY

    Detained Persons, Adelheide
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many persons are still detained in No. 1 C.I.S. at Adelheide; and how many of that number have been in detention there or elsewhere for more than one year.
    Mr. Bevin: The number of persons detained at Adelheide has been reduced from 550 at the beginning of January, 1948, to 133 on 23rd April. All of these men had been in detention for more than one year.
    Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend how often their cases are reviewed, and whether it is the intention of the Control Commission to close down these detention centres?
    Mr. Bevin: They are constantly reviewed, and I am anxious to bring all this business to an end.

    Kreis Resident Officers
    Air-Commodore Harveyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many Kreis resident officers in the British Control Commission in Germany have become redundant since 1st January, 1948; and how many of these were retired Air Force and Army officers.
    Mr. Bevin: Sixteen Kreis resident officers have been declared redundant this year, of whom nine are retired Royal Air Force and Army officers.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there are possibly only 12 retired Royal Air Force officers employed by the Commission? Is it not a very high proportion, if four officers are regarded as redundant; and can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that there has been no discrimination?
    Mr. Bevin: I do not think that is correct. Of the Kreis resident officers on the strength of the Commission, 81 per cent. are ex-Service officers: of the 16 declared redundant, 87 per cent. are ex-Service, and naval officers are included in these figures.

    Farms
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has yet taken any action to expropriate the larger farms in the British zone of Germany.
    Mr. Bevin: Ordinance No. 103, which was promulgated in the British zone last September, dealt with limitation of estates. It laid down that Land Legislatures should enact legislation to carry out its provisions. The Land Legislatures have not yet completed the enactment of such legislation, but we have impressed upon them the urgency of doing so as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Vane: Would it not be better if the right hon. Gentleman impressed upon them the urgency of ensuring the maximum food production?
    Mr. Pickthorn: What is the urgency in this matter?
    Mr. Bevin: It is very desirable, in order that people may have roots in their own soil that everything should not be monopolised by big landlords.
    Mr. John Hynd: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Land Legislatures will be tied in any way to the area that must be supplied?
    Mr. Bevin: That point comes under another Question in a moment.
    Mr. Vaneasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the uneconomic layout of many of the typical small farms of Western Germany; and what steps have been taken by the Control Commission to encourage the exchange of strips in order to promote more compact holdings.
    Mr. Bevin: When the Military Government ordinance on agrarian reform was issued last year, the Regional Commissioners were informed that, in our view, the consolidation of uneconomic small holdings is as much a part of agrarian reform as the division of big estates and should be tackled at the same time. Land Governments in the British zone have been encouraged to consider the exchange of strips in order to promote more compact holdings, and a draft law is being considered.

  PALESTINE

    Administration
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs under what circumstances His Majesty's Government is prepared to carry on, or participate in, the administration of Palestine after 15th May.
    Mr. Bevin: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated on 16th October, 1947, in his speech to the Palestine Committee of the United Nations General Assembly, that, in the event of a settlement between Jews and Arabs, His Majesty's Government would, if so desired, continue the administration of Palestine through the limited period of the transfer to independence; and that they would consider an invitation to participate in giving effect to such a settlement in partnership with other members of the United Nations. But there has been no agreement between Jews and Arabs. Moreover, the withdrawal of British administrative personnel has now begun and is rapidly proceeding, and His Majesty's Government cannot reverse the process at this late hour.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether any negotiations are taking place with the United States of America, the effect of which would be to require the presence of British troops in Palestine after 1st August next?
    Mr. Bevin: No, there are no such negotiations. The only thing going on is what is going on in the United Nations Assembly.

    Mechanised Arab Forces
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what reports he has now received to show by what means

    367
    the mechanised force of the Syrian-Arab anti-Jewish forces entered Palestine.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Mayhew): My right hon. Friend has received no reports of the entry of mechanised Arab units from Syria into Palestine.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very circumstantial reports that have been made about the entry of these mechanised forces, can the hon. Gentleman find out how they managed to get in there, in view of the fact that the only effective road must have been, or should have been, patrolled by the British Forces?
    Mr. Mayhew: We cannot always believe newspaper reports, even the "Daily Worker."

    Food Supply
    Mr. Chamberlainasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether arrangements have been made to continue at least until the end of June the supply of essential foods, particularly bread grains and sugar, to Palestine, recently requested by the representatives in London of the United Nations Palestine Commission.
    Mr. Mayhew: The High Commissioner for Palestine has issued import licences to cover essential requirements of food up to 30th June, including meat, oils and fats and wheat flour. Shipments of sugar now afloat or due to be loaded will suffice up to 30th June. Meat and oils and fats are normally procured through ordinary commercial channels and the Ministry of Food is assisting with advice in regard to procurement areas. His Majesty's Government are making available for Palestine 26,000 tons of wheat flour against credits to be provided by agents acting on behalf of Jewish and Arab interests.
    Mr. Chamberlain: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him for an assurance that, in spite of the present difficulties, His Majesty's Government will continue to do all that is possible to supply Palestine with food, so that starvation is not added to the other troubles?
    Mr. Mayhew: I can only refer to my reply, which shows, I think, that we have taken great pains and some foresight to try to overcome this difficulty.

    Haifa (Situation)
    Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has any statement to make on the present situation in Haifa.
    Mr. Mayhew: Yes, Sir. Heavy fighting between Arabs and Jews broke out in Haifa on 21st April. For some days previously there had been sporadic violence largely due to the infiltration into the town of groups of armed Arabs intent on interfering with Jewish communications to the East and North. The Jews launched an attack by Haganah from Mount Carmel against the Arab sections of the town and by the morning of the 22nd had closed in on the market area. British forces concentrated to protect the port area and those installations and routes which are vital to the maintenance and the ultimate evacuation of our troops from the interior of the country. Meanwhile, the Military Commander in Haifa, in an effort to stop the fighting by negotiation, presided at two meetings between Arab and Jewish leaders on the 22nd to endeavour to arrange a truce. British forces also gave all possible help to Arab non-combatants attempting to escape from the town to the North, and Arabs wishing to reach Acre were transferred there in landing craft. With military assistance, the staff and patients of an Arab hospital in the battle area were evacuated to the Government Hospital in Haifa.
    In these operations three Army officers were wounded; two British policemen were killed and one was wounded. By the morning of 23rd April the situation was much quieter and normal life was being resumed. On the 24th, the High Commissioner reported that quiet had been restored. Arab evacuation from the town has now practically ceased. Some 5,000 persons, out of a total Arab population of about 70,000, have left. Final casualty figures are not yet available, but it is thought that at least Too Arabs were killed and more than 100 injured before the fighting subsided on the 23rd. Fourteen Jews were reported to have been killed, and 40 wounded. Early reports of widespread massacre in the town are untrue, and were merely rumours caused by panic.
    Dr. Segal: Can the Minister confirm that as a result of the curfew imposed by the Haganah no looting has taken place in

    369
    Haifa, that the Moslem Holy Places in that town have been fully safeguarded, and that full protection has been afforded to Arab property?
    Mr. Mayhew: I can only say that according to the latest reports quiet has been restored there, and that would imply those things.
    Mr. T. Reid: In view of the situation in Haifa, can the Government see to it that the oil from Kirkuk is by-passed beyond Haifa, and sent down to Tripolis in Syria for the use of Europe?
    Mr. Mayhew: I should like to have notice of that Question.

    Aircraft
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Defence whether he has now completed his inquiries regarding the use by the Jews in operations against the Arabs in Palestine of one or more light aircraft; the source from which such aircraft were obtained; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of Defence (Mr. Alexander): It has not been possible to establish the identity or the origin of the aircraft to which I referred in my reply to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's Question on 7th April. As he is no doubt aware, a light aircraft of a type similar to the Auster was shot down by British forces near Kefar Etzion on 12th April.
    Major Beamish: Does it follow from the Minister's reply that he agrees that it was a mistake that these Auster aircraft were sold to either faction in Palestine, and is it a mistake that will not be repeated in the future?
    Mr. Alexander: I have already told the hon. and gallant Member that an order has gone out that no more planes should be sold, and that has been carried out for the last three months.

    Stolen Military Stores
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Defence if he will give a list of military stores and equipment that have been stolen from military units in Palestine since 1st January, 1948; and what quantity of such stores and equipment has been recovered.
    Mr. Alexander: This information is not available in London and I should be reluctant to impose the task of compiling any comprehensive list on the authorities in Palestine in present circumstances. If the hon. and gallant Member will be more specific as to the items in which he is interested, I should be willing to consider whether information about such items could be asked for without interfering with more important duties.

    British Forces
    Major Beamishasked the Minister of Defence whether he is satisfied that British military strength in Palestine is adequate for its own protection, and will be adequate for its own protection until the final evacuation.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement on the present position of British Armed Forces in Palestine in relation to recent and current disorders; and on their strength in men and weapons in relation to the tasks which they are called upon to carry out.
    Mr. Alexander: The reduction of the Forces in Palestine is, as the House knows, proceeding in accordance with plans to complete their evacuation from that country. This planned reduction was designed to correlate the various stages of evacuation with the tasks incidental thereto.
    The military authorities have full powers to take any further steps they consider necessary to assist the Government of Palestine in carrying out the policy of His Majesty's Government and to secure the final evacuation of the British Forces.

  ARAB STUDENTS, UNITED KINGDOM
  Mr. M. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the numbers of applicants from Iraq, Syria, the Lebanon and Egypt who have sought to, enter educational institutions in this country during the last 12 months; and how may have been admitted to courses of study here.
  Mr. Bevin: I regret that the information requested in the first half of my hon. Friend's Question is not available and that the second half cannot be answered

  371
  accurately. I am informed, however, that during the last 12 months about 22 applicants from Iraq, about 11 from Syria, about 27 from the Lebanon and about 85 from Egypt have been admitted to courses of study in this country.
  Mr. Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a considerable desire on the part of young Arabs to come to this country to enter educational institutions, and is it not in the interests of good relations with these countries that we should encourage this as much as possible?
  Mr. Bevin: I am quite aware of that fact, but the first duty placed upon the British universities since the close of the war is to make up for the terrible gap which was created during the war. I would like to pay a tribute to the universities, as I was responsible at that time for closing down the Arts courses, and to thank them for the magnificent work they have done to make good the damage caused by that act of mine. I have to have regard to the number of places available, and I will do my best in this matter.
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsay: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a larger number of Arab students in this country today than ever before, in spite of the congestion?

  BULGARIA (SOVIET TROOPS)
  Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information that the Russian troops in the Eastern part of Bulgaria have now been withdrawn under the terms of the Peace Treaty with Bulgaria.
  Mr. Bevin: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) on 21st January. His Majesty's Government have received no information to cause them to alter their views on this subject.

  FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (CONFERENCE RESOLUTION)
  Sir Waldron Smithersasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the monopoly status of the B.B.C. was the sole reason for his disagreement
  372
  with the U.S. resolution at the United Nations Conference on Freedom of Information; and what instructions he sent to the British representative on the matter.
  Mr. Bevin: The fact that the United Kingdom Delegation introduced an amendment to the United States resolution on general principles does not mean that they disagreed with the resolution as a whole. The amendment was carried, and the amended resolution had the full support of our Delegation. The Delegation had general instructions to bear in mind the status of the B.B.C. under its licence and Charter.
  Sir W. Smithers: Would the right hon. Gentleman be so good as to receive a deputation consisting of Lord Craigavon and Captain Rolleston, of the Royal Navy, as representing the Listeners' Association, so that they may explain to the right hon. Gentleman the dangers of the B.B.C. monopoly and the need for a purge within its ranks?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think that a deputation of that character would be welcome at the Foreign Office.

  YEMEN (KING AHMED)
  Dr. Segalasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can now make a statement on the circumstances that led to the granting of official recognition to King Ahmed of the Yemen.
  Mr. Bevin: The late King of the Yemen, the Imam Yahia, was assassinated last February in the course of a revolt led by one Abdullah Al Wazir. The revolt achieved an initial success, but the Crown Prince Ahmed in due course reasserted his authority and established his position as King of the Yemen. He was recognised as such by His Majesty's Government as soon as they had satisfied themselves that his authority was effectively established.
  Dr. Segal: Could my right hon. Friend confirm that the accession of this monarch followed on differences that arose between his predecessor and the Minister of State; and can he state what protection is afforded to Ministers in, that country in the execution of their official duties?
  Mr. Bevin: We have no representation at all in the Yemen.

  TRANSJORDAN AND PALESTINE
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to the public declaration by King Abdullah of Transjordan that after 15th May he intends to invade Palestine and take military action against the Jews; and what steps he proposes to take on this announcement under the terms of our alliance with Transjordan.
  Mr. Jannerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what the position of the Arab Legion will be on the termination of the Mandate for Palestine; whether by then it will have evacuated from Palestine completely; and whether it will still be subsidised by Great Britain and commanded by British officers.
  Mr. Bevin: My attention has been drawn to Press reports of 23rd April of a declaration by King Abdullah in this sense. I do not see what steps under the terms of our alliance with Transjordan this announcement requires. As regards the Arab Legion, the intention is that its withdrawal from Palestine should be completed before the termination of the Mandate. His Majesty's Government are obliged by the treaty to pay a subsidy to Transjordan in respect of the Arab Legion and to provide certain British service personnel for service with that force. These obligations will still be in force after the termination of the Mandate for Palestine. The treaty provides, of course, that nothing in it shall prejudice the rights and obligations devolving on either party under the United Nations Charter.
  Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that in our treaty of alliance with Transjordania that country agrees not to adopt an attitude that might create difficulties for us, and to concert with us to settle disputes by peaceful means according to the Charter of the United Nations? In view of that fact, would not the Foreign Secretary draw King Abdullah's attention to these clauses in order that if action of that sort is to be contemplated, the provisions of the treaty in regard to consultation should come into force?
  Mr. Bevin: Certainly, we shall have consultations, but I must remind my hon. Friend that the admission of Transjordan
  374
  to the United Nations has been vetoed every time.
  Mr. Janner: Apart from the relationship between Transjordan and the United Nations, does my right hon. Friend say that it would be in accordance with the treaty we have entered into with Transjordan that we shall continue to subsidise the Arab Legion if they should take unilateral action against any section of the community in Palestine?
  Mr. Bevin: That question does not arise.
  Mr. Philips Price: Would my right hon. Friend make it clear that there is no declaration of war against the Jews but only against the Zionists?
  Mr. Benn Levy: Is the supply of British equipment, money and officers to continue to Transjordania irrespective of whom they may elect to attack?
  Mr. Bevin: This matter is before the United Nations and I must await the result of the discussions going on. I am not going to be drawn into any promise or commitment about this Transjordania Force until I know the final decision of the United Nations.
  Major Tufton Beamish: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be inaccurate and misleading to describe the entry of Arab troops from Transjordan into the Arab parts of Palestine, for the protection of Arab interest in Palestine and at the request of Arabs in Palestine, as invasion?
  Mr. Bevin: I prefer not to enter into hypothetical discussions on this subject. The United Nations organisation are discussing this matter. I do not despair. Britain will be withdrawing on 15th May and when everybody has faced that fact, much may happen.
  Mr. Cocks: Is it not a fact that the Treaty of Alliance—which I hold in my hand—has nothing whatever to do with the membership of Transjordania of the United Nations? Is it not a fact also that in Article I Transjordania agrees not to adopt in regard to foreign countries an attitude which is inconsistent with the alliance and might create difficulties for the other party? There is nothing whatever to do with the United Nations. May I ask the Foreign Secretary whether he

  375
  has drawn the attention of the Transjordanian Government to the terms of that Article?
  Mr. Bevin: Those terms have not been violated or intended to be violated by Transjordania. I do not propose to draw their attention to the matter until I have the result of the consideration by tht United Nations. When I have it, then I must examine the whole problem.
  Mr. Cocks: Should not my right hon. Friend draw attention to the matter before taking action?

  ARAB STATES (ARMS DELIVERIES)
  Mr. Cocksasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, under the agreements to supply given quantities of arms to the Arab States, His Majesty's Government have guaranteed to deliver these arms by certain fixed dates; and whether, in view of the publicly announced intention of these States, or some of them, to invade Palestine after 15th May, he will suspend for a period further deliveries of such arms.
  Mr. Bevin: The answer to the first part of the Question is "No, Sir." But I must point out that the Governments concerned, who are under an obligation to ensure that the armament and essential equipment of their forces shall not differ in type from those of our own forces, naturally expect that when they place contracts in this country we shall carry out the contracts as speedily as is technically possible. With regard to the second part of the Question, it is impossible to forecast the outcome of the United Nations discussions on Palestine and the future of the country is so uncertain that it is impossible to take decisions now as to the action which may be required in respect of the period after 15th May.
  Mr. Cocks: In view of the fact that no fixed dates are set down for the delivery of the arms, that the Arab Council held a meeting this week in Transjordan, and the reports from Cairo, Syria and Bagdad that action is contemplated in the next few days, will the right hon. Gentleman suspend delivery of these arms or allow the Jews to have arms with which to defend themselves?
  Mr. Bevin: From all my information about Palestine at present, it seems to me that the Jews are the better armed of the two, but I cannot draw a distinction, and I have no intention of interfering until I get the decision of the United Nations. From that I refuse to move.
  Mr. Cocks: The right hon. Gentleman will let people be murdered before he arrests the murderer.
  Mr. Bevin: No. I appealed to both the Jews and the Arabs in London and warned them that we would leave Palestine. We must remember that the British sergeants were not hanged from the tree by Arabs.
  Mr. Edelman: Is it not a fact that under the Anglo-Transjordan Treaty the arms of the Arab Legion may not be used in Palestine without the consent of His Majesty's Government?
  Mr. Bevin: I must have notice of that Question.
  Dr. Segal: In view of the reports that British arms may be used, will the right hon. Gentleman say whether His Majesty's Government intend to give any advice to King Abdullah to restrain him from taking any warlike action?
  Mr. Bevin: I do not think I should assume any such thing until King Abdullah indicates that he proposes to do it. Why should I assume that he is going to do these things? I have had no indication of it. [An HON. MEMBER: "He said he was going to."] At the same time, I have had experience of other people taking this action.
  Mr. Janner: May I ask my right hon. Friend to treat this in the serious manner in which it deserves to be treated? Will he please say definitely to this House whether he has any information at all about the meeting which was supposed to have taken place, or did take place, at Amman, what was the result of the deliberations, and will he take steps to prevent the use of arms supplied by us to kill people in Palestine?
  Mr. Bevin: I have no information about that meeting. I say to the Jews and Arabs—the Arabs are not in this House—I say to the Jews and Arabs: the way for both of you to settle this is to stop fighting.
  Mr. John Lewis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; am I in Order in asking the Foreign Secretary what he meant by the reference to the fact that the Arabs are not in this House?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of Order.

  BRITISH GUIANA

    Cattle-raising
    Mr. Dodds-Parkerasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the possibilities of cattle-raising in Southern British Guiana have been fully investigated.
    Mr. Mayhew: I have been asked to reply. Yes, Sir, by the British Guiana and British Honduras Settlement Corn-mission which was in the area last year and whose report I expect to receive shortly.

    Legislative Council (Election Petition)
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies in what circumstances the Honourable H. N. Critchlow has been deprived of his seat in the Legislative Council of British Guiana.
    Mr. Mayhew: Mr. Critchlow has been unseated as a result of an election petition. The Chief Justice of British Guiana has heard the petition and certified to the Governor (under the Legislative Council Elections Ordinance) his decision that Mr. Critchlow's election and return were void for the reason that an illegal practice was permitted in connection with the election by Mr. Critchlow's agents, with his knowledge and consent. The illegal practice consisted of the making of false statements of fact in relation to the personal character and conduct of another candidate.

  CYPRUS (INFORMAL TALKS, LONDON)
  Major Guy Lloydasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why he recently received a Cypriot deputation known by him to be composed entirely of Communists.
  Mr. Mayhew: I take it that the hon. and gallant Member is referring to the visit to London in February last of the elected Mayors of Limassol and Larnaka. My right hon. Friend received them, at their request, for a short informal talk, in accordance with his practice of seeing leading citizens from any Colony when in this country, irrespective of their political views. Constitutional matters were not discussed at this talk.
  Major Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether on this occasion and similar occasions advice received from the country concerned has been ignored? In this instance, was the Governor of Cyprus consulted? Had he any views, and did lie express them, and were they adverse to the interview taking place?
  Mr. Mayhew: I cannot answer all those questions without notice. I must emphasise that it is a matter for my right hon. Friend to decide and that he decided it, perfectly rightly, in accordance with the reply I have given.
  Mr. Gallacher: is it not the case that if we get a delegation composed of Communists it is an intelligent delegation, and if it is composed of Tories, it is a bunch of dead-heads?
  Major Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman say whether the Governor of Cyprus expressed an opinion on the advisability or otherwise of interviewing this deputation?
  Mr. Mayhew: I must emphasise that this was not a deputation. These were informal talks which took place in the conditions I have described. The question of a deputation did not arise.

  SARAWAK (ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICERS' TRANSPORT)
  Mr. Teelingasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will give the name of the district officer whose baggage was not transported by two land Dyaks from Kanpong Seou to Kanpong Hundou; whether he will also give the name of the district judge who tried the case and convicted; and what further information he has on the matter.
  Mr. Mayhew: Under the Sarawak Native Administration Order, No. 5 of 1940, certain duties are laid upon headmen, in the carrying out of which every

  379
  native is obliged to assist. The provision of transport for administrative officers when travelling in their area is one of these duties. The Dyaks in question were prosecuted by their headman for failure to assist in this way on the occasion of an official journey by Mr. J. R. Outram, a district officer, and were convicted and fined 10 dollars each. The case was tried by a Malayan magistrate named Abang Openg. There is no evidence to suggest that the men were supporters of Anthony Brooke.

  COLONIAL EMPIRE

    Economic Planning
    Mr. Geoffrey Cooperasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he will make a statement on Government policy with regard to the setting up of a colonial economic planning board to consider, in broad outline and in detail, plans for the economic development of the whole of the British Empire and to supplement the Colonial Development scheme, which is necessarily only a small proportion of the whole economic planning required.
    Mr. Mayhew: It is not thought necessary or appropriate to create any new central planning board of precisely the character suggested, but, following upon the recent strengthening of the Economic Division of the Colonial Office and the creation of the Colonial Development Corporation and the Overseas Food Corporation, my right hon. Friend has reconstituted the Colonal Economic and Development Council to advise him on matters affecting the whole development of the dependent territories for which His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom is responsible. The Council has been reorganised in order to bring it into closer relationship with the officials of the Colonal Office, with the Secretary of State's Advisory Committees on special subjects, with the new Corporations and with those in other Departments of His Majesty's Government concerned with the investment and development policy of the United Kingdom itself.
    Mr. Cooper: Does my hon. Friend think that this organisation which has now come into being will be adequate to this task? Does he realise that the economic planning section of the Lord
    380
    President's Office is devoting itself to the organisation of a plan for this country, and is it not equally important that a similar organisation should be set up to study the problem for the British Commonwealth?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that is a precise analogy, and I doubt very much whether we need an organisation of the precise character suggested by my hon. Friend. At the same time, I know that my right hon. Friend will make a fuller statement on this on his return, and perhaps we can wait until then.
    Sir Arthur Salter: In view of the restricted limits of capital exports from this country, could the Colonial Office consider how to encourage the participation of foreign investments in British colonial development?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is another question.

    Death Penalty
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is now the position of those convicted of murder in the Colonies and non-self-governing Dependencies of this country.
    Mr. Mayhew: The position remains unchanged. If the Criminal Justice Bill becomes law, it will not apply to the territories mentioned. The question whether or not to abolish the death penalty would be a matter for consideration by the local legislatures. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has explained that the action which he proposes to take with regard to the staying of executions is being taken because there is a prospect of the law of this country being amended during the current Session. The question of similar action in a colonial territory would only arise if and when a comparable situation were to occur.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend tell me, in the light of the recent decision by this House, whether it is proposed later on to initiate any consultations with the Governors of these Colonies and Dependencies with a view to giving them some guidance or lead from this country?
    Mr. Mayhew: The first thing would be for the Criminal Justice Bill to become law. After that, I do not think it would be appropriate to commit my right hon. Friend to giving guidance. It might be appropriate for consultations to take place.
    Mr. Ivor Thomas: May I take it that this Government will allow the Governors a free vote on this matter?

    Food Imports
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsleyasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the total net dollar deficit on food imports by the Colonies.
    Mr. Mayhew: The colonies have no net dollar deficit, in the sense that their total payments for imports of all kinds are more than covered by their total dollar earnings.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Can the Under-Secretary say how much of the amount allotted to the United Kingdom under the Marshall plan will have to be diverted for use by the Colonies?
    Mr. Mayhew: That is another question, and perhaps notice can be given of it.

  ST. KITTS

    Police Organisation
    Mr. Bossomasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is satisfied that the forces now existing on the island of St. Kitts are entirely capable of protecting members of the white population against another industrial trouble.
    Mr. Mayhew: Order was maintained by the St. Kitts Police during the recent strike without the need for reinforcement from outside. The Police organisation has recently been investigated by an expert, and its efficiency in providing protection for the public in the Colony will no doubt be maintained and improved as a result. My right hon. Friend hopes, however, that the outcome of the Economic Commission of Inquiry now about to be appointed will render unlikely a recurrence of industrial strife.
    Mr. Bossom: The Question is rather different. Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied, or have there been any changes in the force there since the recent troubles took place, when a murder occurred?
    Mr. Mayhew: We have had an investigation by an expert and action has been taken as a result.
    Mr. Bossom: Will the hon. Gentleman say what that change is?
    Mr. Mayhew: For the details, I should need notice.

    Sugar Workers' Strike
    Mr. Rankinasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if a satisfactory settlement has been now reached as a result of the recent strike of sugar workers in St. Kitts; what recommendations have been made by the investigator sent by the Secretary of State; and what action has been taken to improve conditions.
    Mr. Mayhew: The strike has ended and work was resumed on 9th April: no details have yet been received except that the Sugar Producers' Association and the trade union have agreed to refer to arbitration all matters in dispute. The report of Mr. Parry, who inquired into the dispute, was published in the "Leeward Islands Gazette" on 2nd March. I am arranging for my hon. Friend to be supplied with a copy. Mr. Parry recommended that the parties should resume negotiations and go to arbitration on all points in dispute. As regards the last part of the Question, an Economic Commission of Inquiry is being appointed to investigate conditions in the sugar industry; it is hoped that this Commission will start work in the near future.
    Mr. Rankin: Will my hon. Friend keep in mind that industrial conditions there have been greatly inflamed by the fact that last year 1,000 million dollars of profit were made from sugar and cotton while estate workers were getting a wage of £41 5s. a year, and that if these conditions were altered, we should not need more police to keep the peace?
    Mr. Mayhew: I cannot, without notice, comment on the figures, but I would say that that would be an appropriate subject for the Commission of Inquiry.
    Mr. Bossom: May I also have a copy of that report?
    Mr. Mayhew: Certainly.

  GOLD COAST

    Subversive Literature
    Mr. J. Langford-Holtasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what literature of a subversive and inflammatory nature was removed from the home of Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, when he was detained in March with other members of the Gold Coast Convention.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has no information on this point, but a Commission of Inquiry is now examining in detail the events of last month in the Gold Coast.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: is the hon. Gentleman aware that the one document which was removed from this man's home was in fact a book entitled "Revolution in the Colonies" by Mr. A. Creech Jones?
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that it is precisely the content of the last question which makes one feel that in some cases subversive literature is really critical literature, and will he give an assurance that literature which is critical of our Government, or indeed of the British people, will not be subject to requisition of this kind?
    Mr. Mayhew: Certainly, this is outside the Question, but I am sure my right hon. Friend would want me to give that assurance.

    SS. "Duke of Sparta" (Stowaways)
    Mr. Gallacherasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has considered the letters sent to him by the hon. Member for West Fife dealing with the allegations made by Mr. Eusebius Tunde George, of 71, Foresythe Street, Lagos, who states that he and five other stowaways on the ss. "Duke of Sparta," a British ship which left Apapa on 24th December, 1947, were thrown overboard when the ship was off the Gold Coast; that he and another had been picked up by fishermen, but there was no trace of the other four; that he has made statements to the police authorities at Axim, Takoradi and Accra; and what action it is proposed to take, in view of the widespread feeling on this issue among the people of Nigeria.
    Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has received a report on the matter from the Acting Governor of Nigeria, which includes statements taken from persons concerned and a summary of the investigation made by the Gold Coast Police. There is no evidence to support the allegation that six stowaways were thrown overboard from the vessel or that any deaths -occurred.
    The facts are that five African stowaways were discovered on the vessel before
    384
    she sailed from Lagos on 25th December, 1947, and were handed over to the police. Two days out from Lagos, when the vessel was a few miles off the Gold Coast, two more stowaways were discovered, and the master summoned fishing canoes which were in the vicinity and had a rope placed over the side to assist the transfer of the two stowaways to the canoes. Evidence on the question whether they were in the water at any time during this transfer is conflicting. Some days later, after the vessel had left Las Palmas, five more stowaways were discovered, and these five were carried on to the United Kingdom, and were landed at Hull. As regards the last part of the Question, action has been taken in Nigeria to correct the misleading stories which have been published.
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the very serious character of this accusation, can the Minister say why, in view of the fact that this was widely published in the Nigerian Press of 13th February, no action of any kind has been taken by any of those affected in order to stop that publication or against those responsible for the publication?
    Mr. Mayhew: I have already stated that we have taken steps to correct the misleading stories. As the hon. Member says, the accusations are serious—a good deal more serious than the facts.
    Mr. Nally: But in view of the widespread circulation of the account described in the Question, and the quite unscrupulous use of it for various purposes in the Colonies, can my hon. Friend describe more exactly the steps taken to publicise the full account of the matter in Nigeria? Secondly, would he consider, as an act of elementary justice to Captain Kirkwood, whose good name is seriously impugned in this matter, making it plain that the captain's account of the circumstances is substantially borne out by all the evidence that has been examined carefully?
    Captain Marsden: Will the hon. Gentleman also confirm what the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Nally) has just said by taking action against Mr. George for bringing forward inaccurate accusations?
    Mr. Mayhew: I do not think that last point is a matter for the Government. On the first point, we repudiated a large

    385
    number of false statements made against the captain, but I would not like without notice to add to my carefully balanced statement.
    Mr. Gallacher: Is it not the case that the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the paper of 13th February that I sent him which stated definitely that the man went to the police on three occasions and reported the facts, and that no action of any kind was taken by any of those affected until now, late in the month of April, I have raised the matter? Can he tell us why no action of any kind was taken until the Question was put down?
    Mr. Nally: Is my hon. Friend aware that I hold in my hand the "Nigerian Review" for 17th February whose main heading is "Fantastic story about stowaways is proved false"?

  BORNEO (AGRICULTURAL LABOUR)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what plans have been made for large-scale agricultural production in Borneo; from what sources it is proposed to recruit labour; and whether he will give an assurance that no immigrant labour will be introduced into Borneo unless steps are taken from the beginning to enable these to become integrated as part of the local population if they so desire.
  Mr. Mayhew: No definite arrangements have yet been concluded as to possible sources of labour. Any policy of encouraging the settlement in North Borneo of suitable labour will be subject to the protection of the rights of the indigenous population. My right hon. Friend is considering proposals for two small pilot rice schemes, as further investigations are required before large-scale agricultural development can take place.
  Mr. Sorensen: Can we have an assurance that before any immigrant labour is brought into this area, everything will be done to see that local labour is first used?
  Mr. Mayhew: Yes, I can give the assurance that this will be closely supervised, and that the rights of the indigenous people will be safeguarded.
  Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Will that be the same in this country, and particularly in Scotland?

  SIERRA LEONE (BAOMA PARAMOUNT CHIEF)
  Mr. Sorensenasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies what is the nature of the dispute between the Baoma Paramount Chief and his subjects in Sierra Leone; and whether inquiries have been made respecting the allegations of torture and flogging.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend has asked the Acting Governor for a report and will communicate with my hon. Friend when it is received.

  MALAYA (COCONUT THEFTS)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he is aware of the widespread stealing of coconuts in the Kuala Langat district of Malaya; and what steps are being taken to prevent these thefts.
  Mr. Mayhew: My right hon. Friend is asking the High Commissioner for the Federation of Malaya for a report, and will communicate with the hon. Member on its receipt.

  SEYCHELLES (CHIEF JUSTICE)
  Mr. Gammansasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies how long the post of Chief Justice of the Seychelles has been vacant; and when it will be filled.
  Mr. Mayhew: I have nothing at present to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) on 28th January.
  Mr. Gammans: Is it a fact that this appointment has been vacant now for nearly a year? Is it not most unsatisfactory that someone should not he appointed? Is the reason that the pay and prospects offered are not good enough to attract a first-class man?
  Mr. Mayhew: I have asked my right hon. Friend to look into the matter.
  Mr. Thomas Reid: What is the rate of salary assigned to this post? Has it anything to do with the difficulty of making the appointment?
  Mr. Mayhew: I should need notice of that question.

  NYASALAND (TAXATION)
  Mr. Skinnardasked the Secretary of State for the Colonies for what reasons native tax has been increased in Nyasaland; whether he is satisfied that the incidence of taxation is fair as between Africans and Europeans; what is the lowest level of income at which Europeans pay Income Tax; and whether he will consider the exemption from direct taxation of all Africans with incomes below a specific figure.
  Mr. Mayhew: As the answer is necessarily long and detailed, I will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
  following is the answer:
  In accordance with a suggestion made by the African Protectorate Council, and with the concurrence of all native authorities, native tax was increased, as from 1st January, 1948, in order to raise additional revenue required for development purposes, including the improvement of agricultural, educational, medical and other facilities for the African population. The tax now payable by each adult male is 10s. (an increase of 1s. per annum) in all areas except Likoma and Chisamula Islands, where the rates have been increased from 7s. to 8s. The reimbursement to native authorities has been increased from 1s. to 2s. in respect of each tax collected, to enable those authorities to raise the emoluments of their staffs and to provide funds for local development purposes.
  Immediately before the introduction of these increases it was calculated that whereas the African was paying on an average about four per cent. of his total income in taxation, of which about 2½ per cent. was in respect of direct taxation, the average European was paying about 19¼ per cent. in total taxation and 9¾ per cent. in direct taxation.
  All Europeans pay a poll-tax of £4 per annum. In addition, a single person pays
  388
  Income Tax on an income exceeding £250 per annum, and a married person on an income exceeding £450 per annum.
  It is not considered practicable nor desirable to exempt from native tax Africans with incomes below a specific figure, as it is impossible to determine the individual incomes of the majority of Africans, especially those engaged in agriculture. The Government, however, has the power to exempt any person from the payment of the whole or any part of the tax. The number of exemptions at the end of 1946 was 76,000. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that there is no unfairness in the incidence of taxation as between Africans and Europeans.

  ROYAL NAVY

    Sea Cadet Corps
    Dr. Segalasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is still anxious to encourage the activities of the Sea Cadet Corps; and why no national appeal for welfare funds on their behalf has yet been made on the lines of the national appeal for the Army Cadet Corps.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): Yes, Sir. As regards the second part of the Question, the welfare and social activities of the Sea Cadet Corps are the responsibility of the Navy League, which has an excellent organisation for dealing with them.
    Dr. Segal: Is the Minister aware that in many towns units of the Sea Cadet Corps are labouring under heavy financial difficulties? Can he take steps to ensure that they are relieved of the burden so as to enable them to carry on this very necessary work?
    Mr. Dugdale: My information is that they have sufficient funds. If my hon. Friend's information is to the contrary, perhaps he will send it to me.
    Captain Marsden: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the Sea Cadets depend very much on the capitation grant from the Admiralty, and that the capitation grant is always a long way in arrears? Will he help by seeing that it is paid up to date and promptly?
    Mr. Bossom: Why is it that head-quarters take such a large proportion of the capitation grant, making a very unfair state of affairs in which the grant never reaches the cadets at all?
    Mr. Dugdale: I do not think that is the case, but I will look into the matter to see whether it is possible to effect an improvement.
    Dr. Segal: Why does the national appeal apply only to the Army Cadet Force, and not to the Navy?
    Mr. Dudale: Because, as I have stated, the Navy League are responsible for raising funds for this purpose, and therefore appeals are constantly made through the Navy League.

    Prize Money
    Mr. Errollasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will now make a statement on the distribution of prize money derived from the proceeds of sale of captured enemy merchant ships and cargoes.
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he is yet in a position to make a statement about prize money.
    Commander Galbraithasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he has any statement to make about the payment of prize money.
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement on the distribution of naval prize money.
    Vice-Admiral Taylorasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he will now make a statement as to the issue of prize money.
    Mr. Dugdale: In so far as the Royal Air Force is concerned, I am speaking on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    The question of prize money has involved protracted negotiations, not only with other Government Departments at home, but with other members of the Commonwealth. Satisfactory progress has been made in these negotiations and the work of investigating entitlement to naval prize money of officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines is proceeding. This investigation will take
    390
    some time, but it is preferable that it should be completed before applications for prize money are invited from officers and men of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. A Prize Bill will be introduced as soon as circumstances permit, and will contain proposals for declaring fixed sums which will be available for disposal as droits of the Crown to separate naval and Royal Air Force Prize Funds. It is estimated that these sums will be in the neighbourhood of £4 million for the Naval Prize Fund and £1¼ million for the Royal Air Force Prize Fund.
    After the passage of the Bill it is intended to seek a Royal Proclamation making a grant of prize money for the benefit of individual members of the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. It is not the intention to make an individual distribution to officers and men of the Royal Air Force, and the Royal Air Force share will be applied for the general benefit of serving and past members of the Royal Air Force. By the time the Prize Bill has been passed, examination of individual entitlement in the case of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines should be nearing completion and distribution will begin as soon as possible afterwards.
    Mrs. Middleton: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the necessity of keeping the grants as between officers and men in a reasonable relation one to another?
    Mr. Dugdale: While I cannot state definitely what those grants will be, it will be found that the proportion as between the highest and the lowest will be somewhat less than it was after the last war.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: With reference to the droits of the Crown, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House what sum goes to the Exchequer from the droits of Admiralty?
    Mr. Dugdale: Yes, Sir; £2,625,000.
    Mr. Cobb: Seeing that the Navy could not have won the war without the aid of the Merchant Navy, could not precedent be stretched on this occasion in order to include the Merchant Navy?
    Mr. Dugdale: That is quite another question. In fact the distribution of prize money on this occasion is following precedents of previous wars, and a distribution was not made to the Merchant Navy on those occasions.
    Vice-Admiral Taylor: When is it likely that these investigations will be completed? As some considerable time has passed, will the award be made retrospectively?
    Mr. Dugdale: I should like to have notice of the second Question. With regard to the first Question, I hope it may be possible for distribution to take place some time early next year, but I cannot make a definite promise as to that. I would remind the hon. and gallant Member that distribution after the last war, although begun in 1920, was not finished until 1923.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Can my hon. Friend say what is the position of any Army personnel who might have been serving on board ship, as many of them were at certain times during the war?
    Mr. Dugdale: I am afraid they will not qualify.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: Is it not a case that, so far as the lower deck are concerned, scales of pay for the Royal Navy were on an infinitely lower level than in the Merchant Navy?
    Mr. Nally: Could my hon. Friend explain on what principle it has been decided that in the case of the Navy the prize money will eventually take the form of individual distribution to officers and men, while in the case of the R.A.F. the money is to go to some welfare fund? Why is there a difference in the way the money is disposed of?
    Mr. Dugdale: I can only speak for the Royal Navy. We are distributing on the same system as before. The Royal Air Force have decided to distribute their money in a different manner, and any question in regard to that distribution should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air.
    Air-Commodore Harvey: Will the hon. Gentleman take this matter up with the Secretary of State for Air? Why should the members of the Royal Air Force be treated any differently from the members of the Royal Navy? Is it not quite iniquitous?
    Mr. Dugdale: The hon. and gallant Member should put a Question to the Secretar of State for Air if he desires information on the matter.
    Mr. Scollan: In view of the important statement my hon. Friend has made, are we to understand that the Government have deliberately decided to disperse £4 million in the case of the Navy while they are asking the ordinary worker to wait for his Post-War Credit?
    Mr. Chetwynd: Would it not be better and more desirable if my hon. Friend convinced the Admiralty that they should follow the example of the Royal Air Force in this matter of the distribution of these funds?
    Mr. Dugdale: I do not want to get into any controversy with my right hon. Friend.

  DOMINION PRIME MINISTERS (CONSULTATIONS)
  Mr. Marloweasked the Prime Minister what are the difficulties in the way of convening a conference of Dominion Prime Ministers; and what steps have been taken to overcome such difficulties.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Thick and Malton (Mr. Turton) on 11th March. In that reply I had in mind the standing difficulty of finding a time at which all the Prime Ministers concerned, who have heavy domestic responsibilities to carry, would be available and willing to come to London for a meeting. This is a particularly important consideration at the present time, when the pressure affairs on Ministers generally, and in particular on Prime Ministers, is very heavy.
  Mr. Marlowe: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether he is sympathetic to the idea of such a conference if the difficulties could be overcome, and, if so, would he consider sending a representative to each of the Prime Ministers concerned to see whether these difficulties can be smoothed out?
  The Prime Minister: I am certainly sympathetic, but I do not think any good would come of sending representatives. We are in constant communication with Dominion Prime Ministers on this matter.
  Mr. Turton: Are we to understand from the reply we have had today, and also from the previous reply to a similar

  393
  Question, that the Prime Minister has already approached the Dominion Prime Ministers on this matter.
  The Prime Minister: There has been no formal approach, but conversations are going on with regard to the possibilities. We always have in mind a meeting of the Dominion Prime Ministers, but I cannot say anything more definite at the present time.
  Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Can the Prime Minister foresee any time when the considerations he has mentioned will not apply?
  The Prime Minister: It is very difficult, but we have in the past managed to do it and no doubt we shall manage it again. If hon. Members would realise what the conditions are in the different Dominions, with elections pending and so forth, they would see that it is extremely hard to get a suitable time.

  BOMBING AND FIRING RANGES, SELSEY
  Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Minister of Defence whether the use of the proposed R.A.F. bombing and firing ranges and the Naval firing ranges on and around the Selsey Peninsula will be co-ordinated; and if any combined training exercises are intended there this summer.
  Mr. Alexander: The range requirements in this area are at present under review by the Inter-Departmental Committee on Service Land Requirements. Pending the results of this review the Royal Air Force are not using the area, except for one range in joint use with Naval personnel. No combined training exercises are planned for this summer.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that four different ranges are proposed in this area, and could he not make a comprehensive statement as to what is to happen in regard to the area, as the proposal is most unsatisfactory?
  Mr. Alexander: Speaking from memory, most of the ranges are engaged upon separate operational exercises and firing and could hardly be amalgamated. I know the hon. Member has a particular
  394
  interest in the area, and if he would like further information on the matter, perhaps he will see me later.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Thank you.

  FOOD SUPPLIES (FARM WORKERS)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Food if he has now concluded his discussions with the T.U.C. regarding an extension through the year of the seasonal allowances of extra food to farm workers who have no canteen facilities; and if he will arrange for these extra rations to be drawn direct by farm workers or their wives.
  The Minister of Food (Mr. Strachey): I must repeat that I cannot alter the period of these seasonal allowances, nor allow them to be drawn as a differential domestic ration. But we are determined to see that the workers who are entitled to them actually get them, and we shall be issuing new regulations designed to ensure that they do so.
  Mr. Hurd: Will these new regulations allow the farm worker or his wife to draw these rations direct?
  Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. As I have just implied, that would be a differential domestic ration; but the regulations will provide for them to be drawn by the representatives of the workers where there is a difficulty in the farmer drawing them.
  Mr. Stubbs: Is the Minister aware that displaced persons in camps and hostels can get two meat meals a day, and what proportion of people relying upon the ordinary ration can do that? There is a great deal of feeling on the subject and something must be done about it. Will not the Minister say why he will not help the farm workers?
  Mr. Strachey: In regard to the displaced persons in hostels and catering establishments, they get exactly the same ration as British workers living in the same institutions. We could not give them any less.
  Mr. Assheton: Is the Minister aware of the great dissatisfaction among small working farmers who have to work just as hard on their farms as the labourers?
  Mr. Strachey: That is another question.
  Mr. Tiffany: Can the Minister say the date when these new regulations will be issued and whether they will obviate the delay which often takes place between the time when the food is issued and when the worker actually gets it?
  Mr. Strachey: We are disturbed by the cases which have been brought to our notice where the farmer, for good reasons and perhaps for not such good reasons, has failed to distribute this food. The new regulations will be designed, if possible, to overcome that difficulty.
  Mr. Assheton: Will the Minister answer my question?
  Mr. Strachey: I should want notice of that, since it is an entirely different subject. This Question deals with allowances to farm workers.
  Mr. Assheton: It is mentioned at the end of the question.
  Mr. Strachey: With all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, he asked whether these facilities would be extended to working farmers. That is a question which has been asked in the House a number of times, but it is a different question from that with which I am dealing at the moment.
  Mr. Assheton: Cannot the Minister answer it now?
  Mr. Strachey: I could repeat the answer which I have given a number of times in the House, but I do not think it is very relevant to this Question.
  Mr. Joynson-Hicks: In reference to the right hon. Gentleman's reply about displaced workers in hostels, how can he justify their getting higher rations than ordinary farm workers on private farms?
  Mr. Strachey: All British farm workers or other workers in hostels get the same rations.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Will the Minister reply specifically to the first part of the Question. Has the T.U.C. now removed its veto in this matter?
  Mr. Strachey: There is no question of a Trades Union Congress veto. We have discussed the whole matter of differential rationing with the Trades Union Congress Advisory Committee, we are discussing it, and we shall continue to do so.
  Mr. Turton: Why is it that the coal-miner is allowed to draw a differential ration and an agricultural worker is not?
  Mr. Strachey: The hon. Member is under a complete misapprehension. An agricultural worker draws a differential ration. For example, he draws a differential ration of exactly eight times the amount of cheese, and a differential ration of bread also.
  Mr. Tiffany: Can my right hon. Friend say when these new regulations will be made public?
  Mr. Strachey: As soon as possible.
  Mr. Baldwin: In view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the present rationing system, which is shared by hon. Members in all parts of the House, will the Minister consider meeting representatives of the National Union of Agricultural Workers and the National Farmers' Union to see whether this iniquitous position cannot be reversed?
  Mr. Strachey: If those bodies approached me, I have no doubt that I would be willing to meet them.

  AUSTRO-YUGOSLAV FRONTIER (INCIDENT)
  Mr. Pickthorn(by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information about Mr. J. E. Burke, a British military officer reported shot dead by a Yugoslav guard, and about his wife and another officer who were arrested on the same occasion.
  Mr Bevin: Yes, Sir. The first information which we received about this incident came from His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade. He reported that the Assistant Minister for Foreign Affairs in the Yugoslav Government had telephoned on the morning of 26th April to express his great regret that as a result of an incident on the Austro-Yugoslav frontier one or two British soldiers had lost their lives. He stated that the Yugoslav Government proposed the immediate appointment of a mixed Anglo-Yugoslav military commission to establish the facts.
  We have also now received an account from the British High Commissioner in Vienna. The High Commissioner states

  397
  that Lieutenant John Burke, his wife Mrs. Inga Burke and Second Lieutenant Marler left their car at about 4 p.m. on the evening of 25th April at the Loibl Pass and went for a walk. At 8 p.m. they were reported as absent and a search all night by British troops failed to locate them.
  The next morning the High Commissioner received a short report of what had happened from His Majesty's Ambassador in Belgrade. He immediately caused a senior British officer to go to the Yugoslav frontier post and request the return of the body of Lieutenant Burke, who had been shot; and the release of Mrs. Burke and Lieutenant Marler. The Yugoslav officers said they had no authority to do this but would telephone to Belgrade for instructions. Nothing more was heard that day and the next morning Brigadier Churchill, British Commander in the zone, repeated the request in person.
  It has hitherto been impossible to obtain any information as to what actually occurred since the Yugoslav authorities have not yet given us any opportunity of access to the persons who are at present under detention. I have accordingly instructed the British High Commissioner to state that his representative must be allowed free access to the British survivors.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Are we to take it that a joint Anglo-Yugoslav court or committee of inquiry is being set up?
  Mr. Bevin: First of all, we must get access to the survivors. I must get the facts. I do not quite know where this happened. This difficulty has arisen between two sovereign countries and, in accordance with the usual practice, we must be able to collect the evidence and then we shall determine what our course should be. I have sent to the High Commissioner to insist that there must be free access in order to take the statements of survivors.
  Mr. Eden: Am I right in understanding from what has been said that the present information does not enable one
  398
  to judge on which side of the frontier the incident actually occurred? Are we assured that should it have been on our side of the frontier, the right hon. Gentleman would then realise that the legal position from our point of view is a very much stronger one?
  Mr. Bevin: Certainly. As my right hon. Friend knows, the question of where these incidents occur is very important. I must establish the facts. I do not want to exaggerate these differences, but here is an opportunity to remove a lot of ill-feeling if the Yugoslavs and the British High Commissioner co-operate in getting the facts and then, having established them, have an inquiry to see what occurred.
  Earl Winterton: The right hon. Gentleman says that he is asking for access to two British subjects, one of whom is the wife of a man who has been murdered. Surely, the first thing which His Majesty's Government do in all such circumstances is to ask that they should be released?
  Mr. Bevin: No. I am afraid that is what we do not do. I think I am correct in saying that if a thing occurs in another country, we then make representations to that country to get the facts, and then we proceed to act. I think that is quite in accordance with the usual practice. That is what I am doing in this case.
  Mr. Bellenģer: Does my right hon. Friend realise that in these very wild parts, where the line of demarcation is most indefinite, it is easy to stray over the line? Therefore, in these circumstances, would my right hon. Friend at least urge His Majesty's representative in Belgrade to give all possible comfort to the individuals, especially the lady, as soon as possible?
  Mr. Bevin: I have done that. If access is refused, another situation will arise, but this has happened very quickly and I have to try to ascertain the facts. I recognise that there may be disputes about the frontier, but I do not know at the moment. Before I act I ought to be exactly clear what I am doing.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Eden: May I ask the Leader of the House a question about Business? I understand that a large number of hon. Members in all parts of the House wish to take part in the Second Reading Debate tomorrow on the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. May I, therefore, ask the Leader of the House if he would consider a suspension of the Rule for that purpose? Also, may I suggest that we might take the Report and Third Reading of the Animals Bill before we deal with the other Measure? I understand that the Animals Bill is not controversial and can be got rid of very quickly, to the advantage of the herrings.
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. We are prepared to suspend the Rule tomorrow for one hour, in view of the general interest in the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill. We will rearrange the order of Business as announced and take the Report and Third Reading of the Animals Bill first and then the Second Reading of the White Fish and Herring Industries Bill and the Committee stage of the necessary Money Resolution.
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. H. Morrison.]

SCOTTISH BUSINESS (NEW STANDING ORDERS)
3.31 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move,
"That,—

(1) If, after any Public Bill has been printed, whether introduced in this House or brought from the House of Lords, Mr. Speaker is of opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, he shall give a certificate to that effect.

(2) On the order for the Second Reading of any such Bill being read, a Motion, to be decided without amendment or debate, may be made by a Minister of the Crown, "That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills," provided that if the Motion shall have been thereupon objected to by not less than ten Members, it shall pass in the negative.

(3) A Bill so referred to the Standing Committee shall be considered in relation to the principle of the Bill, and shall be reported as having been so considered to the House and shall be ordered to be read a Second time upon a future day.

(4) When the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of any such Bill has been read, a Motion to be decided without amendment or debate may be made by a Minister of the Crown, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills." Provided that this paragraph shall not apply in the case of any Bill to the Second Reading of which notice of an amendment has been given by not less than six Members.

(5) If such a Motion shall have been agreed to, the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a Second time, and shall be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and shall proceed through its remaining stages according to the ordinary practice of this House.

"That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."
I think, Mr. Speaker, that it would be for the convenience of hon. Members if I were allowed to make a general statement covering this proposed new Standing Order on Scottish Public Bills and the proposed new Standing Order on Scottish Estimates. After a general discussion I could, if need be, answer any points which arise.
The relationships of Scotland and England and their rivalries go back to our earliest history, and the period of this history was one of troubles, a considerable amount of violence and certainly a great strain on the energies of both countries. That period came to an end finally in 1707 in the Act of Union, which united

401
these two countries and brought comradeShip and friendship instead of mutual enmity and mutual destruction. From that time forward the history of these countries has been the history of the United Kingdom and, looking back on those times, one can, I think, see that the Union of 1707, which united England and Scotland, has played a very great part in the history of the world.
The United Kingdom could not have played the part in modern history which it has played had it been disunited and disrupted, as it was prior to that date. The enmities, hatreds and rivalries which existed prior to that day, and many of the circumstances surrounding the Act of Union, left behind in some minds an uneasiness, at least, that the dominant partner was not giving fair play to the smaller partner in the Union. That uneasiness has persisted from 1707 until today. It is possible, of course, to argue that Scotland suffers injustice here and there and it is possible, on the other side, to argue that instead of injustice a considerable advantage accrues to Scotland as a result of the Union.
It is not our purpose to argue that today: for the purpose of our discussion today it is sufficient to state as a fact that uneasiness exists. It has long been said that justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done, and it is arising from the last part of that statement that perhaps most uneasiness exists, leaving a certain dissatisfaction as to whether justice is actually done. In recent times there has been uneasiness that there has been a certain drift to the South of the Border of the controls over Scottish life and development. That uneasiness has developed in waves of varying intensity from time to time, mostly resulting eventually in some action to put the matter right.
In the field of legislation, however, although various proposals have been made over the last 20 to 30 years, these proposals have failed somehow to be capable of fulfilment within the United Kingdom Constitution. Mr. Tom Johnston, for example, in the Gilmour Report, put forward proposals in a minority report of his own. The hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart), in a letter to a former Secretary of State for Scotland, put forward proposals en his part. I took a hand in this situation before the beginning of the war
402
and since then the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) has put forward proposals towards this end. The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) has several times raised the earlier proposals and brought them to the notice of the House. Several proposals were made for a further inquiry into this matter and right hon. Gentlemen opposite put down a Motion on the Order Paper bringing forward a practical proposition to refer the Estimates to the Scottish Grand Committee.
When I was appointed Secretary of State for Scotland I found that this matter had reached a considerable degree of intensity and I got down to the job, as soon as possible, of seeing whether anything could be done. As a result of the Government's consideration of proposals put before them, they issued Cmd. Paper 7308 at the beginning of this year, laying their conclusions before the House and proposing the two Standing Orders which are before us today as methods by which some satisfaction could be given. The Standing Orders we have before us, therefore, make two propositions. The first is that the Second Reading of Scottish Bills should, at the will of the House, he referred for Debate to the Scottish Grand Committee. The second proposition, which underlines the proposition put down by right hon. Gentlemen, is that a certain number of days should be set aside in Scottish Grand Committee and, again at the will of the House, for the discussion of Scottish Estimates.
To deal first with the Standing Order on public Bills relating exclusively to Scotland, provision is made that a certificate may be issued by the Speaker certifying that the provisions of the Bill relate exclusively to Scotland. In such a case the Government may propose that the Second Reading Debate on such a Bill should be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee. In earlier times, of course, this proposition would have aroused a certain amount of apprehension, if it were entirely within the power of the Government to refer the Debate to the Scottish Grand Committee because, of course, the Opposition and the House itself have rights in this matter. Provision is, therefore, made in the proposed Standing Order that this will only take place, if there is general agreement that the Bill should be so referred to the Scottish Grand Committee.

403
If the Bill goes to the Scottish Grand Committee, as we presume, that Committee will then debate the principle of the Bill in the same manner as it would ordinarily be debated in the House itself. When that Debate has taken place, the Scottish Grand Committee will report back to the House and the Bill shall be ordered to be read a Second time upon a future day. When the Order of the Day for Second Reading of the Bill has been read in the House, a Motion, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, may be made by a Minister bf the Crown, "That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills." If this Motion is agreed,
"the Bill shall be deemed to have been read a Second time, and shall be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and shall proceed through its remaining stages according to the ordinary practice of the House."
If the process goes smoothly, that is how it will work.
If, however, there is any objection to the process, the objection can be expressed at several stages. In the first place, it will be possible, if not fewer than 10 Members object, for the Government Motion to refer the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading to be frustrated. In that case the Bill will fall back to the normal process of the House. That will not necessarily mean that the Bill will come on immediately. Clearly, it will have to take its place in the programme in the way in which it would otherwise have had to do if the Motion had not been moved.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does that mean that 10 Conservative Members, say, by assuming the part of Mr. Molotov and saying "No," would be able to obstruct this proposal?
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member should recognise that the Constitution does not divide Members of this House into Conservative Members, Labour Members, or Communist Members. They are all Members of the House of Commons. We are all here as Members of the House of Commons with constitutional rights, and there can be no distinction in a Standing Order between a Member with one label attached to him and another kind of Member. It does mean that 10 Members of the House, if they desire, and consider that a Bill should be retained on
404
the Floor of the House for discussion here, can prevent that Bill from being sent to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading Debate. The purpose of that provision is to retain within the House of Commons the power to keep a Bill on the Floor of the House. One of the reasons for that is that previous proposals of this kind broke down because it was recognised that Scottish Members would resent it very much if any Government deliberately took their Bills off the Floor of the House when the Scottish Members regarded them as being of such importance that they ought to be taken on the Floor. This is an improvement which the Government are proposing for the convenience of Scottish Members. If Scottish Members decide that they are not going to discuss a Bill on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, and if that causes delay of a Bill, that will be the responsibility of Scottish Members, and a responsibility they will be prepared to accept.
Mr. Scollan: Would my right hon. Friend make this clear? He is giving the impression at the moment that it is 10 Scottish Members who can object. As I read it, it can be any 10 Members of the House, and 10 English Members. Does he not think that the number is far too small?
Mr. Woodburn: As I have explained, the Constitution does not divide Members into Scottish or English Members. Members of this House are Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. I quite agree that 10 Members of the House of Commons can exercise this right. The question of how many should be able to exercise the right has been considered. We think that 10 would be a sufficient number—sufficient to prevent any frivolous objection. We think that if 10 Members objected to this procedure there would be justification for treating the Bill in the normal way. It would be safe to say if 10 Members objected to this procedure that there was not general agreement that the Bill should go for Second Reading Debate to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Could not the difficulty be got over by making it 10 Scottish Members?
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. and learned Member should recognise that we cannot in a Standing Order distinguish between

405
varieties of Members. The Constitution does not do so. Members of the House of Commons, whether Scottish or otherwise, have rights under the Constitution, and no Standing Order could possibly take those rights away. The requirement that there must be 10 Members will save frivolous prevention of the use of these powers, and will give Members themselves the right to decide that the Government shall not use these powers for important Bills and take them from the Floor of the House. It is recognised that Scottish Members would resent it very much if any important Bill were forced off the Floor, if they thought it of such importance that it should be taken on the Floor.
The next stage at which hon. Members can object, is when the Bill comes back from the Second Reading Debate to the House of Commons and it is ordered to be read a Second time. A Motion to refer the Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee for its Committee stage could, of course, be defeated, if necessary, if hon. Members took the serious step of trying to defeat the Second Reading of the Bill; in which case the House could, if it desired, actually have a Vote on the Second Reading in the House itself. Normally, however, and unless there is any serious objection, a Bill, once it leave the House of Commons, and until it comes back on the Report stage, will be the property of the Scottish Grand Committee; and to that extent this procedure gives Scottish Members almost entire control over the discussion of the Bill.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: Suppose a Bill were defeated in the Committee, would it ever come back to the House?
Mr. Woodburn: It cannot be defeated in Committee, because it will have been referred for Debate to the Committee, and must be reported back to the House. The vote would take place in the House itself. I should like hon. Members to keep in mind that the only sort of Bill the House would allow to be put through this system would be a Bill about which there was fairly general agreement—Bills which were not contentious, or not contentious enough to divide upon. This proposed procedure is a convenience and facility, and not necessarily an interference with the rights of the House itself.
I come to the second proposed Standing Order. It deals with the question of the
406
Scottish Estimates, and provides that a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of public Business, to be decided without Amendment or Debate, to the effect that the Committee of Supply be discharged from considering the Estimates, or any part of the Estimates, for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible. If this Motion is carried the Estimates are then referred to the Scottish Grand Committee, and the whole Estimates, or part of the Estimates, may be debated there. This arrangement is made very flexible. It is possible at any time for the House itself to recover these Estimates, and, if necessary, to have a Debate in Committee of Supply in the normal way. The Estimates are entirely under the control of the House, and yet they are arranged in such a way that they can be referred to the Scottish Grand Committee for discussion in six days in a Session.
It may, of course, be said that that is too short a period to allow, but, in considering the possibilities of the timetable of the Scottish Grand Committee, we had evidence that showed that six days would be as many as would normally be practicable to allocate to this purpose, as the Scottish Grand Committee is having all this other Business allocated to it. The proposal would give a considerable addition of time for the discussion of Scottish affairs. As the White Paper pointed out, these proposals were put forward on the understanding that the two days in the House itself, which are normally allocated to Scottish Business, would be reserved for that purpose, for otherwise there would be a loss and not a gain. These six days are in addition to the two days in the House itself, and are not in substitution for those two days.
Sir Robert Young: Will the six days be six whole days or six mornings?
Mr. Woodburn: That will be a matter, I imagine, for the Scottish Grand Committee. I imagine that generally they wilt be six mornings. I have no doubt that it is within the power of the Scottish Grand Committee itself, if on some special occassion it should want to sit longer than a morning, so to arrange. This is not a matter which is covered in these Standing Orders. It would be covered by the Standing Orders of the Scottish Grand Committee. The Estimates are dealt with in

407
that way. The Estimates come back to the House, and in coming back to the House they are reviewed and voted upon in the normal way in Committee of Supply.
This proposal accords very closely with the proposal made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) in his Motion. There are certain adaptations in it. It is a Standing Order. We hope it will meet with acceptance. I would stress the flexibility of these arrangements, which may or may not be used, according to the wishes of the House itself and of hon. Members. Technically, the Motion for the reference of Estimates to the Scottish Grand Committee is put down by a Minister of the Crown; but, clearly, the Government itself does not set out to allocate days for the discussion of Estimates, unless the Opposition or particular hon. Members wish to have such a discussion. In practice the initiative for securing the use of these powers will come from the usual channels which arrange these days when desired. Technically, the two Parliamentary days are at the disposal of the Opposition for the time being, who can use them for any purpose they desire. But I have no doubt that the Scottish element in any Opposition in this House will be able to ensure that at least that Scottish custom is not lost under these proposals.
I make no claim that these proposals are in any way a revolution, or that they create some new Parliament, or anything of that kind. They are for the simple and clear purpose of giving Scotland more time to discuss its affairs, and more control over its affairs. Obviously, because of historical associations, there is a clear distinction in the treatment of Scotland in these matters. Moreover, the laws of Scotland are very largely different, in construction and history, from the laws of England. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) will be able to speak on this more accurately than I, but I should think it is a physical impracticability to assimilate the laws of Scotland and England over all the past period. Therefore, from time to time it is necessary that there should be separate legislation for Scotland and England. It is not necessary merely because people want separate legis-
408
lation, particularly if it is to say the same thing; but legislation adapted to English law cannot at the same time fit into the construction of Scottish law, and in all those cases there must clearly be separate legislation. On occasion, for the convenience of the programme of the House, attempts have been made to get over that difficulty—as in the last Local Government Bill. But I think hon. Members will agree that that is not a satisfactory expedient, even from the point of view of saving time.
One or two advantages arise from these proposals which may help us in that regard. Where a Bill will be on the same lines in both countries and where it is unnecessary to have two Debates in the House itself on the principles of the Bill, the Scottish Grand Committee might decide to debate the principles. There may be Bills of a technical nature which can be speedily disposed of by the House, and then dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee. There may be other Bills of different types which are also suitable for that purpose. However, I think it is agreed on all sides of the House that there are Scottish Bills of such standing and importance that the proper place to discuss them is on the Floor of the House of Commons. The advantage of this proposal over all previous attempts is that it leaves the procedure flexible, it leaves it in the control of the House itself and in the control of hon. Members. I commend these proposals to the House in the hope that they will be given a trial, and that Scotland and the House of Commons will secure mutual advantage from their working.
4.4 P.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: We all agree now that changes in the procedure of this House are necessary in order that there may be further opportunities for the discussion of Scottish Business, and that these new Standing Orders go a very long way at least to meet the situation. We on this side of the House proposed a large part of these Orders originally. We proposed them in the form of Sessional Orders, because in our view any departure of this kind must necessarily be of an experimental nature, and we thought that it might be easier to frame a Standing Order at the end of an experimental period, when it had become

409
clear whether or not we had got just the right arrangement. But even in the present form I think the Secretary of State agrees that these proposals are experimental, and, therefore, I do not think it would be very useful to go minutely into the details of the various proposals. We shall have to see as we go along just how each part of the proposal is working, and it may well be that before we reach finality, changes may have to be made in one or other, or both, of the new Standing Orders. I can assure the Secretary of State that we shall do our best to make these new arrangements work in our common interest, which is the welfare of our native land.
It is perhaps useful to spend a few moments in considering just why these changes are necessary. In a moment I will say something about the more remote historical retrospect of the Secretary of State. The real reason which has made these changes necessary now—at least, in my view—is the growing interference of the Government in spheres in which they previously did not interfere. I shall not argue—and I apprehend it would be out of Order so to do—whether that tendency is good or bad. No doubt there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of the House on whether that has already gone too far. But taking things as they stand, in our view it is clear that that growing interference of Government has meant that there are now a great many more topics needing discussion than there were, even 10 years ago. I should hope that all Scottish Members would agree that when the Government interfere in any new sphere, that interference ought to carry with it adequate opportunities in this House to discuss the way in which it is working.
Because of the great expansion of the sphere of Government these changes have become necessary—indeed, I would say urgently necessary. The changes cannot be achieved by any allocation of extra time in this House in present circumstances, because—as the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends know as well as we on this side—this House is already being overworked. It is physically impossible for the House to deal with any more, so that we have to find an alternative, at least until the day comes when the functions of this House revert to some more reasonable hours and periods of sitting. We now have to take things as we
410
find them, and we must have opportunities upstairs in Committee which many people would no doubt prefer, had it been possible, as opportunities in the House itself.
Obviously, this will impose a very large additional burden on the already extensive work which falls upon the shoulders of every one of us; but we are prepared to shoulder our part of that burden, as no doubt are hon. Members opposite. With reference to the intervention of the hon. Member for Newton (Sir R. Young), I would ask the Secretary of State to give an undertaking that he will not propose Sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee on Estimates beyond one o'clock.
Mr. Woodburn Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.
Mr. Reid: Not only the arrangements of the Officers of the House, but the arrangements of hon. Members—in particular the need for Scottish Members to be available in this House throughout its Sittings—in my view preclude any use of this new procedure at any other time than in the forenoon. I hope, therefore, that the right hon. Gentleman will make it quite clear that he will not support any extension of these proceedings beyond one o'clock, either on Bills or on Estimates.
The Secretary of State did go into some historical retrospect; but I have no intention of going back to 1707; nor have I any intention of debating the general merits or demerits of the Union of the two Kingdoms. Our views on that subject are very well known. We believe that the Union of the United Kingdom is of great economic benefit to both Scotland and England.
Mr. Rankin: Especially to England.
Mr. Reid: On the political side, we believe that the integrity of the Union of our two countries is the foundation stone of international co-operation and of co-operation in the Commonwealth and Empire. If we removed that foundation stone our chances of that co-operation which we all agree is necessary to achieve peace in the present disturbed period of world history would be very seriously impaired. Therefore, on the two grounds, that it would be foolish economically to divide the United Kingdom and that it might be disastrous politically, we support the United Kingdom. But, of course, we

411
all recognise—this is not a party matter-that there are separate Scottish interests which require our vigilance and our discussion; and it is in order that we may be able to maintain those Scottish interests that we support these opportunities for further discussion.
Before the war, the tendency to give opportunities for separate Scottish legislation had been growing for some time, and had achieved very considerable dimensions. We were getting our own Bills in most cases—I do not say in all, but certainly in most cases, where it was appropriate—and we must continue to get our own Bills. I would say that that is necessary wherever differences of law, or of tradition, or of economic conditions make it desirable. Where there are no such differences, then, of course, a United Kingdom Bill is perfectly appropriate. But where there are such differences it is most unsatisfactory to have a long Scottish application Clause, which is never properly debated, particularly if a Bill goes to a Standing Committee, which is now limited to 50 Members. I would remind the Secretary of State that one result of this Government reducing the number of Members on a Standing Committee has been to increase the necessity for separate Scottish legislation, because it is quite impossible for Scotland to be adequately represented on a Standing Committee which includes only 50 Members. In the old days, when the number was 70, the possibility was much greater.
We take no exception to this new procedure of Second Reading discussions taking place in the Scottish Grand Committee, provided it is used in a reasonable way. Without attempting to lay down any hard and fast rules, I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is not an appropriate method of dealing with controversial Bills. I am not sure that it will work at all well unless the Second Reading Debate is likely to be concluded within, say, two morning Sittings. I am certain that if we send to the Scottish Grand Committee Bills which require three or four, or more, Sittings to dispose of Second Reading discussions—and I am sure the Secretary of State has not in mind any intention of moving the Closure—then I think we shall find that we have clogged up the new instrument.
412
In regard to the Estimates, the House will know that there were always 20 Supply days and that a large number of them were taken up with topics equally germane to all parts of the United Kingdom. These were neither English nor Scottish Supply days. On the other hand, a number of Supply days were devoted to the English Departments, and the practice had grown up of devoting two Supply days to Scottish affairs. I can say, on behalf of my hon. Friends, it is our contention that there should still be two Scottish Supply days taken on the Floor of the House for discussing the affairs of Scotland; we shall certainly not breach that tradition. There is a further element which makes these new proposals desirable. It will be remembered that there were opportunities before the war for Private Members' Business, and that it was by no means uncommon for a Scottish Member to be successful in the Ballot, either for a Bill or a Motion.
Therefore, there were opportunities for discussing Scottish affairs on Bills introduced by Private Members, or on Private Members' Motions. These opportunities have now gone. Furthermore, it will be within the recollection of those who were in the House before the war that there was no competition in those days for Adjournment Debates. It was easy to get the Adjournment, at comparatively short notice, at almost any time in the Session, with the result that there was also that chance of raising questions in regard to Scottish administration, if any Members felt it was necessary. It is very much more difficult to do that now. We are now in the position that it is much more difficult to discuss Scottish affairs than before the war and that there are considerably fewer opportunities for doing so.
It is in these circumstances that we initiated this matter at the beginning of the current Session by putting down a Motion on the Order Paper. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted our proposals and he has added to them in regard to the Second Reading of Bills being taken upstairs. His proposal is even more experimental, but we hope that these proposals together, will considerably increase the opportunities of useful discussion on matters affecting Scotland. It is unnecessary at this stage to discuss the details of these proposals, although some of my hon. Friends may have concrete points to raise. On the footing that the right

413
hon. Gentleman will not preclude any Amendment, should it become necessary, I think we can safely accept and use these proposals during the remainder of the Session, although, as I have indicated, it may be necessary to make changes during the following Session. I feel sure that if these reforms are properly introduced they will prove valuable to the affairs of Scotland.
4.20 p.m.
Mr. Westwood: I welcome, with pleasure, the proposals submitted to the House, and I do so from the point of view of one who has had a fairly long experience in the administration of Scottish affairs. I do not propose to take up the time of the House in discussing the first Motion on the Order Paper, except to say that I agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that it is experimental, although I think it will turn out to be of advantage to Scotland. I propose to concentrate on the second proposed Standing Order. I hope my right hon. Friend will give no guarantee that we are to end our discussions at 1 p.m., otherwise we shall have the equivalent of only two days for discussing Scottish Estimates. I always understood that a day was a day, and not just two hours. It should be possible for us to adjourn at 1 p.m., and then to meet again at 2 p.m. or 3 p.m. to continue our discussions.
Few people, both inside and outside this House, seem to realise the amount of devolution which has taken place, and the number of Scottish problems which now need to be discussed. If we are to have an efficient administration, then the administrators must be open to criticism. Criticism keeps the administration up to the highest standards. When I first came to the House, we had only one day to discuss all these intricate Scottish problems, and it was largely the result of the efforts of the Labour Members at that time that we were able to impress on the Government of the day the need to give us two days for discussing Scottish Estimates. Although there may have been some efforts made by the Opposition in this case, I am very pleased that this additional time to discuss the problems of administration in Scotland has come from a Labour Government.
414
What have we to discuss during these six days? I would point out that one Minister is responsible for all the executive work of Scotland, and that in these six days he will have to do the work of at least three English Ministers. We may decide on one day to consider the problems of health. This subject covers a wider field in these days, and involves the new Health Scheme, hospital administration and other matters which did not concern our predecessors. The Minister responsible for all these matters is the Secretary of State for Scotland, whereas in England the Minister of Health is responsible. In addition, the Secretary of State for Scotland is concerned with all the problems connected with town and country planning, for which one Minister is responsible in the case of England. All the problems concerning local authorities and their work may well take up one of these Supply days, and again the Secretary of State for Scotland is the Minister who will have to reply.
In the case of education, the Secretary of State for Scotland is again responsible, whereas in England the Minister of Education devotes his whole time to these matters. There are now problems to be discussed today, because there is a new spirit abroad and we are hot satisfied with some of the old conditions. There are the questions of school accommodation, staffing of schools, feeding of schoolchildren, all requiring time for consideration. I wish to emphasise that in each of these cases there is a separate Minister responsible in England, whereas in the case of Scotland they all come under the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Secretary of State for Scotland is also responsible for agriculture and fishing—one of our greatest industries. He is the great Pooh-Bah in all these matters.
After these new Standing Orders have been passed it will not be humanly possible for one man effectively to carry out all the work involved. There are also the problems of the Home Department, such as the care of homeless children, administration of the police and the fire service, and all the multiciplicity of sub-the problems of the Home Department, There, again, it is the Secretary of State for Scotland who is responsible. I welcome these proposals as being a step in the right direction, but I am convinced that no one person can effectively carry

415
out all the work involved. If I had remained longer in office, I would have had proposals ready for increasing the number of senior Ministers for Scotland. We ought to have a Minister of Health and Education, and two senior Ministers instead of one. I should be out of Order if I went into this subject any further, so I will conclude by saying again that one man cannot be made the Pooh-Bah of Scotland and effectively carry through its administration.
4.37 P.m.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: I welcome our old friend the former Secretary of State for Scotland back on his feet again, and I am pleased to see that he has lost none of his vitality and friendly qualities which made him so popular when he was the head of our Scottish administration. I wish to deal with the first of these Standing Orders. Without wishing to throw a spanner into the works in this mutual admiration society, I must say, quite candidly, that I cannot agree with the Secretary of State for Scotland, nor with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hi ahead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) in regard to these proposals. To my mind they are futile and meaningless. What does this first Standing Order mean, and what does it propose to do? It means that England, through its representatives in this House, is entirely cut off from the affairs of Scotland so far as criticism, constructive or otherwise, is concerned. I consider that to be wrong, because England is tied to Scotland geographically, socially, commercially and politically. We are all part and parcel of the same United Kingdom, and we cannot sever the one from the other by means of a Standing Order of this character.
If this nonsensical system is adopted, as no doubt it will be by the obedient hordes of English Members who will he summoned from the lobbies and the Smoke Room when the vote is taken, then Scotland, through her representatives in this House, can say what she likes, can do what she likes and can vote how she likes on any Measure which relates to England and Wales, but England and Wales, through their elected representatives, are denied a similar right in regard to a Scottish Measure, whether it affects them or not.
Mr. Scollan: Nonsense.
Sir T. Moore: The hon. Member should let me continue the argument before he says, "Nonsense." I have neither English nor Welsh blood in my veins—I will not say thank goodness—so I can speak objectively in this matter. I think the Government's proposals are both unjust and contrary to our constitutional practice. Further, so little do they mean good or benefit for Scotland that 10 Members and, on occasions, even six Members, of any nationality or none, may render them abortive. The Secretary of State slid quietly over that fact, and tried to point out that we were all Members of Parliament, whether Scottish, Irish, English or anything else—
Mr. Woodburn: When the hon. and gallant Member talks about 10 Members stopping us, does he not remember the motto on the Scottish coat of arms, "Nemo me impune lacessit"?
Sir T. Moore: If I may develop my argument, I think I can convince the right hon. Gentleman that something more drastic than is now proposed is required to meet the situation. I have come to the regrettable conclusion that this Motion was introduced for one purpose and one purpose only—to throw a meaningless sop to the Scottish Nationalists, to whom this Socialist Government have promised so much and given so little.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Does not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman realise that the real object of the Motion is to give England Home Rule?
Sir T. Moore: We are not discussing the rights or wrongs of the English position at the moment; we are discussing this Motion and I repeat, it is a sop to the Scottish Nationalists, to whom this Government have promised so much and have given so little. It is a deliberate attempt to blind those decent and patriotic Scots who are genuinely and properly convinced that Scotland needs more say in her own affairs, particularly in her purely domestic affairs, and that there should be a greater devolution in the conduct of those affairs. If the Government really want to clear their conscience against this charge, and do something to justify the pathetic faith which Scottish Labour put in them at the last Election, there is, I suggest, a proposal that they should adopt instead of this Motion. I have put this suggestion

417
forward once or twice before but the Government, in their blindness, failed to take note of it. I will repeat it now although, naturally, I will leave the details to be filled in by the Government. It has been said on several occasions that it would be in the interests of Scotland—and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead has stressed it today—that there should be more intimate contact, in a purely Scottish atmosphere, between those who frame the laws, those who have to carry them out and those who have to obey them.
We know the case of the Scottish Nationalists very well. It is that there should be some form of Government or Parliament sitting in Edinburgh. There is a great deal to be said for that, and for those intimate daily contacts between those who initiate and frame legislation and those who have to obey that legislation when it is passed. But, rightly or wrongly, both sides in this House have decided that the creation of a purely Scottish Parliament might, in the end, be to the detriment of Scottish interests; that it might possibly lead to the development of alienation between England and Scotland. There is, however, another method by which the same purpose could be achieved, and that is by setting up a Scottish Council, to sit in Edinburgh, which would consist of the Lord Provosts of cities, the provosts of large burghs, the convenors of counties, recognised trade union leaders, recognised leaders of the professions and of the churches—all duly elected by their own representatives. That would be a truly representative Scottish body, a cross-section of the best informed leadership in Scotland.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: What functions would that body perform and what authority would it have?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. Member has asked that question, but I cannot allow the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to reply, as it is outside the scope of the Motion.
Sir T. Moore: I am sure you would not have me run away front that question, Sir. I can answer it in a few words.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No, I am protecting the hon. and gallant Member.
Sir T. Moore: I must resist the very kindly and courteous defence you put up for me, Sir; I do not want it. I have been challenged to say what functions I would attach to the organisation which I have suggested should be set up. If I am not allowed to answer, the Scottish newspapers will say, tomorrow, that I had no answer. I am sure you would not like me to suffer that indignity.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No matter what the newspapers may say in Scotland tomorrow about the hon. and gallant Member's speech, it would be wrong for me to permit him to continue a digression which, in itself, was out of Order.
Sir T. Moore: I shall not continue the digression, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was merely about to answer the question which had been put to me.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. and gallant Member attempts to answer it he will be going outside the scope of the Motion. I really ought to have called him to Order before the question was asked.
Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry if I challenged the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to elaborate something which was out of Order.
Sir T. Moore: I accept the hon. Member's apology. This Motion implies that the Second Readings of Scottish Bills shall not take place on the Floor of this House but shall, in certain circumstances, be committed to the Scottish Grand Committee. I say that instead of that process taking place a council such as I have mentioned should initiate all legislation affecting Scotland, of which the principles should afterwards be debated on the Floor of this House, by all Members of Parliament in the ordinary way. As I have said, we are intimately connected with England and Wales geographically, socially, educationally and in many other ways, and we ought not to be divorced from that connection, as we shall be, by the acceptance of this Motion. I think I have answered the question which had been put to me by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. MacMillan).
Judging by the attitude you have taken up, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not think it would be profitable to refer to one or two points with which I intended to deal, but there is little doubt that if the course

419
I have suggested were adopted, it would give Members of the House of Commons, who represent English and Welsh and Irish constituencies, the feeling that they were taking their proper and fair part in assisting and helping a nation which has done more than any other to make this Britain of ours truly great—perhaps I should have said this once great Britain. I am reminded of the free vote in the House recently, when the Government ran away on the issue of capital punishment. The Government must govern. They must determine what is the best way to run Scottish affairs. The proposals outlined in this Motion are nonsensical, because they can be rendered abortive by 10 Members or even six, whether English, Welsh or Irish. That is not government, and I suggest, with all humility, that the Government should accept the proposal I have put forward as being truly democratic, that they should truly govern and put Scotland's interests on the same level—no higher but no lower—than those of the United Kingdom as a whole.
4.41 p.m.
Mr. Mathers: It is rather disappointing to find in the early stages of this Debate, on a matter which depends for its proper working upon a great deal of unity among Scottish Members, such a cleavage of opinion between hon. and right hon. Members opposite. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) welcomed the Government's proposals, not as creating a revolution in Scottish affairs or in the procedure of this House, but as something worth while and which, if properly handled, will, I am sure, be of advantage to Scotland as a Parliamentary instrument. I take the same line. For many years I have had the desire to see Scotland have more responsibility for her own affairs. I have wanted to see the authoritative stamp of Scotland put upon the things for which she was responsible. This Motion does not bring that about to as great an extent as I would wish but, nevertheless, I accept the Government's proposals as being of use for the time being and as a step in the right direction.
I hope it will be found that what is being done now will work out to the considerable satisfaction of Scottish Members who have to take part in Parliamentary affairs.
420
These proposals will enable us the more faithfully and effectively to exercise our functions as representatives of Scottish constituencies. Contrary to what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore), I think they will be accepted readily by the majority of Scottish Members in this House. It is interesting to note that this step is being taken at a time when we have a crowded legislative programme. It shows that attention is being paid to the call that has come from Scotland. I look upon these proposals as going as far as we can go at the moment without the considerable amount of contentious legislation which would be required to take us further along the road that many of us wish to travel.
I will say very little about the second part of the proposals relating to the discussion of Estimates, which was dealt with so well by my right hon. Friend. The point I want to deal with relates to the handling of the Second Reading of Bills in the Scottish Grand Committee. My concern is to know how that is to be done. Under what rules are we to work when matters are referred for Second Reading discussion? No decision, I observe, will be arrived at, because it is obvious from the statement of the Secretary of State that we will not take a vote on the Second Readings in Scottish Grand Committee. As hon. Members know, when we discuss a Bill on Second Reading in the House, with the Mace on the Table, there is a considerable difference in the Rules under which we work compared with those which apply when we go into Committee of the Whole House, or deal with a matter in Committee upstairs. I think that there will require to be some guidance given to Members, and more especially to those who have the responsibility of presiding over the Scottish Grand Committee when it deals with Bills on Second Reading.
I am sure that some of us had the impression in the earlier stages of these proposals that the actual Second Reading would be dealt with in the Scottish Grand Committee and a vote on the Second Reading would be taken in that Committee. It has become obvious that that is not to be the case. I can quite understand that where there is controversy the Bill will not go to the Scottish Grand Committee. Therefore, a considerable amount of unanimity will be required in

421
order that we may use this opportunity which is provided for us by this new adaptation of the Rules and Standing Orders.
So far as the second proposition dealing with Estimates is concerned, I think that it would work under the Committee Rules in the ordinary way. What this provides us with is normally an extra 15 hours of discussion on Scottish matters—six Sittings. The usual Sittings in Committee are two-and-a-half hours from 10.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. Six meetings will provide us with 15 hours of extra discussion, because we shall have the two days in the Chamber itself in Committee of the Whole House, which we shall still claim when dealing with Scottish Estimates.
Mr. McKie: The right hon. Member speaks with great authority on these matters. Does he mean that he would only support sitting until 1 p.m. and would not support the suggestion of his right hon. Friend?
Mr. Mathers: I had not finished what I was saying about that. It seems to me that if we wish to use more than the normal time, and if we wish to find more than 15 hours to deal with these matters, we shall require to use the opportunity that is provided in Committee rules of sitting later in the day, and providing ourselves with opportunities while the House is also in Session. We should require to have this double sitting on the same days as we had the six Sittings, because the provision is for six days to be added to our opportunities of discussing the Estimates. I hope that there will be some adaptation of the Standing Orders for dealing with matters in the Scottish Grand Committee, especially in relation to the Second Readings, and that we shall get some guidance on that particular point.
This is not a tremendously big thing we are doing but it is something in keeping with Scottish desires, and I believe that if we apply ourselves to using our opportunities properly we can make worthy use of those opportunities. Therefore, I cordially support the proposition put forward by the Secretary of State.
4.51 p.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I would like to take a middle line between what I would call the happy optimism of the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) and the almost despairing note which I
422
detected in the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). The only thing that matters in this case is: Are these proposals to be for the good of Scotland or are they not? If we can say "Yes," then we must support them. I think that they are a step in the right direction, although they are not much more. The first of the two proposals I would describe in the language of our country as fushionless. I do not think that there is much to it, because I am quite sure that everything will be objected to by ten Members, and we shall have the Bill on the Floor of the House anyway.
The second proposal I believe to be of very considerable value. It raises, however, the difficult position which Scottish Members will find themselves in, that they will want to be upstairs discussing the Estimates for Scotland when, at the same time, it may be very essential for them to be downstairs discussing something else. That is what we are always up against. It is of the utmost importance that we should have as many Scottish Members as possible on as many Bills and Committees as possible, because we want Scotland to be represented. It would be fatal for us to give the impression outside that we deal with Scottish matters only in a parochial way, when we are Members of a United Kingdom Parliament and should have our say on all United Kingdom matters. That is a very big point that crops up sometimes when we are discussing Scottish Business upstairs in the mornings, and it will be definitely so with afternoon sittings when there is something else going on in the House.
The question of Scottish nationalism is always at the back of our minds, because in our constituencies we know that to be a very live force—and more so in some constituencies than in others. Unfortunately, when we stand up for the Scottish nation we seem to be accused of belonging to the Scottish Nationalist Party, which is an entirely different thing. It should be realised that when we stand up for the Scottish nation we are prepared to accept what is good in Scottish nationalism, but not what is bad. I hope that this will be regarded as an experiment, because I believe that we shall see, in a short time, how it works—whether it affects Scottish affairs favourably, and whether it will be worth while, or whether

423
we shall require something else. We must keep an open mind on the matter.
The Secretary of State made an interesting reference to the instrument called the Treaty of Union between Scotland and England of 1707. As the Secretary of State was allowed to mention it, I would like to say that, first of all, that I do not think that the Treaty of Union in all its details did much good to either country, but the fact that there was a Union did immense good to both countries. Large parts of the Treaty of Union have never been carried out. I could land the Secretary of State in difficulties by asking him, by what right does the Royal Standard of Scotland fly over Dover House, and by what right does the First Lord of the Admiralty sail His Majesty's ships, on the ensigns of which are superimposed St. George's Cross and not St. Andrew's Cross?
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I could ask the hon. and gallant Member if what he is saying now has any relevance to the Motion?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: With the deepest respect, I said that "I could ask him."
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Yes, but knowing the hon. and gallant Gentleman. I feared that he was going to.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I was going to say that I could ask him, but I would not dream of doing so.
I wish to support the proposals, but I hope that they will be regarded as experimental. We shall keep on open mind as to whether they are beneficial or whether further steps are required. The right hon. Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) hit the nail on the head when he said that the Secretary of State had an impossible job for one man to do. He was near to getting out of Order on that point and as I see that you are looking in my direction, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will close by asking that we give this a trial and do our best to make it work. If there are obvious signs that something further is required, I hope that the Government will give us an opportunity of examining the matter again.
4.57 P.m.
Mr. McLean Watson: I can understand that the
424
Motion before the House will be welcomed by the other side, with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I think that the Secretary of State will agree with me when I say that when these proposals were tabled they got a very chilly reception in Scotland. The national newspapers were very disappointed with the proposals in the White Paper on Scottish affairs. Even to pretend that the proposals before us go very far to meet what the Scottish people think they ought to have in the way of self-government, is expecting too much from them. I agree with those hon. Members who said that we had the right to give the matter a trial. It will certainly give us an opportunity of discussing Scottish affairs at greater length at Westminster in the Scottish Grand Committee. At the same time, we should not delude ourselves into the belief that a very big step is being taken towards giving us what the Scottish people want. I dare not say what the Scottish people want because the Chair has already tabooed any discussion on that matter.
We are met this afternoon for the purpose of discussing Amendments to the Standing Orders and we have to confine our remarks within the terms of those Amendments. I should be a great deal happier and more content with these proposals if Mr. Speaker had the power to say that a certain Scottish Bill, without any sanction from this House, would be submitted to the Scottish Grand Committee. I say that for two reasons. First, it would ensure that Second Reading Debates in Scottish Grand Committee could be taken freely and easily; and, secondly, that even contentious Bills could be discussed in Scottish Grand Committee. The Secretary of State has told us that if we are to get a Bill before the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading it must be a non-contentious Bill, because it lies within the power of 10 Members of this House to prevent a Bill going to that Committee for Second Reading. I do not like that. I should have preferred Mr. Speaker to have the power to certify that a Scottish Bill should go to the Committee for Second Reading whether contentious or not.
I wonder what would happen if a Bill like the Agriculture Bill, which we discussed recently in Standing Committee, came up for Second Reading in this

425
House. Would that be regarded as a non-contentious Bill? If it were to be so regarded I cannot understand why we needed so many meetings of the Scottish Grand Committee to consider it. It was opposed very strenuously by the Opposition side of the House, and I am certain that even a matter of that kind would have been regarded as a contentious Measure and would have been opposed by 10 Members of this House when the Second Reading was formally proposed on the Floor of the House.
I do not like the proposal in this Standing Order and I would prefer the power to certify a Bill to be given to Mr. Speaker. Unless we are going to have the opportunity of discussing all Scottish Bills on Second Reading in Scottish Grand Committee I do not see that there is going to be a great deal in the proposals before us, because after a Bill has had its Second Reading on the Floor of the House it goes to the Scottish Grand Committee. We already have the privilege of taking the Committee stage of Scottish Bills in the Scottish Grand Committee, and unless we are also to be assured that there is to be an opportunity of discussing Scottish Bills, whether contentious or not, on Second Reading in the Scottish Grand Committee, I do not see any particular advantage from the first of the changes to the Standing Orders.
The second change with regard to the Scottish Estimates will be an improvement. We shall have an opportunity of meeting on six days for the discussion of the Scottish Estimates, but I am afraid that the Secretary of State will have to hold his hand with regard to promising that these days are only to be two and a half hours in the forenoon, because it is possible that we may require a great deal more time to examine the Scottish Estimates. As a matter of fact, the complaint has always been—and it has been voiced over and over again in Scotland—about the inadequacy of the time at Westminster for the discussion of these Estimates. In the past we have had two days for discussing the Estimates, and in that time we have had to cover health, housing, agriculture, fisheries, education, the Home Department and everything which is under the control of my right hon. Friend. Unless we are guaranteed adequate time in the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss these Estimates we are not going to have
426
a much greater opportunity for examining Scottish affairs.
I hope it will turn out better than I expect, but I must confess that what is proposed here falls far short of what the Scottish people have made up their minds that they must have. However, we will join in trying to make this scheme a success, and we will see how far we can go. We will see how much further we can progress in discussing Scottish Estimates in detail. Certainly we require greater opportunities of discussing Scottish affairs and especially the Estimates which deal with health, housing, agriculture and all those other things which fall on the shoulders of the Secretary of State. So far as I can see, what is envisaged in the Amendment to the Standing Orders of the House does not afford sufficient time.
I hope before long that we shall be discussing Scottish affairs on a very much wider basis. I have been in this House when Scottish Home Rule Bills were discussed in Private Members' time. I am not prepared to say at the moment that we should use Private Members' time for that purpose. With the House of Commons being worked as it is at the moment we cannot afford to give Wednesdays and Fridays to Private Members. There is too much in the national plight at the moment to afford that.
Mr. McKie: Whose fault is that?
Mr. Watson: I can remember discussions in this House on Scottish Home Rule on more than one occasion and at least on one occasion the proposals were talked out. I hope it may not be long before we discuss Scottish Home Rule again, but in the meantime we have to carry out what the Secretary of State has proposed this afternoon. We will see how we get on in Scottish Grand Committee. It may have the effect of tying down the movement in favour of Scottish nationalism and for the wider discussion of Scottish affairs. If it does, well and good, but, if not, the time may not be far distant when we shall have to come back once again to the House of Commons to discuss the proper handling of Scottish affairs.
5.10 p.m.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: Most of the criticism directed against these two proposals has so far been to the effect that they do not go far enough. The

427
right hon. and learned Member for Hill-head (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) took a statesmanlike view of this. It was he who, in the first place, suggested the second Motion that the Estimates should be taken upstairs. There is a very great deal to be said for that, for it is desirable that we should have the maximum time possible to probe the Estimates. The right hon. and learned Gentleman then went on to say, "Let us see how we get on with the first Motion. Let us see how the reference of Second Readings to the Standing Committee on Scottish affairs goes." It was also argued that this was a step in the right direction, but that it was not going far enough. However, the right hon. and learned Gentleman left the position open on that. He has not said it is a step in the right direction. It may or it may not be, but he says that we should give it a trial and see how it works.
I am going to submit some arguments this afternoon which will tend to show that this is not really a step in the right direction. First, it is noteworthy that we are here talking about the submission of Bills to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, but let us be clear that it is not purely and simply a Scottish Committee. It has English Members on it. Is that a step in the right direction? In the matter of the Estimates, will the English Members be able to contribute very much? Are they going to suggest, for example, that the Estimates should be reduced—that expenditure in Scotland should be reduced. On the matter of Second Readings, is it appropriate that the English Members should be sitting on that Committee at all? When Second Readings are taken on the Floor of the House, how many English Members are present? The hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) is a regular attender, but what other English Members are normally present? Now we are to have a Committee considering Second Readings of Scottish Bills on which there are English Members. We want to be quite clear what we are doing.
I submit that all we are doing is leaving the Floor of the House clear for other things. In other words, it is not Scotland that is benefiting, but the Lord President of the Council. By sending Scottish Bills upstairs he is getting more time for other Business. Scottish Bills
428
have to be discussed somewhere. They are not going to be discussed either less or more by sending them upstairs. At the moment they are taken on the Floor of the House. In future they will go upstairs, where there will be far fewer members of the public able to be present. The Press representatives present will be fewer. True the Scottish Press will attend, and the Debates will no doubt be reported in Scotland. Presumably these Debates will come on at a time when other Business is being discussed, especially if the right hon. Gentleman is going to tell us that the time for discussion will not only be in the mornings but at a time when other Business is being discussed in the House. Very likely in those conditions the representatives of the English newspapers will make no reference at all to Scottish affairs.
Mr. Scollan: There is not any now.
Mr. Macpherson: There is when a Scottish Bill is taken on the Floor of the House and it is the only Business in the House of Commons. That will probably disappear. I would prefer the time for discussion to be during the morning and not in the afternoon. It is wrong that Scottish Members should be taken away from their United Kingdom and Imperial duties. Of course, it may be that it will be possible to arrange purely English, Welsh or Irish Business on the Floor of the House at the same time as the discussion of Scottish Business is going on in the Committee upstairs, but I doubt very much if that will be so. The right hon. Gentleman will admit that such an arrangement will result in Scottish Members being taken away from their other duties.
As for the proposal that only non-contentious Bills should be discussed upstairs, I think there is not much point in that. It only means that they have to come down here to be discussed all over again on the Floor of the House. If the Bills were contentious, an Amendment would be put down, and the Bill would then come down to be discussed on the Floor of the House. The Secretary of State shakes his head. If I have misunderstood the order, I hope that he will explain clearly how it is intended to work. If when we discuss a Bill upstairs, we find it is contentious and, when it comes downstairs to the Floor of the House an Amendment is put down,

429
or six Members show that they are against the Bill, surely then the Bill has to be discussed on the Floor of the House and a Division has to be taken? Or are we to understand that the Division would be taken in the House without any discussion at all.
Mr. Woodburn: I think that the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the point about contention. Under the rule, a Bill will go from the Floor of the House only because it is generally agreed among Scots Members—other Members will not interfere—that it should go from the Floor of the House in order that the principle should be debated elsewhere. From that point of view, the Bill is not contentious, but that does not mean that there might not be many points in the Bill—for example, the -Agriculture (Scotland) Bill—that are contentious and that can be discussed in the Committee in the usual way.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Would the right hon. Gentleman explain paragraph 4 of the first Order, which raises the question of six Members putting down an Amendment?
Mr. Woodburn: The Lord Advocate will deal with that point.
Mr. Macpherson: I am glad to hear that the Lord Advocate will cover that point. I am bound to say that I did not find that what the Secretary of State had to say on the matter in his original speech was quite clear.
If we are to take a step we should be clear that it is a step in the right direction. The step we are now taking will be irrevocable in the direction of separating Scottish affairs from English affairs. Is that fully realised and is it intended? This House has a right to know what the intentions of the party opposite are in this matter. Do the Government agree with the demand made by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen behind them? I refer particularly to the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers), who said that the present proposal did not go far enough. Do the Government agree officially, or is what they want that this should be a final step? If that is what they want, they certainly will not get it. They cannot get a step taken, however timorous and shaky it may be, without its leading somewhere.
430
If the Government carry this Motion today, they should do so in the full consciousness that they are taking a step in the direction of the separation of the discussion of Scottish affairs from English affairs. They must be quite convinced that this step is intended and that it is desired. Personally, I think that the step is objectionable because it does nothing to give Scotland any more control of her own affairs. We are really only setting up yet another advisory committee, this time a Scottish—or rather partly Scottish—advisory committee to the House of Commons on Scottish Bills. Secondly, I think the proposal will raise a lot of wholly irrelevant controversy. There is certain to be acrimonious discussion whether Bills should be taken upstairs or not. I hope hon. Members realise that. It will raise controversy which will be used against hon. Members in all their constituencies about whether particular Bills should have been taken upstairs or not, and it will be wholly irrelevant and obnoxious. This is a timorous and shaky step. It is not a step in the right direction. It would be better for us to stop where we are and then, at the appropriate moment, to take a longer and more decisive step in the right direction.
5.20 p.m.
Mr. Scollan: I want to ask the House to consider one of the points made by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson), regarding where this step is to lead. I am completely amazed at the very small infant that has been born. I do not think that the tremendous effort that must have been put out before this concession was granted is fully appreciated. This is a break in the tradition of unity between Scotland and England in the form of administration. The Scottish Nationalist section are bitterly disappointed at the smallness of it and at the alleged meanness of it, but the people in Whitehall see, like the hon. Member for Dumfries, the beginning of something new that will lead in an entirely different direction from anything which has happened in the past.
There are many snags in the way of putting this proposal into operation and we shall come across them in due course. No doubt we shall adapt ourselves and overcome them. I was amazed, listening to my right hon. Friend the Member for

431
Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) to find that he has become a convert since he demitted office, to the view that one man is totally incapable of carrying all the duties involved in the office of Secretary of State for Scotland. That fact has been patent to Scottish people for a century or more and they have objected. Almost invariably—with rare exceptions—some prominent Scotsman has been lifted out of the ruck and placed in that privileged position, and he has started to assume that he was possessed of the virtues, abilities and the competence to carry out all the duties placed on the office. It has taken a long time for it to penetrate into the thick skulls of Whitehall that that is not possible. Out of that penetration, is born this very small infant.
Mr. Kirkwood: An orphan of the storm.
Mr. Scollan: It is not big enough to be called that. It is like another famous infant of which it was said: "It is so small that I think we shall keep it."
When we come to discuss Estimates, the question is bound to arise how we are to separate Scottish Estimates from English Estimates and the effect they have on the Budget of the United Kingdom. We may get into a difficulty, but it must be straightened out. One thing this proposal will do; it will give us an opportunity of concentrating upon the economic evils that have afflicted Scotland, admittedly the same, though in a lesser degree, as those which have affected England. The Union has always enabled the Chancellor of the Exchequer to throw a heavy burden of sacrifice north of the Border. There is no virtue in nationalism for the sake of nationalism. For the reasons I have given, Scottish people throughout those economic conflicts have kept on asking for something to be done. We see now what is being done.
I am under no illusion that it will bring very great changes to begin with, but I realise the importance and the significance of the fact that at last a step has been taken, however small. I sincerely hope that in the taking of that step the Scottish representatives here will not forget—this is a very important matter—that, whether the Scottish Nationalists like it or not, the people of our constituencies elected us to
432
this place for all the business of the United Kingdom, and not for the business of Scotland alone. I, for one, would deplore any project brought forward by the present Government and proposed by the Lord President of the Council, who is very astute—we have to watch every little thing he gives us to see where it is going to take us—to set up a Scottish Committee and then to say to us: "There's your place, on the Scottish Committee. Leave the rest of the business to us." If that is the idea in anybody's head, the sooner those people are disillusioned the better.
All Scottish Members in this House were elected to take part in all the business of this House and they intend to assert that right. I have sometimes had the impression recently that certain very important people in this House think that we are here only for Scottish business. We are here to get on with the affairs of the nation, and it is not very satisfactory to think of Scottish affairs being relegated to the background. This is a very small measure that the Scottish Secretary has brought forward, but he has produced something, and I wish it well. I am convinced that it will not be enough and that it will lead to bigger things. It will strengthen the demand for purely Scottish affairs to be dealt with by the people in Scotland in some way, while national affairs concerning Scotland and England are dealt with as usual in this House.
5.27 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) made, as usual, a very competent speech, but I am bound to say that I did not find myself very much in agreement with him. I think it is the first time in the history of this Parliament that that has happened. Like other parties, we have independent minds and we think it right that our views should be expressed. I believe I express the majority view of my Friends—there are five of us—when I say that we welcome the proposals which the Secretary of State for Scotland has made. I could not do anything else. I was one of those who 12 years ago, made detailed proposals to a predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman on these very lines. I proposed two things, and the matter received a great deal of public notice at the time and was followed by much

433
discussion in the Press and elsewhere. One was that the authority and range of the Scottish Grand Committee should be considerably extended. The second, a corollary of the first, was that it was necessary to establish in Scotland what I then called a political general assembly, a gathering of the clans, once a year in Edinburgh. I understand that it would be out of Order to discuss that proposal now, and so I leave it.
I welcome the present proposal to extend the range and authority of the Scottish Grand Committee. The right hon. Gentleman has given me more or less what I then asked for. The case for doing so is simple. Even in 1937, this House was becoming overloaded with business, with the result that none of the business received adequate attention. Scottish business suffered most of all. At that time we got only two days in the year on Estimates—we got a good many extra days as well—and the result was as it is now. Year after year one important Scottish Estimate after another was never discussed. I remember that for several years education was not discussed in this House. The same is happening now. There is not time. Therefore business in the House was being disadvantaged—and our Business in particular. I took the view then, and I take it now, that the chief complaint of the Scottish people is that Parliament does not allocate enough time for the examination of Scottish affairs. I believe profoundly that that is the chief complaint. There are other complaints. I know that some people would go much further and ask for other things. However, I feel that if we can satisfy this complaint we shall have gone a very long way.
The Secretary of State is to be congratulated on having got this much. The hon. Member for Western Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) recognised that this is an achievement on the part of the Secretary of State which we must not belittle. I know how difficult it was to get anything like this through before the war, and the Secretary of State has done very well in getting this change through the various channels and past the obstructions which our Constitution provides. Therefore what we are proposing is a good idea, and we must see how it goes.
I hope that the Secretary of State will generously interpret this matter of the con-
434
troversial Bills and Bills relating exclusively to Scotland. What is the definition of "exclusively"? It must be very difficult to say when a Bill relates exclusively to Scotland. I can imagine that it will be very difficult to produce something under that definition if we treat it with complete stiffness. It is still more difficult to define "controversial" or "non-controversial." The hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) raised a good point and I agree largely with what he said. If the Secretary of State is going to confine our discussions to matters on which we are all entirely agreed, we are turning the Scottish Grand Committee into a nursery or a circle for babes, and that is not what we are there for. The Scottish Grand Committee is bound always to take a controversial view of matters. I cannot imagine that it is possible for Scotsmen to sit down together—even those in the same party, as we have seen this afternoon—without having slightly different views. Those views ought not to be smothered but should be expressed. Sometimes there may be a division on party lines but very often there may be a division on non-party lines. I am a little troubled by the suggestion that only non-controversial Measures will be put up. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can define a little more clearly what he means. What does he mean by "non-controversial"? Surely it cannot mean a Bill upon which there will be division of opinion? If that is so, I cannot agree with it—
Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps I may clear this up right away. After the Second Reading Debate in this House a large number of important Bills are passed without a Division, and that will apply to quite a number of Scottish Bills. That type of Bill would come under the definition.
Mr. Stewart: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. That is probably true. We can conceive a large number of Bills which would not lead to a Division in the House—
Mr. Woodburn: On principle.
Mr. Stewart: —on principle, but I am not happy about leaving it even there. Why should the Scottish Grand Committee be prevented from discussing a

435
Bill upon which there is a division of opinion on the principle? What is the reason for that? I understand the sort of House of Commons official difficulties which might arise about the 10 hon. Members but I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at this again and try not to confine us too much but to give us a chance to deal even with controversial Measures. It will be well worth while. As to the actual Sittings, I cannot understand the argument that this is not an advantage. At present we get two days, which is 13 hours, and under the new method we shall get at least 15 hours with a possible additional 15 hours. This is a clear advantage to us.
I was unfortunately not present, owing to a rather important Committee upstairs which was attended by many of us, to hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but my hon. Friend the Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) has told me that he does not follow the right hon. Gentleman's explanation of paragraph (4) any more than I understand it. It is therefore not entirely because I was not here and did not hear the right hon. Gentleman's speech. It would be a considerable help if the Lord Advocate would explain what is intended.
I offer this proposal a welcome. I agree with everybody else that it is not a great or very revolutionary step and that we do not know where it may lead us, but if it gives us more time to discuss our own affairs, it is a good proposal. As to delegation, I should like to see that in operation in England, Scotland and Wales. That is the right way to look upon this problem—not as a Scottish problem but as a problem affecting the general government and administration of the whole of Great Britain. If this proposal takes us a step in that direction I shall have no objection to it, though I am not a Scottish Home Ruler. I thank the right hon. Gentleman and, while the proposal is not a revolutionary thing, I think that it is worth while.
5.37 P.m.
Mr. Leonard: I have one small fear to express. I am sure the Secretary of State will appreciate that I fully realise that he has done something of advantage to us in getting this matter to this stage. When the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman
436
seemed to indicate dissent from the assertion that there was not a happy Press in Scotland for these proposals. I have paid some attention to the Press and I think we are now being given some kinder remarks, although a little hesitancy is always displayed with regard to the efficacy of these proposals. I agree with the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs that Mr. Speaker's certificate should be sufficient to allow the progress of any Bill to the Scottish Grand Committee. Mr. Speaker has no interests and is quite impartial, and I believe that such a certificate from a person in that position who has considered the Bill and thinks it fit to receive such a certificate, should be sufficient to enable the Bill to go to the Scottish Grand Committee.
I am rather perturbed at the possibility of a Bill's progress being interrupted because of the objection of 10 hon. Members who might think that the Bill infringes on some geographical or other interest of theirs While that is a fact, I feel that there is a possibility that the Secretary of State, in giving guidance to the Parliamentary draftsman, might have the Bill framed so as to escape the possibility of objection by 10 hon. Members. I fear that more than anything else. What is conceived to be desirable in Scotland, may be whittled down in order to avoid the possibility of that objection. I would rather have a Bill which is a necessary Bill for Scotland debated on the Floor of the House than have it whittled down in order to escape the objection of 10 hon. Members to its being debated in Committee I hope I may be able to lose that fear.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Spence: I should be glad if the Lord Advocate would answer two questions when he winds up. The first relates to the point about Procedure which was raised by the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). Here we have a Committee which will take Second Readings. That is contrary to all Procedure on the Floor of the House and it requires to be thought about from that angle. My next point is whether for a Second Reading in Committee we shall get a similar allowance of time to that given for a Second Reading in the House. A normal Second Reading occupies about six hours. Are we to have three mornings, or two and a

437
half mornings, in order to deal with a similar Bill in Committee? The opening and closing speeches usually occupy half an hour at each end and when such a period as that is taken out of a Sitting of two and a half hours, it will leave very little time for normal discussion. I welcome this as an experiment which ought to be tried, but I would in no circumstances recommend that we should sit in the afternoons. That would be entirely wrong because it would prevent our doing our proper job on the Floor of the House.
5.42 p.m.
Mr. William Ross: When the Secretary of State opened his speech he said that his proposals followed a considerable amount of discussion in Scotland in which feelings on the matter ran very high. It would be idle of me to suggest that he has produced something which will allay any fears there may be in Scotland of neglect or lack of control of Scottish affairs by Scotsmen because, fundamentally, what is resented in Scotland by the loud-voiced minority with whom I have very little sympathy is the fact that Scottish affairs are not merely discussed, but, much more important, that decisions are taken by an overwhelmingly English majority in this House irrespective of what may be the feeling and ideas of Scottish hon. Members.
On the face of it, the proposal to take Second Readings in the Scottish Grand Committee does not mean very much. After all, when a Second Reading is taken in this House, the House is really converted into a Scottish Grand Committee for that day, and English, Welsh and Irish hon. Members decide that it is a day for a holiday. Look at the attendance today. I agree with the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that we are here clearing the way for more Government Business in the House while something else is being discussed by the Scottish Grand Committee. There may, however, be one saving grace. Will this mean that Bills for which otherwise the Government cannot find time in the House, will, if acceptable to both sides, be taken by the Scottish Grand Committee and become law? If that were to be the case, I am sure most of us, judging by the past months, if not years, of agitation, would welcome a non-controversial Bill on shop tenure being
438
dealt with by the Scottish Grand Committee. If this new proposal will cover such legislation, then we certainly will welcome it.
On the question of the extra six days for the Estimates, in the parlance of Hollywood, the Secretary of State has got something there, but I want them to be six real days. I have only been in this House a short time but I have heard from the other side, Front Benches and back benches, great complaints about the lack of time in which to discuss Scottish affairs and the neglect of Scottish affairs shown by us. Yet today no fewer than three hon. Members opposite have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland to make sure that, when we get these six extra days, we shall only take forenoons. I expected that, having this concession granted, we would have all-night sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee to meet the Conservative objections.
Mr. McKie: Get a quorum.
Mr. Ross: Anyone who likes to look up the attendances of the past will see those who were absent. I appreciate the need for these extra days. There is a need for more of what the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) called Government interference. The word "interference" has some stigma attached to it, which is probably why he used it, but to my mind this is not a case of interference being an evil. This Government have realised that Scotland's woeful position has been caused by neglect and by lack of interference in the past, and now we must have time to see that the powers we have given to the Secretary of State are being properly wielded. I think every Scottish Member will take full advantage of the extra six days.
In the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore) to which, as his sole constituent in this House, I listened with much dismay and disappointment, he seemed to feel that these offers would mean depriving English Members of their inalienable rights. That is complete nonsense. English Members have never shown themselves tremendously interested in Scottish affairs, otherwise there might have been more of them here today. Quite apart from that, if 10 English Members are so very interested, they can prevent this course being

439
pursued of Second Readings going to the Scottish Grand Committee.
Mr. McGovern: Do not incite them.
Mr. Ross: They are not so easily roused as some pseudo Scotsmen. The hon. and gallant Member's argument that English Members will have no say can be destroyed by anyone who likes to consult the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee, in the proceedings of which English Members play their part, are always helpful, and can hold up the end for their own country. On the whole, I cannot share the feelings of futility of the hon. and gallant Member for Ayr Burghs, who does not seem satisfied with the step for all sorts of conflicting reasons. He, to my knowledge, for the past 25 years in representing Ayr Burghs, has not done much to voice the feelings of Scotland or to gain a greater measure of Scottish control by the Scottish people, and his synthetic indignation is something to which I, as a Scotsman, object coming from my own representative, who happens to be an Irishman. If the Secretary of State assures us that this is not his final effort to grapple with this real problem, but is only a first step, then I feel sure that his proposals will have the support of the majority of the Scottish Members and the Scottish people.
5.51 p.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has attacked my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ayr Burghs (Sir T. Moore). I happen to have listened to my hon. and gallant Friend for a good many years, during which I have often thought that he set an example, followed by many Scottish Members, of missing few, if any, opportunities of putting forward the Scottish point of view. As he is absent, I felt that as one Member who prefers justice to a political point, I might put that forward.
I rise, not because the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) complimented me on being more industrious than my fellow Englishman, but because of the speech of an hon. Member opposite which contained an excellent point. He pointed out that each of us is elected to the House of Commons as a Member for the United Kingdom, not as a Member for
440
England, Wales or Scotland. With regard to the Estimates, it has struck me that for many years now there has not been adequate discussion of Scottish affairs. I say that as an impartial onlooker, and it is inevitable that this must be so. The whole of the work of the House of Commons has grown and, with it, the work which ought to be done in examining Scottish Bills. Certain Scottish affairs are taken upstairs, which relieves the work to some extent, but there can be little or no doubt that the Estimates themselves are one part of the work of the House of Commons where there is the closest connection between the Member, as the representative of a constituency, and the Government of the day.
If there are two days of wide discussion on Scottish Estimates, hon. Members are apt to run away from that detailed discussion which is often most useful in its result. That has led up to this excellent new Order on Estimates. Without in any way wishing to offend anyone I would like to say that wherever this arose, it must have been in the minds of exceedingly ingenious people with a great knowledge of Parliamentary affairs. Having watched the Committee and the hon. Members here, I think it could only have been thought of by someone with that outlook of knowledge and progressiveness which always applies to Tory Scottish Members. Therefore, I conclude that they are responsible. I notice it is not denied.
However, I would point out a real danger. Six days can be spent on the Scottish Estimates in the Scottish Grand Committee, and then they will be referred back to a Committee of the House of Commons which, if I read the Order aright, can then have a further say on them. In other words, it is essential, if money is being collected by one Budget over the whole country, and the spending of that money is apportioned between different parts of the country, that on the Committee stage the whole House of Commons should be able to say something about it.
Mr. Woodburn Mr. Woodburn indicated assent.
Mr. Williams: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. It is right that some Englishman should point that out because, unless it was referred back, there might be a difficult controversy between those who have to pay the tax and those who spend it. If I may reverse that, supposing

441
an English committee, able to deal only with the raising of money, put a heavy tax on whisky and none at all on beer, I fancy there would be considerable trouble. I give that as an illustration to show how necessary it is that there should be this safeguard.
I have made two or three points on this question because these are not matters affecting only one part of the United Kingdom. Those who have taken part in engineering this particular devolution of work from the whole House to the Scottish Grand Committee have done something valuable for Parliament as a whole because it has enabled us—provided we keep the restrictions which are fair—to devolve certain pieces of work to those people who are the direct representative of those affected, and who must, or should know more than the ordinary Member of Parliament about these matters. As an English Member, I am glad to say that, because I believe it sets an example. We might, for instance, be able to devolve certain forms of expenditure to particular committees in other ways.
I apologise to the Scottish Members for having intervened today, not that I owe them any apology for inconvenience, but because I have that diffidence which is natural to all those who come from the West of England. I hope that what I have said will remain in the minds of all hon. Members because this could be used as a precedent to lighten the burdens of Parliament on hon. Members, and put them on the people who are more representative of, and interested in, local affairs. Nothing would be more appropriate than if that could be done for the West Country, in the same way as it is being done for Scotland.
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: At this stage in the Debate most of the points of substance have been touched upon, and I do not propose to retread any of the ground already covered. Before coming to the one point I want to put to my right hon. Friend, I would like to say to the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) that he should not worry too much about the fact that English papers might not give a great deal of publicity to Scottish affairs under this new arrangement, because they do not give that publicity at present. An outstanding example was
442
given last Thursday morning. On the previous Wednesday night there had been a soul-stirring conflict at Hampden Park to decide who should possess the Scottish Football Cup for the following season. In spite of the fact that nearly a quarter of a million people of Scotland witnessed that titanic struggle, there was not a single newspaper in this House of Commons or anywhere else on Thursday morning which was aware that that game had taken place the night before. There was a Scottish event which received no publicity whatever in England, yet it was one of great importance. We do not treat the English in that shabby fashion. We gave a great deal of prominence to the English Cup Final in our Press.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot permit the hon. Member to pursue that argument further. He must keep to the Motion.
Mr. Rankin: I do not want the hon. Member for Dumfries to worry about matters of publicity.
I hope my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will not pay too much attention to two matters that have been forced continuously upon his notice tonight. He is urged to try to define what is meant by a Measure which is "exclusively Scottish," and also to try to define what is meant by a "non-contentious Measure." I hope he will be very careful in replying to both points, because the more we seek to define what any particular phrase or word may mean, the more we will restrict and narrow the activities of the Committee. We will only hamper ourselves in the long run. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should make no attempt whatever to try to define, and thereby restrict, the meaning of those two terms. I want to see this Committee as flexible as possible. Here we have something which can be used to express Scottish needs and Scottish desires. If we use this Committee as it can be used, I believe we shall have taken an irrevocable step today. I can see in this effort the first move towards the establishment of a Scottish Parliament to deal with Scottish affairs.
6.4 p.m.
Mr. McKie: I do not wish to take up very long, because the hour is getting late, and there is other Scottish business. I hope I shall meet with approval from both sides of the Chamber

443
when I say that anything which my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) says in regard to Parliamentary procedure is worthy of close attention and consideration by every hon. Member, on whichever side of the House he sits, because my hon. Friend has had 30 years' experience specialising in Parliamentary procedure. Anything to which he gives his blessing, or disapproval, must be a matter of serious moment to us all. This afternoon he has given a more or less unqualified blessing to these proposals. I venture to say this with considerable trepidation, but I, with my more limited experience and perhaps more shallow reasoning, cannot go as far as my hon. Friend has done in giving his blessing to either or both of these Motions. On the other hand, I am sorry that I cannot go as far as my hon. Friend and next-door neighbour, politically, the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) in more or less wholly condemning the Motions. This time I must take refuge in a via. media—
Mr. N. Macpherson: I almost wholly condemned the first Motion, not the second.
Mr. C. Williams: I deliberately refrained from discussion of the first Motion and only spoke on the second Motion.
Mr. McKie: I can assure both my hon. Friends, perhaps more particularly the Member for Dumfries who, not having been in the House for so long is perhaps not so able to protect his own interests as the hon. Member for Torquay, that I in no way wish to do either of them the slightest injustice in regard to this or any other subject. I have to take refuge in a sort of via media on this occasion. May I assure the representatives of the Scottish Office on the Treasury Bench that my seeking refuge in a via media does not mean a via media of indifference. I can assure the House that I shall watch the future working of these Orders, if they are agreed to, with the greatest interest, and shall be ready to point out what I think, if they turn out so, is a, danger of their doing us an injury.
I was amazed to hear the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) saying that he did not think there was anything very novel or constituting a radical departure in the proposals to send a Bill to
444
Standing Committee for Second Reading. I should view this proposal as a very radical departure. After all, Standing Committees, so far as my memory serves, were only set up to relieve congestion in this Chamber under the auspices of the Liberal Government in 1906, just 20 years after the introduction of the Guillotine, borrowed from the French Chamber. We are making a radical departure in agreeing to certain Bills of a non-contentious character being taken on Second Reading by the Scottish Grand Committee. I must enter a caveat, although no doubt the hon. Member for Kilmarnock would not agree that it is a caveat and would hail my remark with delight, that having taken these Second Readings there is no reason why we should not send any Bill to a Standing Committee for Second Reading, and so we may be inserting the thin end of the wedge, or setting up a precedent which may be quoted, or acted on, in future by any Administration, of whatever political complexion. I am glad to have the silent approval of my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay on that.
When he replies, I hope the Lord Advocate will pay due heed to what was said by the right hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers). He dealt with the Motion which is concerned with sending Bills to Scottish Grand Committee on Second Reading. He said, very properly, that this novel departure would place the occupant of the Chair in considerable difficulties, certainly at the outset. He has occupied the Chair in Scottish Grand Committee with the approval of both sides. Perhaps the Lord Advocate is not in a position to say much on that this afternoon, and perhaps no one could, as we can only find out these things by experience, but I was glad that the right hon. Gentleman pointed that out to the representatives on the Government Front Bench. I sincerely hope that there will be no attempt by this, or any succeeding Government, to suggest that we should sit in the afternoons when Second Readings are down for discussion. That would be wholly unsuitable and hon. Members on both sides of the House would perforce be in danger of dereliction of duty by their enforced absence from the Chamber when United Kingdom and Imperial matters, if we are ever to discuss Imperial matters in the future, are to be discussed.

445
In the Second Motion, dealing with consideration of Scottish Estimates by the Scottish Grand Committee, we are also making a considerable departure from previous practice and, indeed, of principle. I was glad to hear the hon. Member for East Fife (Mr. Henderson Stewart) reminding the House of a suggestion he made a number of years ago on this point. I must not deal with the other question that he raised years ago which, as he said, would he out of Order, but it was only the question of the Scottish Estimates being considered by the Scottish Grand Committee that led to that controversy in the Press of Scotland of which he reminded us this afternoon. A Standing Committee is not a Committee of Supply and, just as will be the case in regard to Second Readings of Bills, the Scottish Grand Committee on Estimates will be incapable of coming to any decision, because if they did so—and I think this an even graver matter than the question of Second Readings of Bills—we should be dealing with financial matters, and the Standing Committee could not constitutionally come to any decision. That matter must be reserved exclusively for the Committee of Supply, which has sole responsibility for raising moneys which are to be devoted to various Departments of the State.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood), whom I was delighted to hear once again, endeavoured to make great play with the fact that the Secretary of State for Scotland was considerably overburdened and that he had to combine the duty of overseeing very many Departments in his own person, whereas in England those Departments had individual Ministers. Of course, we on this side of the House are well aware of that. I, for one, repeatedly pointed out, when we were debating many of the Bills introduced by this Government in the Scottish Grand Committee, that that was the case. We put down Amendments to try to spare the occupant of the Scottish Office from being more over-burdened in the future than he has been in the past, but we did that without avail. The right hon. Gentleman seems to have made a new discovery this afternoon. I would point out that if this proposal about the 15 hours or so is agreed to, whoever is in charge of the Department will, at all events, have more time at his disposal to consider these matters along with his colleagues than was the case
446
under the old system when we had only two days in Committee of Supply on the Floor of the House.
I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs (Mr. Watson) alluded to the fact that in the past the Scottish Department had not been discussed in the old Committee of Supply in the careful way that he would have wished to see. The hon. Gentleman will remember that in the days between the wars he and his colleagues were almost always in opposition. Indeed, hon. Gentlemen opposite have never tired of pointing that out. It is the duty of those on the Opposition side of the House to say what Votes shall be taken for discussion. If enough Votes were not discussed in those days, the responsibility must lie solely upon the shoulders of the hon. Member for Dunfermline Burghs and his colleagues who were not up and doing in the way they should have been.
I think it was the hon. Gentleman or one of his hon. Friends—certainly these sentiments were expressed by more than one of his colleagues—who said that this was a way of relieving congestion in the House. So it is, but I point out to the hon. Gentleman that just as he and his colleagues may have been guilty of not being vigilant enough in opposition in putting down a sufficient number of Scottish Votes for consideration in Supply, so in this present Parliament, now that they are on the Government side of the House, they have been responsible for deliberately cluttering up the legislative programme with a great deal of legislation which should have received more consideration, and which would have received more detailed consideration if the Measures had not been pushed through in the first two years of the life of this Parliament. Things are not quite so bad in this Session, but they are bad enough.
The responsibility for not having enough discussion of Scottish Supply in the past must be laid at the door of those who have slavishly supported the present Socialist administration. I am afraid that I cannot either welcome these proposals or wholeheartedly condemn them. I am more inclined to damn with faint praise. I do not think that these proposals will produce very much. They are another experiment in Socialist administration. I do not think they are likely to be such dangerous experiments as many others, and certainly

447
nothing like so dangerous as the suspension of the death penalty.
6.20 p.m.
Mr. Kirkwood: When the hon. Member for West Renfrew (Mr. Scollan) was speaking, I interjected that this proposal was an orphan of the storm. There has been a storm for two or three years, not promoted, as said by the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), by a lot of wild-mouthed men in Scotland. A resolution has twice been carried by the 'Scottish Labour Party urging that the time had arrived when we should demand a President of the Board of Trade and a Minister of Labour to deal entirely with Scottish affairs, and to sit on the Front Bench alongside the Secretary of State for Scotland but independent of him. I am the individual who moved the resolution. The idea was that we should be in a position to ask those Ministers Questions relating to Scotland.
When we put Questions about unemployment and other matters to the Secretary of State for Scotland, he can say, "That is a question for the Minister of Labour." He rides off on that. The same applies to Questions to the President of the Board of Trade and the Minister of Supply. Scotland is fed up with this. At the last two meetings of the Scottish Labour Party, at Perth and Dundee, it was decided, against the influences which were at work, to pass the Resolution. The influences at work were not ordinary influences, but the Labour Party approved the resolution. That agitation emanated from the A.E.U., my union, which is not entirely a Scottish organisation. We were able to convince the union that it was essential in the interests of Scotland, my native land, to have this arrangement.
Scotland never gets a square deal here. I speak with over 25 years' experience on the Floor of the British House of Commons. It is because of that bitter experience that we carried on the agitation with the result that the Scottish Labour group have had before them Ministers, including the Lord President of the Council, the former President of the Board of Trade, who is now Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister of Labour. They have all been before the Scottish group at different times to try to allay our anxiety about what is to happen to
448
Scotland unless we get this consideration. The present Government have saved the situation up to date. We have not had the unemployment that we had after the first world war. I give all honour for that to the present Government. They have no more faithful supporter. I voted against them only once, and that was on the means test—and I would do that again—and now we have wiped that out.
This proposal is an orphan of the storm because it will not touch the fringe of the difficulty. I see in this the hand of an artful dodger—and he is not a Tory. I went to the Prime Minister and told him what was going on in Scotland. No one has greater respect for the Lord President of the Council than I have. I am looking after the interests of Scotland irrespective of any individual. During the last dust-up which I had with the Lord President when I was putting this proposition to him, he said, "But you know, Davie, Scotland has not got Home Rule yet." The same thing applied when another Minister, whose name I will not mention, came before the Scottish group. No one in the Scottish group has ever suggested Home Rule for Scotland in present conditions. They have suggested that a Bill should be introduced in favour of Home Rule for Scotland, but that was before we were in power. What does it matter to us who is in control unless we get what we have agitated for in the last 25 or 30 years? Now that we are in a position to do something, along comes the latest edition of the Secretary of State for Scotland and introduces this proposal, supported by the Prime Minister and the Lord President of the Council.
This will not affect the situation in Scotland one iota. We must have three or four Ministers on the Front Bench to whom we can put Scottish Questions across the Floor of the House. Fancy the advantage which the English have over us. The English come here and can attack the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Supply, or the President of the Board of Trade—but we cannot. We have to go cap in hand for information. I have to negotiate not simply for Scottish engineers and for my own constituency, but for engineers all over Britain. I know from experience what that means and how essential it is that we should have those Ministers. I was in duty bound to rise and say what I have said.
6.28 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): We have listened for three hours to an interesting and, I might say, exhaustive discussion on this subject and a variety of others. The Debate has been particularly in relation to this subject which one hopes will have a beneficial result upon our legislative machinery. I fully agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that the proposals are of an experimental nature and that experience may indicate that further improvements can be achieved. It is the wish of every hon. Member to make a success of this new procedure. We can only make a success of it if we are determined to use it to the fullest advantage in the interests of Scotland and not to allow any irresponsible feelings to enter into the consideration of the extent to which the new machinery can be used.
I think the measure of the success of this proposal is the acceptance which it has received on both sides of the House. It is perfectly true that one or two hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed doubts as to the efficiency and the efficacy of the proposals, but I think the balanced view is that, while we cannot estimate the exact future of the new machinery, we realise that an opportunity is being afforded for a much fuller discussion of Scottish affairs in Parliament than hitherto existed. We are not discussing the broader subject of Scottish nationalism. We are discussing whether the proposed alterations in the Standing Orders are desirable and are beneficial in the interests of Scotland. In all the speeches to which I have listened, despite the fact that the reception varied from speaker to speaker, despite the fact that it was suggested, on the one hand, that we were not going far enough, I did not hear one constructive suggestion as to what further step we might have taken within our constitutional procedure. I feel it must be accepted, therefore, that we have gone as far as we possibly could within our present framework.
In the past, this question has been posed from time to time. Numerous people have applied their minds to it and numerous suggestions have been made. Difficulties, real or imaginary, have been reared from time to time, but let us appreciate that today, for
450
being taken, and let us give due credit for the fact that that step is being taken. We on this side do not wish to claim credit on a party basis: rather, we feel that Scottish Members are alive to their responsibility and appreciate that efforts have been made to do this in the interests of Scotland. I would, therefore, prefer to have here, not for the sake of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, but in the interests of fairness and justice, more appreciation in some quarters of the fact that something is being done rather than a vague criticism of the fact that insufficient is being done without any specification as to what further might have been done. There is a great tendency in these days to draw attention to what is not being done and to ignore the very many benefits which are accruing and the many things which are being done.
In answering the various points which have been raised, it seems to me that the simplest and perhaps the most effective method would be to go over the proposed Amendments and to deal bit by bit with the various difficulties which have been postulated. In the first instance, when the Public Bill has been printed, whether it has been introduced in this House or in another place, Mr. Speaker will determine whether it is a Bill which relates exclusively to Scotland. It is not a matter for the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland or any other Government Minister. It is a matter for the determination of Mr. Speaker who will, in the first instance, determine whether or not the Bill falls within the category which might competently be taken through this procedure. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is not the last word because—if I may remind hon. Members of this—there is the provision that 10 Members of the House can oppose it if they feel the Bill should not be dealt with by this procedure. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Leonard) wondered whether there might be a tendency for those responsible for the legislation to whittle down the contents of a Bill to ensure that it had purely a Scottish application and related exclusively to Scotland. I do not think such a fear need exist in the mind of hon. Members, because manifestly it would not be in the interests of the Secretary of

451
State for Scotland or any other responsible Minister to whittle down beneficial provisions in a Bill merely to get it past Mr. Speaker when any 10 Members of the House could rise and object to it. I feel, while it was a good point to raise, there is no real foundation for fear.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Do I gather that the Lord Advocate is determined to stick to the word "exclusively"? Would he not, for example, between now and the next stage, think of inserting "mainly" or "substantially," or some word like that?
The Lord Advocate: I can tell the hon. Member this: whatever difficulty may exist in the interpretation of the word "exclusively," much greater difficulties would exist in interpreting the words "mainly" or "largely," or anything else of that nature, because in those cases one definitely gets into the area of speculation. Further to that point, I think it is obvious that once we get a non-Scottish interest introduced into a Bill, it would be very difficulty, on principle, to justify taking that Bill from the Floor of the House to the Scottish Grand Committee for Second Reading, thus depriving the English Members, who are not Members of the Scottish Grand Committee but who may have an interest in the Bill, from the right of participating in the Second Reading Debate.
On the Second Reading, there must be a Motion made by a Minister of the Crown referring the Bill to the Standing Committee for Scottish Bills. In the first instance, therefore, the initiative lies with the Government, because the Motion can only be made at the instance of a Minister of the Crown. The Opposition, or Government supporters for that matter, have the right to reserve the discussion on the Second Reading to the Floor of the House by 10 Members rising and opposing the proposal. It was suggested that the 10 Members should be exclusively Scottish Members. I think that idea was dealt with fully by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland when he pointed out that we really cannot classify Members in that respect and, moreover, although it may be peculiarly or exclusively a Scottish Bill, there are some people who may feel the principle involved to be one worthy of Debate on the Floor of the House.
452
That was one of the difficulties which previously arose when this matter was being discussed—the reconciliation between the desire to have Scottish Bills more thoroughly debated in a Scottish Committee and the right of Members to discuss important Measures on the Floor of the House, as distinct from a Committee room. We must, therefore, reserve to Members of the House certain rights in these matters and, by reserving the right to any 10 Members to rise in their places and negative the proposal, I think we have effected a practical compromise between the desire to go to the Scottish Grand Committee, where competent, and the desire to remain on the Floor of the House of Commons.
Next, I come to the reference of the Bill to the Standing Committee for a Second Reading. The first point which was raised was whether the Scottish Grand Committee should be composed solely of Scottish Members or whether it should be, as at the present time, a combination of the Scottish Members and additional English Members. May I say, on that point, that it would be quite impossible, in my opinion, to depart from the existing rule, which enables English Members—or I should say non-Scottish Members—to be added to the Scottish Grand Committee? In the first instance, it is necessary—although perhaps not so necessary as in the Committee stages—to ensure that the balance which exists in the House is preserved in the Grand Committee, because it is conceivable that we might have a different balance of parties among Scottish Members than that in the House as a whole. While that does not matter so much to a Scottish Grand Committee which is listening to a Second Reading Debate and not participating in a Division, I think we should preserve the general character of that Committee.
Secondly, the present system enables English Members with specialised knowledge to be co-opted to the Committee, and thirdly—and this is the most important of all—it is a recognition of the fact that we are still a United Kingdom Assembly and that English Members have, the right to participate in these Debates on Scottish affairs, just as Scottish Members are not hesitant on occasions to participate in affairs which affect the United Kingdom, England and Wales, or even Northern Ireland. I think the composition must remain as it is at the present time.

453
The next point which arises is whether the rules governing Committee work would apply during a Second Reading discussion or whether the rules which govern Second Reading discussion, when it is on the Floor of the House, should apply. While I am not in a position to give a hard and fast answer, I think hon. Members would recognise that, in effect, this was a Second Reading Debate and that it would follow the rules which apply during a Second Reading Debate. If hon. Members are sufficiently responsible to recognise what we are trying to do, I think they will be equally responsible in observing the rules of Debate. There is a further provision, in that the Chairman of the Committee could utilise that well-established "Nelson eye" principle, as seems to be the privilege of many chairmen of committees on occasions.
Thereafter, when a Bill has been so referred, it will be brought back to the Floor of the House, and when we have the Order of the Day for the Second Reading we shall either get it passed without discussion and without Division or six hon. Members may rise and object. If six hon. Members rise and object, then another Second Reading is required on the Floor of the House. It may well be that, arising out of the discussion in the Scottish Grand Committee, points will emerge on which hon. Members may possibly wish to divide, although when the Bill was sent to that Committee it appeared to be one on which no Division would take place. There is, therefore, reserved to Members this right of having a further Debate—which would in these circumstances be a real Second Reading Debate—and a Division, which they could not have in Scottish Grand Committee. If that objection is not taken on the Order of the Day for the Second Reading, and the Bill has been so read and a Motion made by a Government Minister that it should be committed to the Standing Committee for Scottish Bills, it shall be deemed to be a Second Reading of the Bill without Division. I trust that that is a sufficient explanation to remove doubt.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Will the Lord Advocate explain why it is six Members in this case and 10 Members in the other case?
The Lord Advocate: We have to take arbitrary figures in both cases, but in the first case, where there has been no dis-
454
cussion on the Bill, we feel that 10 is a fairly good safeguard against irresponsible action. We trust that there never would be irresponsible action, but as a safeguard we must have a certain number, otherwise we could have one or two instead of 10. When the Bill comes back from the Scottish Committee, having been debated in what is in effect, a Second Reading Debate, it may well appear, as a result of that Debate, that further discussion and, if need be, a Division should take place. Therefore, the same number is not required, and the same safeguard is not required. There may appear at that stage to be a greater justification for discussion on the Floor of the House, and, perhaps, for a Division. I do not think there is any question of principle involved in fixing the number, but we think that the safeguard is sufficient in the second case.
The question has arisen: For how long should the sittings take place? That question relates not only to consideration of the Estimates but generally to the work of the Scottish Grand Committee. It is a question to which at this stage no definite answer one way or the other can be given. Manifestly, the question whether or not the Committee ought to sit in the afternoons is one which can be determined only in the light of the prevailing circumstances. There may arise circumstances in which the whole Committee may feel it to be in the interests of Scotland to sit in the afternoon as well as in the morning, and, possibly, all night. We must reserve to ourselves the right to determine that question in the light of the circumstances. We ought not to pre-arrange what the hours of the Sittings should be.
Mr. Spence: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean that, when the Scottish Grand Committee is debating a Bill on Second Reading, the Committee will sit in the afternoon if, after the two and a half hours of the morning Sitting, the Debate is not concluded?
The Lord Advocate: That is just the type of question to which one cannot give a definite answer. It may all depend upon the nature of the Bill. It may depend upon the time-table in that week. It may all depend on what is going on in the House. There will be a variety of circumstances which may affect determination of the question whether or not it is desirable for the Committee to adjourn at

455
the end of a morning Sitting until the next day or only until the afternoon. Hon. Members must be content with the explanation, that we shall allow the Committee to determine the manner in which it is to carry out its work. I hope that the points which gave rise to difficulty have been satisfactorily answered.
I turn now to consider another aspect of the matter, the type of Bill which may be put through this procedure. Hon. Members will appreciate that there is nothing contained in the proposals to indicate the type of Bill. That, in the first instance, will be a matter to be settled at the discretion of the Government, because the Government will determine in respect of which Bills the Motion will be made. What we have envisaged is, that Bills of a technical nature applying only to Scotland, and which are non-controversial in a party sense, will be referred to the Committee. From my short experience here, I would say that no matter relating to Scotland will ever be non-controversial, because we are a thrawn race of people. However, when party differences arise, questions of principle are often involved, questions on which all Members of the House might wish to express an opinion. Bills which are controversial in that sense would manifestly be Bills which would not dovetail into the procedure. The sort of Bills we have in mind to refer to the Committee are Bills which are the Scottish counterparts of English Bills—Bills containing for Scotland provisions similar to those in Bills for England. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hill-head shares my dislike of long Scottish application clauses, and the experiment recently tried of referring to the Scottish Grand Committee part of a Bill concerning the United Kingdom. We hope that by means of the new procedure we shall be able to surmount both those difficulties.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Is there not a possibility that such a Bill may not pass Mr. Speaker, in the sense that it may not be regarded as the counterpart of an English Measure, or an exclusively Scottish Measure?
The Lord Advocate: We cannot really go into all the possibilities. I think that we can be quite sure that Mr. Speaker will be able to make up his mind which Bills are exclusively Scottish and which
456
are not. There may be Bills of a purely Scottish interest for which time could not be found immediately in the House in the existing programme, and which, if they fulfil the other conditions, could be brought forward by being put through this procedure.
I should like to draw attention to the probable advantages that we think will accrue from this procedure. Considerably more time will be given to the discussion of the principles of Bills, and that is a good thing in the interests of Scotland. Secondly, the procedure will leave to the House as a whole more time for the discussion of Measures of United Kingdom interest. It was suggested that the prime mover behind this scheme was my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and that the scheme was designed, not to assist Scotland, but to improve the position of England and Wales. Let me here and now repudiate that suggestion most emphatically. The inspiration for the proposals came from Scotland, which were worked out in Scotland by Scottish Ministers. Whatever the credit or discredit for these proposals may be, it falls on Scottish Members on both sides of the House and on Scottish Ministers. However, as a result of clearing the decks in the House, and of expediting Parliamentary Business on the Floor of the House, Scottish Measures waiting in the queue for disposal on the Floor of the House will come forward more quickly, and to that extent Scotland will also benefit.
Further, we shall find it unnecessary to debate on the Floor of the House Bills for Scotland and England that have to have separate readings. If the general principles are the same I think the interests of everyone will be satisfied if one general discussion takes place on the Floor of the House and the particular discussion of matters particularly affecting Scotland takes place in the Scottish Grand Committee. Finally—and this is, perhaps, not without interest and appeal to hon. Members on both sides—by spreading the discussion of Scottish legislation over a greater number of days we shall make it easier for the Press and the wireless to keep abreast of Scottish affairs in Parliament; and it may be that there will be fuller representation in the columns of the Press and the programmes on the wireless of Scottish affairs.

457
The proposal with regard to the Estimates seemed to receive even more general approval than the other proposal. In answer to the critics, I would say shortly that by giving six more days for the discussion of Scottish Estimates we are improving the existing position. Whether they be days of two and a half hours or longer is a matter which can be determined only when the discussions on the Estimates come to take place. Even if it is found that the days are days of two and a half hours each, the allowance of an additional 15 hours certainly should meet with the approval of those who wish to discuss the Estimates in more meticulous detail than is possible at the present time.
For these reasons we commend the new proposals to the House, confident that a milestone has been reached in our Scottish affairs. We wish that milestone to be a milestone on the road of progress, and not a milestone on the road of reaction. The success of the proposals depends upon the co-operation and good will of all Members of the House, but particularly on the co-operation and good will of Scottish Members of the House. We are satisfied that we shall get that co-operation, and that we shall get the results for Scotland that we all so earnestly desire.
Question put, and agreed to.
Ordered:
"That,—

(1) If, after any Public Bill has been printed, whether introduced in this House or brought from the House of Lords, Mr. Speaker is of opinion that its provisions relate exclusively to Scotland, he shall give a certificate to that effect.

(2) On the Order for the Second Reading of any such Bill being read, a Motion, to be decided without amendment or debate, may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the Bill be referred to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills,' provided that if the Motion shall have been thereupon objected to by not less than ten Members, it shall pass in the negative.

(3) A Bill so referred to the Standing Committee shall be considered in relation to the principle of the Bill, and shall be reported as having been so considered to the House and shall be ordered to be read a Second time upon a future day.

(4) When the Order of the Day for the Second Reading of any such Bill has been read, a Motion to be decided without amendment or debate may be made by a Minister of the Crown, 'That the Bill be committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills.' Provided that this paragraph
458
shall not apply in the case of any Bill to-the Second Reading of which notice of an amendment has been given by not less than six Members.

(5) If such a Motion shall have been agreed to, the Bill shall be deemed to, have been read a Second time, and shall be-committed to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, and shall proceed through its remaining stages according to the ordinary practice of this House.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."
Ordered:
"That a Motion may be made by a Minister of the Crown at the commencement of Public Business, to be decided without amendment or debate, to the effect that the Committee of Supply be discharged from considering the Estimates or any part of the Estimates for which the Secretary of State for Scotland is responsible, and that such Estimates or part of such Estimates be referred to the Standing. Committee on Scottish Bills for consideration on not more than six days in any Session; and if such Motion be agreed to, the Standing Committee shall consider the Estimates referred to them and shall from time to time report only that they have considered the said Estimates or any of them, which shall again stand referred to the Committee of Supply after such report has been brought up.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
Standing Order No. 47 read; and amended in line 20 by inserting after "bills," the words "or other business" and by inserting after "and," the words "referred or"; and in line 25 by inserting after "bill" the words "or other business"—[Mr. Woodburn.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

NEW CLAUSE.—(Leases to continue in force notwithstanding variation of terms, etc.)
The lease of a holding shall not be deemed to have been brought to an end, and accordingly neither the landlord nor the tenant of the holding shall be entitled to bring proceedings to terminate the lease or, except with the consent of the other party, to treat it as at an end, by reason only that any of the terms of the lease (including the rent payable there-under) have been varied or revised in pursuance of any provision of this Part of this Act in that behalf.—[The Lord Advocate.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
6.56 p.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. Wheatley): I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
The purpose of the new Clause is to remove certain doubts which were expressed in Committee whether changes in the condition of a lease, brought about as a result of the operation of Clauses II and 14 of the Bill, would constitute a new lease. Hon. Members will remember that various Clauses provide for variations in leases, Clause II for variation of rent, Clause 12 for variation in the terms of tenancy as to permanent pasture, Clause 14 for securing written leases and for the revision of certain leases, and Clause 15 for the variation of rent in the case of a lease which has been varied under Clause 14. By the Act of 1923, Section 3, as amended by the present Bill and which is to be read as one with this Bill, there can be adjustment of rent following upon the execution of certain improvements by the landlord. When these points were raised in Committee, it was recognised that doubt might arise whether these variations had an effect on the lease—so much so that there are two Amendments on the Paper in the name of the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) to deal with the specific cases of Clauses II and 14.
Having considered the matter very carefully, we came to the opinion that it was better to have an omnibus Clause that would bring into the Bill all cases of leases which had been varied as a result of the operation of the Clauses of the Bill. Secondly, we thought it perhaps more logical to look at it from the point of view, not of the variation creating a new lease, but the variation giving a ground to one of the parties to a lease for pleading that the old lease had come to an end. Therefore, the present new Clause has been brought forward. In my opinion it meets the difficulties advanced in Committee, and, being of a more comprehensive nature, it is a Clause that should commend itself.
7.0 p.m.
I, personally, had some doubts whether or not these variations would entitle a party to the lease to say that he was justified in regarding the lease as having been terminated. A great deal might turn on the facts of the case, in determining the degree of variation, but we thought it was very undesirable to leave
460
either party to the lease in the position that he might have to go to the court to determine whether or not the variation was of such a nature that it justified him in regarding the lease as terminated. Therefore, to let the various parties—the landlords and the tenants—know exactly where they stood as a result of the variation in the conditions of the lease by virtue of these statutory enactments, we felt that it was better to include this comprehensive Clause, to provide that the lease would not be deemed to be determined, nor would it justify either the landlord or the tenant bringing proceedings in court to terminate the lease, unless by consent of the other party, leaving the free bargain of the parties as it always stood, when either party could go to the other and say, "In view of the changed circumstances I should like to bring the lease to an end." If they agree to that, there is no reason why they should not do so.
Mr. Snadden: We have already had a very long discussion on our previous Business, and it is our desire to get through this Report stage as quickly as possible. On behalf of my hon. and right hon. Friends, I would say how much we appreciate that the Government have seen their way to move this new Clause. There is only one point which rather puzzles me, and which I should like cleared up. I am clear about Clause II on arbitration, that no new lease is created. However, the Lord Advocate will remember that in Standing Committee the simple point we put was that where Clause 14 is invoked, Clause 13 (2, a) would not apply on an arbitration award. I take it that under this Clause, in the event of an application for such an award Clause 13 (2, a) will not apply. If that is so, I think the Government have been sensible, because if it did apply, with 30,000 people on tacit relocation, there would be an enormous queue of people waiting to come in under Clause 13, making it quite impracticable to carry it out. I take it there is no doubt that this new Clause makes certain that no tenancy is created, and that, therefore, Clause 13 (2, a) does not apply.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This new Clause was put down only a couple of days ago, so that we have not had a chance of putting anything on the Order Paper by way of Amendment. Per-

461
haps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will consider this. Under Clause 14 (1, b) an additional provision may be put in, or an existing provision may be modified. At line 25 the words are:
"but it contains no provision for"
certain matters; or in line 27:
"contains a provision inconsistent…"
This new Clause quite clearly deals with the case in which a provision which is inconsistent, is altered to make it consistent; but I am very doubtful whether the Clause covers the point of a completely new provision put into the lease which is adjusted by the arbiter under Clause 14. The Fourth Schedule contains half-a-dozen provisions, and it is quite possible that paragraphs 5 or 6 of that Schedule may represent an entirely new provision in the lease. I suggest for the Lord Advocate's consideration that after the word "that" in line 4 of the new Clause some such words as these might be inserted: "any new term has been added to the lease or," and then continue with the Clause as at present drafted. I think it might be said that if a new term were added to the lease, this Clause would not specifically apply, and, therefore, there might be litigation. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider that with a view to a possible Amendment in another place.
The Lord Advocate: The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) asked whether or not Clause 13 (2) would apply to leases which had been carried on, for instance, by tacit relocation. He probably knows that there is a later Amendment to clear up the position with regard to tacit relocation, in order to make quite clear and beyond doubt that where a lease is carried on by tacit relocation a new lease is not constituted. Since Clause 13 (2) refers only to leases entered into after the commencement of this part of the Bill, it will not affect, in the first place, leases carried on by tacit relocation which were in existence prior to the Bill coming into operation; and it will not affect any lease which is carried on by tacit relocation, even if entered into after the passing of the Bill, because that will not be a new lease. Therefore, it will apply only to new leases entered into after the Bill comes into operation. That being so, it will not affect any lease, either before or after the coming into operation of the Bill, which is being renewed by tacit relocation.
462
I am indebted to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) for his suggestion, which we will look at with care between now and the further stages of the Bill.
Question put, and agreed to.
Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

CLAUSE I.—(Provisions as to payment of compensation for improvements.)
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, in page r, line 13, after "improvements" to insert:
"or to refund to his landlord any compensation payable as aforesaid which has peen paid by the landlord to the outgoing tenant."
Perhaps I might also discuss the two following Amendments—in page 2, line r, after "tenant" to insert: "or to refund to his landlord," and in page 2, line 8, at the end, to insert: "or refunded to his landlord."
These Amendments have been put down in fulfilment of a promise given to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr J. S. C. Reid) in Committee. We then promised that we would see whether Clause 1 could be amended to cover agreements for the reimbursement by the incoming tenant of compensation paid by the landlord to the outgoing tenant. That is the purpose of these Amendments.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 2, line r after "tenant," insert: "or to refund to his landlord."
In line 8, at end, insert: "or refunded to his landlord."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 4, line 20, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that if the landlord and the tenant enter into an agreement in writing in that behalf, a record of the condition of the holding shall, notwithstanding that it was made during the occupancy of a previous tenant, be deemed, for the purposes of this subsection, to have been made during the occupancy of the tenant and on such date as may be specified in the agreement."
This Amendment has been put down in order to close a gap which previously existed, because Subsection (6) provides that a landlord may claim compensation

463
under the Clause for deterioration of the holding only where a record of the condition of the holding has been made during the occupancy of the tenant against whom the claim is made. It was realised that a position might exist where there was an existent record of the holding, and that both parties would be prepared to accept that as an accurate record for the purposes of the Clause. This Amendment is designed to make clear that such a record could be accepted and could be used.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: This is plainly an improvement, but there is one point on which it may not go quite far enough. Obviously, there will be some small change, at least in the condition of the holding, in most cases, between the date of the making of the record and the date of the change of tenancy. As I understand it, the purpose of this Amendment is to enable a record made in the last tenancy to carry on in the next tenancy without the expense of making a completely new one. Nevertheless, some small amendment may have to be made. Would it not be a good thing to allow the parties to agree that the old record should carry on, subject to the small amendment which may be necessary to bring it up to date? I think it would be desirable to expand the drafting to cover that case.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation for disturbance.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out "six," and to insert "nine."
This Amendment was moved by Members of the Opposition in Committee on the ground that the time permitted was too short. We discussed the matter at some length and undertook to look at the matter again, which we have now done, with the result that we are moving the Amendment originally proposed.
Mr. Snadden: My hon. Friends and I are glad this Amendment has now been found acceptable by the Government.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Restrictions on termination by notice of tenancies of holdings.)
Amendment made: In page 8, line 31, after "five," insert "of this Act."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE II.—(Variation of rent of holdings.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 14, line 24, after "(3)," to insert "or paragraph (b) of subsection (6)."
This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendments made in Committee to paragraph (2, d) of the Ninth Schedule to the Bill, which relates to Section 3 of the 1923 Act. The new paragraph (6, b), added to Section 3 of the 1923 Act, povides that where the parties so far disagree as to the execution of an improvement that they have to refer the matter to the Secretary of State for determination, and the Secretary of State grants his approval to the execution of the improvement, the landlord may himself undertake to carry out the improvement. Reference to the new paragraph added to Section 3 of the 1923 Act is necessary in Subsection (4) of the Clause to cover undertakings given after the Bill comes into operation. Undertakings previous to that date are covered by Section 3 (3) of the 1923 Act.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 15, line 15, after "where," to insert:
"before the commencement of this Part of this Act either the landlord and the tenant have agreed on the payment of interest or rent or."
This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment, in line 16, to leave out from "improvement," to the end of line 17.
A promise was given during the Committee stage that we would have another look at this Clause. Some Members feared the effect of the Clause would be that where a landlord and tenant had already agreed that the cost of improvements carried out by the landlord should be paid for by the tenant by way of an interest payment, it would be wrong to require that an adjustment of rent should be made. It was pointed out that this is all right for the future, namely, that improvements carried out by the landlord shall attract a higher rent, but in connection with other enactments, such as the Hill Farming Act, in connection with which many schemes have been put forward and the tenants are willing to pay interest on the capital outlay of the landlord, it would be wrong to require that an adjustment of rent should be made.
We have put down this Amendment in order to secure that where an agreement has been entered into, before the corn-

465
mencement of operation of this part of the Bill, that interest may be paid by the tenant on the capital outlay of the landlord in carrying out improvements, there need be no adjustment of rent, and the intentions of this Clause will not apply. During the Committee stage, Members called our attention to a number of schemes made under the Hill Farming Act, which, they said, had been approved by the Department. The fact that there has been approval by the Department does not render the reimbursement of the landlords' capital outlay necessarily to be recouped by way of an interest charge on the tenant. It is only where agreement has been reached between the two parties before this part of the Bill comes into operation that this Clause will not have effect.
Mr. Snadden: We on this side appreciate what the Government have done in this matter, although this Amendment does not go quite as far as we should have liked. We were apprehensive because we felt that agreements made under another Statute were being wiped out by this Bill. I take it the Amendment means that where schemes have been submitted to the Department and agreement has been reached between the landlord and tenant, those schemes will stand. This Amendment is a very good thing from the point of view of tidying up this Bill and creating confidence generally.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Scott-Elliot: As Chairman of the Advisory Committee on hill sheep farming in Scotland, may I welcome what my hon. Friend has said? I was one of those who expressed doubts about some of the earlier schemes being vitiated by the provisions laid down in the Bill. My hon. Friend then gave an undertaking that he would have another look at the matter. On behalf of the hill sheep farmers of Scotland, I welcome this Amendment. Although I do not pretend to have expert legal knowledge, I think I can say that these words cover the point admirably, and will make for a greater degree of confidence in the industry.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 15, line 16, leave out from "improvement," to end of line 17.—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 13.—(Respective liabilities of landlord and tenant for provision and maintenance of fixed equipment and for payment of insurance premiums.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 16, line 31, after "thereof," to insert:
"and will during the tenancy effect such replacement or renewal of the buildings or other fixed equipment as may be rendered necessary by natural decay or by fair wear and tear."
The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the replacement or renewal of the buildings or other fixed equipment which may be rendered necessary during the tenancy, owing to natural decay or fair wear and tear, shall be the obligation of the landlord. Some doubts were expressed in Committee whether, after the initial duty on the part of the landlord to provide and maintain fixed equipment, his obligations continued throughout the whole currency of the lease.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 16, line 38, leave out "order," and insert "repair."
In line 43, leave out from beginning, to end of line 46.—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 15.—(Supplementary provisions as to s. 13 and s. 14.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 18, line 24, at the end, to insert:
"and any amount directed by the award to be paid by the landlord shall be paid by him to the tenant."
This Clause provides that where, by virtue of Clause 14, which relates to the securing of written leases and the revision of certain leases, the liability for the maintenance or repair of any item of fixed equipment is transferred from the tenant to the landlord, or vice versa, the tenant or the landlord, as the case may be, may require that there shall be determined by arbitration the amount of any compensation in respect of arrears of work not carried out by the party previously responsible for such work.
There is an inconsistency between Subsections (1) and (3) of the Clause, in that Subsection (1) stipulates that the amount of any compensation awarded shall be paid by the tenant whereas Subsection (3) does not stipulate for similar payment by the landlord in the case of a tenant's

467
claim. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove this inconsistency.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 21.—(Provisions as to arbitration.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 22, line 15, to leave out from "shall" to "be" in line 16.
This Amendment is identical with one moved by the Opposition in Committee, but which was withdrawn on the assurance that we accepted the principle and promised to consider the matter further. The Clause provides, inter alia, that any claim, of whatever nature, between landlord and tenant which arises on or out of the termination of the tenancy of the holding shall, unless the parties settle it between themselves, be determined by arbitration. It further provides that except in cases in respect of which specific provision is made in the Bill or in the 1923 Act as to the length of notice required before the end of the tenancy, notice in writing of intention to make such a claim must be served within two months of the termination of the tenancy.
Doubt was expressed in Committee as to what would constitute the termination of the tenancy in a case in which the tenant vacates a part of his holding at one date and the remainder at another date. He might vacate buildings at Whitsun and land at the separation of the crop at Martinmas, and the question arises as to which of these two dates should be regarded as the date on which he terminates his occupancy. This Amendment is designed to make it clear that in these circumstances the last date of occupation shall be regarded as the termination of the tenancy for the purposes of Subsections (2) and (3) of the Clause.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 22.—(Revision of panel of arbiters.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, to leave out "commencement of Part I," and to insert "passing."
This Amendment and the following Amendment, in line 40, are designed to enable the revision of the panel of arbiters to be carried out immediately after the passing of the Bill without the necessity of bringing the Clause into operation by
468
Order in Council. It is highly desirable that we should be able to bring about this revision of arbiters at a very early date. It is also desirable that the new panel, which has been considerably depleted in recent years, should be set up before Part I of the Bill is brought into operation.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 22, line 40, at end, add:
"(2) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 26.—(Powers of Secretary of State in cases of bad estate management or bad husbandry.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 24, line 15, at the end, to insert:
"(2) A warning notice served under the last foregoing Subsection shall specify the general grounds on which the Secretary of State is satisfied as mentioned in Subsection (1) of this Section."
It was desired in Committee that specification should be given of the grounds in respect of which a warning notice was being served. This Amendment does not quite meet the views of Members opposite that there should be specific grounds as distinct from general grounds, but we believe that general grounds is a more practical proposition than specifying grounds which might vary from day to day or week to week, and which would make it very difficult to get the machinery operating effectively.
Mr. Snadden: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, to leave out "general."
We believe that where a person is about to he given a warning notice which might be followed by dispossession it would be only common justice to tell him, whether he was the owner or tenant, precisely what was wrong with his place. The Government have tried to meet us, but we still feel unhappy about the word "general." With this word in the Bill, it would be possible to say to an owner or tenant that his place was not being managed properly in the general sense of the term. He might be told that he would be put under a warning notice for bad estate management or, if he was a tenant farmer, under such a notice because of bad husbandry. Bad estate management covers a whole host of operations, and bad husbandry covers entire cultivation, including the management of livestock. As dispos-

469
session is the final act—a may may lose his livelihood—we feel that a man should be put under warning notice only on specific grounds. As things are, it would be possible for him to be put out because of bad estate management or bad husbandry.
Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
When we realise the extreme penalties that are attached to a tenant or landowner being removed from control of his land, we must insist on specific grounds being stated for such action. Here, we have a general term which might—indeed, almost certainly will—be interpreted to cover a general accusation either of slackness or lack of success. There must be specific reasons for the imposition of such a severe penalty as dispossession.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I wish to support the Amendment to the Amendment. A few minutes ago the Lord Advocate told the House that the use of the word "substantially" rather than "exclusively" would be bound to lead to trouble. Does not the same thing apply to the word "general," rather than specifying actually what is wrong?
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The Lord Advocate said that the grounds might be varied from day to day and from week to week. That seems to be a departure from anything we envisaged during the discussions in Committee. It was clear to most of us then that if a warning order was to be served either on a landlord or a tenant, it would be for some specific breach of his obligations either to manage his land in accordance with the rules of good estate management or to farm his land in accordance with the rules of good husbandry.
We understood that that warning notice would be served upon him only after the most careful consideration by the agricultural executive committee, and that it would he served for specific reasons, which, as my hon. Friend has submitted, ought to be stated in the notice. The Lord Advocate now says that the warning notice, and the reasons in respect of which it can be given, may vary from day to day and week to week. That seems to require some explanation. Does he think
470
that once a warning notice has been served it can be continued indefinitely because the grounds may change? If so, that reinforces our contention that an allegedly erring landlord or an allegedly erring tenant ought to be told the charges which are levelled against him. He ought to know, if this slur is cast upon him, why it is, and how he can free himself by putting things right on the estate or on the farm. The words which the Lord Advocate used make me all the more certain that we are right in supporting this small Amendment.
Mr. Scollan: I would like to ask the Lord Advocate a question. When we dealt with this matter in Committee, my understanding of it was that a general charge did not rule out the Department's right also to issue a specific charge, if they wished to do so. The grounds of complaint against a farmer may alter from day to day. The complaint of today may be different from the complaint of tomorrow, owing to the fact that the farmer may be doing something different. Will it still be in the power of the Department to send the warning notice with a specific complaint where there is a glaring specific case?
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am sure the House would be assisted if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would tell us precisely what is the procedure which he anticipates under the Amendment. I assume that the first stage, after the matter has been brought to the notice of the agricultural committee, must be a visit of inspection, and I assume that if the inspector is not satisfied there will be a discussion with the farmer or landlord—I am dealing now with the farmer—on the whole of the management of the farm. I assume that out of that discussion there will emerge two or three points, or it may be only one definite point, on which the inspector thinks that there is a good deal of room for criticism.
Then we were told that the inspection was to be repeated at intervals of something like 12 months. I imagine that after the first inspection, when the farmer is told orally that perhaps a certain field is very dirty, or the repairs of certain fences have been neglected, or whatever it is, that the inspector will not come back for 12 months, and, therefore, there will be no opportunity of altering the grounds of complaint from day to day or

471
week to week. Surely, we are not contemplating such a large inspectorate that someone is going round every week to see how the thing is getting on. Therefore, this cannot be a thing which varies from week to week. It can only vary from inspection to inspection. Therefore, I would have thought that it would not be difficult to put down on paper the points which have emerged from the inspection and discussion.
I assume that there will be a discussion because I understood in Committee that one of the purposes of this procedure was to try to assist the farmer and to give him every possible bit of knowledge and advice which the skilled inspector could give to him. If that is so, surely it will be highly desirable that the farmer shall have a record of what took place and of the points on which the inspector was not satisfied. It is true that the notice will have to be altered, or may have to be altered after the next inspection, because it may turn out that field A is then perfectly all right, and something may have gone wrong with field X. Or it may be that nothing further has gone wrong and part of the complaint can be washed out. Surely, it will be for everyone's good to put down on paper as much as possible, to avoid misunderstanding. At one of these interviews the farmer may not be at his best, because it is rather a nerve-racking business, and he may not understand what the inspector is getting at.
It is highly desirable that the farmer should have the complaints in front of him for calm consideration when the interview is over and when he is not being worried. It is a very important matter for him, and it is desirable that he should have in front of him a precise statement of what he has to watch, otherwise there will be correspondence and all sorts of botheration. I should have thought, in the interests of smooth working, it was desirable to make the notice reasonably specific. We ought to tell him that the complaint is about bad cultivation, or that the fertility of a certain field is bad, or that the farm is dirty, or that the fences are rotten or that the roof of a shed wants mending. One could think of a hundred points. Surely, it is desirable that the man should have in front of him something to tell him precisely what is
472
wrong. Unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts our Amendment, I fear that half the value of the proposal is gone.
Mr. T. Fraser: I want to be as helpful as possible, and I ask hon. Members to believe that the Secretary of State is equally anxious to see that no unfairness is done to anyone. I remember that we discussed in Committee at great length the fact that the warning notice should not be sent out by someone from St. Andrew's House, who may not have much knowledge of conditions, but that it would be served by the executive committee, which is, I think, a body accepted on all sides of the House as being likely to contain good, practical farmers who are not likely to be irresponsible in their actions. One of the main reasons we do not want to accept the Amendment is that up to now the use of the words "general grounds" have been generally acceptable. They are to be found in Clause 30 (4) and Clause 31 (2) dealing with the notices on grounds of bad estate management or bad husbandry, and one would not think that one would have to be more particular with regard to warning notices than with regard to the other notices—perhaps equally particular but not more particular.
Coming to some of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, if the tenant farmer is guilty of bad cultivation, of not applying fertilisers, and of not attending to his ditches he ought to be told, since it is because he is failing in those respects that he is given a warning notice. What the Lord Advocate had in mind when he talked about the changing circumstances was that we did not want to have to say that the field beyond the beeches in the south east corner has not been cultivated. If that was all that was wrong a farmer would not be getting a warning notice. What we want to say is that his cultivations are bad if they are bad, his ditches not up to standard if they are not up to it or that he is not paying proper attention to his permanent pasture. That is the sort of thing we want to tell him, not that eight acres in a corner are not being properly cultivated. We do not want to be so particular, because he might deal with those eight acres and leave the rest of his farm alone.
We are sympathetic to many of the points made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman in his effort to secure clarity in the Government's Amendment, but I

473
ask him to look at Clauses 30 and 31 where we deal with bad husbandry and bad management. There the words "general grounds" are acceptable, and if we are to accept the Opposition's Amendment and delete the word "general" we would not be providing a more precise warning at all. We will be as precise as possible, and we will ask the committees to be as precise as possible, but it would cast considerable doubt on the precision with which particulars have to be given in the other notices under Clauses 30 and 31 if this word were deleted. Therefore, I hope the Opposition will not press this Amendment.
Amendment to the proposed Amendment negatived.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 24, line 30, to leave out:
"it is proposed to continue."
This Amendment and the four which follow all run together and are, in fact, merely drafting Amendments consequent on certain Amendments made in Committee. They provide that the Secretary of State shall inform the person to whom a warning notice relates and also the other party interested not only of the withdrawal, but also of the continuance of the notice.
Lord William Scott: I should like to draw the attention of the Under-Secretary to the fact that when this Amendment is carried out paragraph (b) will read in a most peculiar manner and I hope something can be done to make it more intelligible. I do not know if the Under-Secretary has seen how it actually reads after the proposed words have been inserted, but he will find it difficult to read and even more difficult to understand.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 24, line 31, after "notice," insert "is to continue."
In line 43, after "withdrawal," insert "or of the continuance."
In line 43, leave out from "notice," to "to," in line 45.
In page 25, line 1, leave out from "withdrawal," to second "to," in line 2, and insert "or of the continuance."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 27.—(Changes of owner or occupier effected without approval of Secretary of State not to invalidate warning notices.)
7.45 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 25, line 17, to leave out "disposition of," and to insert:
"transfer of any interest in the."
This Amendment and the two following Amendments may be taken together. They have been introduced in order to get rid of a difficulty raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) which arose during the Committee stage in view of the technical connotation of the word "disposition" under Scottish law. In order to eliminate any possible doubt we have introduced these Amendments which get rid of the difficulty which was raised.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 25, line 18, leave out "other than a testamentary disposition," and insert:
"otherwise than by a testamentary disposition or by operation of law."
In line 21, leave out "disposition," and insert "transfer."—[The Lord Advocate.]

CLAUSE 34.—(Special directions to secure production.)
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: On a point of Order. I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, are not selecting the Amendment down in my name and that of my hon. Friends to amend Clause 34—in page 36, line 39, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that any person receiving a direction to provide fixed equipment may appeal to the Land Court who shall decide whether such direction is economically reasonable and where the Court decides that such a direction is not economically reasonable the Secretary of State shall revoke the direction."
I presume it must be because an exactly similar Amendment was moved in the Committee stage. I was going to point out with respect that in the Debate on the Committee stage the Secretary of State twice promised that he would look at the Amendment if we would withdraw it to see whether he could meet the point we had made. I understand there is also a similar Amendment later to Clause 47—in page 64, line 47, at end, insert:
"Provided also where any person is required to incur expenditure on land which has only become agricultural land by virtue of

475
designation under this Subsection that person may appeal to the Land Court within twenty-eight days on the ground that such expenditure will not yield an economic return and if the Land Court sustain the appeal the appellant shall not be required to incur that expenditure."
That includes references to the Land Court and I wonder if it would be in order to deal with both these subjects on that future Amendment when we come to deal with it, although it does not deal with the subject in exactly the same way as would be possible on this Amendment.
Mr. Speaker: I generally do not give any reason why I do or do not select an Amendment. I am under no obligation to say why, but I would point out that this Amendment was negatived after a Division and, as the hon. Member has indicated, there is the other Amendment in page 64, line 47, which largely covers the same point. I have no doubt the matter can be dealt with then. If it comforts the hon. Member he can be assured that the Amendment to page 64, line 47, is going to be called.

CLAUSE 38.—(Control of injurious animals and birds.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 40, line 20, to leave out from first "steps," to the end of line 21, and to insert "as may be so specified."
This Amendment has been put down because during the Committee stage the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) and I discussed the effect of a recent court decision in Edinbugh and whether as a result of it, this Clause would be effective. In order that we might prevent as far as we could, the decision of the court defeating the purpose of the Clause we have introduced this Amendment which gets rid of the point of doubt which was in the mind of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and myself.
Amendment agreed to.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I beg to move, in page 40, line 22, to leave out "or."
I understand that it would be for the general convenience if on this first Amendment there was a general discussion covering the whole field which is raised in my subsequent Amendments.
Mr. Speaker: I was going to suggest that we take the whole thing together, because it is all so closely linked and so many of the subsequent Amendments are drafting Amendments. If that is for the convenience of the House, I think we should adopt that course.
Colonel Goname-Duncan: I do not want to be long over this matter, but it is of very great importance to the country generally. There are two objectives in putting down the Amendments. The first is that we want to be certain that prevention of pests is the aim and not their destruction. We want to prevent pests arriving instead of having to kill them when they have arrived. I think that that aim will appeal to the House as being common sense. The second object is that among the specified pests we wish to include insects, instead of only birds, animals and weeds.
I think the House will be well aware that the essential balance of nature, along whatever line we happen to look at it, is the mainstay of our human, animal and vegetable life upon this planet. If we break the balance of nature down in any particular direction we have trouble. We have the question of birds versus insects in our country and in many other countries prominently before us. We have our old friends the stoats and weasels waging tremendous war on rats and rabbits. We also have the well-known fact that if we kill off all our wasps we have a tremendous plague of flies which will attack our fruit instead of the wasps. These are commonplaces, but they illustrate what I mean by maintaining the balance of nature, if we wish to prevent pests.
In other words, if we destroy one of those things, that upon which it lives will inevitably turn into a pest. One can go on giving examples to prove it. I do not want to take up the time of the House but I recall not very long ago watching a young stoat take no fewer than 11 rats from under a chicken house, one after the other, all baby rats. Eventually, it went back and brought out the mother rat as well. If we destroyed the stoats, the rat world would increase enormously. I have particulars of a case sent to me only yesterday where one stoat killed II rabbits in half an hour. That is again an illustration of what I mean by ensuring that the balance of nature is maintained.

477
Practically all the birds feed themselves and their young almost entirely on in sects. For instance, I take two very well-known birds, the nightjar and the cuckoo. About 80 per cent. of the food of those birds and their young is composed of insects. The big family of bluetits and other kinds of tits is well-known for eating a most colossal amount of all forms of insect pests. It has been proved that 100,000 song thrushes, which are not likely to be pests, within three months can consume up to 5,000 million insects, caterpillars and so on. There is the example in California of the two big valleys of Sacramento and Joachim, where it has been proved that it takes 193 tons of insects each day to feed the young of one specimen of bird alone, the meadow lark. Surely 13 tons is a pretty efficient way of preventing or getting rid of pests.
With those figures in view, why are birds who have done this job specifically mentioned in the Bill as a pest, while the insect is entirely left out? That does not seem to me to make sense. There is no question about the insect menace all over the world. It is one of the greatest menaces which the human race has to face. That is no exaggeration. The insect menace is moving round the world practically unchecked. Those who have lived abroad know what locusts are like. They make a cloud which comes up and literally darkens the sun, it is so vast. I have myself sat in a train in India which was quite unable to move from the station because millions of locusts were sitting on the line. As the engine tried to advance, it squashed the locusts, until the wheels would not go round. That example is more dramatic than can be provided by our home-bred insects, which do not go quite so far, but which are still active. There are caterpillars of all kinds, and flies, such as the onion fly and the carrot fly. There are the leather jacket and the wire worm. They all do the most colossal amount of harm in this country and they should be denominated "pests," without any doubt.
Our only cure, according to the Bill, is to poison, kill or get rid of them, in other words, to destroy them. Why not prevent instead of having to destroy? It should be made crystal clear in Part III of the Bill that prevention is our first objective. What happens in this matter of insect pests? May I give an example
478
of the folly of waiting until we have to destroy instead of having prevented? For fruit trees, which are subjected today to the attacks of most vigorous insects, a tar oil wash is advocated, as most people know. When it was first started some time ago, the treatment was once a year. A little later it was ordered that it should be three times a year. Today it is seven times a year. Think of the folly of thus waiting for our insects to get to that condition and then squirting at them with poison, which they gradually absorb and seem to begin to like, because they require seven doses instead of one. Pests, like other living things, acquire immunity, and we have a vicious circle in consequence.
I am firmly convinced that if we obey the laws of nature pests will be reduced to a minimum. Let us remember that injurious pests rarely attack healthy plants and trees, any more than diseases attack healthy human beings or animals. The first step in prevention of the spread of pests is to give our attention to that greatest of all preventives, a healthy soil. It is a real preventive of human, animal and plant diseases. Instead of scattering poisons about the land, which does nothing but harm because it kills the useful insects as well as the bad ones, let us concentrate first upon a healthy soil. We shall then have good crops of vegetation producing healthy animals and human beings because they themselves are healthy. When a man is healthy he is also happy, and that is a very great consideration.
Unless insects are included in it, this Part of the Bill becomes, to all intents and purposes, useless. Unless prevention is the first object of this Part of the Bill it equally becomes useless. All animals birds, weeds and insects have their uses in life. It is interesting to remember that the most exquisite and beautiful flowers that we know in this country today are weeds in some parts of the world. Therefore, a weed of itself is not necessarily bad. It is in the increasing of weeds and the breaking down of the balance between the useful and the useless that we have the most serious problem today. I emphasise again that the balance of nature is the sacred secret. Birds cannot eradicate insect pests, but they can and do very definitely prevent them. I say again that prevention is the great aim and that the insect is the greatest menace.

479
Therefore, let us encourage their enemies. If the enemies of the insect become too numerous, let us encourage again the enemies of each particular thing with which we are dealing. It is interesting to note that all these creatures and their enemies are merely part of a big plan of nature. The Almighty knew perfectly well what He was doing when He arranged that. Man, working with nature in these matters and maintaining that balance, will succeed. If he does not do so, he will not succeed. There are little, shallow minds which talk lightheartedly about man's conquest of nature. There is no such thing, and the insect world is proving it to us today. Man will never conquer nature, but if he works with it he will succeed. He invariably blames his Maker when things go wrong but fortunately his Maker takes no notice of that and the plan goes on. However, we who have to decide these vital matters, should make no bones about it; there are laws of nature which must be obeyed, and the balance is one of the greatest of these laws. The balance as between birds and animals and weeds must be properly maintained, and if we leave out the most important of all, which is insects, we are heading straight for disaster. That is happening all over the world.
I could give a great many more examples but I do not intend to keep the House any longer. I beg the Government to accept these Amendments which are aimed at two things with which all sensible people must agree. One is the prevention rather than the destruction of pests, and the other is the inclusion of insects, one of the greatest of the pests.
8.0 p.m.
Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so largely because we believe that this Measure is not a purely temporary Measure. I further believe that we are rather in the early days of the campaign against insects. It is just as well we should realise that far more damage is done to the crops of Scotland by insects and their larvae than from all the injurious animals and birds. The two main enemies of the cereal crops are the wire-worm and the leatherjacket. No one will doubt that in the years to come those pests must be dealt with very much more
480
efficaciously than they have been in the past. As regards livestock, the most injurious of insects is the warble fly. While one realises that special insects can be dealt with to a certain extent by separate orders, it is only right that when we have a part of such a Bill as this for the control of injurious animals, birds and weeds, insects should also be included.
The Lord Advocate: I have listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) on many occasions and on many subjects but I have seldom heard him speak with such authority, such detail of fact to support his argument and such enthusiasm as he has on this subject of pests. However, I am afraid that we cannot accept his Amendments, much as we sympathise with the underlying feeling which motivates them. In the first place, they are to a great extent unnecessary, because if we are concerned about the destruction of animals and birds and the eggs of birds, a fairly liberal reading of such a Clause would indicate that destruction—particularly the destruction of eggs, or destruction in the more general sense—includes prevention. If we are to destroy certain insects, the easiest way to do that is to prevent them from increasing and multiplying.
Insects are already covered by a variety of Statutes. Under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, ranging from 1877 to 1927, the Secretary of State has power to deal with insects, including fungi, bacteria or other vegetable or animal organisms which are causative of a transmissible crop disease. Hon. Members will find with interest, when they come to read it in the Report, that if any of these things are destructive to agricultural or horticultural crops or trees or bushes, an order may be made by the Secretary of State to deal with that state of affairs and with the insects, the fungi, the bacteria and the other things to which I have referred.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: There are also Acts and orders which deal with animal pests—
The Lord Advocate: I am coming to them.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: If the animal pests are mentioned particularly here under the same terms, why should not insects be included?
The Lord Advocate: It is not necessary to duplicate legislation, and I am merely trying to indicate what already exists. In so far as Statutes or orders exist, they should be read with this Clause. Under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts the Secretary of State can make an order and he must specify the particular pests or insects in respect of which the powers are to be exercised. Orders have been made in respect of certain non-indigenous insects like the Colorado beetle to try to prevent their importation and for dealing with other well-established or well-known pests, and I find from the information placed before me—I have not the same personal knowledge as the hon. and gallant Member for Perth—that under the Blackcurrant Mite Order a notice may be served requiring the destruction or treatment of infected hushes. There we have an illustration of the fact that the difficulties referred to by the hon. and gallant Member are already dealt with by existing orders. I must say I was very much impressed by the knowledge that there was in existence an order such as the Blackcurrant Mite Order. Section I of the Destructive Insects and Pests Act, 1927, authorises an inspector generally to take whatever steps he may think expedient to prevent the spread of any destructive insect, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman will appreciate that that is a very wide power under that Statute.
In the case of livestock, insect control would presumably fall to be dealt with under the various United Kingdom Measures dealing with the diseases of animals and the Diseases of Animals Acts. In so far as insect infestation of food, either human or animal, is concerned, no doubt that could be dealt with under the Infestation Order, 1943, which was made under the Defence Regulations. Therefore, it seems to me, inadequately trying to cover the wide territory traversed by the hon. and gallant Member, that we already have machinery to deal with the problem as it arises. We have within the meaning of the Clause a power under the word, "destruction" to use it generally to prevent the growth of these pests or insects, and as a safeguard against the destruction of the birds which the hon. and gallant Gentleman assures us are very useful in preventing the growth of pests or insects, he will observe that under Clause 38 (3) the Secretary of State has powers to reserve certain birds from the operation of the order, and no doubt if there was
482
any case of a particular bird or series of birds being required in order to cope with this pest problem, the Secretary of State could, by order under the Acts referred to in that Subsection, exclude those birds and allow them to get that full consumption which must be the envy of the poor humans who have rather restricted diets on which to live at present.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman realise that all the Acts and orders to which he has referred are for the purpose of dealing with something which has arrived already? That is destruction and not prevention. The only insect pest about which something sensible has been done is the Colorado beetle which we are trying to prevent from arriving. The present Measures will not prevent that, and I am afraid that the results of them will not be what he hopes.
Amendment negatived

CLAUSE 39.—(Prevention of escape of captive animals.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 41, line 16, to leave out "as may be necessary."
This corresponds to the Amendment made to Clause 38, and makes it clear that a direction served under the Clause shall specify the particular steps which the Secretary of State requires to be taken.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: In line 17, leave out "including such steps if any." —[Mr. Fraser.]

CLAUSE 42—(Right of occupier of agricultural holding to kill deer.)
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to move, in page 42, line 41, at the end, to insert:
"(2) A right conferred by or in pursuance of the foregoing subsection shall not be exercised between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise."
This Clause gives power to the occupier of agricultural land, and persons authorised by him, to kill deer found on his land at any hour of the day or night and at any season of the year. In Clause 43, the Secretary of State is empowered to authorise the occupier, or someone else, to enter the land and shoot the deer, but exception is made in the close season which is from 10th April to 6th October

483
and between one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise. In Committee I moved that these two exceptions should be applied also to Clause 42, namely, that the occupier of an agricultural holding should not be able to go on land and shoot deer which were doing damage after dark or in the close season. We had a lengthy Debate and although great sympathy with the Amendment was expressed on both sides of the Committee, it was rejected. However, I detected a possibilty that if the first point were dropped, about the shooting of the deer in the close season, there was some possibility that the second point, namely, the prohibition about shooting the deer one hour after sunset and one hour before sunrise, would be accepted. That is why we have put down this Amendment tonight.
I must confess that I hate the thought of night shooting. It is dangerous to human life and it might inflict horrible cruelty on the animals concerned. There is only one certain way of shooting deer at night, and that is to drive one's car close to them with the headlights full on, mesmerise them, and shoot them with a rifle. However, to use a shotgun is quite uncertain, for it has a very limited range. It is difficult to kill a deer by shotgun by day, let alone by night. Deer are shy and beautiful creatures and, if one wants to scare them off one's land, it is not necessary to shoot them at all. They run for miles if one swings a rattle. Moreover, if shooting at night is allowed there will be the greatest difficulty in enforcing the law. Supposing one hears a shot fired at night, if one were able to catch the person who fired it, he would say that he was not shooting pheasants or partridges but deer, and he would have a most perfect alibi.
8.15 p.m.
My main ground for taking exception to the Clause as it stands is the quite unnecessary cruelty to animals. It is not a party question, but one about which we can all feel concern, whatever our party affiliations may be. It is horrible to contemplate the suffering which may be caused by an action which will be permitted under this Clause. One's whole being revolts against the possibility of sorely stricken deer, with wounds gangrenous and putrid, dying miserably in a ditch because the Secretary of State lacks
484
the humanity to accept an Amendment which prohibits shooting after dark. I beg of him to accept this plea.
Lord William Scott: I beg to second the Amendment.
In doing so, let me admit that it is from no humane motives, except possibly for human beings. I have always regarded all manner of fire-arms as excessively dangerous and at present, even in daylight, there are far too many inexperienced persons able to handle them. However, even experienced persons would not wish to handle shotguns after dark, and to allow the most inexperienced to shoot between the hours of sunset and dawn would be asking for trouble. If I heard a shot in the neighbourhood after dark, I would not feel inclined to go and see who was firing, knowing reasonably well that he would probably mistake me for a deer. From experience I can say that there is nothing more painful than gunshot wounds, and I do not see why we should encourage these unnecessary dangers. One has only to read the papers to know what happens in North America during the month of October. There are enormous fatalities amongst those who go deer hunting in the States and in Canada. To give permission for shotguns to be carried and used in the dark in the twentieth century is sheer madness.
Mr. T. Fraser: We discussed these matters at very great length in Committee. On those occasions I resisted Amendments on these lines. I thought that the powers exercised under the Defence Regulations, without any criticism being made of them, might very well have been given effect to in a permanent Statute. However, my right hon. Friend undertook to give these matters further consideration and we regretted that after that the hon. Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) proceeded to force a Division, which did not seem very generous on that occasion. We have given further consideration to this matter, and, notwithstanding that he carried it to a Division, I am glad to say that we accept the Amendment.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I am very much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the decision, which I am quite sure will give great satisfaction to all lovers of animals throughout the length and breadth of Scotland.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Amendment of 43 & 44 Vict. c. 47, S.I.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 46, line 42, at the end, to insert:
"Provided that this subsection shall not apply in relation to any such agreement as aforesaid which was made after the commencement of this section and to which the tenant of a holding within the meaning of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1923 to 1948, is a party, unless the agreement was made after the lease under which the tenant holds the land was entered into."
When we were in Committee the Opposition put down an Amendment which had the effect of rendering illegal any agreement under Subsection (4) of this Clause unless it had been entered into subsequent to the signing of the lease of the farm. My right hon. Friend said on that occasion that he accepted the Amendment in principle, subject to examination of the wording. The Amendment now proposed gives effect to the purpose of the Amendment which was discussed in Committee.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 49.—(Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps above ground.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 47, line 10, to leave out "except in a rabbit hole."
This Amendment was on the Order Paper during the Committee stage. I am not sure whether it was moved, but it was discussed with another Amendment dealing with the use of the spring trap. We had a long discussion on the matter and the Government took the view that we have to retain the use of the steel trap to deal with a pest which causes loss of valuable foodstuffs by the depredations it makes in different parts of the country. However, it was clear that on all sides of the Committee there was a desire to be rid of the use of the steel trap altogether. My right hon. Friend has given further consideration to the employment of the steel trap and to what was said in Committee about its employment. Having regard to the arguments then used, the humanitarian considerations advanced, and to the fact that hon. Members on all sides of the Committee were anxious that farmers and landowners should be required to deal with the rabbit pest by other means than the use of the steel trap, he decided to put this Amendment on the Order Paper. I think it will be generally accepted by the House.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Of course, everyone in every part of the House would welcome the abolition of these traps if they were assured that there is some practicable alternative method of keeping down this extremely destructive pest. Have the Government accepted the Amendment without having in mind any alternative which is adequate to keep down rabbit stocks? If so, I wonder what are going to be the consequences. If there is an alternative, it is essential that we should be told what in the view of the Government is a practical method of dealing with this pest. We cannot suddenly accept the Amendment on humanitarian grounds without facing up to the practical alternative. We have seen certain persons inclined to take that view in the past and the results were not by any means happy.
I am sure the Department examined this matter very closely after the English Bill was in Committee when, I understand, there was a long discussion on this, and I understand that in the English Act these traps are still allowed. Has the right hon. Gentleman, or the Under-Secretary, received any practical advice as to the effect of this Amendment? If they have we ought to be told what it is. If there is any reasonable alternative method of dealing with rabbits, everyone would welcome the Amendment. If there is such an alternative we would have expected it to be discovered by the Government long ago, considering the importance that was obviously attached to this matter a year ago in England. We ought to be told what is the Government's view and whether there is any reasonable chance of an alternative being successful. If that is the position, I find it difficult to understand why the provision was inserted in the Bill in the first instance.
Mr. Gallacher: There is a very simple alternative, and a very desirable alternative. All we have to do is to organise the poachers, and we will get rid of the rabbits.
Mr. Snadden: I wish to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) said. We are facing an extremely stringent food position, and possibly this matter has not been fully explored. What are the alternatives if we do away with the steel trap? It is difficult to gas rabbits on very rocky ground, and if they are gassed they

487
cannot be used for food. Snaring is only effective when the grass is long, and that method cannot be used in the winter. If this Amendment is agreed to, we shall put on to an already small labour force a heavy burden. I am very keen to see the abolition of the steel trap, which I dislike very much, but I would like to know if, before it was decided to put down this Amendment, there was proper consultation, not only with the humane society people, but also with those responsible for the production of the nation's food. There is a danger of a great loss of food and, possibly, a great increase in the millions of rabbits which there must already be in this country.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. McLean Watson: To the best of my recollection there was no opposition to this proposal during the Committee stage. In our discussions upstairs we agreed that the spring trap should be abolished. I suggested a means whereby rabbits could be trapped not only in the rabbit hole, but outside. When the poacher goes forth he does not go armed with a steel trap. He does not use a steel trap in a rabbit hole. According to the Bill, a steel trap is only to be used in a rabbit hole and not outside. There are other means of trapping rabbits in rabbit holes. I suggest that the snare, the weapon used by the poacher is the proper thing to use in order to catch rabbits. The use of a steel trap in a rabbit hole is a brutal affair. I hope that we shall stand by the decision reached in the Committee upstairs. The Secretary of State undertook to have the matter reviewed before this stage of the Bill. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen can rest assured that other methods than the use of the steel trap could be found for dealing effectively with the rabbit nuisance.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: One of the difficulties about putting this Clause into the Bill is that it will be extremely hard to enforce its provisions. There is no wholly satisfactory practicable alternative, at any rate during the winter. In the summer when there is plenty of grass it is relatively easy to use snares. Is it not possible to use an improved trap? Recently a constituent showed me a steel trap with a rubber grip which
488
came down on the rabbit. That trap would kill the animal if it went in from one direction, and would hold it if it went in from another direction. The difficulty about the use of the steel trap is that a leg is apt to be broken and the animal may be held in great pain for a considerable time. I did not see this trap in use, and I kept my fingers well out of the way. If it is true that the trap would hold the animal without breaking any bones, that would remove the trouble attached to the steel trap. Would it not be possible to insert words such as "a steel trap of a design approved by the appropriate authority"? It is a principle of legislation that one should not make a law which one is unable to enforce. Nobody likes the steel trap. Everyone would like to avoid the cruelty involved in its use. If we could have a steel trap which did not cause cruelty, it would be better to use that instead of putting something into the Bill which cannot be enforced.
Lord William Scott: We are all aware that rabbits are not only vermin but pests. This Bill is designed to assist agriculture. It is not a Measure for the preservation of rabbits. If we accept this Amendment the obvious result would be, somewhat similar to the result of an action which is being discussed in another place at the moment, the preservation of rabbits. I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us whether any single section of agriculture has supported this Amendment. We know that certain humane societies have been extremely anxious for many years to get rid of steel traps. We are well aware that steel traps are horrible instruments, but until such time as something can be put on the market to take their place, it seems desirable that in a Bill to assist agriculture we should not do anything to assist one of the farmer's worst enemies, that pest and vermin the rabbit.
The Lord Advocate: I cannot follow the trend of this Debate, bearing in mind the Debate which we had on this topic in Committee upstairs. If there was one subject on which there was complete unanimity at the end of a discussion during Committee stage, it was that we should consider removing from the Clause the words:
"except in a rabbit hole,"
in order to prevent the continued use of the steel trap in Scotland. I can under-

489
stand the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) putting forward his argument. I can excuse him from the impeachment, because the discussion took place on one of the few days when we had not the benefit of his presence. Therefore, I cannot hold him as committed to the general view which was expressed. The hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) suggested that the words "in the open" should be added to the Clause to permit the use of the steel trap in the open. The hon. Member for Cambridge-shire (Mr. Stubbs) spoke to an Amendment which he had on the Order Paper advocating the abolition of the steel trap altogether. After he and various other hon. Members had spoken, the Secretary of State said that he would give sympathetic consideration to the argument that these traps should be excluded from use. The hon. Member for West Perth then informed the Committee:
"In view of that assurance, for which we are all grateful, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment. I think that we are all agreed in our dislike of the use of the steel trap. I do not want anyone to think we are in favour of it. [OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee on Scottish Bills, 3rd March, 2948; c. 524.]
Not only did we get the support of the hon. Member for West Perth—
Mr. Snadden: Not for its complete abolition.
The Lord Advocate: —but we got the support of the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), who not only gave his own view, but rehearsed, as usual, the views of all the other Members on the Committee on the point. There was complete unanimity in the Committee. I cannot understand why opposition should now arise from hon. Members opposite to something which was conceded as being desirable—
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I certainly did not express any opposition. I asked whether, before putting this Amendment down, the Government had had regard to the practical consequences, and I asked what those consequences would be. If the Lord Advocate can tell me that they have done that and that the practical consequences will be desirable, of course there is no opposition.
The Lord Advocate: Again, I willingly exclude the right hon. and learned Gentleman from my impeachment. I intended to deal with the points he has raised. We are left with snaring, gassing or shooting. As usual in Scotland a movement is always going on whereby we are experimenting with a view to ascertaining what further humane methods could be adopted. The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead said that England rejected this a year ago, but we have prided ourselves on the fact that we have always been in advance of England where agriculture is concerned. We introduced the restriction on the use of the steel trap in the rabbit hole 50 years before England did so, and I think, therefore, we need not he persuaded by the fact that England accepted this a year ago.
Mr. Reid: I used the English position merely to point out that the Scottish Department must have had its attention directed to this matter at that time, and I did not in the least argue, and I do not argue now, that we ought to follow England. All I say is that the discussion on the subject in England must have set inquiries afoot with the Scottish Department, and if a practical method was found to deal with the situation it is rather surprising that this ever appeared in the Bill at all.
The Lord Advocate: As we are very much a democratic institution, we left this matter for consideration by the Scottish Grand Committee, and the Scottish Grand Committee were quite obviously unanimous in the view that this should be taken out of the Bill. We are giving effect to that unanimously expressed wish —expressed after a very full Debate—and in those circumstances I do not think it is necessary to rehearse the arguments. We do hear representative opinions from interested bodies, and we have regard to those opinions, but in the last analysis the people to whom we give regard are those who constitute the House of Commons or the Committee of the House of Commons which is examining the Bill. In view of the unanimous opinion expressed during the Committee stage and the arguments advanced in favour of this Amendment, we have put the Amendment forward and we trust that it will be acceptable to the House.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 53.—(Interpretation of Part III.)
Lord William Scott: I beg to move, in page 47, line 44, to leave out from "deer," to the end, and to insert "means Red Deer."
Mr. Gallacher: This is purely Tory propaganda.
Lord William Scott: I am not moving this Amendment through humane or sporting motives. In Scotland we have two native varieties of deer, the red deer—which lives somewhere up in the North and which has vacated the Lowlands and the Border country for some centuries—and we have in the woods the roe deer. During the Committee stage of this Bill we spent many weary hours discussing the red deer and its habits. During the whole of that period no Amendment was made in regard to the roe deer, or in regard to the various imported foreigners described as park deer, fallow deer and such like.
The Clause dealing with red deer may or may not be suitable. Whether or not it is suitable for red deer, it does not take into consideration the complete difference in habit and habitat between the red deer and the roe deer, and nothing in the Bill as it is before the House at the present moment has any bearing whatever either on the roe deer which live in the woods, or on fallow deer which live in parks. It seems a pity that we should not confine our efforts in regard to the destruction of deer to red deer.
8.45 p.m.
It might be argued that on occasions park deer escape from the park. But they have done so since time immemorial and there has never been any difficulty in pushing them back to whence they came. No additional Measures are required either by this or any other Act to deal with these rare specimens, park deer which escape from their captivity. Nothing in the Bill is of any positive assistance in the destruction of roe deer. I agree that roe deer can do an immense amount of damage. They may be considered by some to be extremely beautiful, but they are so seldom seen that their beauty hardly compensates for the immense amount of damage which they can do. However, nothing in this Bill will be of assistance in reducing their numbers and I hope, therefore, that this Clause will be confined entirely to red deer.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I beg to second the Amendment.
So far as I can ascertain, I think very generally this Amendment represents feeling in Scotland. In fact, what is meant by the Government is red deer. I know that interested organisations have taken that line and it has not been contradicted so far. I hope that the Secretary of State for Scotland, or whoever is to reply, will make quite clear what is meant. I think all the arguments which were adduced during the Committee stage were arguments directed towards protection in certain circumstances of red deer, and not of roe deer, which live in the woodlands and very seldom emerge from them.
The Lord Advocate: I really cannot appreciate the purpose of this Amendment, because one of the functions of this Bill is to try to control the actions and movements of deer in so far as they might have a detrimental effect on agriculture and the crops of the country. I find it difficult to understand why one should restrict the control to red deer and not to other species of deer. We have various species of deer in Scotland. The red deer is only one species; the red deer are indigenous to the Highlands and to the larger Islands. We have other species—roe deer, which I think are more widely distributed throughout the country and are not so numerous as red deer; fallow deer, which are smaller than roe deer but are also to be found in most counties in Scotland; and the ornamental deer. The position is even worse than that, because a typical ornamental deer is the Japanese deer, and I can quite understand the indignation of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) if he thought that red deer could be shot and Japanese deer could not. It is not true to say that red deer are the only deer with which we need to believe that trouble might arise, because on the best information available to me I am informed that the roe deer is an enemy of silviculture. It attacks young shrubs and bushes, nibbles away at them and destroys the growth. I cannot see why, in those circumstances, roe deer should be excluded.
Lord William Scott: Can the Lord Advocate point to a single line in this Bill which could possibly affect the roe deer which attacks silviculture?
The Lord Advocate: I do not intend to go through the Bill again.
Lord William Scott: Just one line.
The Lord Advocate: Quite obviously, if they have these predatory habits they will not confine them to land of no special value. Even the so-called ornamental deer, normally enclosed in parks, on occasions break out. The Japanese deer we had in Peebleshire broke out and became fifth columnists and did much damage. Accordingly, I cannot see any justification for confining the definition to red deer, and I trust that we shall continue to have the definition of "deer of any species."
Mr. N. Macpherson: The argument of the right hon. and learned Gentleman seems to me rather peculiar. We are here dealing with agriculture, and not particularly with forestry. If the roe deer do damage in a forest they would normally do damage to the forest which belongs to the man who also owns the roe deer. Therefore, it is his own business to see to it, and he can do exactly as he pleases. Admittedly, roe deer do a great deal of damage, but it does not seem to me that the same arguments apply as apply to red deer. I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley). When I read the Bill I assumed that the Clause referred to red deer. One does not normally refer to roe deer as deer. I hope that, on second consideration, the Government will ensure that, in fact, it does mean that.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 60.—(Powers of management, etc., of land acquired by Secretary of State.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 51, line 18, to leave out from the beginning, to the end of line 20.
This proviso now proposed to be deleted is unnecessary and inappropriate. In Committee we accepted an Amendment that seemed to limit the effect of the proviso, though I myself did assert on that occasion that the proviso was unnecessary.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: The hon. Gentleman may think it serves no useful purpose, but is it doing any harm? How is it embarrassing him? When we have a statute which lays down a restriction, that restriction ought to be observed. Why does the Under-Secretary of State want to be
494
absolved from following the directions of other statutes? This Clause deals with any land which he happens to acquire under this Bill. Then, if he is satisfied that it ought to be used for some other purpose than the purpose for which it was used, he has the right to use it in such manner as appears to him expedient.
That is perfectly all right in the case of land under no statutory restriction, and in a case where he is under no statutory restriction; but we may have statutes that restrict the use of that land, or we may have certain statutes that restrict the Secretary of State from doing certain things in his capacity as Secretary of State. I have no doubt that there are statutes of that kind. Why should those statutes be brushed aside in the case of land that the Secretary of State happens to acquire? This Bill would still remain operative, I assume, in the case of any land he acquired under any other enactment. Land may be taken completely out of agriculture. It may be used by the Secretary of State for some entirely different purpose. I have difficulty in understanding the case for this Amendment. It seems to me to be introducing an odd distinction. Perhaps, if we were given a practical example it would help.
The Lord Advocate: This Clause deals only with land acquired by the Secretary of State under this Bill. Therefore, if, in relation to that land, other Acts apply by virtue of the terms of those other Acts, then, to that extent, the use of the land will be qualified by the terms of the other Acts. It is manifestly unnecessary and redundant to include in this Clause a proviso to the effect that the use of the land is subject to any provisions made by other statutes, because the use of any property in this country is subject to the provisions of any statutes that affect that particular type of property. If this is redundant, as it is, I cannot understand the need for preserving it. Criticism so far has been very fair. It has been that we have put too much into our legislation that would be overloading the Bill. Now, when we try to tidy up legislation, and to cut out a proviso, the complaint is made that we are doing so, and we are told we should leave an unnecessary proviso in the Bill. The proviso is not necessary, and that circumstance, I think, is a complete justification for removing it.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Extension of time for applying for assistance under Section 4 of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 61, line 14, at the end, to insert:
"(6) This Section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."
Clause 77 extends for another five years the period during which local authorities can make application for grant to replace unsatisfactory houses under Part II of the Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 1938. That Act would expire on 13th July, 1948, were we not to extend it by this Bill. Therefore, we want to secure that this Clause shall come into operation on the passing of the Bill. We cannot wait until this part of the Bill is brought into force by Order in Council. If we did, the Act of 1938 might expire beforehand.
Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 85.—(Interpretation.)
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I beg to move, in page 64, line 47, at the end, to insert:
"Providing also where any person is required to incur expenditure on land which has only become agricultural land by virtue of designation under this Subsection that person may appeal to the Land Court within twenty-eight days on the ground that such expenditure will not yield an economic return and if the Land Court sustain the appeal the appellant shall not be required to incur that expenditure."
This Bill contains a great number of provisions with regard both to landlords and to tenants of agricultural land which may be highly onerous and expensive. When we were considering whether these provisions were justified in the public interest, I have not the least doubt that every Member of the Committee had in mind land which is agricultural at this moment and is agricultural when the inspector goes to see whether the landlord and the tenant have been doing their job properly. We adjusted the Clauses in the Bill on the footing that they applied to land of that character. Now, when we come to the definition of "agricultural land" in Clause 85, it is found to include every other kind of land as well, in certain events. It includes not only land which is agricultural in the ordinary sense now, but,
"land … which is designated by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this Subsection … as land which in the opinion of
496
the Secretary of State ought to be brought into use for agriculture."
That is to say, this Bill applies not only to agricultural land proper, but to any other kind of land which the Secretary of State thinks might be turned over from its present use to agricultural purposes.
9.0 p.m.
We did not, and I do not now, take any exception to the Secretary of State having that very wide power, because in the present food situation of this country it is obvious that some power of that sort may turn out to be very useful in certain cases. What I say is that, if we try to apply this Bill to that kind of land, we must watch what we are doing. Now, that kind of land, of course, will not be acquired for agriculture. It has never been used for agriculture before; therefore, putting into operation all the provisions of this Bill on land of that character will be much more difficult and expensive than it would be on land which is already agricultural, and on which the equipment only wants a certain amount of renovating or extension to bring it up to date. Therefore, it seems to us proper to put some limitation on the power of the Secretary of State to direct uneconomic expenditure, up to certain limits.
We had a discussion about that, and we came to a reasonably fair arrangement, under which if the expenditure is above a certain limit there is an appeal to the Land Court, except in the case of Clause 34, which is the emergency Clause. There, I am bound to say I think the Bill is still defective, because it leaves the Secretary of State entitled to put upon existing occupiers uneconomic burdens without their having any right of appeal for relief. The Secretary of State's defence was, "This is an emergency matter which may arise at short notice, so that I have not time to wait for an appeal." Here, we have a different story. This is not an emergency provision. This is a provision in the ordinary course. We propose that where any person is required to incur expenditure on land which only becomes agricultural because the Secretary of State says it is to be so, then that person may appeal to the Land Court on the ground that the expenditure will be uneconomic, and he ought not to be compelled to incur expenditure of that character.

497
I would not mind if the right hon. Gentleman would accept this Amendment subject to some limitation of amount. I do not think there should be appeals on small amounts, and if the Secretary of State wished to make a qualification of that kind I should not object. It is quite clear that to take a piece of land which has never been agricultural before and, by means of a direction, try to bring it up to the standard set in this Bill, may produce an astonishing amount of expenditure on a quite small acreage, which will not approach being economical at the end of the day. If the national necessity requires us to incur capital expenditure of that sort, then something ought to be done to assist, and the burden ought not to fall on an individual. In our present state, when capital expenditure is being limited for economic reasons, I should doubt whether this would happen; but it may be that we shall get out of our financial crisis before we get out of our food crisis—I do not know what may happen—and, if we did, it might be that the Secretary of State would start directing people to incur very large capital expenditure without their having any recourse at all, so far as I can see, in a certain event. In certain events there will be an appeal, I agree; but I am not at all clear that the Bill, as it stands, gives a general right of appeal, and if it does not, I think that there ought to be such a right.
The Lord Advocate: Even if we were prepared to accept this Amendment, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it cannot be included in this part of the Bill, which is the interpretation Clause. That is merely a minor point, and if it were the only objection, it could have been overcome. As I have said, we cannot accept this Amendment, because we must remember that the Secretary of State enjoys the presumption, in fact and in law, of being a reasonable man, and he is not going to design land which will not give an economic return, looking to the future and to the development of the land. I would remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that the Secretary of State takes powers to acquire land compulsorily under Clause 46, or to serve a direction in respect of good husbandry and estate management, in which case there is the right of appeal on the part of the landlord or tenant. Accordingly, it seems quite unnecessary to give
498
this further right of appeal to the Land Court. If there is to be this right of appeal to the Land Court, the work of the Land Court will become even more full and complicated, which, in the circumstances, I do not consider justified.
Mr. Reid: I understand the Lord Advocate has given an undertaking that the Secretary of State will act reasonably in this matter, in the sense that he will not direct uneconomic expenditure. If that is an undertaking, I am prepared to withdraw the Amendment.
The Lord Advocate: I said "economic," taking the long-term point of view, but we cannot gauge that during the currency of the first year or two of acquisition. I can give an undertaking that the Secretary of State will not design land unless it can be put to good agricultural use, bearing in mind the future long-term policy.
Mr. Reid: On the footing that there is an undertaking, taking the long-term view, that there will be no direction for any uneconomic expenditure, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 87.—(Short title, commencement and extent.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 67, line 11, after "(2)," to insert:
"Save as otherwise expressly provided"
This Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendments to Clauses 22 and 37, which provide that those Clauses shall come into operation with the passing of the Act.
Amendment agreed to.

NINTH SCHEDULE.—(Minor and consequential amendments.)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 81, line 41, at the end, to insert:
"10. In Section twenty-six, in Subsection (2) (which Subsection relates to the renewal of a lease by tacit relocation) for the word 'renewed,' in both places where it occurs, there shall be substituted the words continued in force."
This Amendment is introduced in order to make certain the position of leases which are renewed by tacit relocation. There was some discussion about this during the Committee stage, and to re-

499
move any doubt, it is made abundantly clear that tacit relocation will not constitute a new lease, but will be regarded as a continuation of the existing lease.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendments made: In page 86, line 30, leave out from "thirty-four," to "Agriculture," in line 31, and insert:
"for the words 'this Act,' there shall be substituted the words 'this Part of this Act or Part I of the'."
In line 33, leave out from "(1)," to end of line 37, and insert:
"for the words 'of this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'of this Part of this Act or of Part I of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 5948' and the words from 'in the case of a holding' to 'fifty pounds' and the words 'and in the case of any other holding an arbiter' shall be omitted."

"6 & 7 Geo. 6. c. 22.

The Housing (Agricultural Population) (Scotland) Act, 143."

In section one, subsection (2).

[Mr. T. Fraser.]

Motion made, and Question proposed," That the Bill be now read the Third time."—(King's Consent signified.)
9.12 p.m.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I think it will be agreed on all sides of the House that the Bill has been considerably improved as a result of the detailed examination it has had during the Committee and Report stages. Many helpful and constructive suggestions have been made, and the Government responded to many requests made to improve the Bill so long as they did not impinge on its general policy and principles. There has been no impingement on the general policy of the Bill, of which we are very proud indeed. Since the Second Reading, 37 Clauses have been amended, but the fact that there have not been more Amendments is a tribute to the draftsmen and those who did the spade work which was necessary before this Bill was published.
Parts I and II of the Bill are the most important. Part I deals with the relationship of landlord and tenant, and Part II deals with the steps to be taken towards greater efficiency in agriculture. These Parts occupied II of the 15 Sittings in Committee, Part I taking eight days. These parts of the Bill make far-reaching changes, and it is gratifying to find that
500
In line 38, leave out from "(2)," to "Agriculture," in line 39, and insert:
"for the words 'this Act' there shall be substituted the words 'this Part of this Act or by Part I of the'."
In line 40, after "1948," insert:
"the words 'in pursuance of the foregoing Subsection or' shall be omitted."—[Mr. T. Fraser.]

TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Enactments repealed.)
Amendments made: In page 88, line 51, leave out the second "and."
In line 52, at end, insert:
"and in Section thirty-five, in Subsection (1), the words from 'in the case of a holding' to 'fifty pounds' and the words 'and in the case of any other holding an arbiter,' and in Subsection (2) the words 'in pursuance of the foregoing Subsection or'."
In page 89, line 16, at end, insert:
such a large measure of agreement has been achieved. When the Bill becomes law tenant farmers will enjoy greater security of tenure than they have had hitherto. The Bill imposes on landowners a greater statutory responsibility for good estate management than they have hitherto had to bear by statute. We are providing that the ownership of agricultural land shall, henceforth, be a functional interest in agriculture.
It is true that some sections of the industry are not satisfied with all we have done. For instance, many farmers are not yet satisfied with the provisions for compensation for disturbance, which were discussed at great length in Committee. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State then said that he was not hidebound in this matter, and that if clear evidence could be given that the compensation provisions were inadequate, unfair, or harsh he would look at them again. No such evidence has been brought forward. My right hon. Friend has been obliged to leave the Bill in that respect in the form in which it was first introduced. On the other hand, the farmers have won important concessions in that the Bill, as amended in Committee, now recognises the paramount responsibility of the landlord for fixed equipment. The Amendments to Clause 28 were probably the most important Amendments made to the Bill.
The Bill, as it originally came before hon. Members, provided that in all new leases the responsibility would fairly and squarely be put upon the landowners for the provision of fixed equipment. As the Bill was introduced, we required that where direction had to be given for the provision of fixed equipment in the case of existing leases, the Secretary of State would have regard to the provisions of existing leases, and, if need be, would give directions to the tenant farmer, although the Bill recognised the responsibility was that of the landowner. We made the necessary Amendments in Committee that in all circumstances, if a direction is to be given for the provision of fixed equipment, the direction shall be given to the landowner.
Humanitarian considerations led to modifications in Part III of the Bill. We made those modifications this afternoon. We have responded to the request made to us in Committee and again this afternoon that the shooting of deer at night should be prohibited, and that the spring trap for killing of rabbits should be completely abolished. I know that there are some farmers who will regret both decisions, but it as clearly the will of hon. Members not ill-informed on these matters that we should make the Amendments.
We have also been asked several questions during the passage of the Bill about the depredations of foxes, and we have had expressed to us, both during the passage of the Bill and at other times, apprehensions that the Forestry Commission were not sufficiently appreciative of the damage done to crops by foxes and of the fact that the forests which are the property of the Forestry Commission provide good and safe harbour for foxes. Our experience of the Forestry Commission is that they are most co-operative in dealing with the fox menace. They employ trappers in all their forests. They have an interest themselves in keeping down foxes and for 20 years or more the trappers have been paid a bonus—
Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): 1 am not clear that the hon. Member is dealing with the contents of the Bill. He is only entitled to deal with what is in the Bill.
Mr. Fraser: The Bill does deal with pests, including foxes. I think that I was in Order in saying what steps had been
502
taken to deal with this matter because fear was expressed in Committee that not enough use had been made of the powers that we are continuing and extending under the Bill.
Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Bill does in fact deal with pests and foxes, the hon. Member may be in Order.
Mr. Fraser: I will not say very much about it. The Forestry Commission employ persons and pay them a normal wage plus a commission of 10s. for foxes and 5s. for cub foxes. The numbers killed have risen from 590 in 1944 to 940 last year. The Commission co-operate in organised schemes for the destruction of foxes by contributions to local clubs and associations.
In conclusion, may I say that I personally shall take a very great pleasure in seeing this Bill go on to the Statute Book. I have spent a lot of time in the consultations and negotiations that preceded the presentation of this Bill. I have seen something of the very hard work done by many other people in the preparation of this Measure. We expect much from the people who will accept the invitation of the Secretary of State to serve him on the new Executive Committees. On them there will be put a great measure of responsibility for this Bill. This Bill provides a new deal for farming, for in it we have a new conception of planning. Taken together with the guarantees given in Part I of the Agricultural Act of last year this Bill will make possible optimum farming production with a fair return to all concerned, resulting in agriculture finding its proper place in the social and economic life of the country. I have much pleasure in commending the Bill to the House.
9.23 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: I do not want to detain the House for any length of time. This Bill is generally accepted on this side of the House as having been very greatly improved by the Amendments which have been accepted by the Government today, and which have largely arisen as a result of the effort of Members on both sides during the Committee stage. The Under-Secretary of State seemed to cast some doubt upon the attitude of the farmers to certain provisions, but the majority of them welcome the Bill. They will, no

503
doubt, accept the proposals to prevent the shooting of deer at night, for that would be a very dangerous thing if it were carried out extensively. The proposal to abolish spring traps is also to be greatly welcomed on humanitarian grounds.
The only point I rise to make—and I shall make it with some force—arises on Clause 12, which provides that
"it is expedient in order to secure the full and efficient farming of the holding that the amount of land required to be maintained as permanent pasture should be reduced, and … the Secretary of State may, after affording to the landlord and to the tenant an opportunity of making representations to the Secretary of State, whether in writing or on being heard by a person appointed by the Secretary of State, direct that the lease shall have effect subject to such modifications of the provisions thereof as to land which is to be maintained as permanent pasture or is to be treated as arable land."
That is a very drastic power to give to the Secretary of State. I do not think this House is justified in giving that power to the Secretary of State, so long as the principal arable crop of Scotland, oats, is put in a different position from all other cereal crops. It is very unfair to direct the farmers of Scotland how much arable land they should put under the plough so long as we have the anomalous situation that oats are treated differently. The country is suffering as a result of that policy. I should be very grateful if whoever replies would give us some assurance that the Government are alive to the immense importance of the oat crop as the principal cereal crop of Scotland, and will do their very best to secure that that crop is placed on the same basis as other cereal crops from the long-term point of view.
I make that point strongly, because it affects us adversely in the North-east of Scotland. Farmers are, rightly or wrongly, deeply concerned because of the bitter experiences they have had in the past. I will not deny that some of those bitter experiences were at the hands of Governments which I supported. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, Hear."] I do not deny it for a moment. The oat growers of Scotland have always had a bad deal. We who represent oat-growing constituencies feel that it is time that the oat-growers had a square deal. We should be very grateful for assurances respect-
504
ing the powers which are being conceded to the right hon. Gentleman.
9.28 p.m.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I compliment the Secretary of State and the Government on the work they have done in connection with the Bill, and not least the Under-Secretary for his great contribution to it. I note that the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), who has just criticised the Bill, is leaving us.
Mr. Boothby: I am not going.
Mr. MacMillan: I find it a little irksome to have to listen to the pompous patronage that we have had from the hon. Member, who put in only ten minutes' attendance at a single meeting during the whole of the Committee stage of the Bill. It ill becomes him to come here as a critic now. He has no right to come forward and criticise the Bill at this stage. He may have the constitutional right to do so, but he has no moral right to do so. If he wanted to protect the oat-growers of the North-east he should have done so during the Committee stage. It is extremely unpleasant to have to sit and listen to his rather smug criticisms at this final stage.
The Bill should be welcomed by all hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House, as well as on this side, without reservation. We have done work for the industry which has been neglected for the last 50 years. The Bill has caught up the leeway of generations. It has handsomely made amends for the neglect of those who like to come here and patronise the farmer from a distance without making any practical effort to improve his conditions on the land. Farmers, landworkers and people of the countryside generally who come under the provisions of the Bill for housing and social betterment, as well as for agriculture, will be grateful to the Government for bringing forward this Measure so early in the first term of office on the first majority Labour Government. That is why it ill becomes hon. Members opposite to make any criticism of this Bill at this stage of its progress.
I welcome this Bill for several reasons. The farmers are given something, they have wanted for a long time—security of tenure, while they fulfil the essential conditions of good husbandry and observe

505
the other provisions which are laid down in the Bill—
Mr. Boothby: The hon. Member has made a most extraordinary suggestion that it ill becomes any hon. Member to criticise a Bill which has been put forward by the Government. I thought the whole purpose of this House was to criticise such Measures.
Mr. MacMillan: I made no such suggestion. While conceding that the hon. Member has the constitutional right to make any objections he likes, I said that it ill became him in particular to criticise this Measure. He has neglected the Bill during the whole Committee stage for many weeks when he had the opportunity to protect the farmers and the oats interests of the industry on which he has laid so much emphasis, and it ill becomes him as an individual Member to come forward at the very tail end and make criticisms with pompous patronage. This Bill gives some thing to the farmers which the hon. Member and his hon. Friends failed to give—on his own admission the hon. Member supported the Governments concerned in their neglect and in their maladministration—security of tenure subject to the conditions of good husbandry. It will give stability to the industry in several ways. It will bring to the farm worker, his wife and his family the certainty that the Government are now giving priority and urgent consideration to the housing needs of the agricultural workers in the Highlands and Islands. Heaven knows, we have been saddled with agricultural slums under the Tories long enough—
Mr. Boothy: Rubbish. What has the hon. Member done about it?
Mr. MacMillan: The hon. Member has given a complete confession tonight. He may seek to ignore the neglect by the Tories of agricultural housing in common with their neglect of the agricultural industry generally, but I shall not allow him to withdraw that admission he made. I am glad that the provisions for dealing with damage by deer and the extension of the right to destroy deer when they are causing damage have been incorporated. There was no serious sustained criticism on this point beyond one morning's rearguard action by the Opposition. The hon. and gallant Member for Perth (Colonel Gomme-Duncan) made an almost poetic
506
speech on the prevention of invasion by insects and the suppression of insects already present, and I could not help agreeing with him in his comments on our having respectful regard to what he rightly called the "balance of nature." The Bill does much in the way of pest control also. All these provisions are sensible and useful and have been welcomed by the farmers and everybody in the countryside.
I must congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on behalf of the Government Panel on the Highlands and Islands for having incorporated in the Bill two things the panel had very much at heart. That is, first, the inclusion for the purposes of the congested districts and provisions of these parishes mentioned in the Seventh Schedule. I am grateful in that respect. I must also congratulate him for having dealt with the other recommendations of the Highlands and Islands Panel in regard to the repair and rebuilding of houses in the Highlands and Islands. The panel is extremely grateful to the Secretary of State for it. On my own behalf I thank him for accepting an important Amendment which had the support of the National Farmers' Union in Scotland and hon. Members on the Government side and perhaps some hon. Members opposite.
I welcome the extension of the Land Court. It has a high standing in Scotland and is held in especially high respect throughout the Highlands. To my knowledge, at no time has a decision of the Land Court been seriously challenged by a community as being unjust to any member of that community. I know individual people feel hardly when a decision goes against them, but they do not have a sense of miscarriage of justice; for they know that the Land Court will give them a fair and thorough hearing and that they can appeal to it with complete confidence. Therefore, I am glad to see the extension of it here.
There are many things one welcomes in the Bill and, with the help of some Amendments made from both sides of the House, the Bill is a better one since it went through the Scottish Grand Committee. It has improved as it went along with the goodwill of hon. Members; and the hard work of certain Members opposite helped, too. Even the good will of the hon. Member for East Aberdeen is

507
perhaps welcome at this late stage, after all.
9.36 p.m.
Mr. Snadden: Some of my hon. Friends whom I see on both sides of the House have followed this Bill line by line through its 87 Clauses and 10 Schedules, and it would be appropriate if something were said on behalf of those who sat through the long sittings of the Standing Committee. I will not exaggerate and say that it has endeared itself to the hearts of the Scottish Grand Committee Members, but it goes on its way to another place with the general blessing of hon. Members of this House. It is true to say that its Clauses have been thoroughly discussed and improved, although naturally we on this side of the House have not had nearly as many concessions from the Secretary of State for Scotland as we should have liked. However, we have appreciated the fact that all through the long sittings in Standing Committee we have had him with us in constant attendance. Of course the farmer may take that as a bad omen because his fear is that, when this Bill becomes an Act, he will have the Secretary of State at his elbow for the rest of his working life. Be that as it may, we were glad that the Secretary of State recognised the importance of the Bill by attending so assiduously, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I would say that we were glad the learned Lord Advocate was also there. He met us fairly in all our arguments, and dealt with the technical points that were raised. We have appreciated the assiduity and courtesy of both the right hon. Gentlemen, and on our side it can be said that throughout this long and technical Bill a certain amount of fairly hard work has been put in.
Looking at the Bill in principle, the policy enshrined in it has been uncontroversial for it gives stability, freedom from violent fluctuation in prices, guaranteed prices and assured markets. On the other hand, there is insistence upon a reasonably high standard of agriculture in return, and my hon. Friends and I feel that these are the obvious ways of promoting and sustaining a substantial agricultural industry in this small country. We accept that principle wholeheartedly.
508
However, it is in the detailed application of the principle that the division of opinion has occurred. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby) mentioned, Clause 12 allows the Secretary of State to serve a direction upon a farmer to put down permanent pasture in order to crop. Then there is the Clause which deals with good husbandry, good estate management, the Clause that puts the farmer under a warning notice, and finally, the nasty Clause of dispossession.
The weakness in this Bill is that it will be difficult to enforce reasonably these Clauses so long as the pivot crop of the Whole Scottish farming economy carries the reservation given to it by the Minister for England and Wales. So long as that reservation is there—and up to date the Secretary of State has said nothing to refute it—this Bill can hardly ring true. What it does is to place a permanent control on the farmer, on the one hand, and, on the other, to give him stability for only a relatively short period. That in fact means he is to be subjected to price restraint during a time of anticipated scarcity and yet may be denied price support when days of plenty return. In other words, from a practical point of view his choice may be dispossession for not growing an uneconomic crop, or bankruptcy if he does grow it. One of the twin pillars of which we have heard so much—and the one which really concerns the Scottish farmer far more than the other is the pillar of stability—is quite definitely under suspicion, and I am not very sure that it would not be true to say that it is definitely rickety. That is the definite weakness in this otherwise broadly acceptable Measure.
The Minister must remove from the minds of Scottish agriculturists the anxieties they have in this respect. If he were to come out with a definite statement and assurance in regard to that reservation he would have the confidence necessary to work the Measure successfully. Looking at the Bill closely, it is very apparent that the Secretary of State although he has not given the pillar stabililty, has certainly devoted a great deal of attention to the other pillar, efficiency. Reading the Bill, one almost comes to the conclusion that the Minister is himself becoming the pillar. It is true that he can advise the farmer and the

509
owner, but he can also direct, reject or finally evict, and under no less than seven different Clauses he can swallow the land himself. As a result, there is evident throughout the Bill a rather pathetic faith in the wisdom of some civil servant with a fat pile of papers before him to advise the Minister, who has a very great deal of responsibility.
That is why some Clauses have caused us a little anxiety. Take, for example, Clause 7, which has been mentioned by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). Clause 7, which deals with security of tenure, although it sounds feasible, does not seem to us to be satisfactory in its wording. We felt it was necessary to have it clarified so that people can understand what it means, but all we have been told is that everything is to be left to the Minister. I say that as the Clause now stands it will be a feast for the lawyers, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) should view the whole Clause with considerable professional equanimity. I want to see reasonable security of tenure, but I do not believe it is for the good of Scottish agriculture if the farmer just above the line of supervision, is dug in to such an extent that it is impossible for fresh blood to come into the industry. I am afraid that by this Clause very few farms will become available to young, energetic, men whom we want to see entering Scottish agriculture. It may be that because of the difficulty of getting any tenants at all, we are prohibiting new blood from coming in. The Secretary of State carries a very heavy burden of responsibility under Clause 7. Everything is left to his discretion.
The other Clause I had in mind, looking back over the Committee stage, is the very important Clause 13, which causes me some anxiety. While I recognise that the fixed equipment on our farms must be put into order, and put into order quickly, I am apprehensive about this Clause. My experience is that the majority of owners and owner-occupiers are anxious to carry out their heavy responsibilities under the Clause. Large sums of money will have to be spent, in the aggregate no doubt amounting to many millions, under penalty of dispossession. Under Clause 29 an owner can be made to spend one year's rent every three years without right of appeal. He has to meet taxes as well
510
and, incidentally, he has to live. I questioned the severity of this burden on Second Reading. That was before the Budget. But now many of these people, who are small, provident people are to be hit on the head by the capital levy of the Chancellor of the Exchequer before they even have a chance to carry out the terms of Clause 13. Many others will be crippled by it.
One cannot help feeling that the Government do not care very much whether or not they do the job. The Secretary of State has all the power and he says that if they do not do the job, the Government will, first, swallow their money and after that, their property. One cannot wonder if people say that this is the thin edge of the wedge of nationalisation. I would point out to the Secretary of State that there is a most important point which concerns his own Department. Whatever happens under Clause 13, whether the owner can do the job or not, inevitably we shall see a steep rise in rents. I wonder to what extent that will affect the whole structure. If rents rise during a time of inflation, when costs on the farm are extremely high, we can have only one answer under guaranteed prices, and that answer is that they will be paid eventually by the consumer. Under our price review system, as the Minister knows, our prices are based upon costs. Under Clause 13 we can be quite certain that costs will rise.
I make one other comment on this part of the Bill. Under Part II, which has to do with supervision, I would like to say that the Minister upstairs in Committee endeavoured to meet us as far as he could when we put down an Amendment on this matter. However, we still feel that the Minister has made a mistake by not giving the right of appeal on a warning notice to the Scottish Land Court, and, in the case of dispossession, the right of sale, giving the sitting tenant the chance to buy his own property. I cannot help feeling that the Government have not very much use for the owner-occupier. We all agree that the owner-occupier system is the best system of tenure. There is nothing in the whole of this Measure to assist or encourage the owner-occupier.
Those are some of the things in the Bill which we do not like, but there are many good things in it which we can put on the

511
other side of the account. For example, I welcome the cleaning up of the Agricultural Holdings Act. I hope that soon we shall get a consolidating Measure so that solicitors, farmers and people who have to deal with these matters will know where they are. I also welcome what has been put into the Bill in regard to land settlement in which I am particularly interested. I congratulate the Minister on what he said upstairs about education, demonstration and research. I have gone in for animal breeding for the whole of my life and I have exported to most of the countries of the world. In the sphere of animal disease research we in Scotland lead almost everybody. Today 33 per cent. of our cattle in Scotland are tuberculin tested. I ask the Minister to take advantage of that lead and to go all out in order to get our country completely free. Even if I differ with him politically, if the right hon. Gentleman can do that I shall be the first to tell him what a fine chap he is.
In conclusion, I want to say that this is a big Bill; after the Town and Country Planning Act it must be the largest for a long time and it is a very great experiment. I believe that its success will depend on three main factors: first, the size of the assured market—this is very important, the most important thing of all; second, the method by which control is enforced or worked; and third, the amount of labour which will be available to do the job. On the question of the market, while the world shortages continue I hope the country will realise that this Bill gives a guaranteed price which is much below the free market price and the real test will come when price restraint changes to price support, and when world prices fall below the home guaranteed price, based upon high costs, which cannot be reduced in many cases because many items are imposed by statute.
So far as the other pillar is concerned —efficiency—I believe that almost everything will depend on how the new area committees work throughout the country. They have a difficult job and I do not think it an exaggeration to say that the Scottish farmer is not prepared to buy bare solvency too dearly. If he is unreasonably ordered about, deluged with forms and harassed by a horde of officials, no guaranteed price in the world,
512
however high, will prevent a revolt. I think the expression "efficiency" ought not to be used. It is an expression often abused. I sometimes wish the Secretary of State would not use it so often. I will give a couple of examples. A farmer's byre may be full of good cows and everything there looks fine, yet his fields may be dirty. Another man may show a high yield per acre, and a good profit and loss account, but he may be taking the guts out of his place all the time. It is very difficult to deal with efficiency. Under the new set-up the area Committee will be the people to judge. They are not farmers. They are mostly the Departmental officials and I hope when they come to tackle their job, they will look upon the farm as a combined operation and treat is as such.
From the labour point of view, as the right hon. Gentleman realises, we are facing two great anxieties in this connection. One is on the dairy farms and the other is on the hill farms. We are facing very serious problems. We must also remember that it is nonsense to talk about ley farming if there is not the labour available. It is possible that labour is the most important thing of all. If the Scottish farmer is given economic stability, if he is given the labour and the tools to do the job, and if he is left to work out his own salvation to the maximum extent possible, I think this Bill will be a success, and on behalf of my hon. Friends I would like to say we wish it well.
9.54 P.m.
Lord William Scott: I congratulate the Secretary of State for Scotland on producing a very much better Measure than that which we Scottish Members dealt with in the Town and Country Planning Act. How good or how bad this particular Bill is will be known only by results, and it may take some years before we know the full result of the work we have done during the last few weeks. One result, I think, is bound to come from this Bill. Whereas we have been anxious to give security of tenure to the tenant farmer, what, in fact, we have achieved is fixity of tenure. Armed with this Bill there is no reason why the average farmer in Scotland—and by that I mean a good 75 per cent of the farmers—having once got into a farm, should not remain

513
there till his last day, even if he lives to be over 80. I can see nothing to prevent at least threequarters of the farmers having got into farms, from staying there. It is quite impossible either for the Secretary of State or for the landowner to secure any change, however old or enfeebled the farmer may become. In the majority of cases he will be able to satisfy the standard which will be required. I think that is probably the chief defect of this Bill.
There are two other matters I want to mention. One is the question of oats, Scotland's one great cereal crop. It ought to have the same guarantees as are given to wheat across the Border. The other matter is this. Ask the farmers in Scotland today what is their chief trouble, and threequarters of them will say it is the shortage of labour due to the shortage of housing. That housing shortage is not a temporary problem. It is so bad now, and is getting worse so rapidly, that it will take years to put it right. We have not even begun to think of putting it right. This Bill, which deals with so many different farming matters, does not mention the most important one of all.
That brings me to a rather smaller matter, a question I asked during the Committee stage, to which I did not get an answer, but a half promise that I should hear about it later. That is the question of the actual eviction of those who, whether tenant farmers or owner occupiers, are dispossessed. In Clause 32 we are told how they can be given orders to quit the land. I am aware, of course. that in the interpretation of land, houses are included. I do not believe, however, that there is in this Measure at present a power of the Secretary of State to move either an evicted tenant or a dispossessed owner occupier out of the farmhouse which he and his family are occupying. The Secretary of State may be able to get a man off the land, but I do not think he has power to get him out of the house. I do hope that I shall, at long last, have an answer on this question before we part with this Bill tonight.
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I have been very much surprised to learn—only last evening—from reading a book, "Scotland's Changing Population," which has been published quite recently by the Scottish Council for Social Service, that only 7
514
per cent. of the people of Scotland are gainfully employed on the land. I think it is well that we should recognise, those of us interested in farming Scottish land, that although farming is our oldest and greatest industry, the farming community is a minority of the nation, and it is the more important that there should be agreement about the conditions which make for its prosperity. Sometimes those of us who believe in the future of Scottish agriculture tend to forget about that aspect, which weakens us, for we ought to stand together and agree about those things which are needed for the land.
I agree with others who have spoken, that this Bill, which we are now passing on its way, is a sincere attempt to create a framework for the development and improvement of Scottish agriculture. In Committee, my hon. Friends and I were sometimes twitted because it was said that on one day we took a very much pro-landlord line and on another day a very much pro-tenant line. In fact, I think it can be genuinely said that throughout we were concerned neither with the landlord nor with the tenant, but with the land of Scotland. Agriculture is a triune partnership—a partnership between landlord, farmer and tenant. In the very few words which I wish to address to the House tonight, I want to speak of the Bill mostly as it will affect one of those three partners—the land owner, because in the prevailing mood of our times his interests are those which are most often overlooked.
About one-third of the capital employed in agriculture is working capital supplied by the tenant farmer, and about two-thirds is maintenance and equipment capital supplied by the land owner. The bulk of the land owner's capital is, of course, represented by farm houses, steadings, cottar houses, fences, roads and so on, without which land would be as useless for agriculture as the barren and pitted waste of a training area which has been abandoned by the War Department. The interest which the land owner has received upon his capital has, even in good times, been very much below commercial rates. In bad times it has been lower still, because not the least useful contribution which the private owner of agricultural land has made has been to nurse his tenants and to nurse his land through bad times. There is little doubt that Scottish agriculture is under-capital-

515
ised, especially in the provision of fixed equipment.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt this interesting speech, but this seems to me to be a good Second Reading point. I am not quite sure how far it is connected with this Bill now. After all, on the Third Reading we discuss what is in the Bill, and not the wider issues which are raised during Second Reading.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I had no desire to transgress the rules, Mr. Speaker. I was endeavouring, in a few sentences, to paint the background of the more specific obligations laid upon the land owner by Clause 13. If it be in accordance with your wishes, as it obviously would, I must leave out those background remarks and pass directly to Clause 13, which lays very grave and onerous obligations upon the landlords of Scotland.
Under Clause 13 there will be deemed to be incorporated in every lease entered into after the passing of this Bill,
"an undertaking by the landlord, that at the commencement of the tenancy or as soon as is reasonably possible thereafter, he will put the fixed equipment on the holding into a thorough state of repair, and will provide such buildings and other fixed equipment as will enable an occupier to maintain efficient production."
The point I wish to make is that if he is to honour that obligation, as honour it he must, he will have to charge a full economic rent. It has been stated that the National Farmers' Union of Scotland recognises the inevitability of a general increase in rents in Scotland, but I think it is clear, from the contacts I have made with farmers in Scotland, that they do not yet appreciate this aspect of the Bill. Agricultural rents in Scotland are little higher than they were at the end of the last century. Since the beginning of the late war, I am told that rents have risen by only 6 per cent., whereas the cost of repairs has risen by something like 90 per cent., and wages have gone up by 120 per cent, The present lowness and disparity in farm rents cannot, in the long run, be beneficial to agriculture, because it prevents the landowners from performing their job effectively. If a tenant is to be provided with reconditioned farm buildings, as has to be done under Clause 13, he must be prepared to pay a rent which will give the owner a moderate
516
return on his capital and the ability to maintain the fixed equipment in good order.
About 70 per cent. of our Scottish farmers are farming under the landlord-tenant system, whereby the capital equipment and land is found for the tenant, who has to put his hand in his pocket only for his working capital. It is a system which has brought immense benefit to Scottish agriculture. I have never ceased to believe that farming the good earth is a partnership between the landlord, the farmer and the tenant. Their interests ought not to be in conflict. So long as the landlord and tenant system obtains in Scotland, let us try to make it work. Let us recognise the need for a rent which will give an economic return to the landlord, guaranteed markets, at reasonable prices, for agricultural produce, and a fair wage, a decent standard of living and an enhanced status for the farm worker.
10.9 p.m.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I should like in a word or two to associate my hon. Friends with the good wishes which have been offered to this Bill. I agree with what was said by the hon. Members for West Aberdeen (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley) and West Perth (Mr. Snadden). I think I shall be expressing the views of Members on this side of the House, and perhaps of Members on the other side, too, if I offer congratulations to the hon. Member for West Perth on the splendid work he has done in Committee. He has exceptional knowledge of the subject, and he speaks with great modesty. The House always admires a man with these two qualifications.
It is recognised that there will be a severe shortage of labour, as indeed there is at the present time. There are provisions in the Bill, in one way or another, for developing research and assisting farmers in various directions. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman, in these circumstances, to pay special consideration to agricultural machinery. The right hon. Gentleman knows about this; much has been done, but as I happen to know a little about this subject I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he will give to the development of agricultural machinery the continued and enthusiastic support which it deserves many of the greatest problems of Scottish agri-

517
culture may be solved in the next few years.
We are on the eve of perhaps the greatest revolution that agriculture has ever known, because of the possibility of quite exceptional developments in agricultural machinery. Machines are being thought out, and are in prototype, such as may completely alter the face of farms in Scotland and, indeed, in other parts of the world. Methods of planting, manuring and gathering crops are now in a revolutionary stage. I foresee the time, quite soon, when the heaviest crops of all which have to be lifted in Scotland—potatoes, and especially sugar beet—will be lifted easily and efficiently by mechanical means, which will save an enormous amount of labour and cut down costs. As this Bill is designed to develop Scottish agriculture, I ask the Minister to believe that in the direction I have just mentioned lie great possibilities for the future.
10.12 p.m.
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Those Members who have so far addressed the House in this very short but interesting and useful Debate, have represented rural constituencies, and I think it appropriate that at least one city Member should hay a few words before this Bill passes to another place. Whatever may have been the position in the past, I am sure that all on this side who represent urban constituencies and, I hope, on the other side, realise the serious situation of the country in respect of food supplies. It may be that other direction might improve the matter to some extent, but whatever happens it is clear that for a considerable time to come our food supply is in considerable jeopardy.
That being so, I think it important that those who represent and dwell in city areas should give their good wishes to this Bill in so far as it improves the prospects of the agricultural industry, and thereby increases the production of agriculture in Scotland. I feel sure that for a long time to come we shall need everything—all the livestock and all the crops which are suitable to our land—that can be produced. This Bill tells only half the story. I want to add nothing to what has been said by my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden), who has borne such a heavy burden so successfully
518
curing the passage of this Bill. We on our side recognise the part he has played and so, I think, do other Members. The only other topic on which I would say a word is on the purely legal aspect of this matter.
The Government have determined that the landlord and tenant system shall remain as the chief factor in our national agricultural economy. I am sure that is right, but if it is it is obvious that all three partners must be enabled to play their part. There are many factors outside this Bill which will have to be attended to before we can say that that has been achieved. Legally, the Agricultural Holdings Acts have always been a bone of contention between landlord and tenant in connection with legal interpretation. We have reached a stage at which I think we can fairly say that the existing provisions are fairly well understood, and that litigation has not been so frequent as it used to be. We are now making a very great reorganisation of the Agricultural Holdings Act. Certainly, during the passage of the Bill its provisions on this matter have been very much clarified, and we are obliged to the Lord Advocate in particular for his services in that way, but I am afraid that there are still a good many obscurities and difficulties, some of which are inevitable and some of which might have been removed. There were some which we pointed out on to which apparently it has been impossible to devise suitable Amendments, and I am afraid that for some time to come there may be difficulty in working out these matters.
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will produce a consolidating Act at the earliest possible moment that will go some way to resolve the difficulties, but not very far. I think that it might be appropriate if advice were given both to landlords and tenants that they would be extremely unwise to take any important step which might conceivably be affected by this Bill without taking legal advice. I say that in some way against the immediate interests of the legal profession because the longer the parties leave it, the more there is to do in cleaning it up; but I am quite sure that it is right that these matters ought to be discussed at a very early stage with those who really understand the legal aspects.

519
In conclusion, we on this side of the House appreciate that this is a very useful Bill. Any criticisms that we have now are not so much against the contents of the Bill, as in relation to matters which are left out, and which it would be out of Order to discuss. We hope that the Bill will lay the foundations of a prosperous period in Scottish agriculture, and we feel sure that unless we can achieve such prosperity the rest of the nation will suffer very severely indeed.
10.18 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): This brings us to the end of the passage of this Bill, so far as the House of Commons is concerned. I succeeded to the Bill when it was already in an advanced stage of preparation, and therefore I am quite unwilling personally to claim the credit for it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Westwood) played a part in the framing of the Bill in the early stages, and the Joint Under-Secretary of State played a very large part in the detailed work connected with the preparation of the Bill. Our thanks are due to them both, and to the wonderful staff work that lay behind the Bill in its final stages. Our thanks are also due to the farmers and landowners in the industry for the co-operative way in which they have agreed to compromises when neither side could get its own way. The Bill came to the House in the beginning with a very considerable measure of agreement among people in the industry.
I should like also to thank many of my hon. Friends who on many occasions were tempted to take part in the Committee stage of the Bill: there is no question that the speedy progress of the Bill has been greatly assisted by those who were constrained to remain silent when frequently they would have liked to make contributions. I think that is worth saying, because it is sometimes forgotten
520
that people can facilitate legislation by remaining silent, while some people who make contributions may have exactly the opposite effect. On the other hand, those who have contributed to the discussions have undoubtedly played a very important part in improving the Bill.
It is right, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) said to pay special tribute to his colleague the hon. Member for West Perth (Mr. Snadden) who, probably, among the back benchers must have done more work on this Bill than is often undertaken by any single Member. To the right hon. and learned Gentleman I owe a debt because while he has been severely critical, as has been his duty, in the main that criticism has been of a welcome character, and frequently his criticisms have been of great value in discovering technical legal defects which we were happy to put right. Other hon. Members, by their wisdom and guidance in debate, have been of great help.
Agriculture is a problem about which everyone knows something but about which perhaps no one knows everything. We have had great and wonderful discussions and as my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, who has been of great assistance to me in carrying through this Bill, said, sometimes the same observations were heard time and time again, as though Members did not realise that we had heard them the first time. However, perhaps good things are none the worse for being said twice and we probably benefited on the whole. At this stage of the Bill it only remains for me to say "thank you" to the Chairman of the Committee and all those who played a part in furthering the passage of the Bill. We all hope that the work done on this Bill will bring great results to Scottish agriculture.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill read the Third time, and passed.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) BILL
Order for Second Reading read.
10.23 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This is a short and simple Bill. Its purpose is to make it financially possible for the Lord High Commissioner, the King's representative to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, adequately to carry out the duties of his office. Legislation is required for this purpose because an Act of 1832 virtually fixed the annual allowance for expenses made to the Lord High Commissioner at £2,000. It has proved impossible in recent years, in spite of a reduction in the scale of ceremonial and hospitality which was customary before the war, for any Commissioner to discharge his responsibilities efficiently and with dignity with only that sum at his disposal; and various unsatisfactory expedients have been adopted to meet the deficits incurred each year.
The Government have decided that proper provision should be made in future to meet the expenses which a Commissioner incurs during his period of office. This Bill proposes that a sum not exceeding £4,000 should be made available annually. This figure is a maximum: the the intention is that, as stated in the Bill, the Secretary of State, with the agreement of the Treasury, will decide each year, having regard to the circumstances prevailing at the time, what sum within that limit is to be paid from the Consolidated Fund in order to meet the actual expenses incurred by the Commissioner.
I feel very sorry that by some misunderstanding the amount spent for this purpose has been represented as a salary. It is in no way a salary and I should particularly like to express my regrets to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) who has carried through this duty for the last two years with such dignity, that he should have been subjected to so many unfair comments. This payment, let me reiterate, is not a salary and is in no way personal remuneration
522
to the holder of the post who indeed almost invariably has been called upon to be out of pocket at the end of the day. The money is to meet the expenses of carrying through a public duty which has for nearly 400 years been a part of the history of Scotland.
It is not easy for those unacquainted with the turbulent history of this country to appreciate the significance of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in the life of the nation, and yet the part which it played has had a profound effect on the development of Britain as a whole and in the progress of democratic liberty throughout the world. In the struggles against tyranny after the Reformation, the stand of the Church in Scotland showed a determination and heroism in the face of persecution and cruelty of which the struggle by Pastor Niemoller against the tyranny of Germany provides a modern example.
The Reformation in Scotland took rather a different turn from what happened in most other countries. In other countries the new Church normally shared in the spoils of victory. In Scotland, the nobility rejected the demands of the Church which included claims for the education of the people and, strange as it may seem now, money to relieve the unemployed. Buckle sums this position up in his "History of Civilisation in England" in these words—
"The Presbyterian Clergy, neglected by the nobles and unendowed by the State, had only a miserable pittance whereupon to live, and they necessarily threw themselves into the arms of the people, where alone they could find support and sympathy."
Since the power of the Church lay with the people, the Church commenced the education of the people and organised them into the Presbyterian form of Government. They preached equality, and against the King's claim of Divine Right the Church placed the equality of all men in the sight of God. Ministers and elders were elected, and their representatives came together annually in the General Assembly. There they entered into a struggle with the King himself, who wished to build a Church on the basis of episcopacy, and indeed the origin of the Lord High Commissioner was in the King's claim to dominate and dictate to the Assembly. It could be said, I think,

523
with truth that in those General Assemblies of the Church of Scotland we had the first example of a Parliament elected by popular representation.
By educating the people to give them power, the Scottish Church laid the foundations of an educational system which took Scotland in popular education to the forefront of all nations, and in her struggle with tyranny the Presbyterian Church of those days formed the backbone of the struggle which led to the victory of Cromwell and the people, against the extravagant claims of the Crown. In such a struggle, many cruel things were done on both sides, and the history of the period is one of turbulence, violence and cruelty. The discipline enforced by the struggle led the Church itself to exercise a tyrannical dictatorship over the people, which endured till it was broken effectively by the public scorn of Robert Burns. From the end of the 18th century, there has been a steady development of tolerance, and today the many Churches of Scotland work in a harmony unknown to former times.
Looking back on these struggles, even an outside observer like Buckle, could write:
"But one thing they achieved, which should make us honour their memory and repute them benefactors of their species. At a most hazardous moment, they kept alive the spirit of national liberty. … This is their real glory. … They were the guardians of Scotch freedom and they stood to their post. Where danger was, they were foremost. … they stirred up the minds of men, woke them from their lethargy, formed them to habits of discussion, and excited that inquisitive and democratic spirit which is the only effectual guarantee the people can ever possess against the tyranny of those who are set over them."
As it happens, I myself, in a minor rôle, took part in the last great struggle of the Churches, at a time when Parliament for some years was torn by the conflict which arose in the case of the Free Church of Scotland against the new United Free Church. The next and final union of the great Churches took place in 1929, and at the same time the conflicting claims of the King and the Church to control the meetings of the General Assembly were quietly resolved in favour of the Church. Dr. Hay Fleming, dealing with the part played by the Lord High Commissioner, wrote on this point:
524
"The Auld Kirk of Scotland, however, was loath to part with this piece of pageantry, which was one of the few remaining visible symbols of the past and in harmony with the revived spirit of patriotic nationalism in the country. Old precedent had already been broken by the choice in 1924 of Mr. James Brown, a Labour M.P. and highly respected elder of the Church, as Lord High Commissioner for the year, and it was generally felt that this office in the future, shorn of pretension and privileges, and perhaps ultimately of martial parade, might safely be retained as a link with centuries of history and an expression of friendly feeling between Court and Religious Powers."
Since 1928 the Lord High Commissioner has been no longer a symbol of a Royal claim to the Power of the State over the Church, but a dignified and courteous recognition of the Churches in Scotland by the State. The State in the person of the Lord High Commissioner attends the Assemblies and offers modest hospitality to this great Conference.
During this one period of the year men come to the capital of Scotland from towns, villages and lonely glens and even from missions overseas to take part in this great religious Parliament. For nearly 400 years the State has recognised in its various ways, the importance of this Assembly. The attendance of the Lord High Commissioner dates from the 16th century and the continuation of the ceremonies was secured by the Act of Union in 1707. Up till 1832 the expenses of the Commission were met from the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland. These at that time were surrendered to the British Treasury and by the Act of 1832, which transferred the charge for the Commissioner's expenses to the Consolidated Fund and fixed the amount at £2,000.
I had expected that this short Bill for such a purpose would have been uncontroversial, but some hon. Members have placed Amendments on the Order Paper for its rejection. The first Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and others, appears to me to be framed under a complete misapprehension. It refers to the Bill as "increasing the grant to the Lord High Commissioner." The sum mentioned is not a grant to the Lord High Commissioner and is in no way personal to him. There is, let me repeat, no element of salary in the allowance. The second point in the Motion which is

525
quite mistaken is the implication that this Bill is intended to increase expenditure. There is no such purpose in the Bill and therefore the proposals are in no way in conflict with the Government's appeal for austerity.
The purpose of this Bill is that the State should be empowered itself to meet all the costs of a public duty which for some time have exceeded the.£2,000 set as the upper limit. It has remained at that figure ever since, despite the changes in the value of money. Even before the war this sum did not cover all the Lord High Commissioner's outgoings. Deficits were met either by the generosity of private citizens or by the occupant of the office himself. During the war the scale of entertainment was greatly reduced, but even the greatest degree of austerity cannot bring the cost within the £2,000.
Some at least, I understand, of the hon. Members who have their names to the Motion to reject this Bill can themselves testify to the modest and austere character of the entertainment and one of them I think, can compare the present austerity with the more lavish entertainment offered and enjoyed by him in earlier times. With even this restricted entertainment and expenditure it is estimated that to carry out the necessary duties in a manner befitting a representative of the nation a sum much greater than £2,000 is required. In view of the confusion caused by this having been described as a salary I had better, I think, mention the type of expenditure which is included.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Could not the right hon. Gentleman describe it as a salary?
Mr. Woodburn: The Lord High Commissioner is expected to take up residence with a small suite who are entirely honorary at the Palace of Holyrood during the period of the General Assembly. Since Holyrood is unoccupied most of the year, expense has to be incurred putting the rooms in order and in heating and lighting them during his stay. He must pay the wages of the staff, mostly temporarily, employed at the Palace during the period. Expenditure is also incurred by the Purse-Bearer and his department who have considerable organising duties
526
long beforehand in the issuing of invitations, settling the Commissioner's programme, managing his establishment and dealing with his correspondence. The Commissioner is expected also to make donations to a number of charities and small honoraria are paid to several ceremonial officers in attendance at the functions held during the Assembly week. The largest item of expenditure, however, which accounts for nearly half of the total consists of the costs of the catering for the hospitality which the Commissioner customarily extends to members of the Assembly and other representatives of public bodies in Scotland.
I would remind hon. Members who have been members of conferences that they have always been very glad, when they went to some town, to accept the hospitality of the lord mayor of the town, which cost money to the ratepayers of that town, just as this will cost money to the taxpayers. It has always been regarded as an important part of his duties that as His Majesty's Representative, the Lord High Commissioner should entertain those who come to the Capital for the Assembly, and that prominent figures in the public life of Scotland should be invited to meet them. For example, at a garden party last year, several thousand persons were received, and these included people from all walks of life who were playing a part in the life of Scotland. During the period of the Assembly the Commissioner contrived to meet almost as many people as before the war. Let me repeat, since the idea that this payment is made as a salary has been spread so sedulously recently, that the allowance paid to the Lord High Commissioner is not a salary, nor is there even an element of salary in it.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: May I ask my right hon. Friend—?
Mr. Woodburn: If the hon. Member's conscience is bothering him, he can make his point later. It is paid to cover the necessary expenses of the office and will be fixed each year at a level equal to and not more than sufficient for the purpose. The sum of £4,000 is a maximum. Sixty years ago the sum provided was defined as being
"not remuneration for active duties but an allowance for the purpose of discharging with dignity the hereditary rights of an Office of Honour."

527
That is still the position. No one has proposed that the State should deliberately break this tradition of nearly 400 years duration and in Scotland those of all religions and of no religion would regard an attack upon this peculiarly Scottish institution with considerable resentment. The motto on the arms of Scotland indicate the attitude of the Scots on a matter of this kind—Nemo me impune lacessit— or as was translated in Scotland "Wha daur meddle wi' me."
The result of the Motions, if they were carried, would be quite indefensible even to the Members who have proposed them. They would place the Government in the position that they were not free to recommend the person most suited to carry out the duties and declare either that the selection of the person to be Lord High Commissioner is to be made from wealthy persons who themselves can afford to incur personal expenses in carrying out the duties or that the State should accept the generosity of private persons to meet the deficits. Certainly no Labour Government could accept such alternatives and any Government must take the view that when a State duty is to be performed the State must also provide the means of carrying out that duty with honour and dignity. In 1924 the Labour Prime Minister of that day broke all tradition and appointed James Brown, the first M.P. and commoner and a miner to be Lord High Commissioner. He was also a leader and upholder of the Scottish Church. He and his good lady carried out the duties with dignity and credit and the people of Scotland gave them the honour due to their honourable position. Under this Government once again a right hon. Member of this House has been appointed to undertake these duties.
The Bill is not, however, being brought forward because of any particular occupant of the post, but I think it would be right for me to pay tribute to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Linlithgow has carried through these duties in the last two years. His appointment for a third time has been welcomed by the Church and is a great tribute to him, and I want once again to express my regret that this unfortunate campaign has brought his name into it. Most of us, and most of our constituents, never hesitate to extend warm hospitality
528
to any guests who come to our table, and when a representative is appointed to extend hospitality on the part of the State it would not be fitting that we should ask him to do this in any less generous manner than any of us would do in our own personal capacity. We in our homes would never allow our own difficult circumstances to dim our sense of hospitality.
It is true that these are difficult times in the world, but this amount was fixed before 1832. The costs of hospitality have risen out of all proportion and the value of money has fallen greatly since that time, and no one in the country could manage on the wages or salaries of 1832 to meet the expenses of today. I am sure the House will never agree that the State should be mean in a matter of this kind, and I trust that those who have put down their names against this proposal, whether by misunderstanding or because they are unacquainted with Scottish life and traditions, will see their way to support this Measure. The Churches in Scotland are an important part of the life and character of the people. It is right that the State should make possible the exercise of the duties of the Lord High Commissioner in a manner befitting the dignity of our nation. I hope the House will disregard these unfortunate tales and stories spreading about the House and outside in the Press on this matter, which is a subject of dignity for the nation. The nation must do its duty to whom it appoints, and in moving the Second Reading of this Bill I commend it to the House.
Mr. Willis: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker, is it your intention to call either of the Amendments on the Order Paper?
Mr. Speaker: Yes, I propose to call later the Amendment in the name of the hen. Member.
10.43 P.m.
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Whatever may be their views on this particular matter, everyone will be relieved that this Bill has at last been brought forward, so that the matter may be settled one way or another. The Secretary of State for Scotland has given us, with great warmth, his statement on behalf of the Government, and he made

529
it perfectly clear to everyone exactly how the Government stand. I would like, from this side of the House, to say a word or two on the same subject, because I feel that the more evidence of unanimity we can give on this matter the less will the good name of our country be liable to be disgraced.
As the right hon. Gentleman has said, the office is a very ancient one, and of the highest possible honour. It is given personally by the Sovereign and the occupant upholds its dignities and duties as if he were the Sovereign himself for the time being. It is also true, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that the type of duty has changed very much with the years. The General Assembly today is a very different body from what it was in days gone by. It is now not only highly respected but respectable. It may not be in the general knowledge of the House that there were days in the General Assembly when the ministers actually took over command of the armed forces and told them what they should or should not do. It was their plan that the great General Leslie, who was a trained soldier and knew it was wrong, was ordered by the Assembly to carry out, the same plan with which the Israelites defeated the Amalekites some considerable number of years ago. The plan was adopted and they attacked as did the Israelites, but with the entirely opposite result, for they were heavily defeated. That was one of the biggest disasters the General Assembly sustained. They have since given up their military activities with more benefit to their sacred calling.
The General Assembly, and the Lord High Commissioner by his presence, does emphasise that very great link which there is between the Throne and the Church of Scotland. It is within the knowledge of the House that the second oath taken by the King on ascending the Throne binds him to maintain Presbyterian Church government in Scotland; to the Commissioner he gives his credentials and through him binds himself anew each year to the Church of Scotland in this way. This is a link which I think is invaluable not only to the Church but to the country as a whole, as putting in their proper place the spiritual values without which civilisation will certainly come to an end. The value of this link between the people and their Church on the one hand, and
530
the Throne on the other, cannot be overestimated. It is a priceless heritage, and one which must be preserved and, indeed, must be strengthened.
I am not, of course, claiming for the Church of Scotland anything that I would not claim for other Churches, or branches of the Church I would say—because, after all, there is only one Church, and that is the Church of Christ; the branches of the Church are really methods of what they consider to be the best way of carrying out Divine Orders.
It is against a background as ancient as this, and as important, that we have to consider tonight this simple question of the emoluments to be provided for the expenses of the Lord High Commissioner. I may say—and the Secretary of State emphasised it several times —that there is no question at all of salary or wages in this matter. It is purely a matter of expenses necessary for keeping up a high and dignified office. I always think that it is a great pity that this should ever be made into a political appointment. The long and distinguished list of Scotsmen who have held this office have never allowed party politics to come into it.
Mr. Gallacher: Oh!
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) cannot possibly deny it.
Mr. Gallacher: What about the periods when Tories have had the job?
Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I agree with the Secretary of State, and I am sure we all do, that the present holder of this office is certainly not the least of this distinguished line of Scotsmen who have received the greatest possible respect in Scotland for the way in which they have carried out this office. It is the worst possible bad luck that he should be involved in any way in these unfortunate discussions which need never have arisen. I want to confirm that whatever hospitality is given by the Lord High Commissioner is done on the most modest and simple lines. There is no extravagance or ostentation. We have a meeting of ministers and elders and their wives, very often from all over Scotland, from the furthest islands. There is no other place where they can meet for a little social inter-

531
course, which everybody will agree is desirable in the human organisation, except in the spacious grounds and rooms of the Palace of Holyrood House. What is more suitable than that the Lord High Commissioner should issue invitations to this end without giving any signs of ostentation?
I agree that the times are not suitable for adding to expenditure; everybody will agree to that. But this addition for necessary expenses—controlled, after all, by the Secretary of State and not by the Lord High Commissioner—is such a small drop in the ocean compared with the expenditure of our country today, that to cut this out when it is proved to be necessary is rather like the man who is advised to reduce his expenses because his income is shrinking and, instead of cutting out his racing stable, he sacks his garden boy. That is the sort of equivalent in the value of money in trying to chip off this little bit when other things require too much attention.
I hope most sincerely that there will not be any rancour in this matter among hon. Members who have seen fit to put down these Motions. I hope that perhaps they will see that this is not an unreasonable request, that it represents something very great and sincere in the life of Scotland, and that, after they have heard what we have to say, they will reconsider the matter and not press their Motions to a Division, so that we may have the greatest possible degree of unanimity that this House can attain.
Mr. S. O. Davies: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I would like to ask whether you can help me. It may appear to be almost blasphemous for me to enter into this purely Scottish matter, since I am a Welshman; but in view of the fact that this is further recognition of the nationhood of Scotland, may I be advised as to whether my people in Wales will be expected to contribute towards this increased expenditure?
Mr. Woodburn: If I may help by answering that question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the hereditary revenues of the Crown in Scotland were handed over to the British Treasury. There they remain, and these expenses can be paid out of them.
Mr. Willis: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now,"
532
and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day six months."
We have listened to a most interesting and, if I may say so, a somewhat impassioned speech by the Secretary of State, but I must say that we were aware of much of the information contained in it, particularly that part concerning the importance of the General Assembly and its historical development in Scotland. I would point out, however—and it is rather an interesting point which my right hon. Friend made himself—that the strength of the Church was precisely at the moment when it was poorest. My right hon. Friend quoted Buckle to tell us how poor the ministers were, and then went on to tell us of the magnificent achievements of the Church at that time.
I want to make it quite clear that, in opposing this Bill, we are not opposing the Church. Our opposition has nothing to do with the meetings of the General Assembly in Edinburgh, nor whether it should carry on its democratic discussions or not. This has nothing to do with that; and from conversations I have had with ministers of the Church, I find that they are the last to wish to be associated with a Bill which is against the policy of the Government at the present time. Secondly, this has nothing whatever to do with the traditions of Scotland. We are not seeking to break those traditions in opposing this Bill. For my own part, I cherish the links with the past, and perhaps I might say that I have good reason so to do because I happen to be in a trade devoted to preserving those links. But I always thought that the Socialist movement placed its emphasis on rather different links with the past from those favoured by people with other political beliefs. I thought, in connection with various gatherings and that sort of thing, that this emphasis would be placed in a rather different manner by a Socialist Government. We do not wish merely to follow what the Tories have done in the past; nor do we necessarily want to carry on with the traditions which the Tories and the Liberals have left us. We want to mould these ceremonial occasions more into keeping with our own outlook.
I would like to say that I apologise for, and that I regret sincerely, the unfortunate fact that incidents in connection with

533
this Measure should have involved my right hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Mathers) in this controversy. I have never been guilty of talking about the Lord High Commissioner's salary or of making any personal attack on my right hon. Friend. In fact, he has carried out these duties in the last two years with great dignity, in my opinion, and I would be the last to say anything critical about that. I am quite confident, however, that without the sum allotted in the Bill he could still carry out these duties with dignity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland shakes his head, but the argument in favour of this Bill is not the long historical speech that we have heard tonight from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State; it is the argument stated in "The Scotsman" last week—that it is necessary in order to maintain the dignity and the traditions of hospitality associated with their function and I would like that to have been emphasised rather more.
I am not one who associates dignity with expenditure. If dignity is dependent upon expenditure, make this Bill cover £10,000 or £20,000 expenditure, and then we can have a really dignified affair in Edinburgh; but, of course, that is not so. I am quite confident, that if £2,000 were spent, the proceedings could be just as dignified as they will be if more is spent. I should have thought that the idea of increased expenditure of this kind at this moment was quite alien—or should be quite alien—to our movement.
With regard to traditional hospitality, this country, this year, depends for its standard of life upon Marshall aid and upon charity. Many of us have spent the last year making speeches at the weekends, at all sorts of gatherings, trying to impress people with the seriousness of the economic position. More recently we have spent our time explaining the Government's White Paper on Personal Incomes. The Saturday after this Bill was laid before the House, I sat on the platform in the Central Hall in Edinburgh listening to what was probably one of the most serious speeches ever made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, telling the people of this country that it was impossible for them to get any more at the present time and trying to persuade them of that. Precisely at that moment the Government come along with a Bill
534
nominally authorising this expenditure. That is what the people are concerned about, and it is very difficult to persuade them of the seriousness of our situation if we do not act as though it is serious.
On the question of traditional hospitality, I suggest that if a family is dependent on charity for its life, it is expected to cut down its scale of hospitality. I suggest that we cannot afford, in our present economic conditions, a scale of hospitality which has grown up in more luxurious days. Conditions are different now. It is for those reasons that I think this Bill is ill-timed. We were told in the House, in answer to a Question, that this question of the amount not being sufficient was recognised in 1931. If that is so, why should we wait until we are faced with the biggest economic crisis this country has ever known, before introducing such a Bill, and then expect people to take us seriously? Of course, people do not take us seriously.
I do not want to speak for too long, but I should like to register a protest because we have to discuss this Bill at this time of night. It is most regrettable that three Scottish matters, all of which are serious and exceedingly important to Scotland—one dealing with the manner of conducting Scottish Business, a second dealing with Scottish agriculture, and now this Bill—should be discussed on one day, with the result that we commenced this Bill at twenty minutes past ten o'clock. That is most unreasonable.
For the reasons I have given, I think that this Bill is most inopportune. I am fortified in my opposition to the Bill by the fact that in Edinburgh, at least, it is so unpopular that the borough Labour Party passed a unanimous resolution against the Bill, which I understand was forwarded from the Division represented by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate.
11.2 p.m.
Mr. Gilzean: I beg to second the Amendment.
I have no pleasure in opposing this Bill. I rather regret that I find it necessary to do so. I also regret the rather indignant speech, very garbled in its history, made by my right hon. Friend. He indicated that the King's Commissioner had always been associated with the

535
Reformed Church of Scotland. Nothing could be further from the truth. The fact of the matter is that in the 120 years between 1560 and 1688, when the great revolution took place, when James II had to run for it, every one of the Stuart kings was opposed to the Church of Scotland. James VI of Scotland, later James I of England, was the author of the Five Articles of Perth which sought to suppress Presbytery in Scotland. Charles I attempted to suppress Presbytery in Scotland, and he was responsible for the signing of the National Covenant. Charles II hated the Scottish Presbyterians because they compelled him, as a condition of supporting his claim to the Crown, to agree to the National Covenant. And James II tried to impose Roman Catholicism on Scotland.
Therefore, it would be an advantage if in future the right hon. Gentleman sought better sources of historical information. It is not true as he suggested, that the King's Commissioner has always been linked with the Reformed Church of Scotland. As a matter of fact, the first Commissioner was sent by the monarch of that time not to honour the Church of Scotland but to watch the Church of Scotland and to prevent it from acting contrary to his Episcopalian conceptions. That can be found in many history books, with any of which I could supply my right hon. Friend.
My main ground for opposing this proposal is economy. The difference between £2,000 and £4,000 is not of much consequence, but we have to think of the psychological effect on thousands of people in Scotland. They argue, with reason or without it, along these lines, "Why should we be asked by the Government to economise in all directions when they come forward with a proposal such as this to double the allowance to the Lord High Commissioner?" I know something of the Church of Scotland, and without hesitation I say that it will not matter very much to that Church if the pageantry associated with the Lord High Commissioner is cut out altogether. I am glad to say that Scottish Presbyterianism is founded on a much more definite rock than is indicated by that sort of thing. I am also sure that the great mass of the workers who are called upon to make so many sacrifices at the present
536
time would appreciate any indication that there was an attempt being made to reduce national expenditure, especially when the expenditure is in the direction of ostentation, however small. We cannot exhort the people to economy unless we take note of these things. They are taking note of them and it is necessary that we should pay attention to them.
I regret having to oppose this Bill, because I have a great respect for tradition and also for the personality of the Lord High Commissioner; consequently I would deplore having to do anything that would in any way seem to oppose what they are associated with, but there are fundamental objections that cannot be avoided. The average person is undoubtedly prone to say—"Why should we economise in this direction or in that and then provide for this particular office something that is quite unnecessary?" We have to remember that the Church of Scotland, although it is very important in Scotland, is not the whole ecclesiastical set-up in that country. There are many other Christians apart from those associated with the Church of Scotland. All things considered, the Secretary of State for Scotland would have been wiser to leave this matter alone.
11.10 p.m.
Mr. McGovern: It appears to me that an exaggerated and, if I may say so, a dishonest attitude is being adopted towards this proposition tonight. It would have been understandable, although one might not have supported it, if there had been a proposal to abolish the office entirely. But if it is accepted that the office should continue, then one is inclined to ask, "Why should we deny to a respected Member of this House, who has been appointed to carry out the functions of the office, a reasonable amount of expenses?"
The mover of the Amendment mentioned that it was very difficult to defend this among the people. But, looking to custom and the desires of the community, I find it more difficult in these hard times to defend on the platform the increase of our own salaries to £1,000. Hon Members who can defend that, should have no difficulty in defending this. There are, as the Secretary of State said, certain traditions in every country, and the people pay homage and respect to them and

537
expect them to be carried out with a measure of decency. One can go back to the time when a miners' leader, Mr. James Brown, was appointed to this office. The miners, who-may be called the tough people in industry and have been called the vanguard of the Labour and Socialist movement, came for miles to see Mr. Brown off on his first expedition to Edinburgh. There was general rejoicing that at last a certain amount of tradition had been broken which, in so far as it concerned the claims of persons having wealth and position to posts 'of this kind, and that here was one of the lowly sons of Scotland chosen to carry out the task.
The sum that is now proposed is a maximum. The £4,000 might not be spent. The sum of £2,000 applied in 1832, and now 116 years later we find that the same sum is being paid. A sum of £2,000 today would have had a value of about 200 in 1832, so that in effect we are propering, in the values of that time, to provide a maximum of £400 to carry out these functions. Do not let us have any humbug about this. Those who are associated with Labour councils know that when the Provost and the committees give entertainments of any kind, a dance or a reception to people coming to the city, Labour members vie with one another to see that a decent sort of show is put on. When those of us who are associated with various organisations have gone to a town to hold a conference, and have been invited by the Lord Mayor or the Lord Provost to a fine luncheon or dinner and evening's entertainment, and they have done us grand, we have had very nice things to say about them. If we are able to partake of all the benefits of this hospitality there is no need to come here to apologise for something we think is necessary and an act of justice.
I am not afraid to justify this increase. I am not afraid, and never have been, to justify on public platforms the increase in my own salary. I do not think it is necessary to base ourselves on the lowest economic level in this country. I have sympathy with the people of this country and want to raise their standards of living. If, then, I defend their aspirations, and if I defend the right of the £2,000 a year civil servant to get his annual increments, why should I be apologetic about getting my own salary
538
while I am performing, as' I try to do as a Member of this House, a useful service for the community? Indeed, people have not a mean approach to this matter.
I shall not go over the history of the past. History is the story of a process of change which is continuous, a process of change and betterment—at least, it ought to be. If in the process we reach the stage at which those performing public service are able to fulfil their functions with a proper decency, so much the better. I do not think this particular function is performed with lavishness. Let me give an example of how a public service is performed with a regard to comportment. I will give this example as of special interest to the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). At the worst period of the war a man came to me and said, "The Russian armies are being battered by the Germans, and in the workshops of this country they are appealing for support for the Penny a Week campaign for the Red Cross aid to Russia. Yet Madame Maisky is spending 1,500 guineas on a mink coat here in London." I said to him, "It may be necessary for Madame Maisky to meet the ordinary people of her class in London in a mink coat, and maybe she requires it."
Mr. Gallacher: Cheap.
Mr. McGovern: Does the hon. Member for West Fife say that is untrue? I could get a copy of the invoice. Perhaps it was necessary for Madame Maisky to have a 1,500 guinea mink coat in which to meet the wives of other ambassadors. That is not impossible. I have no antagonism to it, if she felt it necessary. But do not let us have any humbug, by trying to make the people of this country believe that there is excess only in this country and not in others.
Mr. Scollan: Is the hon. Member proposing to dress the Lord High Commissioner for the Church of Scotland in a mink coat? It seems to me he is proposing that.
Mr. McGovern: I think the hon. Member is able to follow the proposal in the Bill. The proposal is not for the Lord High Commissioner; it is to allow the Lord High Commissioner to perform properly what is regarded as a social func-

539
tion in this country. I believe that members of the working class community are generous in their approach to these things. I say further that although there are sectarian differences among the religious communities, they would all be united in standing by a proposal of this kind. I do not think I am putting it wrongly to say that an attack on this is an insidious attack on some religious institution, upon which hon. Members have not the courage to make an open attack. In those circumstances hon. Members would do well to take a reasonable and intelligent view and say they are prepared to allow this office to be performed by a Member of their own House, who can perform it with dignity and win the respect of his fellow men. If he can do that, he brings, not only to the life of this country but also to the Government, a certain respect amongst people sometimes not attracted to political views. When they see tolerance and decency extended in this way, it has an effect upon them. I have no difficulty in this House in saying I support the Measure. I believe it would be the general wish of the working class that it should be done. I shall have no difficulty in defending on any platform in any quarter my vote in the House tonight.
11.22 p.m.
Mrs. Jean Mann: I want to try to keep the Debate on relevant lines. We are being asked to increase the allowance from £2,000 to a ceiling of £4,000 and, as the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) has pointed out, the point here is whether that amount should cover the expenses. Probably I am the only member of the House, apart from the Lord High Commissioner, who has continually attended these functions. I did not go as a member of the Church of Scotland, which I have been for many years, but in my capacity as a magistrate. Here is what happens. There are 195 burgh and 33 county councils in Scotland. To every one of them invitations are sent, and, let me assure you, Major Milner, promptly accepted by Labour members all over Scotland. [HON. MEMBERS: "Including Cumnock."] Including Cumnock. And it was from South Ayrshire we had our former Lord High Commissioner, Mr. James Brown. This is a great event in
540
Scotland, looked forward to from one end of the year to another by thousands of very good citizens. There are about 6,000 teas. If you have travelled from Glasgow to Edinburgh, or from Caithness to Edinburgh, or from Cumnock to Edinburgh, you should at least have a cup of tea, or even have dinner at night. When I compare what happens at Holyrood with the Royal Garden Party at Buckingham Palace, I am rather ashamed of our hospitality in Scotland. It is by no means on such a scale as Buckingham Palace. And no wonder. How can it be if the sum meted out to poor old Scotland is the same as was considered sufficient in 1832? It is a disgrace that even now we are limited to only £4,000. If I could get £4 million out of the English Treasury for Scotland, I would take it.
I want to point out to those hon. Members who are supporting this Amendment that it is quite wrong to phrase their meaning in the words, "which is given to the Lord High Commissioner." It is not given to him. I used to meet and to look with fear and trembling upon the Purse-bearer to the Lord High Commissioner. I used to wonder whether he had as big a job with running his purse as I had with running my home. Now I learn of the supplying of 6,000 teas, of the dinners, the waitresses, the workmen, the charwomen, the officials, the clerks employed to send out the invitations, the very notepaper on which the invitations are sent out; surely these are not the same in cost as they were in 1832. None of these people are getting the wages which would have been paid in 1832, and the very stamps put on the invitations are costing twice the amount they cost in 1832.
It is not a case of giving something extra to the High Commissioner, but of doing what every Scotsman should be proud of doing—paying his way. It is just trying to pay for something that delights the heart of man, that finishes in the precincts of Holyrood, that brings back to Holyrood all our history—and, may I say, with the acceptance of most of the people in Scotland, the Royal family are represented there. People often feel that Scotland is neglected; that England gets all the pageantry and processions and that Scotland is left in the cold. We feel that this brings back something to us when 10,000 people gather on the last night, 10,000 of the common

541
working people, and join in community singing which it is a treat to hear.
We are told about the White Paper austerity. But we are only asking for austerity. There is nothing but austerity in the cup of weak tea that is dished out, if one can get anywhere near the marquee for ministers of the church. The humble disciples of the Lord are not very humble at that time, and they are usually throwing magistrates into the background in the scramble for cups of tea. I go back to the 1938 standard, before the White Paper was introduced, and I say that this £2,000 is a very meagre amount to make up the difference between 1832 and 106 years later. I, like the hon. Member for Shettleston, would feel no compunction about drawing that extra salary. I thought, before I came here, that the amount given in the 1930's would be sure to square my London hotel bills. I got a great surprise. I am sure that my banker will agree with me that my bank book has not improved since I came here. I am surprised that all those Members who agree with me in this, and who uphold these increases, do not appear to think that these functions which we cherish so much in Scotland should actually just pay their way. That is what we are asking and no more.
11.30 p.m.
Mr. Boothby: I trust that for this occasion I may have the permission of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) to address this House.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan Mr. Malcolm MacMillan (Western Isles) indicated assent.
Mr. Boothby: In that case I cannot help feeling that we have been making a little bit of a mountain out of a mole hill. Great interest has been displayed tonight, the House is crowded, much eloquence has been shown, passionate speeches have been made, and all about a couple of thousand pounds a year. I do not think that there is as much in it as all that. We in Scotland are inclined to forget that we are now the rich part of the United Kingdom. As a matter of fact, if we chose to clear out and leave England to her own devices, not that we should want to do that, we can be very well self-supporting. Since the war we are the rich end of the Kingdom, and I
542
listened with sympathy to the hon. Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) when she was saying that the great wealth of pageantry is in London, but the real wealth is in Scotland. If we give the impression that we are reluctant to give another £2,000 to the Lord High Commissioner we shall not give a very good impression to the rest of the world.
The only part of the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland which upset me was that which dealt with historical analogies. He did not seem to me to be on the right ticket there. He said that the Reformation took a rather peculiar turn in Scotland. He noted with approval the victory of Cromwell and the influence of John Knox. Actually these things were equally disastrous for Scotland, and if the right hon. Gentleman had based his argument in support of this Bill mainly upon the Reformation in Scotland, the victory of Cromwell, and the influence of John Knox I should have felt obliged to divide against this Measure.
Mr. Woodburn: Is the hon. Gentleman challenging the fact that the churches established education for the ordinary people in Scotland at an earlier period than in any other country in the world?
Mr. Boothby: I am not altogether denying that fact. I am merely stating that I think that Calvinism in Scotland as represented by John Knox was on the whole a pernicious influence, and only when the right hon. Gentleman moved from that, I began to warm to him and swing round wholeheartedly in favour of this Bill. It was only after Scotland was emancipated from the more dire effects and rigid austerities of the Reformation that that great uprush took place and Scottish education achieved the ascendency in the world for which it is noted, and in which undoubtedly the Church played a part.
We come to the figure. What are we asking for—£2,000? What is the Budget figure? Is it £3,500,000,000? I believe it is something of that order. Yet tonight we are having a great Debate, with great oratory and passionate feelings aroused as to whether we are going to give the leaders and the representatives of the Church from various parts of Scotland tea and buns, or only buns. That really is the point of the whole matter. I suggest that we ought to recapture a sense of

543
proportion. These grisly teas described by the hon. Member for Coatbridge fill me with apprehension and alarm. I did not know they were as bad as that. If that is the best the Lord High Commissioner can do, I should like to see this allowance increased to at least £10,000. I feel very strongly about my own constituents coming all the way from some remote village in Aberdeenshire to Holyrood House and being treated to this melancholy cup of tea, with the possibility of a bun.
What do those Members who support the Amendment want? Do they want the Lord High Commissioner to come out with a mobile soup kitchen, dishing out the soup in ladles to the ministers and elders? If that is the case, the whole thing had better come to an end. It would be a great pity if it did come to an end, because, as the hon. Member for Coat-bridge truly said, this is a great chance for many people in Scotland to get together in congenial social intercourse, even if it is over a cup of tepid tea. On other occasions they would not meet in such numbers, at any rate; many people look forward to this event from one year to another, and all accept the invitation with alacrity, They would soon stop accepting the invitation if hon. Members who oppose the Bill had their way. I would like to recall the House to some sense of proportion. If we grudge £2,000 in order to enable the Lord High Commissioner to entertain his guests for 10 days in the year reasonably well, and no more than reasonably well, and with far more austerity than appeals to my personal taste, we might as well shut up shop.
11.38 p.m.
Mr. MeKintay: I do not want to enter on a discussion on the history of the Church, because I am a horrible example of what the brethren produce. I am glad that the Amendment that the Bill be read a Second time this day six months was the Amendment to be called, because at least it has the ring of honesty about it. The Amendment which has not been called proposes:
"That, in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal for austerity and the Prime Minister's statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, this House is of the opinion that it is unwise to proceed with a Bill increasing the grant to the Lord High Commissioner."
544
That, in my view, is a piece of humbug. For the first time in my association with the Socialist movement, and as a Member of this House, I find a Member representing a Scottish constituency raking the bottom of the bucket, with English Members, getting them to attend the House and vote against the increase to this allowance. I say that with regret, but I think it should be said.
I also say, again without intending offence—and I refer to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) —that we have seen a display of what happens when people agree not to oppose a Measure, and some others "get off the handle" and look for an excuse to do the very opposite. This should be said, and I want it placed on record, that the overwhelming majority of Labour Members from Scotland do not oppose this Measure. I say nothing against those Members who oppose it honestly and openly, but it never was part of the policy of the Labour Party in Scotland to bring to an end the activities of the Church Assembly. I may say to the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that if he was honest in this matter, the Amendment in his name should propose to abolish this State association with the Assembly altogether.
I think that I am stating what is accepted as the position of the majority of the Labour Members from Scotland. Why should all the ignominy associated with the campaign which has taken place in a certain quarter fall on the head of the High Commissioner? It was deliberately fostered in the columns of "Forward." By some mysterious means, the High Commissioner, if he could not meet the expenses of this office, should do other things. It was suggested that he should pawn his shirt to help pay his expenses, and that, I think, was neither funny nor in good taste. As this Socialist movement grows, it must accept its responsibilities. I was for 13 years a member of the Glasgow local authority and was its senior magistrate. When the Socialist movement took control of Glasgow, had it been composed of such people as the hon. Member for South Ayrshire there would have been agitation to cease the traditional service of the kirking of the magistrate—a cermony which goes back to the days when Glasgow was created a burgh. It is sheer humbug and dishonesty to put an Amendment on the

545
Order Paper, supposedly in the interests of the High Commissioner, and then to make statements such as have been made.
In my view, and I am not alone in this, the idea is to strangle the holding of the Assembly altogether. I say this with regret. Some day the hon. Member for South Ayrshire will walk into this House and support the Government by mistake. If the hon. Member for South Ayrshire is blessed with a sufficiently long membership of this House, he may succeed in convincing every other body how wrong they have been for years, and how he is here to bring salvation to them. Some hon. Members may think that this is uncalled for; but if I take a decision, I am entitled to honour that decision. If I state my objections, and they are overruled, I am equally entitled to accept that ruling unless I seek to hold political views and have nothing but a stomachful of obsessions.
I appeal to my colleagues from Scotland. There are those who were disturbed by the Chancellor's appeal, and my hon. Friend who spoke first was disturbed because he was present at the meeting in Edinburgh and said openly that he could not, after attending the meeting, justify this proposal. My hon. Friend the other Member for Edinburgh was in the same boat; and I would appeal to both hon. Members—you have made your protest, do not force this Amendment to a Division. No matter what they do, their actions will be misconstrued outside this House and more harm will be done to the wider aspect of the Labour movement than could be done by 10 years of propaganda. I appeal to my colleagues who represent English divisions and who are mere Englishmen in this Scottish quarrel, not to be misled by specious pleas for economy. The English Members would be well advised, if I may say so, to leave this as a private affair and to leave it, if it goes to a Division, to the vote of those who represent Scottish constituencies, because I am satisfied that the overwhelming majority—[Interruption.] It has been said that the Government have put us off, but I am simply asking, if a demonstration were needed, that as the overwhelming mass of Scottish members are in favour of this proposal, English Members should take a holiday and refrain from voting.
11.47 p.m.
Mr. Emrys Hughes,: I do not want the level of the Debate to sink to the level of the speech we have just heard. After all, this is not the first occasion on which a Labour Member has opposed a recommendation of the Government. I can remember an occasion quite recently in the Scottish Grand Committee when the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) himself was one of a minority of two. However, I do not want to bring this discussion down to the level of some of the superficial arguments around which it has ranged, from Mme. Maisky's fur coat to the historical, or shall I say hysterical, introduction of this Debate by the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I believe that the point of view I hold is the minority point of view in this House, but I believe that if it were put fairly and squarely to the Labour movement in Scotland, the movement would agree with what the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis) had to say about the only local Labour Party to express an opinion on the matter, a party which has been unanimous in its recommendation against this legislation proposed by the Government. I believe that is what is annoying hon. Members opposite, They know that the rank and file of the Labour movement are asking, not about the Reformation that took place in the Middle Ages, but about the reformation that has gone on in the point of view of hon. Members who have spoken in this Debate. I suggest that this question is being asked: Have the Labour Members for Scotland lost their old fire and enthusiasm that made the movement and raised it to power in Scotland? Have they now adapted themselves to their environment and are they now expressing a reactionary point of view—a point of view of which they ought to be thoroughly ashamed and which has been reflected in the superficial rubbish referred to in this Debate?
This Bill was printed without anyone knowing anything about it. There was no demand for it in Scotland; there was no demand by any organisation; and it appeared, as it were, "out of the blue." At the time, we were told that this Bill was necessary because of the increased expenditure incurred by the Lord High Commissioner. The Secretary of State, in his opening speech, worked himself up into a fury of indignation about some

547
campaign in which, he said, we had misrepresented the whole issue by referring to the "salary" of the Lord High Commissioner. I do not know where he ever heard the word "salary." I have never used that word. In my Motion on the Order Paper I use the word "grant." We have heard of emoluments and expenses, and I maintain that the argument of the Secretary of State in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, when he spoke about the way in which we had misrepresented the issue by referring to a "salary," was without foundation. He cannot point to one occasion on which I have spoken or written about a "salary." I suggest that he was creating a fictitious case against himself and then attempting to demolish it, simply because he had not a stronger case to put forward himself.
My point of view is shared, not only by the Edinburgh Labour Party, but by a very respected former Member of this House, the Rev. James Barr. I wrote and asked him—a well respected member of the religious community in Scotland—what should be my attitude to this Bill, and he replied:
"I think you should proceed with your Motion. Had I still been in the House I would certainly have supported such a Motion. This runs counter to the promises so lavishly made at the time of the union, that it was all a matter of courtesy and could be departed from at any time."
I am expressing the point of view of the Rev. James Barr, and if hon. Members choose to call that humbug and hypocrisy, let it be so called. But I believe it to be the point of view of those who have taken a little trouble to study this question, and have gone into the history of it a little more carefully than the Secretary of State.
What is all this talk about the Reformation, as if the Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland were an integral part of the Reformation, or had anything to do with it? The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire accuses me of wanting to abolish the Church Assembly of the Church of Scotland. I am prepared to give way if he can tell me when I have ever produced such an argument.
Mr. McKinlay: The trouble is that the hon. Member does not say it, but that is what he means.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I still do not know when I am supposed to have said that
548
I wanted to abolish the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. The hon. Member says, "Well, you really believe it, although I cannot produce any evidence." The use of that sort of superficiality is the reason we are losing by-elections in Scotland; the mentality of the Socialist movement is being degraded by such superficiality.
I should not have taken up so much time had I not been attacked, but I would point out that this is not the first occasion on which the Labour Party has questioned the expenditure of the Lord High Commissioner for the General Assembly. This has been the traditional attitude of Labour Party critics of the Conservative Government throughout the last 30 years. The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire was Parliamentary Private Secretary to the former Secretary of State for Scotland, Mr. Tom Johnston, and I believe that if the Conservative Party had introduced a Bill increasing by 100 per cent. the salary of the Lord High Commissioner—[HON. MEMBERS: "Salary?"]—the grant to the Lord High Commissioner, it would have been denounced on every Labour platform in the country. I do not believe that the Labour Party in office should take up a different attitude and fail to produce the reforms which they previously advocated.
It was from Tom Johnston that I heard for the first time any reference to the office of Lord High Commissioner, when he wrote an article on the subject in "Forward." If I am a hypocrite and dishonest, I suppose the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire would hardly go so far as to say that about Mr. Tom Johnston. I have here what Mr. Tom Johnston wrote in 1924 about the Lord High Commissioner. It is a most interesting article, and in it he refers to the habit of Labour Members being photographed in knee-breeches and the various paraphernalia of royal levees. This is what he wrote:
"I will not harrow the feelings of my readers with a list of pacifists who go to levees in knickerbockers and with swords, but will come at once to the sad case of a Scotsman, James Brown, M.P., who, after a long, honourable and dignified career as a representative of Ayrshire colliers, is now to dress himself up in kneebreeches, silk stockings, paste buckles on his shoes and a cocked hat with feathers. And heaven save us! he is to carry a sword, and be called 'Your Grace' and ride in a State coach with, outriders and postillions and trumpeters and who knows what other useless trash. And thus attired

549
and guarded he will procession up the 'royal mile' through the streets of Edinburgh to auld Holyrood, where he will sleep there for fourteen glorious nights in a great State bed."
When such an authority on Scottish history writes in this way so disrespectfully of the office of Lord High Commissioner, it can be readily understood why some of us are opposed to allowances being increased for this office. He goes on to say this:
"And he has a purse-bearer and his wife has ladies-in-waiting. And if he does as his predecessors have done, he'll hold levees and supply free whisky and champagne to the clergymen and elders of the Kirk of Scotland. James Brown, a life-long temperance advocate, will, I have no doubt, struggle hard against that last, and if he wins there and supplies only non-intoxicants and thereby breaks the traditions of centuries, he might just as easily have broken the other silly traditions too, and gone in his Sunday clothes, and opened the Genera] Assembly without the waste of public money and the flummery and guzzling."
If that is a picture of the Lord High Commissioner as seen through the eyes of an ex-Secretary of State for Scotland, we should look a little closer at this question before we decide to give a 100 per cent. increased grant for this office.
Mr. William Ross: The hon. Member has quoted that article as being written in 1924. Surely that was before the right hon. Gentleman to whom he has referred became Secretary of State for Scotland. When he came to hold that office, did he retain the same views and do something about it?
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I know he has never recanted those views which he wrote, before he became Secretary of State for Scotland. He has never apologised for having written that about the Lord High Commissioner.
Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the hon. Member suggesting that the present Lord High Commissioner carries out the same kind of orgies?
Mr. Emyrs Hughes: I am merely quoting a view on the office of Lord High Commissioner by one who is the greatest authority on Scottish history. He goes on to say:
"There are, I know, people who say: 'Oh, these "Galoshans" businesses do not matter. Why worry about them? Let's get on with the serious business.' Alas, these 'Galoshans' are but the outward and visible signs of an inward and spiritual dry rot, and a Party which tamely accepts the medieval circus and participates in useless, costly, and stupid mummeries, is a Party that is not in the way of serious business."
Mr. Boothby: Surely the hon. Member knows that Tom Johnston ten years ago repudiated all the nonsense he wrote in "Forward" in 1924?
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: That is news to me, but I am sure that Tom Johnston would not endorse that recantation on his behalf by a hon. Member who knows a little less about him than I do. The article concluded:—
"The old Whigs who abolished the Keeper of the Green Wax in the Exchequer of Ireland, the Warden of the Royal Fire-Irons, and the Deputy Maintainer of the Cheese Barrel in the lieutenancy of the Great Hundreds, might have swept away this £2,000 High-CommissionerYour-Grace business when they were at it."
In view of that, I think we are justified in saying that there is a point of view in Scotland which asks that the Lord High Commissionership should be put in perspective, and should not be made the subject of a 100 per cent. increase at a time when the Chancellor of the Exchequer is talking about austerity and the need for frugality, and so on. Yesterday, when Conservative Members were talking about the T.U.C., I asked why if the Government wanted the T.U.C. to freeze wages, they did not show an example by adopting a commonsense policy of saying that they would freeze the emoluments of the Lord High Commissioner for Scotland.
There has been so much irrelevancy in this Debate that we have never got down to the question of what the Lord High Commissioner is supposed to do. The ideas have varied from the assumption that he is to preside over some convivial gathering to the belief that he is associated with some sort of religious symbolism.
Mr. Gilzean: His function was to watch the interests of the King against the Church.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: Yes, in case the Church became too Left wing or too Right wing. I rather think that the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) suspected that the idea was that the Lord High Commissioner should be there to keep a watching eye in case the Church of Scotland became affiliated to the Communist Party. Nothing of the kind. The Church of Scotland throughout the ages has taken a poor view of the Lord High Commissioner.
Mr. McGovern: Does the hon. Member suggest that the Church of Scotland would be so daft as to sign the Nenni letter?
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I do not understand the relevance of that, but I can assure him that they are not so daft as to have signed a letter supporting a policy enunciated by Sir Oswald Mosley, as the hon. Member did on one occasion.
Mr. McGovern: When I signed a manifesto by Sir Oswald Mosley he was a respected member of the Labour Party.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I am not prepared to accept what I think is the degenerate point of view of the Labour Party in Scotland, who, forgetting what they have said in the past, are becoming respectable and adapting themselves to their environment. One hen. Member referred to cups of tea. In "The Scotsman" we read that there were 5,300 guests at Holyrood. If we work it out on the basis of half a crown a head, that Holyrood tea party cost £600—and that is the most expensive function. If that is the sort of entertainment, why does not £2,000 cover it? Why do we need to spend £4,000, at a time when we are asking the workers to accept reduced incomes?
The story of this institution is entirely different from the picture given by the Secretary of State. I have here some reference to the office by the Rev. Archibald Fleming, D.D., who wrote about the first Lord High Commissioner:
"The formal inauguration of the office in 1580 was not auspicious. It fell to that shifty and infamous lawyer, Sir James Balfour of Pittindreigh, the most corrupt man of his age to be its holder."
Through the centuries this office has been a sinecure, given to one of its members by the political party in power.
I am not asking that this office should be done away with, although I believe that, if I had the opportunity, I could give some very good, solid reasons why it should be. I do say, however, that this time, when we are asking the workers to make sacrifices, is not the time to adopt the traditions of the past—or to spend more national money c n them—and have to explain that attitude to the sceptical, intelligent audiences throughout Scotland. It is a degradation for Labour Members sent here from Scotland. We did not come here to follow the traditions of the past. Our programme was. "Let us face
552
the future." Yesterday the Secretary of State told the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs (Mr. Maclay) that we must do away with traditions when they become no longer tenable. In the House yesterday, the hon. Member for Montrose Burghs referred to John Morley. I remember that it was said of John Morley, "He was often on the wrong side, but never on the side of wrong." Although I am on the wrong side in this Debate, I am not on the side of wrong, and I could justify my arguments in the country and before the Labour Party.
12.8 a.m.
Commander Galbraith: I think the House received good advice earlier in this Debate from the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby), when he asked us to preserve our sense of proportion. I think it would have been advisable if the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) had followed that advice. After all, how often in this Chamber have we seen tens of millions of pounds passed on a nod? Yet here we have been debating for an hour and 45 minutes a matter of an increase of possibly £2,000. I really think that, although it is right for the House to pay attention to the very smallest item of expenditure, the time we have spent on this matter has been completely out of proportion.
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), who moved this Amendment, based his case to a certain extent on Government policy. In fact, he was really speaking to the other Amendment on the Order Paper—that in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, which has not been called—which says:
"That, in view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's appeal for austerity and the Prime Minister's statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices, this House is of the opinion that it is unwise to proceed with a Bill increasing the grant to the Lord High Commissioner."
The hon. Member for North Edinburgh was basing his case on the Chancellor's plea for austerity, and on the Prime Minister's statement on Personal Incomes, Costs and Prices. I was so glad to hear the Secretary of State say so straightforwardly and plainly that this matter is not a question of personal income at all. The Bill is merely to provide, as he said, the unavoidable expenses of fulfilling in the most austere possible manner the

553
duties of a very high office, probably the highest office which any Scot can be called upon to occupy. I agree that the Bill is very much concerned with costs and prices, but not in the sense that the Prime Minister used those words in his statement. The Bill has been necessitated by the increase in costs and prices over the last years. Like the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), I find it difficult to reconcile the attitude of the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and other hon. Gentlemen who supported him with the attitude of this House towards increasing our own emoluments. After all, when we did that, we knew perfectly well that our country was facing very difficult times and there was a very great danger of inflation.
Mr. Willis: This has been said by two or three hon. Members, and I have not interrupted before. I think it should be put in the right perspective. At that time the Government were not asking the workers to refrain from asking for increases, and since that time, the workers have received substantial increases, and so have the old age pensioners.
Commander Galbraith: It seems to me that argument should apply also to this matter of the Lord High Commissioner. If we in this House find it necessary to increase our emoluments by 66⅔ per cent. over a period of eight years, how much more necessary is it for us to increase the money required to meet the necessary expenses of the Lord High Commissioner over a period of 116 years. I cannot reconcile the action of the hon. Gentlemen on these two different occasions. I suggest that the House has the right to expect a certain measure of consistency from hon. Members on matters such as this.
The money which Parliament grants to the Lord High Commissioner is all used in meeting the expenses of his office. It is, in fact, all used for public purposes and in what I believe to be the public interest. As the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge (Mrs. Mann) said, Scotland has little enough of light and colour in these drab days. It has little or no pageantry, and what pageantry the Lord High Commissioner brings during his residence in Holyrood House is we]-corned, not only by the citizens of the
554
capital of Scotland, but also by large numbers of people who come from all parts of the country to Edinburgh during the fortnight in which the Assembly is carrying on its business.
I feel that for many years past the sum we have given for the expenses of the Lord High Commissioner has been quite insufficient and that it should have been increased long ago. We have now reached a point where it is utterly impossible for him on his present allowance to carry out his duties with that dignity which the people of Scotland demand shall be upheld. Action is now essential and imperative. Let me remind the House that the Lord High Commissioner has represented the King at the Assembly since 1592. It is my belief that the Scottish people wish that His Majesty should continue to be represented. If I am right in that contention, then it is the duty at least of Scottish Members to do everything in their power to see that the necessary funds are passed for that purpose. I am glad indeed that that is the view of the Government. I believe that they have arrived at that view as the result of a proper and accurate assessment of the feelings of the Scottish people, and certainly it is a view which I and, my hon. and right hon. Friends intend to support in the Division Lobby tonight, if that is necessary. I hope, as the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay) suggested, it will not be necessary.
There is one thing which may perhaps have a little significance. It is that in connection with both these Amendments on the Paper—that is, the Amendment which has been called and the one which has not been called—the first-named hon. Member in each case, so far as I can discover from my researches, is not a Scotsman, and was not born in Scotland. That, I clearly recognise, is not their fault but their misfortune. But be that as it may, it leads me to question whether they are fully qualified to represent Scottish opinion on this important matter.
An Hon. Member: They are not Tories.
Mr. Gallacher: Since the hon. Member is so anxious to raise the question of the nationality of these hon. Members, will he tell us, as a Scotsman, what is the nationality of the one the Lord High Commissioner is representing?
Mr. Willis: Surely the hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that, whether I am English or Scottish, I am returned to this House by Scotsmen to represent Scotsmen, and I can go back to the organisation which is responsible for returning me and obtain a unanimous vote upon this issue.
Commander Galbraith: Yes, but the hon. Member may not have so deeply in his bones the traditions of Scotland.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: The hon. and gallant Member raised a point in regard to me. I represent a constituency in the House of Commons by a majority of votes. When Keir Hardie, the Scotsman, fought an election in Wales, the same reactionary argument was used against Keir Hardie, the Scottish Socialist in Wales.
Commander Galbraith: I am expressing the opinion which I hold and which, I believe, can well be justified. I believe it is the wish of the great majority of Scotsmen and Scotswomen that this ancient office should continue, and should be supported by a proper and becoming dignity. Therefore, I and my hon. Friends support the Government in this matter.
12.18 a.m.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): May I endorse what was said by the hon. and gallant Member in relation to a remark by the hon. Member for East Aberdeen (Mr. Boothby). Let us, in this discussion, try to keep a proper sense of proportion; let us try to view this question on its merits, free from any personalities and from any other considerations. While I welcome, and on this side of the Table we welcome, the assurance given by the hon. and gallant Member, may I say that we do not accept and adopt one part of his argument, namely, that because certain of the hon. Members who oppose the Bill do not happen to be Scottish by birth, they necessarily do not speak with the authority of the people whom they represent. I trust I can satisfy the House that there are better reasons why their arguments should not be accepted. I do not intend to go into the history of this matter so far as the Church is concerned. It has been accepted by every hon. Member who has spoken, including, I think, the
556
hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that this office is being preserved, will be preserved, and as far as I can gather should be preserved.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I did not agree that it should be preserved.
The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Member does not agree with that, I think he is the only hon. Member who has spoken in the Debate who has made that assertion. Whether or not the hon. Member for South Ayrshire or anyone else thinks that it should be preserved, we must recognise that even if this Bill were rejected the office would remain and the sum of £2,000 would be allowed to the High Commissioner to meet his expenses. Therefore the only relevant question is whether or not the Bill is justified for the reasons advanced by my right hon. Friend.
May I remind hon. Members that the Bill only permits an increase up to the sum of £4,000 a year. The actual amount to be spent in any year is something which is at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in consultation with the Treasury, and no doubt these people will have in view the current circumstances of any year in relation to the particular expenditure. But since the office exists and will continue to exist, whether this Bill goes through or not, I think there are two questions we must ask ourselves. The first is this: Is that office to be carried out with the dignity associated with it in the past? Secondly, if it is, having regard to its history, should the State pay for the expenses of that office, or should it be in part dependent on private individuals and private resources?
These are the two questions, and I think I am right in saying, in regard to the first, that as long as the office remains, it is the will of the large majority of the people of Scotland that it should be carried out with dignity but without extravagance. That has already been recognised in these difficult times. Although reference was made to the White Paper on Personal Incomes, I can find nothing in it which is in any way apposite to the present situation. I have read it through very carefully, but can find nothing relevant. As long as that office remains, then the will of the large majority of the people of Scotland should be carried out.

557
People may have different views in regard to that. It has been said that the rank and file do not approve of this. It may very well be true that certain sections of the people in Scotland have expressed a view contrary to this Bill. I am satisfied that the reason for that, in the main, is the fact that the purpose of this Bill has been misrepresented to the people of Scotland. I think that the most current misrepresentation which certainly gives the matter relevance to the White Paper, was the description of these proposals as an "increase in salary" which appeared in the Press.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: Which Press?
The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Member waits, I will deal with his speech. It has appeared in the national Press of this country under the heading "Increase of Salary to Lord High Commissioner."
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: Which Press?
The Lord Advocate: I think I am right in saying that it was the "Daily Express," but other people have given it prominence from the point of view of paying an increase in salary. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire challenged the Secretary of State to say when he had ever referred to it as salary. May I refer him to a Question he himself asked on 3rd February of this year, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT. He asked the Secretary of State:
"What representations were made to him asking him to introduce legislation proposing an increase in the grant to the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland."
The answer given by the Under-Secretary of State was, "None, Sir." The hon. Member for South Ayrshire then asked this supplementary question:
"Is the Minister aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made certain representations about austerity? Have they reached the Scottish Office? If there have been no representations for an increase in the salary, why is it suggested?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd February, 1948; Vol. 77; c. 1629–30.]
The hon. Member for South Ayrshire asked what justification the Secretary of State for Scotland had for accusing him of having referred to this matter as an increase in salary. For the answer to that
558
question, I commend the hon. Gentleman to that quotation from the OFFICIAL REPORT of 3rd February.
Therefore, I feel—and the experience of many Members on this side of the House has been—that when the true situation has been explained to the people who are concerned in this matter, they have been inclined to take an entirely different view, because they thought, and perhaps quite legitimately, that the representation of this increase as an increase in salary was quite opposed to the purpose of the White Paper and they could not see the justification for it, when they themselves were asked not to promote claims for an increase in wages.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: I am prepared to admit when I am wrong. I admit the Lord Advocate's point, that in the heat of a supplementary question I may have made reference to a salary, but I do not think I can be accused of using any elaborate argument misrepresenting this payment as a salary. If the "Daily Express" referred to it as such in the headline, it was not my fault. I certainly had no wish to misrepresent.
The Lord Advocate: I do not want this matter to develop into anything personal, but my right hon. Friend was challenged, and that is why I quoted this instance. When we introduce personalities into these matters there is a danger that we get away from the real arguments. I regret that personalities have been brought in. Reference has been made to the right hon. Member for Linlinthgow (Mr. Mathers), and in the criticisms of this increase it has been made personal to him, whereas I feel that those who have put forward arguments against this proposed increase in the allowance would have served their cause much better by confining themselves to the merits or demerits of the case.
Mr. Scollan: As my name also appears to the Amendment, may I say that I have never at any time, by word or in writing, associated the Lord High Commissioner with this matter. My view is based purely on the White Paper on Personal Incomes.
Mr. Rankin: When the word "salary" was used in the supplementary question of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), was that word corrected in the reply of the Secretary of State?
The Lord Advocate: I really do not propose to develop this point, because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire has agreed that he did use that word. I have with me excerpts from other national newspapers in which this word "salary" has been used, and used quite wrongly.
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: Will the Lord Advocate give way once more? I am sure he does not wish to do an injustice—
The Lord Advocate: No, I shall not give way again. Putting the matter in its proper perspective, I feel it would be the wish of the people of Scotland that this office should be carried on with a certain degree of dignity commensurate with its nature. I think it would also be the wish of the people of Scotland that if it is necessary to pay for that office, the people responsible for the appointment should make the payment. This is an historical office. It may in the past have had representatives of a different nature from that of the present incumbent. It is an historical fact that, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and the first quarter of the twentieth centuries, the holder of this high office was a peer, and in 1924, for the first time, a commoner, and a colleague of many hon. Members of this House—and also a predecessor of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire—was appointed. He was a miner, and the present holder of the office is an ex-railway clerk. I think that hon. Members on this side of the House—particularly those on this side—will welcome a procedure which enables a miner or a railway clerk to be the choice for this old office; an office held by peers and baronets who preceded them.
If we come to the question raised by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Mr. Willis), which was that we did not necessarily want a break with tradition, but wanted to accept traditions different from those observed in the past, I must say that I agree with him in certain respects. But this is one of the different traditions we are bringing in. It is a tradition by which people in Scotland, the peer, the railway clerk, or the miner, can equally be eligible for the high office and financially able to carry it out. That, surely, is the essence of democracy. We are not putting a means test on those who
560
aspire to the office of Lord High Commissioner.
It has also been suggested that, in view of the recent White Paper, there is something anomalous about this Bill. But the Lord High Commissioner had anticipated the Bill because since the war, there has been a reduction in the scale of entertainment and expenditure compared with the pre-war years, so that there has already been a degree of austerity introduced. There is a "freezing" and so I would say it is not contemplated that, by the introduction of this Measure, there will be more money spent by the Lord High Commissioner. It means that the persons properly responsible are going to pay the money. It was found that the —2,000 deemed to be adequate in 1832, when the hereditary revenues of the Crown were transferred to the Consolidated Fund, is quite inadequate with the changing values and rising prices existent in 1948. It was said by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire that in 1931 similar arguments were advanced—
Mr. Emrys Huģhes: In 1924.
The Lord Advocate: It was 1931, and that date was mentioned by my hon. Friend, and yet nothing was done between 1931 and 1948. It was the hon. Member for North Edinburgh who made that remark. The position, however, was different, because the holder of the office was neither an ex-miner nor an ex-railway clerk during those years, and the incumbent of the office during that time was able personally to meet the additional expenditure. We think that that was an undesirable condition of affairs, and one which ought to be removed.
Let us get this matter in proper perspective. For the Measure, there is almost universal support in this House; there is only one dissentient voice which has been raised against the continuance of the office, and if we are to continue it, let us continue it according to proper standards. If we cannot carry out this office according to proper standards, then do not let us carry it out at all. If we are going to carry out our duty, let us pay for doing so. Let us not be dependent upon private individuals either to grant the necessary balance themselves when chosen as Lord High Commissioner or to seek relief from some other source. Let us not impose

561
on the Secretary of State for Scotland the difficulty of saying, "I cannot select this desirable man because he is not personally in a position to meet the expenditure."
Let us make this a free choice available so that any member of the community can be admitted to the office, and let us get away from all the misrepresentation, false arguments and specious and defective arguments which cease to have validity when they are examined against the background against which we have to examine them. Let us recognise that we have a duty in this matter, that we are carrying out this duty and that we are doing nothing inconsistent with our duty either to this House or to the country; but doing something which I am quite sure will meet with the approval of all right-thinking people in Scotland.
Mr. Carmichael: May I raise a point of Order?

Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Whiteley)rose in his place and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
Mr. Carmichael Mr. Carmichael rose—
Mr. Speaker: There can be no question of a point of Order now.
Mr. Carmichael: I think I was on my feet trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, before the Government Chief Whip rose. I have been in the House all day and I am quite prepared to make my protest. I think it is extremely unfair.
Question put accordingly, "That the word now 'stand part of the Question."
The House divided: Ayes, 109; Noes, 10.

Division No. 134.]

AYES

[12.38 a.m.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Hope, Lord J.

Robens, A.

Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V.

Hoy, J.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Hubbard, T.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Blylon, W. R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Scott, Lord W.

Boothby, R.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Simmons, C. J.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G

Hynd, J. B.(Attercliffe)

Snow, J. W.

Burke, W. A.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Steele, T.

Champion, A J.

Johnston, O. H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Cocks, F. S.

Jones, O. T. (Hartlepool)

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Collins, V. J.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Stokes, R. R.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E

Leonard, W.

Studholme, H. G

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Swingler, S.

Davidson, Viscountess

McAllister, G.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

McGovern, J..

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Dobbie, W.

McKinlay, A. S.

Timmons, J.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

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

Duthie, W. S.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Watson, W. M.

Ede. Rt Hon. J. C.

Mann, Mrs. J.

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Edwards, John (Blackburn)

Maude, J. C.

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Wheatley, John (Edinburgh, E.)

Elliot, Lieut.-Col., Rt. Hon. W

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Moyle, A.

Wilkes, L.

Forman, J. C.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Wilkins, W. A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Neven-Spence, Sir B.

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

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

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Gibson, C. W.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Grey, C. F.

Pearson, A.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Griffiths, W. O. (Moss Side)

Perrins, W.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Hale, Leslie

Popplewell, E.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Price, M. Philips

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

Hardy, E. A.

Pryde, D. J.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Herbison, Miss M.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Mr. Hannan and

Mr. George Wallace.

NOES

Carmichael, James

Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool)

Scollan, T.

Gallacher, W.

Piratin, P.

Sylvester, G. O.

Glanville. J. E. (Consett)

Pritt, D. N.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Rankin, J.

Mr. Willis and Mr. Gilzean.

Question, "That the Question be now put," put, and agreed to.

LORD HIGH COMMISSIONER (CHURCH OF SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Resolved:
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present session to make further provision regarding the allowance payable to His Majesty's High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, it is expedient to authorise the charging on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof of any amount by which the sum so charged under the Act 2 and 3 William 4 cap. 116 in respect of the said allowance is increased under the said Act of the present session so however that the total sum so charged shall not exceed in any year tour thousand pounds."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

MONOPOLY (INQUIRY AND CONTROL) [MONEY]
Considered in Committee [Progress, 22 nd April].
[Major MILNER in the Chair]
Question again proposed,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make provision for inquiry into the existence and effects of, and for dealing with mischiefs resulting from, or arising in connection with, any conditions of monopoly or restriction or other analogous conditions prevailing as respects the supply of, or the application of any process to, goods, buildings or structures, or as respects exports, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of—

(a) the salaries and other remuneration paid to the members of, and any other expenses of, the Monopoly Commission constituted under the said Act; and

(b) any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade or any other Government department in carrying the said Act into effect."

12.47 a.m.
Mr. Charles Williams: This is a Financial Resolution connected with a Bill of some considerable importance, and it will be seen that under (a) there is reference to
"salaries and other remuneration paid to the members of, and any other expenses of, the Monopoly Commission."
We are entitled to know before passing this Motion what is the Treasury estimate for these salaries, and also approximately the number of persons who will be on the
564
staff that it is proposed to establish. The Government must have some sort of estimate of the expenditure and of the staff numbers. Some preliminary estimate must have been made, and I should like to know what burden will fall on the taxpayers of the country for this service. There is also paragraph (b), which deals with
"any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade or any other Government department in carrying the said Act into effect."
Is there any estimate by the Treasury of what expenses are likely to be allowed for this charge? These are ordinary questions on which information is usually given to us on these occasions, and I would like to ask for the information.
12.50 a.m.
The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I am sure the hon. Member will realise that it is not possible at this stage to give any very definite idea of what the cost of operating the Monopoly Commission will be. We have estimated that the figure is not likely to exceed £50,000 for the salaries and other expenses to which he has referred. How much it will be exactly, or how much less than that estimate, it is impossible to forecast. It is impossible to say how many cases it will be necessary to refer to the Commission. If the hon. Gentleman has studied the report published yesterday on building materials, he will find a number of cases which it might be appropriate for me to refer to the Commission, but until I have had time to consider them, and any other cases which might be submitted to me, I cannot say what size of staff will be necessary or what the total salaries will be.
I cannot even give any indication of what the salaries of the chairman or other members of the Commission will be. We still have to see what kind of person will be appointed chairman, and the salary might be conditioned by that—whether, for instance, it will be a full-time or part-time appointment. The same considerations apply to number of staff. We do not envisage the Commission having a large staff; a secretary and assistant secretary, and one or two people to help them, but nothing like the size of staff that has been found necessary in some other countries to deal with monopolistic practices. The question of the expenses incurred by the Board of Trade is again, I am afraid,

565
a matter that we shall only be able to see as we go on. It will be kept down to the very minimum, subject to this—that this Commission is going to do this job, it is going to have cases referred to it, and we must see that it has the money and the staff to do the job properly. I have given an outside figure of what we think may be the cost, but when the hon. Member talks about the burden on the taxpayer, I am sure he will agree that the burden on the taxpayer in his capacity of consumer might be several times greater if we were not going to deal with these things.
12.54 a.m.
Mr. C. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the courtesy of his answer. He will have noticed that I did not ask for the salary of the chairman of this Commission. I refrained from doing so deliberately, because I did not want him to get into any trouble with the Secretary of State for War. I thought it would be tactless if I asked that. The right hon. Gentleman has, broadly speaking, laid down a figure of £50,000 as what he thinks will probably be the maximum. I am glad that he has done so, because all too often we are told, "I do not know, it may be almost anything." What he has said will, I think, almost tie the Commission to that maximum. I agree with him that if we are to have this Bill it is obvious that we must have first-class people to work it and a reasonable staff; but there has been a tendency in these matters to have almost limitless staff, and unless someone takes an interest in the matter the ordinary Government, and this Government especially, are likely to appoint too many, to go absolutely haywire in appointing staff and officials. I am prepared to leave it at that tonight.
Mr. Wilson: I thought the hon. Gentleman had finished speaking.
Mr. Williams: I really had nothing more to say, but if there is to be an argument on the merits of the framing of this Resolution, I may have something more to say. Otherwise, I am quite prepared now to let it go.
Mr. Wilson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. I should like to assure him, in case he is in danger of losing any sleep over this, that I am in no danger at all of getting into trouble with the Secretary of State for War on
566
this matter. Because I know the hon. Member's concern about the level of salaries paid, I should like also to assure him that, although I am anxious to get the best man available for the job, and to pay a right and proper salary for the job, what I shall pay will be but a small fraction of the sums paid to the chairmen of some of the monopolies that may well be investigated. Certainly, there will not be any comparison between the salary of the chairman of the Commission and that of some of the heads of the cartels and price fixing rings.
Mr. Williams: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I do not want to cross swords with him over this matter, but I assure him that I shall not lose sleep over the iniquities of the Government, for if I were to do so, I should never get any sleep at all.
Question put, and agreed to.
Resolution to be reported this day.

SUNDAY CINEMATOGRAPH ENTERTAINMENTS
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section r of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Ampthill, a copy of which Order was presented on 26th April, he approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the, Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Barnet, a copy of which Order was presented on 26th April, be approved."
Resolved:
"That the Order made by the Secretary of State for the Home Department, extending Section 1 of the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932, to the Urban District of Wells-next-the-Sea, a copy of which Order was presented on 26th April, be approved."—[Mr. Younger.]

SOLDIER'S DEATH
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]
12.59 a.m.
Mr. W. D. Griffiths: I regret having to keep the House at such a late hour. I should not do so were it not for the effect of the very good example that has been set to me by the conduct of our Scottish colleagues,

567
and were it not that I believe that this matter is not only of some importance to one of my constituents, but raises some questions of principle which are of national interest. The General Election of 1945, with the victory of the Labour Party, brought into office many of my right hon. Friends who, in the ensuing period, have been instrumental in implementing changes of policy which have brought great benefits to the nation. Among my right hon. Friends concerned I include the Secretary of State for War. However, I hasten to add that I am referring to him as he was—as Minister of Fuel and Power.
The War Office, it seems to me, is distinguished in its unruffled tranquillity in the face of the very many changes of its political chiefs during the past three years. Between Sir James Grigg and the present Secretary of State for War I suppose it would be right to say that one sees yawning chasms of ideological difference. However, the impact of these varying, colourful personalities seems to have produced precious little change in that conservative institution, the British War Office. And today I am a sadder and a wiser man than I was when I felt some exhilaration, in the first days of post-Election rapture, at the departure of Sir James Grigg.
Tonight I wish to raise the case of one of my constituents who has suffered a tragic and irreparable loss by the death of her son, who was a serving soldier. This boy—and he was little more—was a fine, healthy physical specimen, who, until he was recently struck down, had, from his early years, enjoyed physical health. If the House will bear with me, I should like to recite the facts relating to this boy's medical history as I know it. I have said he was a healthy boy and this happy condition prevailed until, when he was 16, so I am informed, he sustained a head injury in an accident in his civilian employment. This injury resulted in mental disorders which made it necessary for him to be detained as an in-patient in a Lancashire mental hospital, where medical opinion certified that he was a schizophrenic—that he suffered from a split personality. As a result of the treatment which he received in this Lancashire civilian mental hospital, he ultimately recovered sufficiently to lead
568
the doctors to believe he had sufficient stability to allow them to discharge him to return to his home and to the care of his parents in the city of Manchester. That was his experience at the age of 16.
At 18, under the National Service Acts, he was called up for service in the Armed Forces. He was posted to the Army, and I would like to ask whoever is to reply for the Government tonight to give the House, if he can, the reasons why a youth who was a schizophrenic, a sufferer from a mental disorder, which is not in doubt, was ever, in the first place, taken into the Service. It must be obvious that a man suffering from a mental ailment of that kind is entirely unsuitable to be submitted to the rigours and hardships entailed in Service life even in days of peace. I have been informed, and I know from my own correspondence, that throughout the period he was in the Service it was repeatedly noted by the boy's mother and family when he came home on leave that he showed what they recognised all too well as being symptoms of the recurrence of his previous mental ailment. His mother did all she could to draw the attention of the responsible authorities, who once he was in the Army were the War Office, to the facts of his medical history and her worries about the symptoms of another onset of his ailment.
Throughout 1947 and 1948, I do not think it is an exaggeration to say that a constant stream of letters on this point were sent both to the soldier's commanding officer and to the War Office, directing their attention to the case. For my part, my attention was directly drawn to the case in February, 1947, by the soldier's mother. He was a private in the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders. She visited me in February, 1947, related to me the history which I have retailed tonight to the House, and produced documentary evidence as to his condition, to his having been detained as a schizophrenic in a Lancashire mental hospital at the age of 16. This evidence, with a covering letter, I forwarded to the War Office. The result was not that the boy was discharged, even at that stage.
I must say here, that this man's mother approached me on the threshold of the boy's embarkation for service in Palestine. It was that which brought the situation to a head, as it were, with the

569
mother, and which caused her to take action in the way she did. I sent the documents to the War Office. This did not result in the boy's discharge, but simply in a promise that he would be retained for service in the United Kingdom. That was in February, 1947. Despite this, in September, 1947, he was sent to Trieste, and that was at a time when Trieste was a centre of trouble, and was certainly not a station to which any soldier suffering any physical or mental weakness could possibly be sent by anyone desirous of preserving that soldier's welfare. On arrival there, he immediately suffered a mental breakdown, and was returned to the United Kingdom within a matter of weeks. This happened despite my letter to the War Office and despite his mother's letter to his Commanding Officer. In my opinion, it was a complete scandal, a gross administrative blunder, and was a direct contribution to the tragic circumstances which ultimately resulted in this boy's final breakdown and his death.
At this stage, in September, 1947, when this posting took place, I made further representations to the War Office. I received a letter, dated 15th October, 1947, which was signed by the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the present Secretary of State, in which this passage occurs:
"We are making inquiry into the circumstances in which he"—
that is Private Robson—
"was sent overseas in view of his medical category, and we have also called for an up-to-date medical report on his condition. I will write again and let you know the results as soon as possible."
One can well imagine that at that stage I had brought the case very forcibly to the notice of the War Office, and the House can well imagine the great anxiety felt by Private Robson's mother, and by his family. Yet it was not until two months later that I received a further letter from the War Office. It was dated 17th December, 1947, and informed me that a mistake had occurred, that they recognised that Private Robson had in fact been wrongly posted to Trieste, and that this was due, it appears, to the officer responsible for preparing the overseas draft including Private Robson under the impression that his medical category was A.1 (non-tropical), instead of A.1 (Home Service). This must have been due either to that officer misreading his
570
medical category or to some alteration of the medical history sheet.
At this stage, a further medical examination had been called for, and a report obtained. On 17th December, 1947, I was informed that Private Robson was then serving in the United Kingdom, that his medical category had been downgraded to C.1 (Home Service), and that he was still considered fit for service in this category. Now this was several months after the War Office had had documentary evidence that the man had been detained at an early age in a civilian Mental hospital as a schizophrenic, and despite the fact that he had recently had another mental breakdown when having been sent by mistake for service in Trieste.
Turning to more recent events and what I might call the final tragic events in this case, during this year every time this boy had been on leave his mother had noted that his general mental condition showed signs of marked deterioration, which led her to see me again at the end of February, when she told me a pathetic story of his behaviour, which led her to go so far as to say that she felt completely unable to leave this boy in the house with the younger children for fear that he might be led to do something very terrible to them. I was so impressed that on my return to the House within a day or so I wrote once again to the Secretary of State for War emphasising the urgency of the case and threatening, in the event of no action being taken, to seek an opportunity of raising it in the House. On my way to post it I fortunately met the Under-Secretary and handed it to him, and in conversation with him emphasised the extreme urgency of the case.
Eight days passed and I received a letter dated 10th March, in which my hon. Friend informed me that he had called for yet another medical report, and on 25th March, three weeks after the date of my letter to the War Office, I received a full letter from my hon. Friend in which he said, among other things, that he had now received the report and that this
"confirms, I am pleased to say, that Private Robson is not in need of treatment, that he is capable of, and fit to, continue serving in his present medical category of C.1 (Home Service)."
Then come some remarks about his worries which are followed by this:

571
"Mrs. Robson will, I hope, be reassured that there is no evidence of any psychotic disorder."
But on 25th March, Private Robson, who on the authority of the War Office was said "to show no evidence of any psychotic disorder" cast himself from the window of a railway train and was killed, and on 26th March, the day I received this letter, I was also telephoned by a member of the soldier's family informing me of his death.
I want to ask the Under-Secretary how he can possibly reconcile the words of his letter of 21st April, which says that Private Robson was under medical supervision throughout his time in the Army, with the words in the previous letter of 25th March, which says that Private Robson was not in need of any treatment? Here in the last letter of 21st April, 1948, a copy of which was sent to me to forward to my constituent, for the first time we hear that he has been seen by five psychiatrists. Why could not I, or the mother of this boy, who wrote repeatedly to his commanding officer asking that he should have treatment, as I did, be told that he had been seen by a psychiatrist? It was not until 21st April that we heard that he had been seen by five different psychiatrists.
I realise that there have been changes in the War Office during the long period in which we have been dealing with this case, but I do feel that there has been very grave slackness. Grave responsibility rests on somebody (a) for admitting this boy to the Forces, (b) for disregarding medical evidence from mental specialists in the civilian psychiatric ward of a mental hospital testifying to his schizophrenic condition, and (c) for not realising that that was reinforced by his breakdown in Trieste. I hope that, apart from the words of sympathy which have been so generously expressed by the War Office, we can have some further explanation tonight that will do more to satisfy a mother who is anguished by the loss of her son which she feels might well have been avoided if action had been taken earlier.
1.17 a.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Michael Stewart): My hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side (Mr. W. Griffiths) has very rightly raised a case which is both tragic in itself and intro-
572
duces an important question of policy—the policy which the Army should pursue with regard to soldiers who are emotionally unstable. The two major questions which arise are, first, why this young man was admitted into and kept in the Army, and secondly, what treatment and care was given to him while he was in the Army.
As to the first question, it is a fact that this young man when he was a boy of 16 in 1944, spent three months in a mental home where he was suffering from schizophrenia, from which he made a good recovery. According to the account that he gave, consideration was given to the question whether treatment should be given to him, and a decision against that was given and he recovered spontaneously by rest. He appears to have made a good recovery, and when he was called up under the National Service Acts he did not disclose—and one can well understand his point of view in this matter—the fact that he had been in a mental hospital. That fact was not brought to our attention; nor was there anything in his appearance or demeanour when he was called up that would have given us any reason to suppose that some two years previously he had spent three months as a patient suffering from schizophrenia. Therefore, I do not think that any blame can be attached either to the War Office or to any Department of the Government for the fact that he was called up and admitted into the Services under the National Service Acts.
It should also be noticed that during his first months in the Army, which are often the most difficult period for an emotionally unstable man, there was nothing in his behaviour while he was in his unit that would have led us to suppose that he had previously been a mental patient. It was commented on that he was somewhat slow to learn, but that he worked hard and behaved well. He spent those first months, which included three months service abroad, in Germany, and it was not until February, 1947, that we knew, or indeed could have had any way of knowing, that he had previously been in a mental home. That was then drawn to our attention in a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Moss Side who, I should say, has been most persistent and diligent in this matter, as one would expect. I shall hope to show him

573
that we have not neglected his persistence, and that we have given rather more attention to this case than perhaps he has given us credit for. Our attitude has certainly not been one of unruffled tranquillity.
In February, 1947, when this young man was under draft for Palestine, my hon. Friend drew our attention to the fact that he had previously been in a mental home and, in consequence of that, he underwent his first examination by a psychiatrist. My hon. Friend inquired why we did not previously tell him that this young man had been examined by five psychiatrists, but in the correspondence which has passed he will see that we said this young man had been so examined. There are reports in the letters and they refer to the examinations by psychiatrists and I will detail in a few moments the precise dates on which they occurred. On this first question as to why there was any reason why he should not have been called up, I have to say there was no reason. Secondly, when we knew he had been in a mental home, I was asked whether we should have immediately invalided him out of the Army? I must tell my hon. Friend that I have given considerable thought to this problem of whether, when we discover any man has been in a mental home, we ought to regard him as unfit to serve in the Armed Forces. But I do not think it right to make such an automatic rule.
It has to be remembered that many people enter mental homes with the earnest hope that they will be cured of their illness and once a man has been in a mental home and has come out, regarded by the authorities as fit to move about in the world, we should not, I think, regard him as an unstable person. I think the policy we should pursue, if it comes to our notice that anyone serving in the Army has been in a mental home, is that we should not regard him as no longer fit for military service unless good reasons are shown why he should be so regarded. Where men in that position have been regarded by psychiatrists as unfit for military service and have pressed the authorities to say in the Army, it would not be right for us to make this an automatic rule. But if we have a man in the Army of this type we must exercise most diligent care over his condition.
574
This man's first examination by a psychiatrist occurred in February, 1947, and he was then classified as A 1 (Home Service). Later, he was examined by a psychiatrist in Scottish Command, who also classified him as A 1 (Home Service). In September, by what we are required to admit was a serious administrative error, he was sent to Trieste, where he suffered sensory hysteria. That is a neurotic, and not a psychotic, complaint. That is to say, it was consistent with the judgment I have just mentioned as having been given by the two psychiatrists who had already examined him. He was not suffering from a psychotic disorder, but he was unstable. I should like to tell my hon. Friend that I tried to pursue the responsibility for this error—and it was in my inquiries that delay resulted in writing to my hon. Friend because of the many different aspects which had to be followed—and it was discovered that the officer responsible for this error was then no longer serving in the Army; but I do not seek to palliate that error.
Mr. Griffiths: I will not keep my hon. Friend a moment. I know that time is short, but I would like to say that I remember that the letter sent to this boy's mother on this occasion was signed by a second-lieutenant as drafting officer. Surely this officer would have been responsible to his commanding officer and through him responsibility would have lain with the War Office.
Mr. Stewart: It was not quite such a simple story as that. There was evidently a failure to enter the details on documents and so far as we can discover the person responsible is no longer in the Army. My hon. Friend may be assured that we will pursue very diligently the question of taking precautions to prevent such an error recurring.
When the man returned from Trieste and had the third psychiatric examination in October, 1947, as a result of that, I am obliged to say, the most encouraging report was received. The man described himself on examination as feeling "as fit as a fiddle." It is tragic to recall those words in view of what has happened since.
Mr. Lester Hutchinson: Did the psychiatrist have the previous report, when this man's draft to Palestine was cancelled on the grounds that he was a schizophrenic?
Mr. Stewart: The psychiatrists were aware of the man's previous history. He was then graded C.1 (Home Service) but his trouble was neurotic not psychotic. Following his behaviour on leave, of which his mother complained in February, 1948, there was a fourth psychiatric examination on 15th March, 1948, and the judgment was "no psychotic disorder."
I would particularly draw the attention of the House to the fact that the War Office were faced with four independent reports by Army psychiatrists, all to the effect that the man suffered from no psychotic disorder, although emotionally unstable. I would suggest, therefore, that we did watch this man's career most carefully and we did not, as my hon. Friend suggested, allow the matter to drift and we did not regard it "with unruffled tranquillity." It is tragic, and as far as one can see it was beyond the power of medical science to have foretold that on 22nd March, within a week of the last psychiatric examination, he should begin to
576
behave oddly. The moment that happened the man was put under the care of a psychiatrist on 23rd March and it was arranged to dispatch him to a mental hospital at Banstead. It was on the journey to Banstead in the train that the accident occurred.
I can only express my very profound sympathy with the parents and assure my hon. Friend that the Army psychiatric service did give the best attention to the man. Finally, the responsibility for throwing himself from the train—if that occurred—will be a matter for investigation when the men who were with him are brought before a court-martial.
The Question having been proposed after Ten o'Clock on Wednesday evening and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at Twenty-nine Minutes past One o'Clock.

PALESTINE
  Oil Pipeline
  Oil Pipeline
  Mandate (Termination)
  Mandate (Termination)
CYPRUS
  Students (United Kingdom)
  Students (United Kingdom)
  Social Services
  Social Services
  GAMBIA (HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT)
  GAMBIA (HOSPITAL EQUIPMENT)
  MALAYA (SULTAN OF JOHORE)
  MALAYA (SULTAN OF JOHORE)
  MILITARY BASES (LEASES TO U.S.A.)
  MILITARY BASES (LEASES TO U.S.A.)
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Fruit Baskets
  Fruit Baskets
  Bananas
  Bananas
  Condensed Milk
  Condensed Milk
  Export Allocations
  Export Allocations
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  Catering Establishments (Racial Discrimination)
  China Tea
  China Tea
POST OFFICE
  Savings Certificates (Infants)
  Savings Certificates (Infants)
  Telephone Service
  Telephone Service
  Food Parcels from Tasmania
  Food Parcels from Tasmania
  Departmental Expenditure (Hostels)
  Departmental Expenditure (Hostels)
  Posting Boxes
  Posting Boxes
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ALIEN EMPLOYEES)
  BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION (ALIEN EMPLOYEES)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (AFRICAN WORKERS' STRIKE)
  SOUTHERN RHODESIA (AFRICAN WORKERS' STRIKE)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Daily Diet (Calories)
  Daily Diet (Calories)
  Buoys, St. Austell Bay (Removal)
  Buoys, St. Austell Bay (Removal)
  Target, Woolacombe (Removal)
  Target, Woolacombe (Removal)
  Volunteer Reserve (Aircraft)
  Volunteer Reserve (Aircraft)
  Accidents, Topcliffe
  Accidents, Topcliffe
  Personnel, Egypt (Pay and Allowances)
  Personnel, Egypt (Pay and Allowances)
CIVIL AVIATION
  Employees (Overseas Protection)
  Employees (Overseas Protection)
  Aberdeen—London (Service)
  Aberdeen—London (Service)
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough (Staff)
  Aircraft Establishment, Farnborough (Staff)
  Pig Iron (Supplies)
  Pig Iron (Supplies)
BRITISH ARMY
  Training Team (Syria)
  Training Team (Syria)
  Commissions (Candidates)
  Commissions (Candidates)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Transport and Electricity Stocks
  Transport and Electricity Stocks
  Marshall Aid Plan (Private Enterprise)
  Marshall Aid Plan (Private Enterprise)
  TRAINING SHIP "ARETHUSA" (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  TRAINING SHIP "ARETHUSA" (CORPORAL PUNISHMENT)
  ANGLO-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP (PUBLICATIONS)
  ANGLO-SOVIET FRIENDSHIP (PUBLICATIONS)
FUEL AND POWER
  Standard Petrol Ration
  Standard Petrol Ration
  EXPORT COAL (QUALITY)
  EXPORT COAL (QUALITY)
  SCOTLAND (FENCING WIRE)
  SCOTLAND (FENCING WIRE)
  EDUCATIONAL BOOKS (IMPORT LICENCES)
  EDUCATIONAL BOOKS (IMPORT LICENCES)
  NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (MODEL)
  NEW HOUSE OF COMMONS CHAMBER (MODEL)
  EDUCATION (TEMPORARY TEACHERS)
  EDUCATION (TEMPORARY TEACHERS)
  BRISTOL (RE-CONSTRUCTION PLAN)
  BRISTOL (RE-CONSTRUCTION PLAN)

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

PARCELS FROM OVERSEAS.
2.5 p.m.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, if, in view of the reports of complaints with regard to parcels of food and/or clothing directed to recipients in the United Kingdom, they can now give information with regard to:

(a) Widespread allegations of failure of arrival of parcels where despatch has been notified, or of arrival in pilfered condition.

(b) Allegations that duty has been levied on "used" clothing.

(c) That Purchase Tax has in some cases been levied, and if they will state what are the present instructions with regard to the above.]

THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, a large number of the allegations of non-arrival of parcels from overseas are unfounded. In many cases, addressees in this country, having received advice, frequently by air mail, that a parcel is being sent to them, not realising the transport and other difficulties, assume far too quickly that the parcel which is in fact on the way has already been lost. It is important to bear in mind the vast increase in this traffic since pre-war days. It has risen from about 1,750,000 parcels a year in 1939 to about 17,000,000 a year at the present time. The majority are gift parcels. The volume of parcel traffic awaiting shipment to this country from various ports is frequently far in excess of the shipping capacity, and delay in despatch is often
460
inevitable and despatch in proper sequence most difficult.
Losses due to pilfering and damage in transit unfortunately sometimes occur, but the number of such losses is very small when related to the traffic concerned. Pilfering may occur either before or after the parcels reach this country. In the former case, the facts are brought to the notice of the overseas postal administration concerned, so that appropriate action can be taken. Where pilfering occurs in this country, inquiries are undertaken by specially trained investigating officers with a view to the detection and punishment of the offenders. Shipping companies and railway authorities give all possible assistance to avoid losses. The most important factor concerning damage to, and loss of contents from, overseas parcels is bad packing. Owing to bad packing, large numbers of parcels from overseas are received in a damaged condition. Frequently, contents are loose in the mail bags. Every effort is made to associate loose articles with the appropriate parcel, but this is not always possible and numerous items find their way to the Returned Parcel Offices to await a claimant. The task of reconstituting parcels to prevent further damage or loss imposes a considerable and serious burden on the Post Office in the way of manpower, paper and string.
As regards parts (b) and (c) of the noble Lord's question, the position under the law is that all imported clothing is liable to Customs duty unless it is despatched from a Commonwealth country and is admissible free of duty under the Imperial Preference provisions. Purchase Tax is also chargeable to countervail the internal tax on clothing; the only exempt categories are certain industrial garments and clothing for young children. Clothing which has been worn is not on that account exempt from either duty or tax, but these charges are waived as a concession in cases where the Customs officers who examine parcels are satisfied that the garments are genuine discards, which are not imported on purchase or for resale. Any provision for excusing articles from taxation merely because they had been washed or given token wear would invite obvious evasions, and in practice the concession is confined to parcels of clothing which from its appearance has obviously

461
been well worn. I apologise for the length of the reply, but I trust that it will satisfy the noble Lord.
LORD BARNBY: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply, but arising out of it may I ask, in view of the generosity of the people who send these gifts, particularly from the United States, whether it would be possible for him to make representations in the appropriate quarter in regard to parts (b) and (c) of my question? Perhaps it might be possible for particularly lenient treatment, and to allow some measure of flexibility in such cases. There is deep disappointment in this matter in the United States on the part of these generous senders and also among recipients in this country.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will certainly draw the attention of the Department concerned to the matter raised by the noble Lord.

IRISH VOLUNTEERS AND UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT.
2.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, whether the negotiations with the Government of Eire have resulted in any effective action to bring those Volunteers from Eire who were previously debarred from special benefit under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act, 1946, within the scope of the arrangement for the payment of benefit.]
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am glad to say that the negotiations with the Government of Eire have resulted in bringing those Eire volunteers discharged in the summer of 1945 within the scope of the arrangements under the Unemployment Insurance (Eire Volunteers) Act, 1946, and Part II of the corresponding Unemployment Insurance Act, 1946, in Eire. It has been possible, after consultation, to give a wider interpretation to the terms of the two Acts. The effect of this is to bridge the gap caused by the date on which those Acts were brought into operation and to enable Eire volunteers who were demobilised on or after July 23,
462
1945, to satisfy the contribution condition subject to thirty weeks' service in the British Forces commencing on any date between September 3, 1939, and August 15, 1945.
The widest publicity has been given by the Government of Eire to this change, and we have co-operated on this side. I am happy to inform your Lordships that, as a result, 189 claims have been received, 170 of which have been allowed. Of the remaining cases, only nine have been rejected on the grounds that the contribution conditions were not satisfied, and ten have failed because there was, in fact, no service with the British Forces during the period of hostilities. Your Lordships will be interested to know that altogether, up to March 31, 1948, 4,461 successful claims to special benefit have been made.
THE EARL OF CORK AND ORREEY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government, in the name of those who benefit by the act of justice which has now been done. It will bring great satisfaction to many Irish homes, the menfolk of which have long traditions with the British Forces and a glorious career behind them. I should also like to think the Leader of the House for the interest he has taken in this matter.

SERVICE DESERTERS.
2.11 p.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
[The question was as follows:
To ask His Majesty's Government, how many deserters are still at large, and whether His Majesty's Government contemplate any change of policy in this matter.]
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (VISCOUNT ADDISON): My Lords, nominally, approximately 20,000 deserters from the Forces are now outstanding. A recent analysis of this total, however, establishes that of these over 10,000 were men who had home addresses outside this country when they joined the Services. Most of these have probably found their way back to their former homes, where we have no control over them. For other reasons, too, the nominal total is probably too high For example, it is frequently found that a

463
single individual has deserted more than once, having re-entered the Forces under an assumed name. For these reasons it is doubtful, in the view of the Government, whether the number of deserters at large in this country is in fact much higher than 8,000. No change in policy is contemplated.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, while thanking the noble Viscount for that comprehensive reply may I ask him the following supplementary questions? For how much longer are His Majesty's Government prepared to tolerate the existence in this country of a minimum number of 8,000 deserters, who are a danger not only to themselves but to the community, and who are adding to the burden placed upon our overtaxed police force? May it not be time for the Government to take the risk of granting now the amnesty which they must one day inevitably grant, before these men lose the last shreds of their self-respect and degenerate into habitual criminals?
VISCOUNT ADDISON: My Lords, all I can say is that all the considerations which the noble Lord has mentioned have been repeatedly before us. We shall do our best.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Viscount whether he will transmit those considerations again to his colleagues, because there is increasing anxiety about these large bodies of men who are potential outlaws in the country at the present time.
VISCOUNT ADDISON: Yes; I am afraid that I am all too painfully aware of the circumstances which the noble Marquess has just mentioned.

ARMY AND AIR FORCE (ANNUAL) BILL.
2.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD NATHAN): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Nathan.)
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, before this Bill is read a third time, may I crave the indulgence of the House with regard to one point which I should have raised on the Committee stage? I owe the House an apology for not raising it then and I must also apologise to the noble Lord opposite. That point is the distinction, or should I say the disparity, which it appears is being made in favour of civilian members of the Control Commission who have never been under military law, as opposed to those who have. Your Lordships will remember that some two years ago a hue and cry was created in this country about the cost of the Control Commission. If I remember rightly, the figure given was somewhere in the neighbourhood of £80,000,000. Recently, too, we have had an outcry raised in connection with the Boydell case and the War Office; and you will no doubt recall that in the Press it was stated that the War Office seemed to have been caught napping. Apparently the original outcry about cost has been completely forgotten. In the past, rightly or wrongly, a great deal of mud has been slung at both the War Office and the Control Commission, and I am sure your Lordships will agree that the Government should do everything they can to clarify the position now. From the final answer given in another place by the Attorney-General during the Committee stage of the Bill, it would appear that the position with regard to the C.C.G. whole-time civilians, as opposed to those who have been demobilised from the Services, remains very unsatisfactory.
May I use my own case as an illustration? Before I do so, however, may I say that I trust I shall not give the impression that I was either a black marketeer or that I committed any other offence? I went to Germany as a civilian in December, 1945, two months after being demobilised. I had been in this country for some considerable time before that, and for that very reason I could never have come under military law, or under any military discipline, for any offence I might have committed while in Germany. In giving an answer on this point the Attorney-General stated that there appeared to be no means by which a civilian could be extradited or brought home, or caught at home after he had left. The Attorney-General also said:

465
"Unfortunately, it has been construed, whether rightly or not, as applying only to misdemeanours, and, another unfortunate thing, it seems still to be subject to the rule that there must be a Grand Jury presentment for trial to take place."
In view of those remarks, it would appear that if I, as a civilian member of the Commission, had committed an offence amounting to more than a misdemeanour, I could have come home (as I did last September) apparently—if I may use what will perhaps be thought to be a slang term—having "got away with it." Surely, that sort of position should be prevented now, rather than that we should wait for such a case to occur. May I suggest that the old adage that "prevention is better than cure" should operate here?
It is possible that such an offence might have been committed by a member of the Control Commission who had previously been a member of the Services and who had recently been demobilised. May I again quote from the Attorney-General's speech in another place? He said:
"There may be cases in which, as a result of some criminal process, a person in the service of His Majesty has succeeded in obtaining money in Germany and has put it in an anonymous account in a bank, perhaps in the name of a German, and left it there until he has been discharged from the Army for three months. Having been discharged for three months, and knowing that under the existing law he is immune from prosecution, he then says, 'I have got some money in Germany. Kindly arrange for it to be sent to me.' While we felt that it was necessary to have some time limit, we thought as quite considerable sums might occasionally be involved, a year or even two years might not be enough. People might be prepared to let the money lie in Germany for two years in order to avoid the risk of prosecution. We had to draw the line somewhere and we thought that the right line was the line already laid down in Section 161 of the Statute, that is, three years. Honourable Members will remember that there is no time limit to prosecution in the ordinary criminal law, except in particular cases."
That is the case of a man who has been demobilised and who committed an offence before he was demobilised. I suggest that there is a very unfair disparity created in favour of a person who has been out there as a whole-time civilian, such as myself. It appears that legislation of some sort is necessary to prevent that disparity in future.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, I recognise that the matter to which the noble Earl refers is one that should be looked into
466
and I will certainly see that it is brought to the attention of my noble friend, the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is responsible for the Control Commission amongst other matters relating to German affairs. It would not be appropriate, however, to deal with it on this Bill, which relates to discipline in and regulations for the Army and Air Force.
THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: While thanking the noble Lord for his reply, I sincerely trust that something will be done.
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
2.28 p.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for Second Reading, moved yesterday by the Lord Chancellor.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, and my noble and learned friend, Lord Simon, yesterday made certain flattering remarks about the part I may or may not have taken in the production of this Bill. Being very human, I like praise, even when it is undeserved; but in this case it is so flagrantly undeserved that I have at the outset to make a definite disclaimer. The Bill of 1938 and the Bill of 1948 are not the work of any individual Home Secretary. They are not the work of any individual Government. They are the result of almost half a century of experience in the field of penal reform and of experiments and actual work in the prisons and in the courts by men and women who have been faced with these problems at first hand. If any praise be due for the provisions of this Bill, it is to those many men and women, social workers, expert inquirers, several of whom are members of this House, who have made it possible to gather together in sixty or seventy clauses the experiences or this half century of practical experiment and practical social work
When I look on the results of this fifty years' experience, I deduce from them one or two definite lessons. I deduce from them, first of all, the fact which is becoming more and more apparent and to which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor alluded yesterday of

467
the complexity of penal questions. Penal questions cannot be dealt with in any rough and ready way. Experience shows that no single sentiment or element, such as fear, particularly fear of savage punishments, has proved in the past to be an effective deterrent. The merit of this Bill is that it gathers together these experiences and attempts to make a new approach to penal questions upon a much wider front.
For instance, it sets aside several of the old rough and ready methods which in some cases have been proved to be ineffective and in other cases have been proved to be actually harmful. Perhaps the most conspicuous case is that of short terms of imprisonment for young offenders. The Bill abolishes another of these rough and ready methods, the method of judicial whipping. It proposes the abolition of judicial whipping, not upon any sentimental grounds, but upon such evidence as is available that it is not a necessary deterrent, and that in Scotland, where it is not used for crimes of robbery with violence, those particular crimes of violence are less common than they are in England. The Bill further proposes a development on the lines of greater facilities for medical inspection and treatment, once again on the basis that penal questions have to be dealt with individually and that one cannot generalise as if dealing with a common herd.
This penal experience has in recent years been confirmed in what seems to me a very unexpected direction. I refer to the experiences of the Fighting Services during the war. In former wars Service delinquency was treated in a very rough and ready way. Severe penalties were enacted, and cases were not specially distinguished one from another. In the last war a different method was adopted—namely, that of taking cases individually, of careful investigation into them, and of applying the particular methods that were most suitable to reclaiming the particular delinquent or deserter. These practices were adopted for no sentimental reasons. They were adopted, so my Service friends tell me, for the purpose of making as effective use as possible of the man-power available in the three Services. Sir Ronald Adam, the Adjutant-General for a substantial
468
period during the war years (I think your Lordships will agree that it is worth my quoting his words, for they bear so directly on the spirit that I believe underlies the main provisions of this Bill) said this at the end of the war:
"We had continual cases in which the commanding officer sent up for court martial young men of seventeen or eighteen who were said to be quite hopeless; they would never be any good; they were just going from one trouble to another. We said: 'For goodness sake do not court martial them. Send them to us for training.' And we set up three training units, with picked officers and N.C.O.'s. The C.O. got hold of the young man's father and mother and best girl, and got them on the young man's side. The young man was not frightened of the C.O. He had the right to go to him at any time of the day without acquainting the sergeant-major or anybody else. We tried to make the training interesting and exciting, and the result was that almost 80 per cent. of those so-called helpless young men became satisfactory soldiers, and a great many of them became N.C.O.'s. This was one of the most successful things that we did during the war."
Could there be a better example of the success of concentrating on the individual offender and of using the best methods of reclamation for restoring his self-respect?
This Bill tries to achieve these objects by abolishing, or greatly restricting, the old rough and ready methods of treating criminals in herds. It assumes, in fact, that no criminal is irreclaimable, and that the best protection for the community is to reclaim him by wise methods of treatment. I hope I have said enough to show that the Bill, so far from being the result of superficial sentiment or wishful thinking, is the result of hard, practical experience, and of hard practical experience that has not only been established in the field of penal treatment, but in the actual experience of the three Fighting Services during the war.
I would gladly have ended my speech at this point; I would gladly have restricted it to these fundamental principles of the Bill, in my view so very important in the history of our penal methods. But I fear that, in view of the interest that has been concentrated on the single question of the death penalty, and the speeches that were delivered upon it yesterday, it is inevitable that one who, like myself, differs in his view from a great many of his noble friends, should express his view, particularly when it runs counter to so many of the observations and arguments delivered yesterday. And

469
so, if your Lordships will bear with me, I will say something about the death penalty, and I will try as best I can to reserve the details of my argument on Clause 1 until we come to the Committee stage.
Let me first say this. Let us set aside from our minds any idea that this is a controversy between sentiment on the one side and legalism on the other; that those of us, for instance, who hold the views that I hold are sentimentalists and do not think of the victims of these horrible crimes, but are thinking only of making the way easy for the lives of despicable criminals. I hope that those who know me will not be tempted into thinking that I am a fanatical sentimentalist. Equally, I do not take the view that many noble Lords who do not agree with me are hardhearted reactionaries. For instance, there is my old friend Lord Oaksey, who so much impressed the House last night with the speech he made on the opposite side to me. There is no man, I am sure, more humane than he, no man less open to the charge of being an antiquated reactionary. Let us, therefore, approach this question upon its merits, as dispassionately as we can, and so far as is possible give up appeals to sentiment on either side.
Having said that, let me make another preliminary observation. I cannot help expressing my own regret that the Government have adopted on this question the procedure they have adopted. I feel that it has stirred up the maximum of excitement; that it has left both Houses in an atmosphere of doubt and obscurity, and that it runs the risk of creating a clash between the two Houses. I always took the view that the wise course for dealing with so grave a question as the death penalty would have been to introduce a separate Bill on the matter. I venture to suggest that, if that were impossible, it was a mistake to leave the discussion of the question until the eleventh hour of the debates in another place; that it would have been much better to have had a Committee discussion some weeks ago, enabling public opinion to concentrate upon the question and not to be faced with what was, to many people, a sudden issue at the last moment. The result has been that many people find themselves in a considerable difficulty. I could not help thinking yes-
470
terday that many noble Lords must find themselves in some difficulty after the Lord Chancellor's speech. There was the Lord Chancellor, head of the Judiciary, obviously opposed to the experiment, and yet recommending to the House that we should make it. That confirms my view that it would have been much wiser to adopt a different procedure. As it is, however, this procedure has been adopted, and we shall be faced on the Committee stage at the beginning of June with a definite issue upon Clause 1.
When we reach Clause 1, let us have the fullest possible debate. I should like to see the question discussed in detail from every angle. This is perhaps the one place in the world where such a discussion can take place. I would hope, also, that between now and the Committee stage the Government will do what I think they ought to have done before; that is, to issue a White Paper upon the whole question. By that, I mean a White Paper in which will be set out the actual position in the principal comparable foreign countries. One or two of the remarks of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor yesterday made me think that there was need for such an authorised statement of the present position abroad. He quoted for instance, the case of Belgium. I am going to say a word or two-about that later, and I think he will see that there is some doubt as to the statement he made yesterday. In any case, before this House comes to a decision upon this grave question we ought to have before us the fullest information available on the subject—the experiences of foreign countries, and an analysis of the murders that have taken place in this country, say, since the First World War.
At one time there were analyses of this kind showing, at any rate in the past, how very small was the number of criminal's that I think most of us would say were irreclaimable. I can see no reason why we should not have, before the Committee stage, an analysis of this kind. Also, I think we should have a detailed statement of the way in which murderers have actually been dealt with. By that, I mean an amplification of the information which was asked for yesterday by my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon, setting out in categories the way in which sentences had been commuted, and also giving us any available information about the subsequent

471
careers of the individual murderers. Information of that kind certainly exists, for this reason, if for no other: that, as noble Lords know, murderers released after a period are released only upon licence. The Home Secretary of the day has in most cases full information as to what is happening. I feel that if we could have this information, and if we could then have the detailed discussion which I think is so necessary, we should on both sides be able to face the ineluctable facts, and avoid what is always the danger in debates of this kind, an atmosphere of heat, sentiment and, sometimes, almost hysteria.
Passing from these two general observations, with regard to the actual question itself, I will not attempt to go into all the many arguments for and against the change. We must leave many of them to the Committee stage. I will take only two which seem to me to be the two strongest arguments against the experiment of suspending the death penalty for five years. I take, first, the argument that was effectively made in another place by Sir John Anderson—that there is no alternative punishment for really dangerous murderers, and that we are faced with the dilemma that if the usual practice is adopted, under which a murderer is released upon good conduct after a period of years, dangerous criminals will be thrown loose upon the community but, on the other hand, that if these men are not released they will have no further hope in life and their very existence will run counter to all the reforming methods now being adopted in our prisons.
I do not accept that dilemma. I speak, like two of the former speakers in this debate, as an ex-Home Secretary. I tried to take a great interest in these questions when I was at the Home Office and I have not ceased to take an interest in them since I have been out of office. I had, for instance, the opportunity during the war of studying on the Continent, in Spain, very different methods from our own. These experiences have led me to this conclusion. I believe that it is perfectly possible, without damage to the reforming policy that we are now adopting in prisons, to keep a really dangerous criminal detained for much longer periods than is at present the case. I feel, therefore, that if the death penalty is suspended it will be necessary for the Home Secretary to make
472
it perfectly clear that there is no automatic release of any kind for murderers, and that he will have no hesitation in keeping the really dangerous murderer in prison for twenty or twenty-five years. That is what is actually happening in certain countries where the death penalty has already been abrogated. It happens, for instance, in Belgium and in Switzerland.
Here I come to the point that I mentioned earlier in connection with what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said yesterday about Belgium. He made the argument that one must compare like with like, and that if life imprisonment was to be a really effective deterrent any comparison must be between what is actually happening in foreign countries and what is likely to happen here. I think I am not misrepresenting the noble and learned Viscount's argument. He went on to say that in Belgium a convicted murderer is condemned to ten years of solitary confinement before he becomes subject to the ordinary prison conditions. I have tried to inform myself as to what is the present position in Belgium. I understand that it is perfectly true that there is a period of solitary confinement—not, I am informed, for ten years—but that the solitary confinement does not mean what I certainly understood it to mean from the Lord Chancellor's argument of yesterday. It means that during this period the prisoner works in his cell, but not in community with the other prisoners. It means, however, that he has frequent visits, that his family are allowed to visit him, and that he has many communications with the outer world—a very different situation from that which we have associated with solitary confinement in the past.
But whatever may be the position in Belgium, there is the significant case of Switzerland. Switzerland actually abolished the death penalty by law. In certain of the cantons, the death penalty had previously been in abeyance for some time. The abolition of the death penalty took place during the war, when it might have been imagined that crimes of violence, even in a neutral country, would be rising. No evil results followed—but for the moment that is not my main argument. My main argument is that in Switzerland the murderer is treated much as I believe he should be treated here. He serves his sentence with the

473
other prisoners; his release depends upon his good conduct. And I am informed from authoritative sources in Switzerland that in actual practice, in many cases, the murderer is found to be more easy to reclaim than many other types of criminal. That, for those who follow closely these questions of crime, creates no surprise. If one comes to analyse the lives of murderers in this country—and that is the kind of analysis I should like to see in the White Paper—one finds that a large percentage of them are first offenders. One finds in practice, therefore, that in the cases where the sentences have been commuted the released murderers have not proved to be a danger to the community; and in many cases they have made good. I am aware of the fact that there was a case—the only one that has been brought to my attention—of a murderer who was released during the war and who committed another murder.
VISCOUNT SIMON: In Switzerland?
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: No, here in England. I believe that it is a unique case in modern criminal statistics. The man was released for war reasons; he was released to go into the Army—as, indeed, were many other dangerous criminals, for better or for worse. He was sent into the Army with little or no aftercare for him, and in a fit of passion he committed another murder. I claim that a case like that is so abnormal that it does not vitiate my general argument that murderers, taken as a whole—I am excluding a few cases for which I have admitted that special precautions are necessary—are as reclaimable as, perhaps sometimes more reclaimable than, some of the other most serious criminals.
I pass from this argument, that there is no alternative punishment available for murder if we abolish the death penalty, to what I believe to be the second strongest argument against making any change. I refer to the argument that this is not the time for the change. There is the undeniable fact that crimes of violence have increased to a formidable extent. They always do increase after a great upheaval such as: he war. I would not admit that long after the war is ended they are likely to take a turn in the opposite direction. It is indeed a, formidable argument that, with crimes of violence increasing as they are, it is dangerous for the com-
474
munity and unfair to the police to make even this limited experience for five years. I wonder whether those who are opposed to a change will ever think the time suitable for a change. I hope that I am not misrepresenting some of them when I say that I can almost hear them saying, "But suppose the statistics of violent crime take a turn for the better. That shows how effective the death penalty is, how well things are going. Let: sleeping dogs lie. Let us risk no change." Even if they do not say that, I feel that the argument goes too far. It goes too far in view of the provisions and the principles of this Bill. This Bill is approaching these very questions of crime and delinquency in a different way. It is based on the fact, to which I alluded an the beginning of my speech, that crime is a very complicated affair. It has to be approached from many directions. The real deterrent is not a particular penalty but the raising, swiftly, if possible gradually, if not, of the whole social attitude towards crime and delinquency.
I do not stop to argue this consideration at the moment, but I have the profound feeling that crime rises or falls in a country according to the general attitude of society. I myself believe that 999 out of 1,000 people do not refrain from crime because they fear a particular penalty; I believe they refrain because it is the general atmosphere of this country at the time. If that be so, it seems to me vitally important that we should do nothing to lower or to degrade this standard, and that in everything we do we should do our utmost to raise it. As I see it, the Bill attempts to raise it. It attempts to show to the public and to the world an large that the rational approach to crime is the wise approach, and that the old rough and ready punishments and remedies of the past are out of date. If that be so, it seems to me that the continuance of executions with all their inevitable attendant horrors goes in the very opposite direction. It degrades the public: attitude to the profound gravities of crime It surrounds with an atmosphere of unhealthy melodrama a particular form of crime. In my view, it does not—and I venture to say this in answer to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said yesterday—enhance the majesty of the law. In my view, it is not justified by the experiences of coun-

475
tries overseas. I hope to elaborate this part of my argument in greater detail upon the Committee stage. It leaves the mark of Cain upon the family of the executed man.
Moreover, I believe that it is unjustifiable to abandon any criminal as beyond hope. When I make that claim, it may be that I find myself differing from many noble Lords sitting here to-day, but I profoundly believe that, human nature being what it is and the complexities of crime being what they are, the time has passed when we can depend upon an infallible and inflexible judgment, and abandon the hope that there is a chance of reforming even one of these terrible murderers. Lastly, whilst I fully realise the gravity of the criminal statistics, whilst I feel as strongly as any noble Lord that it is essential that the community should be protected, whilst I agree with every noble Lord who has so far spoken that we must keep constantly in mind the fate of the victim as well as the fate of the criminal, I feel profoundly the need for this country, in a brutal, disillusioned world, to set the highest standard of humane conduct and to show its respect for the sanctity of human life, not by following the example of those who take it, but by wise methods of preventing crime and redoubled efforts for reforming even the worst of criminals.
3.9 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READING: My Lords, in spite of the noble Viscount's emphatic disclaimer, there will be few persons, either in your Lordships' House or in the country, who, while recognising the services of his collaborators and advisers, will not continue to associate his name with the policy which culminates in the Bill that we are discussing to-day. If I may say so, while the noble Viscount held that immensely exacting office of Secretary of State for Home Affairs, he showed an innate humanity of outlook in many directions, and not least in his solicitude for those members of or exiles from society of which the population of our prisons is composed. The noble Viscount has done your Lordships a further service to-day by stating with so much conviction, and yet with so much moderation, the full terms of the case in favour of abolition, which has not yet been entirely proclaimed. Whatever may be the noble
476
Viscount's own view upon capital punishment, I think he owes no gratitude to those who, in another place, grafted upon the Bill this clause abolishing capital punishment rather than incorporate it in a separate measure. Their action has unfortunately done much to set out of focus the real underlying purpose of this particular Bill and to distract public attention from its central aim, with which we should all be in agreement—namely, that the penal system of this country must be increasingly based upon reformation, rather than on retribution. But, while accepting the general principle—and, indeed, most warmly welcoming it—it may be permissible to express a wonder and a certain degree of doubt as to a few of its constituent proposals, always bearing in mind the conditions obtaining at this moment of its introduction.
We must not forget that the earlier Criminal Justice Bill was introduced in the very different circumstances of 1938. This Bill takes shape at a time when we are affected by a shortage of man-power, by a shortage of materials, and by an outbreak of lawlessness and lack of observance of even the smallest aspects of the law that has probably been unparalleled for many years. It is not good policy to put Utopia into a Statute unless at the same time you are in a position to put it into operation. Lately we have seen a good deal of Bills containing more or less grandiose schemes which have received the assent in general terms of the House but in regard to which we are bound—not from any Party outlook but in the national interest—to wonder to ourselves whether there exist the persons required to put these measures into effective operation and, if they exist, whether they have arrived within an appreciable distance of the state of training for the discharge of their particular function which means that these measures are not visions but realities.
There is one other aspect. The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said yesterday that the great difficulty of examining a scheme of this kind is the inevitable conflict between the deterrent and the reformative aspects. The ratio of those two factors presumably depends upon the immediate conditions obtaining in the society to which they are to be applied. One noble Lord (I think it was Lord Kershaw) said yesterday, very truly, that there is no longer a criminal

477
class. But there are criminals of all classes; there are persons who are technically criminals because they have committed a crime, and there are other persons who commit crimes because they are basically criminal. Until we have uprooted from human nature and from the environment in which people live the diverse factors which lead men to commit crime, although upon many people we may produce a result by a system of reformation, there is likely to remain a hard core upon few of whom the desired effect will be produced. Therefore, without being hidebound, or out of date, or prejudiced, in looking at the system which is being introduced I think we must keep in our minds the reflection that there still remains a difference between a convict establishment and a Butlin's Camp. If people commit crimes against society they must be made to realise that society will call them to account, not only in their own persons but in order to deter others from following their example.
There is one other aspect of this Bill which reproduces an inveterate tendency in this country to call things by a different name, and to assume that by so doing you have changed their character. I cite only one example to your Lordships. By the provisions of this Bill it is forbidden to use a familiar if perhaps never too apt term—that of "criminal lunatic," and to substitute for it a term novel and certainly inapt—namely, "a Broadmoor patient." I use that illustration only as an example of what we have to avoid; that is, thinking that merely by calling a particular establishment by a different name, we have changed the whole atmosphere of that establishment and produced something new and irreproachable.
It is inevitable that there should be some criticism, however superficial, of a Bill which introduces so many and so great changes, but of the spirit which lies behind the Bill the whole of your Lordships' House will approve. As I have already said, so much attention has been focused upon one clause (and that the first clause) that I cannot cease without making some reference to it. Nobody likes the death penalty; nobody wants to see it inflicted; nobody wants to see a state of society in which it is necessary to inflict it. But to say that does not mean that we have all arrived at the conclusion that that stage has now been reached. The
478
noble Viscount who has just spoken said, so justly, that this is not a subject to discuss upon the basis of a conflict between sentiment and legalism. It would be well if that remark were widely diffused and generally observed. A discussion on a matter of this kind, a matter of grave and anxious import, is not assisted by persons who desire to support their case by making statements to such effect as that the only motive which can lead people to desire the continuance of capital punishment is stubborn lack of heart. And yet, in another place, that was solemnly advanced as a proposition. Nor is discussion of this matter—such a prolonged and serious discussion as will have to take place in Committee—assisted by the remark—as again I read it was said in another place—that an advocate of abolition had spoken with what was described as "fire in the belly." It might be as good commendation for anyone speaking on a matter of this son: to say that he lad spoken "with water on the brain."
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has referred to two of the main objections to the clause as it stands in the Bill. He said, in regard to the first, dealing with the nature of the alternative punishment that it was possible to apply, that it might be that, instead of having the death sentence passed upon him, a man could be sentenced to 20 or 25 years of imprisonment—in fact that the stage was being approached where "imprisonment for life" means what it says. Much depends upon the conditions in which: hat sentence would be carried out. It is not an attractive prospect, or one in conformity with the principles of the Bill, to have terms of imprisonment extended to such lengthy periods. The noble Viscount, again, pointed to the fact that so few persons who had committed a murder broke out a second time. May there not be a reason for that? May it not be that, so long as capital punishment exists, a man does not commit murder twice because he has been executed for it the first time? In all seriousness, I suggest that, when you say that it is not often a man is known to commit murder a second time, that may well be one of the contributing reasons.
The noble Viscount also spoke of the general atmosphere of society. Of course that has, and must have, a considerable, indeed a predominating, influence upon the whole field of penal law. Yet, at the

479
same time, that leaves out of account what the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, called attention to yesterday—the unique character alike of the crime of murder and of the type of punishment which under present conditions we apply to it. I thought, if I may say so, that there was much attraction in the proposal made by the noble Viscount, that a White Paper should be prepared upon the lines which he indicated. I would hope that that White Paper would contain something else—which the noble Viscount touched upon in a slightly different connection—over and above those particulars he required, and would give, in relation to the foreign countries cited, as definite particulars as possible of the exact circumstances of the imprisonment which is meted out in place of execution to condemned murderers.
I have studied with considerable care the report of the debate on this subject in another place, and while I realise the seriousness of the whole question, while I want, as an individual, to give every possible weight to arguments on both sides, I cannot help thinking that the argument in favour of the clause was largely given away in the first two or three sentences of the debate to which my noble friend Viscount Samuel referred yesterday. The peculiar aspect of the matter is this: that it is proposed by those who support the clause as it now stands to make it applicable only to murder, and to allow the death sentence to continue in the cases of three exceptions, treachery, piracy and sabotage in His Majesty's dockyards. Where is the logic in that? If, as was done in a few sentences after these exceptions had been proclaimed, the basis of the attack upon capital punishment was laid upon the sanctity of human life, then we have to ask ourselves: Is the life of a man who deliberately, and over a long period, poisons his lodger, in order to get her insurance money, sacred, and the life of a man who commits treachery not sacred? Is the life of a man who murders a series of wives sacred, and the life of a man who commits piracy not sacred? Is the life of a man who shoots a policeman in the execution of his duty sacred, and the life of a man who commits sabotage in one of His Majesty's dockyards not sacred?
480
Having recognised these exceptions, how is it possible to put this case on the basis of the sanctity of human life? Surely those exceptions carry the matter still further, because (and in this matter we are all of one mind) the overwhelming purpose is to discover whether capital punishment is or is not a deterrent. If it is not a deterrent, if it does not keep anyone from committing the crime, what is the object in keeping it in existence in regard to the three crimes of treachery, sabotage and piracy? What is the purpose of preserving the capital sentence in those three cases if you are prepared to admit that it is not a deterrent? But if it is a deterrent, then the whole case for its abolition goes at one swoop.
We shall have a Committee stage of this Bill and I should be sorry to take up your Lordships' time by developing at greater length that aspect of the matter. I would say only this. Certain alternatives or compromises have been suggested in various quarters. One is that we should have degrees of murder. My sympathy would go out to the draftsman who set about drafting for a Criminal Justice Bill the various categories into which murder would fall. It is said that we might have two categories. Why only two? Why not twenty? The permutations and combinations, alike of the motives and of the character of murder, are infinite. We can surely never reduce to the terms of an Act of Parliament words which will draw an adequate distinction between the various degrees. And who is to fix the degree? Is it to be the person who initiates the prosecution? Is he to say to an accused man: "You are to be indicted for murder in Class I, or Class II, or Class VII"? Or are the miserable jury to be asked, in addition to their already overwhelming responsibilities, to draw a distinction between the different degrees in a particular case? Another suggestion has been made in some quarters, that although we might abolish capital punishment for a first murder, we should impose it for a second. And that suggestion appears to be put forward seriously, and even to be resolutely maintained. In the course of the discussions on electoral reform we have heard of "One man, one vote," and the abolition of plural voting. Are we now to start legislating on the basis of "One man, one murder" and the abolition of plural murdering?

481
Your Lordships will no doubt accord to the Bill at this time a favourable Second Reading, but that does not mean that, when the Committee stage comes, whatever support your Lordships may give to the general underlying reformative principle of the Bill, you will not consider closely whether you are able to accept the somewhat tentative invitation held out by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—namely, to make an experiment with the public safety which it is against the conviction of the Government to make, which it is against the personal opinion of the chief legal adviser of the Government, the Lord Chancellor himself, to make, and which I believe is profoundly against the feeling of the country as a whole. When the moment comes, this House will no doubt consider the matter calmly, gravely and objectively, neither blinded by sentiment nor shaken by passion, but in the sole interest, so far as it conceives it after anxious and full deliberation, of the public good.
3.35 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF TRURO: My Lords, I think we are agreed that the general humanitarian tendency of this Bill is warmly to be welcomed. Details will have to be examined with care and attention, but we entirely approve the increased concentration of effort upon the reform and recovery and restoration of the offender. "No criminal irreclaimable," is indeed a noble ideal, and we must never forget it, even when other considerations may have to be taken into account as well. The problem of punishment is philosophically a difficult one. Punishment should be either deterrent or reformative, or both, and it should also be appropriate to the crime. Every schoolboy knows that some punishments may be too severe upon an alleged mismonduct, and some may be too light. According to the Statute Book hitherto, the appropriate punishment for cold-blooded murder is death—a very ancient idea.
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
That has appealed to man as at least an approximation to justice. "Murder deserves death," is what the English law has been saying, and it thus has encouraged people to feel, as most people do in fact feel, that murder is so a dreadful crime that it deserves the
482
extreme penalty. And now the law proposes to lighten that penalty. What will be the effect on the ordinary mind, and still more on the criminal mind? Will it not be inevitably to suggest that the responsible authority does not regard murder as quite so dreadful a crime after all? It is most important to maintain in the public mind a strong sense of justice. If a man deliberately and wantonly deprives another of his life, does not justice say that he deserves to die? It may be answered that we may go on saying that such a man deserves to die, even if we abolish the death penalty. But what we say counts little as compared with what we do. If we abolish the death penalty, the potential criminal will conclude, whatever we say to him, that we take a less serious view of the matter.
Now I am sure that we all most earnestly desire to have regard to mercy as well as to justice. And I submit that the best way of having due regard to both, the best way that has been so far discovered, is to keep the law affirming that the murderer deserves to die, while at the same time encouraging the Home Secretary to put into the most conscientious operation his power of reprieve. The present Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, said on April 15 in another place:
"The administration of the law of this country has become increasingly generous in this respect."
The fullest consideration is being given by the Home Secretary to every mitigating circumstance: to provocation, for example. In the year 1947 nine offenders were executed and fifteen were reprieved. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, told us yesterday that over he last twelve years the average numbers were ten criminals executed each year, and eleven reprieved. The proportion of reprieved last year, therefore, is comparatively higher, and I think we may take last year's figure as significant of the tendency of the administration of the law: the tendency towards increasing generosity, Why not let this increasing generosity of the law go on operating at this point? I feel sure that we can trust the Home Secretary's judgment entirely as regards the first offender—the special case in the mind of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, a few moments ago. Surely this is the most appropriate point at which to give due consideration to the claims of mercy,

483
which we all so earnestly desire should be given.
The removal of the death penalty from the Statute Book seems to me to be the removal of a great deterrent. Statistics quoted from other countries really require a trained statistician for their interpretation. My early mathematical training leads be to suppose that very little can be deduced from such meagre data. My own feeling seems to me to be a surer guide. I recognise sufficient criminal tendencies in myself, and I cannot regard the criminal as an altogether different being. I say unhesitatingly that the death penalty would be a great deterrent to me if I were contemplating murder. A term of imprisonment, however long, is, to my mind, in an altogether different category. I should feel that I could make play with modern humanitarian tendencies, and either by showing good behaviour, or by making myself a nuisance—or more probably by alternating between the two—I should count on getting along tolerably well. And even if the Home Secretary had issued a warning that my imprisonment might extend to twenty or twenty-five years, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, suggested in his most weighty speech, I am not sure that I would take that warning very seriously. But death by hanging is just horrible and loathsome, quick and almost painless though it be. That is what I instinctively feel, and I am sure the whole criminal world agrees with me.
That brings me to an argument pressed in another place. It was urged that hanging is such a dreadful job for the hangman. I am afraid it is. But surely modern science could make the whole miserable process much less crude. I know nothing about the technique of hanging, but certainly modern science could make it such that the final act of the hangman was clearly to him an act of duty comparable to that of an artilleryman bombarding the enemy in battle. Another argument often brought forward refers to that class of murderers who are exhibitionists. It is said that the whole publicity of a murder trial is an attraction for them and is a positive inducement to crime. If that is so, then surely the remedy is not to allow such morbid publicity in the case of murder trials. There are, in short, various improvements that can be suggested in the
484
whole process of punishing which would not involve the abolition of the death penalty altogether.
I conclude with what is to me, as it was to several noble Lords who spoke yesterday, the most practical difficulty in the way of abolishing the death penalty. Not only do I feel bound to take the view that it is a real and important deterrent, but the police themselves take that view. The police are our agents in this most unpleasant and dangerous task of dealing with desperate and violent men. The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, said just now that 999 out of every 1,000 of our citizens are not deterred from crime by any fear of punishment, but on higher grounds. Even if one out of every 1,000 must be put in the exceptional class, that amounts to about 4,000 people in this country—4,000 people who are actuated by different motives. The police are our agents for dealing with these dangerous and violent men. This nation has rather a habit, I am sorry to say, of sending its agents on dangerous errands under great disadvantages. It happens in the early stages of every war. We send out small forces to engage enemies more numerous and much better equipped. It does not do. In the end we have to build up numbers and equipment incomparably more adequate. But in the meanwhile hundreds of valuable lives are prematurely sacrificed. The nation is far too optimistic in the face of its relentless enemies. Merely to abolish the death penalty, as Clause 1 proposes, and to leave it at that—to do nothing more, for instance, to prevent criminals possessing firearms while our police go about habitually unarmed—is not fair to a gallant and conscientious body of men, who justly command the respect, as they earn the gratitude, of the whole community.
The proposal before us is to do away with the death penalty for a trial period of five years. I think there would be a good deal to be said, on the contrary, for enlarging the possible application of that penalty for a five years' period at this time of unusual unsettlement and disturbance. Why should it not be at least possible to pass the death sentence upon a thug who beats a poor old woman almost to death, though she does not quite die, or upon a man who rapes with brutal violence? Do not such crimes

485
deserve death? Justice seems to me to say that they do. The law may well be so framed that in any particular case mercy might intervene through the reprieve of the Home Secretary, or otherwise. This is a distressing subject. It is a great evil to have to put a man to death; but to erase the death penalty from the Statute Book and thereby give the impression that we think less seriously of murder, and also to remove a potent deterrent from crime, may be a greater evil still. Unless a White Paper is produced containing more evidence than we have yet before us, as at present advised I hope that this House, while giving general approval to the Bill, will not easily accept Clause 1 as it now stands.
3.48 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I have not had the privilege or honour of addressing your Lordships' House before, but it occurred to me that you would expect the holder of my office—because I suppose I am the head of the Criminal Judiciary—to say a few words to-day upon the practical working of this Bill, as I see it. I do not propose to follow the right reverend Prelate in all his bloodthirsty suggestions, nor do I propose to address your Lordships on the policy of much of the Bill. Of course, we all welcome and greatly look forward to the working of the probation provisions. But upon questions of policy I do not propose to embark, because I profoundly believe that the less Judges have to do with policy, the better. Any Act which Parliament sees fit to pass we carry out to the best of our ability. It is rather, therefore, on the practical application of this Bill that I desire to offer some observations to your Lordships.
First of all, I want to deal with a point which was dealt with yesterday by my noble friend Lord Schuster, and upon which the noble Marquess has also touched this afternoon. I look with some dismay, not at what is in this Bill but at what is not in it. We are about to embark upon a great experiment. Many changes are being made in the law relating to probation, and for their successful working those changes will depend on the courts—and very largely upon courts of summary jurisdiction. I regret, therefore, that this Bill comes forward before any attempt has been made to implement the valuable suggestions which were made
486
by the Committee over which my noble friend Lord Roche presided, and which reported so long ago as 1944. That Committee was appointed more particularly to deal with the appointment and position of justices' clerks. Many of your Lordships who habitually sit, both at Quarter Sessions and at Petty Sessions, know full well that it is largely upon the clerk that the success and proper working of those courts depend.
We have here a Bill of seventy-nine clauses. Many of them, no doubt, deal merely with administrative provisions and provisions relating to the duties of the Secretary of State. Not only are there seventy-nine clauses in the Bill, but no fewer than ten Schedules, one of which is nine or ten pages long and deals with amendments of the law and the changes that take place in numerous Statutes. If your Lordships refer to it, you will see the task which courts will have thrust upon them, because they have to keep themselves acquainted with the different changes and amendments in the law which this Schedule provides. Let me read just one short passage from the Roche Report:
"The work of courts of summary jurisdiction has also grown more complicated through the extension in the methods of treatment of offenders…. There has been a steady-increase in the variety of treatment hat can be imposed on an offender, whether he is a juvenile or an adult. A justices' clerk must be expert not only in the law as to offences and procedure and the laws of evidence, but also in the courses open to the justice; if they find the charge proved. This part of their work is likely to increase, for new methods of dealing with delinquency, such as those proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill of 1938, may lie introduced after the war."
The Report went on to recommend a whole-time service, at any rate for a large part of the country. Your Lordships know that in many parts of the country courts have to be served by solicitors of no great experience. Speaking of justices' clerks as a body, I have the greatest admiration for the way in which they do their work, but they are now to be called upon to take part in the administration of an Act which makes and will make a profound change in many respects, and which will impose upon them a large addition in the clerical work that they have to do. We live in a form-filling age, and there are a great many forms which will have to be completed under this measure and for which they will

487
receive no extra remuneration. I hope that before this Bill comes into full force—because, as I see it, it cannot come into force for a good many years, for reasons that I will give in a moment—some change will be made in this very important matter of the position of justices' clerks.
As my noble friend pointed out yesterday, we are now to find, under this Bill, probation homes, probation hostels, detention centres and various other places. When they are to be built I do not know, and how they are to be manned I do not know. I suppose that houses for those who have not committed offences will have priority over detention centres for those who have. I am not seeking to make a gibe at the Bill, because I believe that this Bill contains much of the greatest possible value, but I also see that it cannot come into force, in the way that its framers obviously hoped, for a very long time—simply because the machinery will not be there. It seems to me that it is rather a feature of modern legislation—as the noble Marquess pointed out—that we are apt to require certain things to be done, without providing the machinery which is necessary for their adequate working.
However, I am concerned in this matter because, as I say, it is through the courts that this Part of the Bill relating to probation has to be worked. Magistrates may, from time to time, seek the guidance of the High Court. The High Court Judges themselves, the Recorders and the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions will also have to carry out the provisions of this Bill. It seems to me that I shall have disappeared from the scene for a long time before this Bill can be properly worked, because I do not believe that the necessary machinery can be provided for a long time to come. In the meantime, we shall have to carry on as best we can, applying so far as we can the principles which we find enshrined in the Bill. Whether we can adequately put them into force is a matter that I cannot yet tell, but I can assure your Lordships that His Majesty's Judges will do their utmost to follow the policy outlined in the probation clauses.
There are in this Bill many provisions which I welcome wholeheartedly, matters which relate to what I may call the
488
everyday working of the courts. For the first time, courts which are trying prisoners on indictment will be able to fine for felonies. In the past, they have never been able to do that, except in the one case of manslaughter, although we have always had power to fine in the case of misdemeanours. One is constantly faced with a man charged with felony—not a serious case—and one feels he should not be sent to prison. If one is not to send him to prison one can only bind him over, and after that he gets away with it. If one could impose a monetary penalty it would be a great thing. It might "touch him up" in his pocket, and lead him to cease to carry on that particular form of activity in the future. Of course, if he does carry on that particular form of activity he will probably find himself subjected to another penalty. But it is a good thing to be able to fine. The distinction between felonies and misdemeanours is so artificial as to be absurd, when the punishment given for one cannot be given for the other. If you obtain £1,000 by false pretences you are merely guilty of a misdemeanour, but if you steal a halfpenny you are guilty of a felony. Why that is so nobody knows, but that is the law of England.
Another point which seems to me to be of some value is the increased power which is given to the High Court to grant bail in certain cases. There have been some curious lacunæ in the law relating to bail. Where, for instance, Quarter Sessions have stated a case for the opinion of the High Court upholding the conviction on appeal of an accused person (in the case of an appeal to Quarter Sessions, the Court of Criminal Appeal have no jurisdiction) it has on more than one occasion been found that there has been no means of the High Court admitting that man to bail pending the hearing. Nor is there power to allow bail where the High Court have given leave for a conviction to be questioned by means of what is called a Writ of Certiori, where it is said the conviction is, on the face of it, bad, or is bad on some point of law. Another point is that, where bail is granted, in certain cases provision has not been made for the time the man is on bail to be counted as part of the sentence. Those matters are put right in this Bill, and a very great improvement will be made in the ordinary

489
administration of the criminal law when they are carried.
Now may I deal briefly with the two points which were made by noble Lords yesterday. The noble Lord, Lord Holden, with his great experience as a probation officer, was inclined to deplore the fact that if this Bill becomes law it will no longer be possible for magistrates to dismiss a charge against a young person or any other person and at the same time make a probation order. It has always seemed to me that to do so is really anomalous. What right have I to put someone on probation if he is not convicted? I cannot understand it. You bring a man or boy before the court and state a case against him, and then you say in effect: "We will not convict you but we will put you on probation." I do not understand the reason why such things should take place.
The noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, called attention to the fact that it would be possible under Clause 8, subsection (3) to discharge an offender without imposing any penalty, and he said he welcomed this. But I would remind the noble Lord that that power was given to magistrates certainly as long ago as 1879; under Section 16 of the old Summary Jurisdiction Act of 1879, magistrates have always been able, in the case of a trivial offence in which they think it desirable not to impose a penalty, to dismiss the information. Of course, once a case comes before a court on indictment no one can say that the offence is one of a trivial character; but there are many cases in which the court think it unnecessary to inflict a penalty and the difficulty is overcome merely by sentencing the man to one day's imprisonment, which enables him to be immediately released. If magistrates have a case in which they think it undesirable that a penalty should be imposed it is still open to them—it was in the Act of 1879 and was left in in the Probation Act of 1907 and so is still kept alive—to dismiss the case. I think that is the answer to the objection raised by the noble Lord, Lord Holden, and it also explains the matter to which the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, drew attention.
Much of the debate which has so far taken place on this Bill has related to the question of capital punishment. It is unnecessary for me to traverse the ground that has already been covered, but I
490
should like to look at the matter from another angle. I cannot help feeling that this is really part of a much wider subject—the true functions of criminal law in regard to crime and punishment. Reading the debates in another place and leading articles that have appeared in responsible and weighty journals, and listening to the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and others, it has seemed to me that there is a great tendency nowadays to consider that punishment should never be punitive, only reformative. I agree with all my heart that when you are dealing with the sort of cases which come before magistrates daily, and perhaps to a lesser extent before Quarter Sessions—that is, when you are dealing with the young criminal, the boy who is drifting into crime, the man who has made a slip from which he can be rescued, or even the old lag in whom there is still some good that, given a fair chance, he will be able to develop—reformation is the main thing for a court to bear in mind.
But that class is not the only class of criminal with which the law deals; and when you get to the Court of Assize an entirely different picture is presented. There you get cases in which there is definitely no question of reformation as it is ordinarily understood. If we are to punish only with a view to reformation, what is one to do, for instance, with the ordinary motor manslaughter case? No kind of case is more distressing. You have a man before you, very often a man of education, of position, of some culture, perhaps a successful business man. For one reason or another—it may be that he has been at a party and taken more than he ought—he gets an overweening confidence in his skill as a driver and takes a risk, which has dreadful results. Sometimes not only is one person killed; in one case which came before me some years ago four persons were killed in the twinkling of an eye. Was it too much to say, at any rate in the days before the restrictions were placed upon motoring, that the roads of this country were strewn with dead and dying? The statistics of the people killed on the roads are such that they make one shudder. It is not a question of "reforming" drivers of the type I have mentioned. Such a man probably bitterly repents, and will be haunted to his dying day by what he has done. But, as I say, he makes the roads dangerous, and he must be punished.

491
Then there are other cases, such as the bigamist—and very often the persistent bigamist, for it is no unusual thing to find a man who has committed bigamy three times: a strange state of affairs, but there it is. Then there is the professional abortionist; and the homosexual who corrupts small boys. These are cases with which every Judge has to deal at every Assize. Or take the case of a professional receiver, a man, perhaps, with a snug little business in a town where he is respected and where nobody would believe that he is other than a most respectable citizen, and who yet may be plotting crimes so that he may receive from the youths who commit them for him the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains.
There is the case of the man who slips into crime of another kind, such as the defaulting solicitor, or the bank manager who has embezzled his bank's funds. Those men have undoubtedly, before they stood their trial, gone through hell. They know they will be discovered, and nothing on earth would make them commit the crime again. They are probably good husbands and good fathers, and perhaps carry the bag round at Church, and no one believes that they are guilty of criminal conduct. Yet, suddenly, perhaps because of some unlucky speculation or some unfortunate incident in their history, they were tempted and they fell. They will never do it again. But can the Judge overlook it? Can he pass it over? Would it be fair to the hundreds of other bank clerks, managers and solicitors—whom we all know to be most honourable members of their profession—if these people were not sentenced to a term of imprisonment? Yet one is not sentencing them for reformative purposes. They are sentenced because it is society's method of showing that if that conduct or those acts are persisted in certain consequences which must be unpleasant and which must be punitive will result. I have never yet understood how you can make the criminal law a deterrent unless it is also punitive. The two things seem to me to follow one on the other.
There is one other consideration which I believe should never be overlooked. If the criminal law of this country is to be respected, it must be in accordance with public opinion, and public opinion must support it. That goes very nearly to the root of this question of capital punish-
492
ment. I cannot believe that the public opinion (or I would rather call it the public conscience) of this country will tolerate that persons who deliberately condemn others to painful and, it may be, lingering deaths should be allowed to live. I am not afraid to make a confession on this point. It is a common reproach against Judges (though I believe it is absolutely groundless) that they are—the word generally used—reactionary, and are always on the side of severity. It is not so. It is an idea that I think has been fostered by the historical fact that a great predecessor in my office, Lord Ellen-borough, in the early days of the last century, was a bitter opponent of the reforms then suggested to make a great number of offences which were then capital non-capital. I suppose that, to a large extent, he reflected the opinion of his time, and perhaps sufficient credit is not given to him, because at least he erred in good company. If your Lordships refer to the Parliamentary Debates of those days, you will find that nearly the whole of the Bench of Bishops supported him.
I know that in uttering this sentiment I shall not have the sympathies of everyone but, in my humble opinion, I believe that there are many many cases where the murderer should be destroyed. The cases which come before one, where there is no question of insanity, are sometimes so horrible that I confess that I have suffered feelings of actual physical nausea in having to listen to them. I know full well the danger of arguing from the general to the particular, but let me give your Lordships two instances to justify my view that some of these bestial murderers should be destroyed. Last November, I tried a case at Bristol. The prisoner, thank God, was not a British subject. He was a Pole, but he had been here for quite a long time. On his own confession, having finished his supper, during which he had had only a moderate quantity to drink, he said that he had had an overwhelming desire for sexual intercourse. He went out and, finding no young girl near his camp, went to a little village alehouse on the outskirts of the village, kept by an old woman of seventy-six. He entered that woman's house at dead of night, he went into her room, he raped her, he committed another nameless offence on that poor creature's body, and he killed her.

493
At the end of last sittings, another case came before me in the Court of Criminal Appeal. I regret to say that this time the prisoner was a British subject. In a, mining village in South Wales, a young man of about twenty-two years of age who had had a little to drink—not much, for no one suggested he was drunk—while pushing his way down an alley knocked against an old woman who reproached him—reviled him, if you like, for I expect she used strong language at him. He struck at her so that she fell on the sidewalk and fractured her skull. Then he kicked her to death and raped her as she was dying on the pavement. When one is faced with cases like that, can one doubt that those who have to listen to them, and those who have to try to keep an impartial and cool judgment, come to the conclusion that some cases are so awful that the prisoner should be destroyed? I wish those whose opinions I respect, and whose views I can understand, would sometimes come and listen to an Assize at some towns that I could mention. The depravity of human nature is dreadful. In many cases, it is capable of reform. In God's name, where it is capable of reform let us reform it; but in the sort of cases that I have instanced to your Lordships I feel that no question of reform can in any possible circumstance arise.
Let me say one other word, because this does raise a question of policy. It is proposed in this Bill—and the noble Viscount who opened the debate to-day said some feeling words upon the subject—to prohibit any sentence of corporal punishment. May I say at once that, if there were a prohibition against inflicting corporal punishment with the "cat," not only I but every Judge on the Bench would welcome it. I think that the "cat" is a weapon or an instrument which ought not to be used. But are we so certain about the birch? Mind you, when people talk about the birch, it is always thought that they are talking about juvenile offenders. I am not. The birch is an instrument that can be used as a very strong deterrent, as one experience has shown—an experience that I can quote, and will quote in Committee, if necessary. When I hear that there should never be corporal punishment in the case of an adult, I am sometimes inclined to say, "If that be so, I wish you would tell me what I am to do
494
with certain cases." I may be wrong. I shall be the first to admit it if it can be shown that I am wrong, but I believe that in many cases involving youngish men—men up to twenty-five or thirty years of age and so forth—it might be far more beneficial to give them a very short sentence of imprisonment and something in the way of a whipping for the crime that they have committed, rather than to send then to a long sentence.
At the risk of wearying your Lordships by quoting instances, may I just mention a case which I had to try at Cambridge Assizes last summer? There was a young man of twenty, a big, fine, hefty fellow, who had the character of being an excellent farm worker. The last person who wanted to see him go to prison was the farmer for whom he worked. That boy went into a jeweller's shop in Ely and asked to see a watch. He chose a watch and said that he would have a few other trinkets as well. The shopkeeper, who was an elderly man of some sixty-eight years, offered to wrap them up, and while he was engaged in wrapping those things up, this lad whipped a two inch spanner out of his pocket, struck the old man on the head, knocked him down and, just to make certain that he would cause no trouble, gave him two more crashing blows as he lay on the floor. I do not believe that that boy will ever do thing like that again. But was he to get away with it? Was he not to be punished for so cowardly and brutal attack upon an old man?
My Lords, I may have been wrong, and I can well understand that many of your Lordships in the House to-day will say that I was wrong when I tell you that I gave him a very short sentence—I think it was two or three months—because some sentence of imprisonment must be given so that there is an opportunity for the man to appeal, and one thing and another, and to keep him there while the corporal punishment is given. I think I gave him two months' imprisonment and twelve strokes of the birch rod, and I was not then depriving the country of the services of a good agricultural labourer over the harvest. I cannot help thinking that that was a better punishment than a sentence (which otherwise I would have had to impose) of at least two years' or possibly three years' penal servitude. We are: old that there is to

495
be no corporal punishment. As I say, abolish the "cat" by all means, because it has the essence of brutality about it. I should like to see it go. And I am able to tell your Lordships that in every recent case in which a sentence of the "cat" has been given, the Court of Criminal Appeal has altered it to the extent of ordering the birch instead, and I have not heard that that policy has not worked satisfactorily.
I do not want to detain your Lordships further. I welcome the Bill in many respects, and I hope that by the time it comes into force we shall have some indication of other matters about which I think Judges and magistrates are entitled to be informed. New methods of treatment are being introduced by this Bill. We are told that young offenders under a certain age are to be sent to detention centres for three months, or, in exceptional circumstances, six months, as soon as those centres are available. I think most people are agreed that if a sentence of imprisonment is to be given, it is no use giving a very short term, because that can do no good. I do not know what the aims of the detention centres are, or what is the discipline or training or anything else which will be given. Then instead of sending older people to prison they may be sent for "corrective training"; and I also notice that corrective training is to take place in prisons.
I think those whose duty it is to pass sentences have a right to know what corrective treatment consists of and what will be the discipline or other training which will take place in the detention centres. I know at present more or less what happens to a man if I send him to prison for nine months. I think I ought to know what happens if I send him for a period, which may be two years, of corrective training. Until I am told what corrective training is I shall not know what procedure to adopt. I hope that before this Bill becomes law, if it does become law, we in the courts will have that which I think we are entitled to have—namely, full information as to what these novel methods of training are. Not that I doubt that they will be good; not that I doubt that they will have for their object the reform of the criminal; but I do think we are entitled to know of what they will consist. I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer.
496
I think I have dealt with all these matters and I believe I can say, not only for the Judges but also for the magistrates of this country, that if this Bill does become law we will do our utmost to see that it works.
4.25 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down will have realised, from the rapt attention with which his remarks have been received, the great pleasure it has been to the House to listen to his speech. If, in following him, I put into a few words our good wishes to him on his first appearance as a speaker in this House, it is not from any desire on my part to magnify my position, but merely because as I am following him it is my great pleasure and privilege to express what I am quite certain is the feeling of the whole House. He has given us a most careful and exceptionally well-informed speech which we should naturally have expected from a man with his knowledge and experience, and I am sure that the whole House will wish that on many future occasions his knowledge and his judgment will be at our disposal.
I rise in this debate with a great deal of diffidence. Your Lordships have heard from men of great distinction who have fulfilled many important functions in the State. Some of them are still fulfilling those functions, and I realise to the full the importance of the testimony which they have given. I feel, however, that I also have some special contribution to make to your Lordships' House. I think I am the only one who has so far spoken, and probably only one of very few in this House, who has a knowledge of His Majesty's prisons, not merely from the theoretical side, but from the fact that I was a guest of His Majesty in one of those prisons in the course of an agitation in which I took part a good many years ago. Not only have I experienced what has happened there myself, but I have been in contact with quite a large number of persons who have also shared His Majesty's hospitality. If the time and the subject were appropriate I could regale your Lordships with many fantastic stories of what went on in a prison, certainly in those days, and which I suspect in many cases goes on at the present time; but that would take your Lordships away from the subject of this Bill and I think it would be inappropriate.

497
But I claim another qualification for taking part in this debate—namely, that in the course of a fairly long public life I have been a journalist, an agitator and a Member of the House of Commons, and I have in many ways come into contact with human nature. I have used my opportunities to try and study the psychology of mankind, and to help in that I have made a study of myself. In accordance with the old Greek maxim, I have tried to understand myself and all the varying complicated instincts and sentiments which lie with my own being, and I have appreciated that we have in ourselves—certainly I have, and I think others would agree with me—the potential instincts which might in different circumstances have led us into some of the grave crimes which are committed by other members of the community. Only the Grace of God and the kind circumstances of our upbringing and environment have prevented those elemental instincts from reaching such disastrous results.
I think of all this because I confess that during the speeches that were delivered yesterday in this House I was grievously depressed. I was saddened to think that so many noble Lords for whom I have a great respect should take a view which seemed to me quite wrong—and I will not put it higher than that. They were certainly at variance with my own psychology of human nature. I am bound to single out in particular the speech of the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, and that of the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey. I confess I was considerably shocked at some of the things that fell from the lips of the right reverend Prelate, to which I will refer later on. I do not want to take up his speech and quarrel with each point, but I do want to disagree with the general trend of many of his remarks. Before I do that, however, I wish to repeat what was said by the noble Viscount opposite in protest against the suggestion that those who support this Bill in its entirety, including Clause I, are persons who are to be described as, shall I say, "softies," and are full of sloppy sentiment, preferring the comfort of the criminal to the well-being of the victim. I think that the noble Viscount has already dealt with that point, but I would entirely repudiate such a charge, and, if I am compelled to do so, I will pursue the campaign into the enemy's
498
camp. I maintain that it is those who want to preserve many of the things in which they have been taught to believe in days gone by, against the knowledge and experience that have been gained in recent years, who are guilty of sentimental ism. I claim to be a realist. I claim to be fighting the battle of the criminal's victim, because I want to reduce the number of the criminals by the only method which is going to be effective, the method of reclamation, and not by fear.
Let me deal, in the first place, with the question of the growth of criminality at the present time. There is surely not the smallest disagreement as to the cause of it. How can we expect anything else when for five years men were taught that it was their duty to throw over a large number of the commandments in the Decalogue. I am not saying that it was not inevitable. I was not one of those who were objectors to the war. I realised that the war was necessary. But it is no good blinding our eyes now to the fact that, in the war, murder, theft, and violence of all kinds were practised on an incalculable scale, and were copied at home by the little children playing in the streets. To suggest that when those men come home from the war with those terrible memories (and some, be it remembered, come home as deserters, social outcasts) they are suddenly going to recover their whole equanimity of mind and behave as proper peace-time citizens—which is what they used to be before the war—is a mistake. It is entirely contrary to human psychology to expect anything of the kind. What has happened? The outbreak of lawlessness, terrible as it is, disastrous as it is, is a natural, normal, regular and inevitable consequence of the mentality which has been imposed on the people of this and other countries during the war years. That is not to say that it is not a thing which is to be gravely deplored. It is not to say that it is a thing which we should not by every conceivable means try to prevent. But it does provide a reason for not being—as I think the noble Viscount suggested—almost hysterical with regard to the matter.
I do not propose to deal at any great length with the question of the death penalty. I hold strong views about it, and I shall say a few words upon it at the end of my speech. But I want to deal now with the general trend of the speeches of

499
some noble Lords and with the speeches of both the right reverend Prelates, who have spoken on the general principle of dealing with persons who are guilty of offences. I do not take the same exception to what was said by the noble Lord who has just sat down. He has spoken from his great experience, and I think that the general tenor of his speech showed that he believes in reformation in every conceivable case where he considers it to be possible. But I do take exception to the elevation of punishment into a moral principle, and the preference for some of the older punishments which the good sense, the wisdom and the decency of this country have gradually got rid of. I agree with one thing that the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, said. He said that he believed in atonement and reparation. In my view one of the defects of the criminal law is that reparation figures so very little in it. It seems to me that where a man has committed a terrible wrong on another human being, the right kind of punishment to inflict upon him is to say that for years and years of his life he must devote himself to making reparation. If he has robbed, then part of his labours should go continually to making good, so far as he can, the loss which he has inflicted upon another person. I will not pursue that idea right through, but I certainly believe in atonement and reparation in that sense.
My philosophy tells me that fear is a very bad guide or driver. I do not believe that people who are driven by fear reach any satisfactory conclusion. If you succeed in cowing a person by fear—and the worse the criminal, the more violent his nature, the less, I believe, do you really cow him—what do you achieve? If only you can eradicate those tendencies from him, that is different. But by cowing a man by fear, you do not make him any less criminal in intent. You drive his criminal instincts inside. You exaggerate his antagonism to the community as a whole. You force him, if he is going to commit a crime, to commit it in the dark places where he feels confident that he will never be found out. I do not believe that that is in the interests of the victims whom that man assaults or injures. You have made of the man a worse criminal at heart, and, sooner or later, the criminality which is inside him will come out to the
500
detriment of society and of his fellow-beings.
It is in that connection that I find my-seld in such complete agreement with the noble Viscount who opened to-day's debate. He says that if we really study the facts, if we learn the lessons which penology teaches, we shall find that severe penalties, cruel penalties, so far from reducing crime, so far from preventing the infliction of injury, have precisely the opposite effects. In so far as we really study the psychology of the criminal and deal with him as a person who needs alteration, we may make some progress, and by doing that we reduce crime. Therefore, the noble Viscount says, this Bill is designed to reduce crime. It is not designed to coddle the criminal. It is not designed to be sloppy and sentimental about crime. This Bill says that if we want to stop crime, the imposition of sentences which are cruel will not achieve their purpose, and there is still enough in criminal law that needs to be altered before you can achieve your end. One of the great things we require—and here I think I shall have the support of the noble Lord who spoke last—is greater certainty of detection. It is the hope that he will not be found out which plays the largest part in the attitude of the would-be criminal. If he were satisfied of 100 per cent. or 90 per cent. detection, and the prospect of something unpleasant happening were far nearer him, he would be deterred. If a man thinks he is not going to be found out at all or, even, if he is, that some shadowy thing may happen to him in months to come, the operation of that possibility on his mind will be much reduced. I deny that fear at the moment of what may happen some time hence is an effective deterrent to crime in the great majority of cases.
Here may I take up the case that was put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey. He told us the story of a man, in ordinary life a devoted father—and that must imply that he was fond of his family and of his little girl of five—who one day got drunk, and in a terrific passion of sexual excitement violated his own daughter of five. The noble Lord said that the Judge who had to deal with this was glad there was a difference between simple imprisonment and hard labour, because he was able to give him hard labour and force him at least to sleep

501
on a plank bed for two weeks before ordinary imprisonment began. The noble Lord started by saying that he believed in deterrent punishment. I put it to your Lordships seriously, do you imagine that a man worked up to such a high pitch of sexual excitement as to violate his own child would think that he might be found out and that, if he were found out, he might be taken to court and convicted and might have to undergo two weeks of sleeping on a plank bed? Do noble Lords seriously think that that will make any difference to the commission of such a crime. To my thinking, such a suggestion is absolutely grotesque. I would go farther and say, from such knowledge of human nature as I have, that not only will it have no effect but if, by any conceivable chance, a man should think of these things the idea of punishment of that kind would add spice to the act.
Let us think about the psychology of human nature. When I was a boy at school I played on the football field, and was kicked and hacked on the shins and came home with legs all green and blue. Did I care one rap about that? Did it make me any less anxious to play football? Quite the contrary, it was all part of the spirit of the game; and I took it, if I thought about it at all, with pride. People often talk about corporal punishment in a public school, as if it were the same as corporal punishment inflicted by action of the law. My recollection of what was called flogging at Eton is that it was more or less a joke. It washed out all the previous "yellow tickets," as I think we called them, and other impositions, and started a boy off afresh. No one took it very seriously, and no one imagined for a moment that fear of a flogging really deterred any boy of spirit and determination from committing the little breaches of regulations for which it was made a punishment.
Let us go a little further. Big game hunters go out to hunt big game. Some of the hunting is combined with some risk to the hunter. I never knew a man who was deterred by that. The fact that there is some sporting chance of losing his own life, or of being injured, adds to the excitement. It is only a few years since we went through a great war, and in that war there were men and women who had to do brave and dangerous actions, at the peril of their lives. Large numbers of men and women went out to the front because their
502
duty inspired them to do so, with the knowledge that the perils they were undergoing were very grave and that it might well be that they would not come back alive. Does any one suggest that the bulk of men and women were terrorised, or were cowed by those things? I think better of my fellow human beings. It may be said that these were fine men and women and that we are dealing with criminals, who are a rotten lot of people. That may be so, but although some of them may be rotten in many senses, many of them have still those qualities of pluck and endurance to which I have referred in connection with other people.
I would say—and I think this is a truth which those who understand psychology better than I do would substantiate—that in human beings there is a streak of two extraordinary things. Anyone who did not know the facts would imagine that sadism, which means the enjoyment of inflicting pain and punishment on other people, and masochism, which means, strange as it may seem, the enjoyment of having suffering inflicted on one-self, would be antagonistic, and oppositional. But that is not the case. Those sadistic and masochistic tendencies are both a form of sexual excitement which is pleasurable to a certain number of people. That being so, I do not believe that the threat of punishment, particularly of physical punishment, will deter to a greater extent than it will encourage people to commit acts of violence and other crimes. I will say one thing more with regard to the criminal which I profoundly believe to be true. We are all complex personalities. We all do things at times which at other times we regret, but under certain stresses of emotion we are carried away; we do things of which in our heart of hearts we disapprove. Some persons are more fully integrated than others and rarely break their own laws. I venture to suggest that the criminal is a very badly integrated person, who at times deeply regrets and desires to prevent himself from doing acts which are crimes and which bring him into trouble—not because of the punishment and the suffering which he has to undergo but because, in another part of his nature, he thoroughly disapproves of the acts which he at times commits. I venture to think that these considerations of fear, and the other deterrents put forward do not adequately take into account this difference and lack

503
of integration in many of those who commit crimes.
I have taken up sufficient of your Lordships' time, but there is one thing more that I want to say before I sit down. It is a matter of some importance, and I think it needs to be said. Your Lordships' House has not a very good record with regard to the punishment of crimes. In days gone by, your Lordships' House has often stood out for savage penalties after they have been disapproved of in another place. One of the questions which arises on this Bill is the question of the death penalty. I had intended to say a few words with regard to that, but the noble Viscount who spoke first to-day so admirably covered that subject, and as what I have had to say with regard to deterrents applies to a great extent to the death penalty as well as to other punishments, I do not think it is necessary at this stage for me to say much about it. But your Lordships' House has not a very good record with regard to the death penalty. If we go back a little over one hundred years we find that by a decision of this House the death penalty was retained on several occasions when it had been disapproved of in another place.
I wish that the right reverend Prelates who have spoken were here in their places, so that they might hear criticism of their speeches. The Bench of Bishops has a particularly bad record in regard to the preservation of the death penalty. In the year 1834, when the House of Commons had been converted to the abolition of the death penalty for stealing, and the lay Peers had also been converted, that penalty was kept on by the vote of the Spiritual Peers for an additional year. I am not going to condemn this House for the sins of those who went before them, but I would say to the members of this House who are inclined to throw out the decision of another place to remove the death penalty, at any rate for a period of five years: Do not forget that the action of your predecessors is held up against this House, and will be held up against this House for years to come. I have been in this House for only a few years. I was brought up to think that this was a reactionary Chamber which turned down every good proposal, because it clung to ancient tradition and to ancient ideas. I have
504
learned a great deal better during the three years that I have sat in this House. I have found that in many ways this House is an enlightened progressive assembly. I beg of your Lordships not to destroy that new-found respect for this House. You will do so if, following the lines of your predecessors, you once more throw out the reform which the other place has inserted into this Bill.
4.55 p.m.
LORD ROCHE: My Lords, at this hour of the second day of the debate on this Bill I think that the last thing that is desirable is that I should go over all the ground that has been covered by so many speakers. At the same time, it is possible that your Lordships may care to have the broad and general view of one who was a King's Bench Judge, charged with amongst other things the right and duty of trying the crime of murder, and who for another thirteen years shared the experience of my noble friend Lord Schuster in magistracy in Petty and Quarter Sessions. I was for thirteen years Chairman of the Quarter Sessions in my own county. That carries with it, of course, the function of presiding over such activities as probation area committees, in which I had the same happy experience as the noble Lord, Lord Holden, of conceiving the greatest admiration for the probation officers, and the greatest admiration, also, for the benefits of the probation system. I also had, fortunately, experience on the Probation Advisory Committee at the Home Office. I cannot express fully enough my strong sense of what has been achieved by the probation system and by Borstal, and the debt that the country owes, on the one hand to Sir Sidney Harris, whom I always regard as the foster-father of probation, and, on the other hand, to the late Sir Alexander Paterson—whose death we so much regret—whom I always regard as the foster-father of Borstal, although he was not the creator of that system. In the light of that experience, I propose to say a few words on the main topics that present themselves for your Lordships' consideration.
I do not think I can do better than go back to the time when I was a good deal in the Home Office, presiding over the committee to which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, referred. The noble

505
Viscount, Lord Templewood, at that time showed me his Bill, which was then in proof. I said to him that there were many things in the Bill which were very good, although they would no doubt require some consideration in Committee, and some amendment, but there was one clause in it of which I completely disapproved. That was not the first clause in this Bill—that was not there at all, of course; it was not even mentioned or discussed between us. But there was a clause with regard to corporal punishment with which I entirely disagreed. Let me make plain what I mean now, as I at that time made plain to the noble Viscount what I meant then. He said to-day, so I understand, that Army experiment had reformed 80 per cent. of a certain class of offender. So be it. For the purpose of argument I am quite willing to accept that statement. It is all the more strange that it corresponds to the claim that was made—I dare say quite rightly—by Borstal some years ago to have succeeded in reformatory methods with some 80 per cent. of the unlikely material that was presented to them.
It is an odd coincidence again, but a great friend of mine (the best horse-master I ever knew) conducted an establishment in the 1914–18 War for the horses and mules which were quite unmanageable in the Army. I was often there out of interest in those things, and his verdict was that 80 per cent. were wrong of nothing but their stomachs, and when you got rid of that trouble, then you had to deal with the residue. That is just the question, and that is just where the noble Viscount who spoke with such feeling to-day did not meet the case. What of the other 20 per cent.? What methods are suitable for them? I am not going to discuss the psychology and philosophy of the noble Lord who spoke last, because we differ fundamentally on those matters. I am too old to be converted by him, and I suspect he is too old to be converted by me, but I am bound to tell him that his facts are all wrong. His analysis was that this was all due to the war. That was the foundation of his argument. Now the sad thing for those who care anything about young men and boys is that, for years before the war broke out, and in 1938 when I was conversing on these matters with my noble friend Lord Templewood,
506
the curve of juvenile delinquency was steadily mounting until it was deplorable.
My analysis is that besides these gentle methods, some method of discipline is necessary, and in that method of discipline corporal punishment has its part. In my years of experience as a Judge I have not ordered corporal punishment more than the times you can count upon one hand, but in those times I felt that it was necessary and deserved. For other purposes, I am going to give your Lord-ships one example presently. The fact is that there has been a tendency in some of the juvenile courts to make a mess of the administration of these remedial methods by an undue leniency. There is a forgetfulness of the maxim which was laid down by a great Judge. Sir Mathew Hale said years and years ago, when laying down some six maxims for his own guidance—he was a humane Judge as well as a great Judge—
"Though my nature prompt me to pity, yet to remember that there is a pity due to the country."
By "the country" he meant what we mean by the community. Laxity is not kindness. Laxity is unkindness. It is un-kindness to the individual and to the community. There has been too much of it, and that is why my objection exists to Clause 3 of this Bill.
In the Bill which I was considering there was, of course, no reference at all to capital punishment. That was never discussed between the noble Viscount and myself. Had it been there, I should have said to him with great frankness: "This, in my opinion is so wrong, so dangerous, that I would rather not have your Bill at all than have it with that clause in it." In spite of the warnings and the threats of the noble Lord who spoke last, if your Lordships agree with that, I would suggest that we regard his threats with equanimity and do our duty as we see it. I believe in the death penalty. I believe it is necessary for it to be mitigated by great and wide powers of leniency and reprieve, as indeed it is. I believe in it, because I believe with the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, that there are some men who cannot be reformed. I do not propose to repeat my experiences here—I will do so on Committee stage if necessary—but I have tried cases as awful as those he has narrated to your Lordships. I believe that those persons are quite incapable of

507
reform, and that they are dangerous to let out. The alternative of shutting them up for ever for the whole of their lives is one that appals me. I also believe that the death penalty is the strongest deterrent. My analysis of human nature is the same as that of the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Truro, but differs from that of the noble Lord who spoke last. Perhaps that is because he is a braver man than I am or the Bishop is, although I believe the Bishop went to the wars in his time.
I believe that the fear of death and the desire for life, as it prevails in all members of the animal creation—and man is an animal although we so often forget it—is the great restraining influence against the commission of the crime of murder. This is not a question of persons who are guilty of sudden outbreaks of violence; it is a question of the sort of man who, since the time of Bluebeard, because he is tired of an old wife who has perhaps borne his children, and is desirous of another wife, murders her by slow poison or, as in one case I tried, strangles her and then stages a mock suicide, and hangs her up to make people believe she has done it herself. That sort of man counts his chances of being found out and of being put to death. Nothing will convince me that that penalty is not the most powerful deterrent in the world. I will just add two considerations in-that connection. I have sat in courts of first instance, in Appeal Courts and at the Privy Council, which entertains a number of appeals or applications for leave to appeal in murder cases, from all sorts of places. The appeals both in this country and in those countries from which the cases come before the Privy Council, outnumber overwhelmingly the appeals in every other case. Why? Because the death penalty is the one thing which criminals try above all things to avoid.
The last reason I want to advance is that I am a great believer in the common man. The noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, represented himself as such. I have generally found the verdicts of juries sensible, and one must not give too much weight to sudden fits of passion or sudden aberrations of feeling in a country. But when conviction is settled, not only through the channels in the past but in the whole community in the present, then I believe in the maxim securus judicat
508
orbis terrarum, which means that the people, when they are unanimous enough and hold their opinion long enough, are right. I am quite satisfied that feeling in this country is on this matter overwhelmingly on the side that I am representing to your Lordships, and is emphatically against the decision of another place, both because of the manner in which it was arrived at and because of its substance. For those reasons, when the times comes, I shall support the view that Clause 1 should be eliminated from the Bill.
There is one last topic with which I want to deal, and that is in connection with my friend Sir Alexander Paterson, whose name was, as I conceive it, recklessly abused in another place, and a quite unwarrantable course was taken with regard to his supposed views. I shall say something about him, because what I say bears upon several topics in this debate. He wrote a book years ago which I think was called London Across the Bridges. That book had a great effect upon me as a young man, and gave me that interest in youth movements which has inspired the whole of my life and, I am happy to say, to some extent, in a very inactive fashion, my declining years. Boy Scouts and Boys' Brigades, boys' clubs, are the truest means of reformation, long before you get to the point of penology.
When I was a young Judge in the early 'twenties I had a very difficult case in a northern town of a young man of respectable birth and public school training who had committed a series of burglaries. He was recommended for Borstal, in spite of the fact that he had been to prison already. It is difficult for a Judge suddenly to "reverse engines" on his predecessors and colleagues, and I felt great difficulty about this case. I thought I should like to see a Prison Commissioner. As your Lordships no doubt know, a Judge is by Statute not only entitled to have but is bound to pay attention to private representations from the Prison Commissioners. I was very pleased when Mr. Alexander Paterson (as he then was) turned up at the Judge's lodgings. He took a long time to persuade me. We sat a long time over it, but at length he convinced me that this young man should have his chance. He had it, and I learned later that he had behaved very well in Borstal, and that by some charitable agency's good offices he had been

509
assisted to leave this country and go to one of the Dominions. What immigration restrictions were by-passed I do not know, or whether the Prison Commissioner had any knowledge of it. But I was not sorry that it happened.
Ten years later, in the southern counties, I tried a lad under sixteen years of age who had violated in the most shocking fashion a girl of under thirteen, resident in the same house in a rural district. They were both workers on the farm or estate. I will not trouble your Lordships with details, but it was literally and in every sense a bloody crime. The house was strewn with blood and hair after he had dragged the girl about. He was recommended for Borstal, but I felt that this by itself would not do. The advantage of Borstal is that one can present it to a lad as a chance of rehabilitation and reformation; but to talk of those things to a boy who had done that sort of thing was useless. It would have been a triumph for him and would have caused execration and ridicule in the neighbourhood. Therefore, I said that, in spite of the recommendation to Borstal, I should like to see a Prison Commissioner. To my great relief, Mr. Paterson appeared. I told him that I thought it was imperative that this lad should be whipped. He said he would see the lad. He did so, and when he came back he said, "Are you sure that he did it? Because he denies it with every appearance of honesty."I said" You need not trouble about that; neither I nor the jury had any doubt, because the evidence was both direct and in the strongest sense circumstantial."
There is a foolish idea that circumstantial evidence is rather weak, but if it really is circumstantial evidence, it is the best evidence, because it cannot lie or be mistaken. Mr. Paterson said "If you are satisfied about that, you are quite right—this boy must be whipped. And in my opinion it is not a case for the birch, it is a case for the cat-o'-nine tails." The cat-o'-nine tails sounds worse than the other, and that was Mr. Paterson's reason. The sentence was imposed, after reflection, and was carried out. Afterwards, Mr. Paterson said he thought I might like to know what had happened to the boy. He said that when it was over, and the boy was taken down from the triangle, his observation was, "Well, I will never
510
do this sort of thing again." I should say that, as a step to reformation, first comes confession of fault. It is an old doctrine, which seems now to have gone out of fashion, that there must be repentance before there is reformation. There is indeed a fashionable philosophy that there is no such thing as sin. I am not a theologian but I entirely endorse what the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, said—though he seemed shy of calling it sin: he called it "wickedness." Anyway, there was apparently some effect produced by the whipping in the particular case of which I have just spoken, since it caused the boy to say that he would not do the same thing again. That is one of the reasons why I think that this power should be held in reserve. I would whip last and not first; but when I did whip I would whip severely.
The last thing I wish to say with regard to Sir Alexander Paterson is of a different kind. It was said in another place: hat he had changed his views on capital punishment. But I should like to say that about ten years after the time of which I have been speaking, I had occasion to ask him to come and see me here on an extraneous matter. I wanted him to give me his direct personal view with regard to a young man who had given his name as a reference in connection with an application for appointment as head of an institution for maintaining and educating the best part of 200 boys—mostly orphans and boys whose parents had been killed. When we had disposed of that business he went or to tell me something else. In passing I would remind your Lordships that Paterson was a man who did not merely talk about doing good and being kind. He did things. He took infinite pains.
He said to me, "Do you remember that lad you tried for murder twenty years ago?" (The lad was under the age at which he could have been executed.) I said that I remembered him well. Paterson then said that he had just been to the prison to meet the lad on his release. He had gone in his car, so that he could get the lad away and thus evade the reporters. "Of course," he said, "the effect of those twenty years' incarceration was marked and terrible." He never said one word about a change of view as to the advantage of capital punishment over

511
that sort of incarceration. I do not for a moment believe that he said or did any of the things which have been imputed to him in regard to that matter. That is my private opinion. As so much has been said on this point and it has obviously had such an effect, I feel that I ought to record my conviction that when I spoke to him—I believe it was in the year 1943 or 1944—on this matter of the engagement of the schoolmaster, he was of the same opinion as when he gave evidence before the Committee.
That is all I have to say to your Lordships now. The sum and substance of it is this. If you arrive at the conclusion at which I have arrived—that this clause is a wrong clause, and that it is a most inopportune time to introduce it, whatever we may hope with regard to some future time when people are softer, kinder and more mellowed in their conduct—I suggest that the clause be rejected now, and that we should adhere to our rejection. The rest of the Bill is valuable but, in my opinion, it is not worth the mischief of this clause. If, through any obstinacy or misadventure, this Bill were lost, then the fault would not be on the side of your Lordships.
5.22 p.m.
LORD DU PARCQ: My Lords, my chief reason for wishing to say a few words about this Bill is that I had the privilege a long time ago now of being a member of the Persistent Offenders Committee. It is pleasant for me to see some of our work coming to fruition in the form of a Bill. I have had some interest in prisons, prison administration and crime generally. In a sense, it was forced upon me, because every Judge of the King's Bench Division and every Recorder is compelled to interest himself in those matters. I have interested myself in them beyond that, and I have vivid recollections of visits to a great many of the prisons and other institutions of the country. Perhaps the most vivid of all my recollections is the visit which, owing to the action of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who was then Home Secretary, I paid to Dartmoor on the occasion of the mutiny there.
I agree with so much that has been said by some of the speakers, notably the Lord Chief Justice, my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, that much of what he said I would desire simply to adopt.
512
I believe with him that every effort ought to be made to reform every criminal, but also with him I am quite unable to believe that every criminal can be reclaimed. So far as my experience goes, if one gets a boy young enough, one can do almost anything with him. If a boy who has started on a wrong career goes soon enough to Borstal and goes, as he is quite likely to go, fortunately, to a Borstal institution which has a wise and sympathetic head and equally sympathetic masters under him, he is likely to turn out a good citizen. We all know that there are a number of good citizens to-day who have gone through Borstal. It is not always too late, even at a later stage in life. And here I want to point out one thing. There is a precise lesson which one ought to draw, I think. Yet I do not know; it has puzzled me. The only lesson that I can draw is that some men who are thoroughly bad characters in ordinary life are perfectly good characters when they are under discipline.
Over and over again I saw this sort of thing after the First World War. There would be a man with a long list of criminal convictions, sometimes perhaps, beginning—I say this incidentally—with a birching, and going on to terms of imprisonment, first hard labour and then, often, penal servitude. Then came the First World War. We found that the man had become a soldier and, during those four years or more when he was in the Army, it was not infrequently the case that he had risen to a high non-commissioned rank. I have had before me a man who had been a regimental sergeant major of a first-class regiment. Those who are well acquainted with the Army know that it is a great deal more difficult to become a regimental sergeant major than to obtain some of the high commissioned ranks—or so I am told. After leaving the Army it has sometimes happened that men who have had those opportunities and done well have relapsed into their old ways. I know that because they came before me. I had one man who had been a coiner all his life until he went into the Army. He reached the very rank that I have just mentioned. He left the Army, he behaved perfectly well for some years and then he had some financial trouble; and there was his old trade ready to his hand. He started again, he was caught and I

513
had to deal with him. The lesson that one can derive, for what it is worth, is that there are men who under discipline behave perfectly well and act most creditably.
There is a sad side to this question which makes the problem of reform, and the question of how far one can reform the criminal, more complicated and difficult than ever. As the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, has said, there are some whom one regards as irreclaimable, dreadful people. One is sorry to think that such people exist. But there are others about whom one cannot: feel angry at all. I met some of them at Dartmoor. There was a man there who was a burglar. I do not think he can have been a very successful burglar because he told me that altogether he had been fifteen years at Dartmoor. Then he said to me, with the same pride with which an old soldier might have spoken to me of his record in the Army: "And you can search my record, sir, and you will not find a black mark against my name as long as I have been here." That was absolutely true. He was a perfectly good prisoner. But was he reformed? Not a bit of it, I am afraid. I have little doubt that on the day he left the prison he was getting his burglar's kit together, in order to start on what he had come to regard as his regular trade. I do not dogmatise about these things. I think it is dangerous to generalise. I only tell your Lordships these things which are true and which come from my own experience, because I think that people are much too ready now to present the problem to themselves as if it were: On the one side, punishment, and, on the other side, reform—which do you vote for? We should all vote for reform if the referendum were put to us in that form, but it is not so easy.
May I tell your Lordships what I saw the first time that I entered a prison? It was the prison at Portsmouth. In my early days at the Bar, I used to do a great deal there, sometimes prosecuting and sometimes defending prisoners. The governor of the local prison which then existed used always to be there, and he was delighted when I said I would like to see over the prison. He said that so few people came to see his prison. He was showing me round, and a young man, obviously a prisoner, passed us. He gave the governor a word of greeting with the
514
sort of respectful and almost affectionate smile that you might expect the head boy of a school to give to his headmaster. He seemed a charming young man; he was in his early twenties. I said to the governor: "What is he in for?" "Oh,"he replied," stealing bicycles. As soon as he gets out he always steals a bicycle, and then he very soon cones back. We are always glad to have him with us; he is a good influence in: he prison. Only the other day one of: he prisoners lost his temper and attacked a warder, and that little chap had: he prisoner down on the ground in a moment and sat on him till the other warders came up."
I do not know what became of that young man, but your Lordships will observe that his life had become thoroughly well regulated. He experienced what I suppose was the delightful excitement of stealing somebody else's bicycle. If he was lucky he sold it, and with a little money enjoyed himself, and no doubt had a riotous time. Soon afterwards (probably with the second or third bicycle) he was caught, and he then went back—rather as some of your Lordships used to go back to school, thinking on the whole that you preferred the holidays but being glad to go back to the institution where you enjoyed considerable prestige, very likely as prefect or sixth form boy. To him I dare say the food was quite good. Of course, it is nourishing and it is well calculated—it has the right number of calories and perhaps more than some of us get outside, although, I agree, probably not served in a way which would be attractive to many of your Lordships.
Men like my Dartmoor burglar and this youth are in a way just as great a problem as the horribly irreclaimable man. You cannot dislike them. I stopped to chat with a burglar in his cell. He was a charming man. On the little shelf that prisoners are permitted to have he had a photograph of his wife of which he was immensely proud. He produced from his pocket, with great pride—as I would venture to say many of your Lordships have done before now to show to your friends—a little letter that had just come from his small boy, aged about seven, who was writing to him to say that he hoped Daddy would very soon be coming back. It was

515
a pathetic business, but what are you to do? I do not say that these men cannot be reformed; I do not say they cannot be rehabilitated; but it is no use pretending with a facile optimism that you have only to say, "Please take this man and reform him," and he will be turned out at the end of a few years as a reformed character.
When I was a member of the Persistent Offenders Committee, I was told of something which happened in the Army during the 1914 war. It concerned a young non-commissioned officer in the Army who became friendly, so far as it was permissible, with a commissioned officer. He respected his officer and confided in him. They got to know each other well, and the commissioned officer relied greatly upon the non-commissioned officer. One day the latter, in the course of his confidences, admitted that he had been a burglar in civil life. He rose to a good rank and the time came for him to leave the Army. The young officer said to him: "At any rate, now there will be no need for you to go back to your old business. You have a good gratuity, you have a pension, you are a very able man, and you have this good record behind you. You can earn a good and honest living." The other replied: "Well, sir, you have been very kind to me, and I will be quite straight with you. I will tell you exactly what I am going to do with the money I have got. I am going to fulfil the ambition of my lifetime. I am going to buy a first-class set of burglars' tools." That was told me by a credible witness as an event which happened in the Army.
We are dealing with men who love excitement. They have this trade and do not know any other, and it is much easier to go on with it. At present I fear that prison is not doing very much with them. They are good prisoners, and it is making them good prisoners. They never break the rules. The "old lag," as he is called, never breaks a rule. He is rather like some of the boys we knew at school, who knew exactly how little work they need do to get through. He never does more than he is obliged to do, but he never gives the warder an opportunity of putting a black mark against his name. He is a good, satisfactory, quiet prisoner. Surprisingly,
516
perhaps, in the circumstances, but be it said to their credit, many of these men when the mutiny occurred at Dartmoor took the right and proper part of going to the assistance of the warders and joining with them, and, I will not say saving their lives, but at any rate saving them from what might have been serious injury. I am conscious that what I have told you does not greatly assist your Lordships, except in the sense of helping you to recognise the real difficulties of the problem.
I do not want to add much more, but I wish to say something regarding the remarks of my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey yesterday. There have, of course, been immense changes in prison administration during the past century, and striking changes during my own recollection of the courts, which goes back to something like forty years ago. When one talks about hard labour, as my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey did, one ought to remember that to avoid misunderstanding it is very important to define one's terms, because the term "hard labour," in the works of those who write about prisons, has a very evil connotation by reason of its history. There was a Select Committee in 1863, and their recommendations are summarised in the words: "Hard labour, hard fare, and a hard bed." It was the view at that time that you must be severe and rigorous. There was to be separate confinement and the tread-mill and the crank were to be relied upon. That was hard labour. There was no association of prisoners with their fellows. Even the treadmill was so constructed that the man was in a little separate compartment, and there was no chance of talking. It was said also in the Report of that Committee:
"Industrial occupation, though it may vary in amount and character, is so much less penal, irksome and fatiguing that it can only be classed under the head of light labour."
And so it was condemned.
The wheel has gone almost full circle. In 1895 the Gladstone Committee, as it was called, reformed the whole prison system, and at that time the Permanent Secretary to-the Home Office, Sir Godfrey Lushington, used these remarkable words:
"I consider that the medieval thief who had his right hand chopped off was much more likely to turn over a new leaf than a convict who has had ten years' penal servitude."

517
He was speaking of the prisons as they were up till then. With the Prison Act of 1898 there was a compromise, and it was felt—and I remember that this was approximately the state of affairs when I was practising at the Bar—that after a while prisoners should be given an easier time, but that for the first month there must be great severity. For the first month the work was made onerous and disagreeable, and there was, for that term, separate confinement. The earlier system—the severe and rigorous system of what used to be called hard labour, with the treadmill and the crank—is regarded, I think by common consent, as a complete failure. I do not think anyone doubts now that that severity, and the severity of the first month—the idea of the short sharp sentence—did not really work. I believe one is forced to that conclusion, and I confess doubt as to whether it would be wise, as my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey has suggested, to have a different system providing for a short term of imprisonment with what might be called hard labour—of course he did not mean what used to be called hard labour. On the whole, I believe that the present view, that short sentences are a mistake, is right. You cannot do anything with people if the sentences imposed upon them are short. You may be able to do something if the sentences are long. It will be a difficult task at best, but there are cases in which something can be done. After all, one has to remember—and I think that people have not always the imagination to remember it—that loss of liberty is in itself a terrible punishment. It means the loss of all a man's amusements. A man who likes a drink has no opportunity in prison of having one. Until he has been a long time in prison, he will not have any chance to smoke. He will enjoy no female society whatever; indeed, he will have no chance of seeing his friends or relations except at distant intervals. Loss of liberty is a terrible punishment; that, I think, ought always to be remembered.
I agree heartily with what has been said to the effect that we must not expect too much as the result of passing this Bill. I read with distress the other day—as, no doubt, others of your Lordships did also—the account given in another place of life in Wormwood Scrubs. I am not blaming anyone or criticising anyone. I know the difficulties. I know that we
518
cannot build new prisons. Wormwood Scrubs is one of the best of our prisons, but it seems to me a dreadful thing hat a man should be alone in his cell from 4.30 in the evening until 6 o'clock the following morning, with, perhaps, a book from the prison library with missing pages. That is not the way to reform people. I am certain that that kind of monastic life, while in may be excellent for the saint, is not I good life for the sinner. It is not good for him to shut him up alone in a cell for all those hours. I should like to tell my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey that although I doubt very much the efficacy of anything which was or is called "hard labour," I do believe in hard work for the prisoners. And I think it is true to say that many of them believe in it themselves. When I was at Dartmoor I spoke to numbers of these prisoners quite confidentially in their cells. I found that they did not complain of too much work, but rather of not having enough. They did not like being shut up by them selves in their cells, with nothing to do. Some of them, of course, are not by any means literary persons, and if they had books they would not be interested. Some of them cannot read. I think any of us, if we pictured ourselves in that plight, would feel not only that it was a terrible punishment but that it would not make us better men.
I have said as much as, and perhaps more than, I ought to have said. I want to add only one word before I sit down, otherwise I shall have left untouched the topic which seems uppermost in the minds of everyone. Although, unfortunately, I could not be present yesterday, I have read the report of all the speeches which were delivered in your Lordships' House. Of course, I read the speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. If I may say so, there was very little in it with which I could disagree—except the conclusion. But I did feel that, although the noble and learned Viscount's speech proceeded with all the symmetry of a proposition of Euclid, when one reached the conclusion and the quod erat demonstrandum one felt it had crept in from another proposi
When the time comes to vote on whipping, and if I still feel my present inclination—and I was impressed by what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Roche, said—I shall not be disposed to oppose

519
the clause in the Bill dealing with it. As to capital punishment, unless my views are changed in Committee I shall feel obliged, if there is a Division, to vote against the clause in the Bill relating to that. I believe—and I am not going to develop it—that some murders are prevented because capital punishment exists as a penalty. I can understand those who are convinced that capital punishment does not act as a deterrent saying that they will vote for the clause. I can understand the attitude of those who say that, whether it is a deterrent or not, it is so wicked to take another man's life that they will have nothing to do with such a penalty. It is fundamentally a question of principle, I believe, and if you feel that way you will no doubt vote for the clause. For my part, believing as I do that capital punishment is a deterrent, I shall not vote for that clause. You must record your own vote as if upon you alone rested responsibility. That, I suggest, is the only test by which to judge. If it rested with me to decide, then in the future, whenever I read in the Press of a murder I would be mentally confronted with the question: would these innocent lives have been sacrificed, would those innocent relatives have been bereaved, if the capital penalty had been in existence? That would be much more for my conscience to bear than the thought that a few murderers had been executed.
5.47 p.m.
VISCOUNT TRENCHARD: My Lords, the only excuse I have for addressing your Lordships to-night is that in the course of a fairly long life, and especially during my association with the Metropolitan Police some little time ago, I have come in contact with many matters affected by this Bill. I propose to deal with only two matters in the Bill—capital punishment and whipping. I am in favour of the deletion of Clause 1 and Clause 3. In other words, I am in favour of capital punishment, and in favour of whipping. I entirely agree with what has been said in this House, particularly by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, yesterday, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster. Further, I listened carefully to what the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, said and he put the matter in a way that I wish I could emulate. I agree with everything he said.
520
If capital punishment is done away with, and the only punishment for murder is imprisonment, it seems to me that it will mean we shall be looking upon crime against the person as no worse than crime against material. Is that really so? If we are to have no different punishment for murder than for crimes against material, I think it will be a great mistake. I am not empowered in any way to speak for the police or the police authorities. But, as the result of my association with them, I am certain that they agree with what I am going to say today about capital punishment and whipping. On this question of putting crime against the person on the same plane as crime against material, a point which strikes me is that if we are to make the punishment for a brutal murder similar to that for a great robbery or some other serious criminal offence, we shall be giving to the public at large a feeling that the sanctity of human life is no more important than the sanctity of an individual's property. That must tend to remove from the public mind the feeling that murder is still by a long way the worst crime.
I can understand some of the arguments—though I do not agree with them—but I cannot understand the argument which says that a sentence is only a deterrent. Many noble Lords did not say "only," but I felt that one or two of them implied it. If that is the only reason for punishment, it has not made much effect on crime. The number of robberies is still increasing. I agree with the Lord Chief Justice that we must have punishment for murder, as well as for other crimes, and must not think only of reformation. I feel strongly that the State should keep to the Christian principle that life is most important. The State must accept the responsibility for declaring that a man who deliberately murders another should forfeit his own life, and must see that the sentence is carried out.
5.52 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, I have listened with great interest, but with growing depression to this debate. While there is obviously a large measure of slip-port for parts of this Bill, I feel there is a deep cleavage between us which is crystallised only on the question of the suspension of capital punishment. As I listened, I could not help but feel that

521
there is an extraordinary lack of agreement among us as to what is the philosophical basis of our social order. No social order can be firmly established, except on some widely accepted concept of its nature and functions and of the nature of man. For centuries the social order of the civilised world has been based on the concept of man as economic man, moved by economic motives and benefited by economic progress. The accepted function of the social order was to keep the ring, to correct glaring abuses and to ambulance those maimed in the fight. It will be generally agreed that that basis has lost its validity in Western Europe—I emphasise Western Europe—and that in this country we are now working out a new basis for our social order. Full employment, greatly increased social services and the nationalisation of industry clearly mark the end of economic man as the? basis of our social order. More than that, they mark the new concept of man which is coming to underlie our new social order, the concept of man as a spiritual being, in a much deeper and truer sense than that held in the Middle Ages. The new society which we are building is based upon a belief in the infinite value of every human being, and the new concept of the functions of the social order is that they must provide the environment in which every member of the social family will have the best possible chance of development. I think that this Bill marks an advance towards that ideal.
I must confess that, while I cordially welcome the Bill, I feel it is only a partway house. It marks the fact, which is clearly seen in the Bill, that we have not fully committed ourselves to this new concept of man and of the social order. The divided mind is evident in the Bill, and its existence has been even more clear in the debate in this House. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor put it clearly in opening this debate, when he said:
"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,
522
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."
If we could adopt whole-heartedly as the basis of our social order this concept of the infinite worth of every human personality, we should and the solution of many of our problems.
I submit that this basis is the only basis really in harmony with the teaching of Jesus, reiterated again and again in the Parables of the Prodigal Son and the Lost Sheep and in many other places, and really in harmony with His teaching of forgiveness and its healing power, both for the wrongdoer and the wronged. If we accepted that basis, we would not try to drive those two horses in double harness. We would seek the reform of the criminal, and in seeking the reform of the criminal we would find the best possible protection for society. I am convinced that if we could make it clear to the criminal: hat society was not seeking tit for tat, or even its own protection, but was seeking the well-being of the criminal, really aiming to set him on a better way of Life, we should succeed far better in the redemption of these men and women, because we should then be able to appeal to the best that is in them. I have had remarkable experiences of how there is always something wonderfully good in even some of the worst of these men.
In seeking to increase the redemptive nature, this Bill attempts more widely than before to fit the punishment to the criminal, and it extends the nature of punishment and the nature of treatment open to the courts. Moreover, it clears the decks of outworn classes of imprisonment, so that further variation can be adopted within the present system. I have had a good deal of experience of prison life (not as a prisoner) and I feel that we are a long way from having reached any great work of redemption and reformation in our prison system. I entirely agree that a great deal of improvement has been achieved, but there is still a long way to go. Reference has been made to what was said by Mr. Weitzman in another place about the eighteen hours of solitude imposed in many of our prisons. I can say, from my own experience, that that eighteen hours of solitude has a terribly nervous effect on prisoners, and creates what can only be described as a sort of prison hysteria.

523
I believe that far more ought to be done in developing work in the prison—work, I hope, in co-operation, because, after all, most prisoners are men who have never learned to work in cooperation with others. I believe that company work, if properly used, would be a great educational factor. I hope it will be possible, also, to introduce a decent system of paying men for their work, and letting the pay mount up so that there is something with which they can start when they come out of prison. I further hope that there will be much more development of education, much more care in supplying reading matter. Above all, I would plead with the Home Secretary in making the new regulations to see that every prisoner has the right to paper and pencil, unless there is some good reason why he should not have them. I agree that they have a slate and a slate pencil, but believe me, my Lords, for many prisoners the inability to express themselves on paper is a tremendous loss. I believe it has a bad effect upon their mental and nervous condition. I would remind your Lordships that some of the greatest of the world's books have been written in prison, and we do not know what we are losing by not letting men have paper and pencil. John Bunyan wrote Grace Abounding during his first imprisonment in Bedford gaol, and he wrote the first part of Pilgrim's Progress on his second imprisonment in Bedford gaol; William Penn wrote No Cross, No Crown in the Tower, and he wrote The Great Cause of Liberty of Conscience in New-gate. I know that even now it is possible for prisoners, with the consent of the governor, to have pencil and paper, but what I am pleading for is that it shall be a right which shall be withheld only when there are special reasons.
I have said nothing about the suspension of the death penalty but, from what I have already said, it will be obvious to your Lordships that I regard the death penalty as a complete denial of the principles which I have been trying to enunciate, and which I believe are the principles underlying the very parts of this Bill of which many of your Lordships approve. I am only carrying to their logical sequence these principles. I will say at this stage only one thing about the suspension of the death penalty. I entirely agree that legislation cannot go very far
524
ahead of public opinion. I would add to that, however, that legislation itself has an educational value, and you cannot teach the people the sanctity of human life by hanging. That is like a father trying to teach his children virtue by punishment, when he himself is living a life of vice. I plead with your Lordships carefully to weigh this issue, and to recognise that this Bill, with the first clause as it now stands, is in harmony with the way in which we are moving in this country, towards a new and better social life, and is entirely in harmony with the teaching of our Christian religion.
6.8 p.m.
THE EARL OF HALIFAX: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just spoken will forgive me if I do not follow him in his discussion of the philosophic basis of social order. He has made a speech which I doubt not, by the spirit of it and the sincerity of it, will have made great appeal to your Lordships, however dubious many of you, with myself, may have felt certain of his implications and conclusions to be. In asking leave to intervene for a few moments in this debate, may I say that it is not part of my purpose to endeavour to contribute anything to the discussion on the general merits of the Bill, or on the content of the contentious Clause I, upon which much has been said; for, indeed, I should be ill-qualified to do so. We have listened to a debate in which the quality of the speeches, delivered by those singularly well-qualified to deliver them, must have profoundly impressed all who heard it. It is, of course, evident that there is among your Lordships a sharp difference of view—and the speech of the noble Lord who spoke last reinforces that opinion—in regard to the principal matter of Clause I, just as we have been given to understand that there has been a sharp difference of view evident within the Government. But I do not doubt that the majority of your Lordships have already made up your minds upon that issue, as I have myself.
Therefore, the reason why I venture to intervene for a moment or two is to discuss briefly the propriety of this House so acting as to give another place an opportunity of reviewing a decision which was, as we all know, reached by a narrow majority only a short time ago. I do not know what advice my noble friend who leads the Opposition may desire on Committee

525
stage to give to those who look to him for advice. I speak only for myself, from a position of greater freedom and less responsibility, but I have no doubt whatever that we have not only the right but also, I would say for myself, the duty so to act as to ensure that opportunity for that further review shall be afforded. I would like to give your Lordships, quite briefly, the reasons why I venture to make that assertion. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made yesterday what seemed to me to be a somewhat remarkable argument, which was that because in another place a decision, regrettable, as he thought, had been reached, it should now be accepted. He said:
"Since it has been decided, however, that it is the right thing to do, let us now go forward."
If that means that your Lordships are invited, irrespective of the arguments so powerfully deployed by the Lord Chancellor himself, to accept the narrow vote in another place as conclusive, I should find it impossible to follow such an invitation. I would find it impossible to do so on any ground of constitutional claim so far made by any Party in this House; still less would I be able to assent to it having regard to the gravity of the issue and, perhaps even more particularly, to the force and the power of the arguments that we have heard during this debate.
This matter, when it comes to the Committee stage, will be no ordinary question of political difference between Parties, for, as we all know, it cuts across the dividing lines of all Parties. For that reason, as also for its intrinsic character, I would judge the issue to be quite exceptional and, indeed, I would say that if such constitutional provision existed in our arrangements, I can imagine no subject that would be more properly the object of direct reference to the people than an issue such as this. It is also brought forward, as we have been reminded, in very exceptional times, when life is not at all normal and when many may therefore rightly hesitate to take a course which in times more serene they would adopt. Lastly, the matter comes to your Lordships' House from another place in circumstances which are in themselves very exceptional. Your Lordships generally are familiar with those circumstances and I need not, therefore, develop them.
526
There is one other point to which I think we are entitled to attach some importance and upon which I personally feel it right to lay some emphasis. It is that in this House your Lordships lave the opportunity on rare occasions, such as we have enjoyed during the last two days, of listening to speeches made by men who seldom make their presence felt in this part of the life of the House, but who are able to speak with an unrivalled authority and whom it is impossible for those deliberating in another place to hear. Speaking as those noble Lords have, from a lifetime of experience, they have given what is surely a remarkable corpus of striking and formidable testimony.
For all those reasons, therefore, I conclude, as I said at the beginning, that it is not only the right but also the duty of this House to ensure that this grave matter is again brought before another place for full consideration, in the light both of the arguments that have been propounded here and of such reaction of the public outside as there has yet been to this proposal. I certainly cannot attempt—nor would it indeed be proper to do so—any prediction of what the result of such further review by another place may be. It may be, as I have heard suggested, that some reasonable middle way will emerge, which might be made generally acceptable and might relieve some of the worst anxieties that are naturally felt. However that may be, all I would plead for at this stage is the assistance of His Majesty's Government, so that if and when such an opportunity for review does arise in another place His Majesty's Government will ensure that that review is carried out as deliberately and as dispassionately as may be, without the intrusion of any such prejudice as is apt to accompany a normal political difference between the two Houses. I ask that there shall be a full recognition on the other side—and on this I am sure we can count—of everything that is involved for our people and for the nation in what may be the final decision of this, the High Court of Parliament.
6.20 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I had not intended to speak this afternoon, and I shall do so for only a few moments. The Criminal Justice Bill

527
which we have been discussing is inevitably a fairly technical measure, and I am in the same position as the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, who has just addressed you: I cannot pretend to be an expert on these technical questions. Others far more competent than I have already dealt with the detailed provisions in what I think we shall all agree is one of the most impressive debates to which any of us has ever listened or is ever likely to listen.
As your Lordships know, however, there is in this measure one provision of a fundamental character; that is, of course, Clause I, which deals with capital punishment. It is about this that I should like to say a word. I do not propose to-day to go into the merits or demerits of this proposal. An opportunity will occur for this on the Committee stage of the Bill. I am concerned, as was the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, only with the constitutional position of your Lordships' House. Of that the noble Earl has spoken with all the authority of a past Leader of the House, and I should like, if I may, very diffidently to reinforce what he has said. I hope that the Government will not allow this to become an issue between the two Houses of Parliament. It is not, in fact, one of those mere Party differences to which we have from time to time been accustomed here. It goes far deeper than that, and cuts across all Parties.
We must, of course, recognise—indeed, it is clear from the speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor—that the Government have been placed in a situation of very real difficulty by the course of events in another place. The Home Secretary had advised the retention of the death sentence, and he was supported in that view by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and other members of the Government. But, by a free vote—though with many abstentions—and by a fairly narrow majority, the House of Commons, as they were perfectly entitled to do, took a different view. All of us who have been in office will sympathise deeply with the Government in the dilemma in which they have been placed by a vagary of Parliament for which they were not prepared. I am sure that the Government will agree that a decision by the Commons does not bind your Lordships one way or the other. We have here a duty to perform, and it cannot be influenced by what has
528
happened in another place. We have, to the best of our ability, to decide upon the merits of the case. I do not know what view your Lordships will take when Clause 1 comes before us during the Committee stage. You may decide to support the view that has been taken by the other place. You may—and I think at present it seems much more probable—wish either to delete or greatly to alter Clause 1 and to refer back the question at issue for further consideration by the other place. In any case, we must use our judgment; that is not only our right but our duty under the Constitution.
Like the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, I was a little shocked by the metaphor employed by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about the "umpire." The Lord Chancellor seemed to assume that the Commons were the umpire, and that the Lords had nothing to do but accept the decision of the umpire, whatever it might be, and however disastrous it might be for the welfare of our country. That, surely, is entirely to misread the constitutional position. It is not the House of Commons that is the umpire; nor, certainly, is it this House. The real umpire, as I think the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, indicated, is the British people. They are the umpire, and it is they whose views on a matter of such importance for every individual citizen must certainly and ultimately prevail. Fortunately for your Lordships' House, the views of the British people on many matters that come before us are already known, and then the task which we have to perform is a comparatively easy one. I think it will be agreed in all parts of the House that we have tried to perform that task properly and fairly.
Sometimes, as in the present case, the views of the people are not clearly known; but up to now I think the indications, as the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, said yesterday, are that the country on the whole is heavily against abolition. I do not know whether that is correct, but I have had considerable correspondence. I have no doubt that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has also had correspondence. I have had extremely moving letters. They are not confined to members of any one Party. I have had letters from members of the Labour Party, appealing, rather pathetically, to the House of

529
Lords to save them. In all these letters the view has been the same; it has been always on one side. And that is the side which has been so powerfully represented yesterday and to-day by such men as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, Lord Oaksey, the Lord Chief Justice and many others.
Such straws in the wind, added to the Gallup Polls, are certainly significant. I therefore submit to your Lordships that in such circumstances it is particularly important that there should be no impression that a free vote by your Lordships is in any way prejudiced by any Party consideration. It must be, in the fullest sense of the word, a free vote. Certainly I intend, so far as it lies in my power, that it shall be so on this side of the House. And when the time comes for the Committee stage, I do not propose to advise my supporters as to the vote they should give. I think that in the circumstances that would be improper. I shall express merely my own views and indicate the course I myself propose to take; I shall leave their vote to their own conscience. I hope most sincerely that a similar course will be adopted by the Government towards their supporters, and that in this case there will be no "direction of labour." Any impression that the vote has been influenced for Party reasons would, I believe, have a most deplorable effect on the public, who feel very deeply on this question. It might even go far to impair the authority of Parliament at a time when it is most necessary that that authority should be maintained.
I am very conscious, as I have no doubt are all your Lordships, of the heavy responsibility which lies upon us all in this matter. It is a responsibility which I believe we are very well fitted to exercise, and if it shows that wisdom and that independence which in my experience have always characterised your Lordships, then, whatever may be the result, we shall deserve well of those many thousands of fellow citizens who are at present looking to us with some anxiety to exercise that judgment and to perform those duties which are laid upon us by the Constitution. I do not want to anticipate what the decision of the House will be, but we must not be afraid to send
530
back this particular clause for further consideration by the other place and must not be deterred from doing so, if your Lordships take the view that that is the proper course.
6.30 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, it is always difficult to address your Lordships at the end of a long debate, especially rather late in the evening. It is still more difficult when the very powerful speeches which have been delivered are speeches with which one agrees. On this occasion, I should like more people to attack. As it is, I want in particular to say that I range myself behind my noble friends Lord Oaksey and the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Goddard, on the view I take of Clause 1 of the Bill now before us. The noble Lord, Lord Darwen, said something with which I should like to deal, because I think he is right in saying that very little has been said about the principle which should animate us, or should animate the country, in dealing with matters of a penal character. I will make a confession to your Lordships: on one occasion during my long life I was asked to give a lecture on this very subject. I hasten to relieve your Lordships by saying that I am not going to repeal: any of it now. However, I want to say that the conclusion to which I came, after having studied a number of books—and there are some twenty or thirty books of authority with regard to the principle which should animate the country in regard to crime and punishment—was that the principle, and the only possible principle to be considered, is the safety and benefit of the State.
It is the State's interest which is concerned. It is quite true that that may involve the reformation of the offender, so far as he is capable of reformation; but, at the same time, it is the State that is concerned, and no sentimental idea about the sacred nature of human life. In this country, where many thousands of people die long before their time every year, by accidents on the roads, in the air and on the sea—lives which, in many crises, are lost in the pursuit of adventurous aims or practices—it is quite absurd to pretend that the lives of some eleven or twelve people a year are of so great importance that heir deaths ought to be weighed against anything which is proved to be the interest of

531
the State. I have said that, and I do not want to enlarge upon it at this late hour. I should like, however, to say one word on the subject of punishment.
Some of your Lordships seem to think that there is something improper in the idea of inflicting punishment upon an offender. I am not going to state my own opinion, but I would call to your Lordships' minds the very distinct statement made by Lord Lang when he was Primate of All England, in which he wholly repudiated that notion and said that it was not the view of the Church that crime should never be punished, or that the question of punishment should not enter into the matter. It is quite true that one may have to consider the nature of the punishment, and one ought to consider the question of possible reformation. But he scouted the idea that there was any improper notion in punishment for crime. I would observe, in that respect, that there is a very old and commonly quoted phrase which comes to one's mind from the New Testament. It is this:
"The wages of sin is death."
That is not an idea that can possibly be consistent with the notion that we should put out of our mind altogether any question of punishment for serious crime.
I will mention only shortly my own approach to one or two of the questions which have been discussed in this debate. In the first place, I want to say a word about onus, in which I shall be following what my noble and learned friend Viscount Simon has already said, although I shall be putting forward a rather different reason for my view. We have had capital punishment in this country for many hundreds of years. Nobody knows how long it has existed, and it still continues. I think it is worth while to ask what has been the effect of capital punishment on the crime of murder. The first question is: How many people per annum are found guilty of murder at the present time? Going back to 1935, and taking the years since then, I will give your Lordships, shortly, the results. In those twelve years, 20 was the lowest figure and 31 was the highest; that was in 1942. It is not many, compared with deaths by accident, but that is not material to what I am now going to say.
The question I want your Lordships to ask yourselves is: What is the position
532
in other countries? I would remind your Lordships that in the United States of America, instead of an average of about 30, they have 1,000 murders a year. That enormous disproportion leads me to think that, under our system of judicial punishment and convictions, the number of crimes of murder in this country is very small—certainly far smaller than anybody would guess if he read the statistics for most other countries of a densely populated nature. Then, regarding the onus of showing that capital punishment is injurious to our judicial system, I ask your Lordships to take the view that, when things are going so well as regards the number of murders, this is not the time to make this great alteration. The onus is on those who think that by the proposed alteration they can reduce still further the number of murders per annum for which there will be convictions. So much for onus.
Now one word on the subject of this being experimental. The suggestion is that it is to be a five years' experiment. Your Lordships may think that it is a rather curious matter upon which to make an experiment of this sort. It will prove nothing. On one side we are told that the number of murders will go down if we abolish the death penalty; on the other, we are told that the number of murders will go up. As has already been mentioned—I think by my noble friend Lord Samuel—the number of murders in a country like ours depends on all sorts of things other than whether, if caught, a murderer will suffer a particular sort of punishment. It depends on the state of trade, on the state of employment, on the number of police and on housing conditions—because I have no doubt that bad housing drives people to commit crime. It also depends on the number of deserters, who are often criminals, and so forth. Those matters must all be considered. In this year, 1948, we are diminishing the number of deserters, and we may hope greatly to improve the number of houses, even in five years—which is a considerable time with the present Government—and to make other improvements.
I would venture to make a prophecy. Whether you agree with this clause and make the experiment, or whether you disagree with it and do not make the experiment, in five years you will find practically

533
no difference in the number of murders. It is not there that the alteration will show its effect, it is in the number of prosecutions for injuries to the person. I mentioned the statistics of the persons accused. The persons convicted during the last ten years who suffered the death penalty are only 11 per annum. If you have in one year 11 and in another year, perhaps, 13 or 14, that does not show anything as to the influence or otherwise of the death penalty. The extent to which, in a particular year, there is some greater number of murders may depend simply on some question such as people being out of employment in a particular district, or something like that. I ask your Lordships to believe that the experiment has the vital defect that it will prove nothing either way. We must consider this question on general circumstances and arguments as to the position.
I will make one more incidental remark, and that is on the subject of the position of the murderer if he has a ten or fifteen years' sentence. I shall ask the question that I think other noble Lords have asked—namely, how is the murderer to live after he is released from ten or fifteen years in gaol? According to Sir Alexander Paterson, his mind and body in that time will have been greatly impaired. He is a murderer, which is a fact that may become known. In general, although not always, he will be unable to secure any sort of employment. The police are probably watching him and the fact will become known. Then what is to happen? If this becomes law we shall have perhaps 120 murderers in a number of years, all of whom will be unable to work, who will starve if they are not supported by the State, and whose health is of an exceedingly doubtful character. That has got to be dealt with by those who say that we must alter the law. Those, generally, are the arguments which I want: as shortly as possible to make.
I want now to say one thing which has not so far been touched on, and which I invite the House, and those who happen to read the report of this debate, to consider before the Committee stage, because to me it seems a matter of some importance. We all know that capital punishment involves hanging on a scaffold provided with a trap door, which is usually erected in the prison a day or two before the execution. It is said to
534
keep awake the prisoners in the gaol. The Capital Punishment (Amendment) Act of 1868, lays down that there shall be present at the time of the hanging the sheriff, the chaplain, the gaoler, the surgeon and other officers of the prison as the sheriff may require; and in many cases the sheriff has to admit some relations of the person who is to be hanged. My belief is chat that method of exterminating a brute is entirely out of date; to me it is horrible. All these people who have to attend hate it. The prisoners in the gaol get to know about it, and, in many gaols, there have been cases of hysteria among prisoners because they bear that the hanging is taking place on that day.
It is ridiculous to think that in this year of Our Lord we cannot invent a better method of putting an end to these wretched brutes than that of hanging by the neck. It is an unscientific method which, as we know, sometimes has defects because the rope may break, or the drop may not be sufficient to put an and to life at the moment of the drop. What I would suggest as a matter for consideration by the Government—partly because of his and partly because I believe in my heart that it is necessary to have an improvement of this method—is that they should seek advice as to the easiest method of annihilating these creatures, without pain and without trouble, either by the administration of a narcotic of some description, or by a pricking of the arm with some substance that will take away their lives.
I may be wrong (this is the sort of matter about which nobody should be arrogant in his opinion), but my belief is that a large proportion of those people who have spoken so strongly in the other place against the death penalty have done so because of the method by which we are still administering that penalty. With modern knowledge and the introduction of euthanasia, such as a mere prick in the arm, without any such procession as has been mentioned and without the necessity of erecting a scaffold in the gaol, there is surely some way of carrying out the only course which, in the view I take, is necessary in the interests of the State, and which will at the same time accomplish the purpose—or what ought to be the purpose—of the State without any of the horrors and misery of a death by hanging. That is all I have to say, except that I agree fully with what has been said by

535
the last two speakers on the constitutional question. I think also that the Bill as a whole is a good Bill. Even though I know that it probably cannot be brought into full operation for a considerable number of years, it will do no harm to have it on the Statute Book, and ultimately it will become the law of this country.
6.49 p.m.
LORD ROCHESTER: My Lords, in following the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, I recognise that unwittingly he has thrown an onus upon me of answering the question that he put to those who differ from him—namely, what would be our solution to meet the problem of those men who, when the capital penalty has been commuted, are discharged after a term of imprisonment and have to earn a living. I promise frankly to face that issue before I sit down. Before doing so, however, I want to come back to the Bill itself. Notwithstanding the disclaimer of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, I should like to add my thanks to those already expressed to him as being in a very real sense the author, if not the finisher, of this Bill. I join, too, with other noble Lords in expressing the hope that the merits of the Bill will not be obscured by so much concentration upon the question of the abolition of the death penalty. For myself, I welcome the Bill, including Clause 1, and as to that clause 1 will say a few words later.
I am not going to delay your Lordships unduly; first, because the hour is late and we have had a long and, as I think, momentous debate, and secondly, because the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has said infinitely better than I can much that I had wished to say. But there is one point upon the general issue of the Bill to which I desire in passing to refer. Notwithstanding what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and I think also by the noble Lord, Lord Kershaw, yesterday, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Holden, in intensely regretting the provision that a conviction must precede a probation order. I have been a magistrate for over forty years, and I remember well during my association long ago with the late Mr. Sidney Edridge, feeling what a valuable work he was undertaking when he took so large a part in the formation of the Probation Officers Association. With almost a lifetime of
536
experience since then, I now say without hesitation that, in my humble judgment, it would be difficult to exaggerate the value of the probation system in this country. But I confess that I regret the inclusion in this Bill of a provision—nay, a Statutory obligation—that makes it essential that there must be a conviction before an individual is put on probation. My primary objection is on the ground that it entails a stigma which we would much sooner should not rest upon the person concerned. Speaking generally, I am sure that probation officers are doing a work that is of inestimable value to the country, and I hope, with one of the noble Lords who spoke yesterday, that when the question of their emoluments comes to be considered it will be considered in a very generous spirit.
While I am sorry to sound a discordant note, I confess frankly to amazement at some of the things that were said by the two right reverend Prelates who have taken part in this debate. I sincerely hope that the sentiments they expressed do not represent the considered judgment of the Anglican Church. As I listened to the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Winchester, yesterday, developing his argument on the subject of punishment generally, and to both right reverend Prelates on the subject of the capital penalty, I felt that the late Archbishop Temple, of revered memory, might well turn in his grave, but for the fact that, having reaped the promised reward, he is not there.
"Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy."
For a mere layman like myself, I confess that it is somewhat difficult to reconcile the words of the two right reverend Prelates with the admonition of their Master, and mine, in St. Mark XI, 25. As I listened to the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Truro, I wondered whether he was looking back with longing to the Eighteenth Century, when stealing anything worth five shillings entailed the capital penalty. As to the capital penalty being a deterrent, I would ask the right reverend Prelates, is there any deterrent to crime which can effectively operate, other than a revival of personal religion? My objection to the capital penalty is primarily that I believe, with the fullest conviction, that all punishment, without

537
exception, should be reformative; that no criminal should be abandoned beyond hope. The capital penalty cannot be remedial in respect to the person affected, for it takes away irrevocably the possibility thereafter of repentance and reformation.
We were told yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, in reply to a question by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, that, during the last ten years 104 persons convicted of murder, whose capital sentences had been commuted to penal servitude for life, were released from prison. At this point I would like to meet the question raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, when he threw the onus upon us of saying what should be done with those who are so released. I must here crave the indulgence of your Lordships, for I am speaking on the spur of the moment and from memory. I am an old man now, between 70 and 80 years of age. I do not know that I can trust my memory as to details, but I can tell your Lordships this. When I was in the other House as Liberal Member for Rochester, at a certain time—I am not sure, but I think it was between thirty and forty years ago—I received a letter one morning from the Methodist chaplain at one of our convict prisons about a particular prisoner. He felt keenly that this prisoner was very repentant and recognised to the full the immensity of his crime, and he, the chaplain, asked whether he might come to see me. I hesitated, but eventually I intimated that I should be willing to see him. He came to see me and he told me a story that I shall never forget.
As a Member of the other House, I went to see the then Home Secretary, and I put the facts before him. But I did not carry my point; he could not see his way to release the man on licence. Some years passed and (I cannot trust my memory as to whether there was a change of Home Secretaries) I received a letter from the Home Office asking me to call on the Home Secretary. I went to see him, and he said that he was considering the question of releasing on licence the man to whom I have referred. The question he faced me with was this: "If he should be so released, would you be prepared to employ him?" I will be quite frank: I was in a pretty serious position, as a
538
public man with a great number of employees, and I hesitated. I said I should like to have time to consider it. But eventually I saw the Home Secretary and agreed. And I want to say to your Lordships that, having once employed such a person as one of those referred to by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in his reply to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, I never once had to regret doing so. That man made good. If ever I have come in contact with a man who was really repentant and at the same time recognised the immensity of his crime, that man did. He made good. And I think I am justified in relating that personal experience in answer to what the noble and learned Viscount said. I do not want to detain your Lordships. I desire to commend the Bill entirely to your Lordships' favour and ask you to give it, including Clause I, a Second Reading.
7.1 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, in making a brief intervention in this debate, I feel that at this late hour it requires a certain amount of personal explanation as to why I should have the temerity to speak when all the main points in the debate have been made with such ability by abler and more experienced speakers, My reason for speaking at all is that there is one aspect of the abolition of the death penalty which has not been touched on in this House, but which I think has some bearing on the question and should be considered, and that is the effect which any such abolition will have in our Colonial Dependencies. We are dealing there with over 60,000,000 people, and whatever may be the view taken about the standard of civilisation reached in England, which may or may not justify such a drastic step as this, there is no question whatever that neither public opinion nor public advancement in those territories could possibly justify any such step. I speak as an administrator trained to take an objective view of these questions and to appreciate also the danger of allowing waves of sentiment or emotion to cloud one's judgment in matters of public policy and public security.
Before I proceed, perhaps I should make my own position clear in regard to Clause I, which as it stands concerns this country. I feel that it is not only my right but my duty, as a member of this

539
House, when the time comes, to express in a suitable way my view that that clause should not be allowed to stand in the Bill. It may be that in the opinion of some people the time has come to introduce such a provision, but I differ with equal sincerity. There is no need for me to go into the reasons, which have already been explained with such clarity. It seems to me a curious argument that this country has reached such a stage of advancement that the time has come to abolish the death penalty. I should have thought that the greatest proof that this country had reached such a stage would be a diminution in the number of murders, but apparently the process is to take place from the other end. It seems that the prodigal son is obtaining rather a monopoly of sympathy in this country at the present moment, to the detriment of the ordinary decent citizen.
May I now turn to the question of the Colonial Dependencies? In our Dependencies in various parts of the world during the past eighteen years I have been in the position in which the Home Secretary is in this country, and during that time it has fallen to my lot to exercise the very grave responsibility of deciding whether or not the law shall take its course after a conviction for murder. I assure your Lordships that that responsibility is taken with the utmost gravity by the Governors throughout the Empire. They have to consult the members of their Executive Council, who offer their advice. They do not have to take that advice, but the matter is considered by a group of responsible men. Whether or not there has been a recommendation for mercy from the Judge who heard the case, every possible detail that may bear on the exercise of the prerogative is considered. A study of the figures will show that wherever it is reasonably possible, that prerogative is exercised. But there can be not the slightest doubt that nobody with the personal knowledge I have could possibly argue that the abolition of the death penalty throughout the Dependencies would be other than disastrous to the Governments of those countries. I consulted to-day another member of your Lordships' House who is not able to be present, and he asked me to quote him in support of what I say. I refer to the noble Lord, Lord Hailey, who says in the most emphatic way that the first
540
result would be an outbreak of new murders, and the position of the police and those responsible for order would be made almost impossible.
I can point to one instance where this arises—the operation of the murder gangs, the Leopard Men, in Africa. During the past year or two there have been upwards of 200 of the most brutal and degrading murders in a certain area of that country, and if it were not possible to impose the death penalty when the murderers were caught, it would unquestionably bring the law into contempt. What is more, it would start a series of blood feuds. After all, is not that the origin of the death penalty in the courts—the State saying that blood feuds must cease? We have imposed that view throughout the Colonial Dependencies. Surely the greatest obligation on the part of the State is to see that public opinion as it exists in these countries is adequately satisfied that justice is done. There is no question that, apart from the degree of murder, which we have been discussing, if the convicted murderer were not to suffer the ultimate penalty it would mean that we should have these people slipping slowly back into the practice of taking the law into their own hands. In the light of the way they look at things, we could not say they were wrong or blame them for it.
I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer, other than to say that if this clause does not automatically come into force in the Dependencies, it is quite inevitable, especially if there is a Secretary of State for the Colonies who himself does not believe in the death penalty, that persuasion, direct and possibly indirect, will be brought to bear on the Colonial Legislatures to follow suit. That is the normal thing which is done in important matters of legislation like that, and the results, as I have endeavoured to indicate, would be quite disastrous. In passing, perhaps I may say in relation to whipping (I do not refer to the "cat" but to whipping by the birch) that again there can be no question whatever of the harmful effect that abolition would have, certainly in the Colonial Dependencies. I can quote an instance from my own experience in one Colony where I was responsible. Certain forms of crime appeared and grew, and it was quite impossible to control them. I re-introduced the penalty of

541
flogging, and they stopped at once. You can have no greater proof, my Lords, than that. I do not say that that would necessarily apply in this country, but I quote it to indicate my point that, whatever may be the state of things in Britain, it does not follow that our Colonial Dependencies have yet reached the requisite stage of development.
7.12 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I desire, with your permission, to occupy a few minutes of your time by a discussion of two points which, surprisingly, have received no consideration in the speeches to which I have listened during this debate. They are both in connection with the principle and application of the death penalty. The first is the effect of execution on the criminal himself. I expect that many of your Lordships, like myself, were brought up and taught as children that those who fail to attain to a certain standard of morality, and who die unrepentant, go to a place called Hell, where they remain in torment for all eternity. It may be that some of your Lordships, Spiritual or Temporal, still hold to that belief. If that be so, it would seem to me that those noble Lords must necessarily support the proposal to abolish the death penalty, in order to give the criminal, in the words of the Prayer Book, "time for amendment of life."
It would be unthinkable for people who hold such views to jeopardise the eternal future of a human soul by precipitate action, however much such action might conduce to the convenience or the safety of the community. Others of your Lordships, again, may believe that at physical death the human personality is snuffed out like a candle flame, never to be rekindled, never even to be able to experience regret for the termination of its existence. Such of your Lordships—if any there be—may confidently support the death penalty; and, if they are logical, they will wish it to be extended to all who, on balance, are a liability rather than an asset to the community.
But I should probably be right in saying that the great majority of your Lordships subscribe to neither of these extreme views. You may, perhaps, share with me the belief that the spirit of man is immortal; that he continues his
542
life on the other side of the grave, and that in the early stages of that existence, at least, his condition is decided largely by the personality which he has made for himself in this life. Here, then, is an argument against hurling the murderer precipitately out of physical existence, and for giving him at least a chance to amend his life, if he is willing to do so, though the argument is not so compelling as it would be if we believed that the man was headed for eternal damnation. I think perhaps a good many people say to themselves, if only subconsciously, something of this kind:" He has made his bed, let him lie on it. By all laws, human and divine, he must suffer for his evil deed. Let him suffer, if needs be, on the other side of he grave. We, at any rate, shall be rid of him. We shall not have to look after him at the common expense for a number of years, and we shall not be faced with the responsibility of eventually letting him loose again upon society."
This argument contains a serious fallacy which brings me to my second point. These people say: "We, at any rate, snail be rid of him." But that is not a fact. Our three-dimensional minds lead us to think of Heaven and Hell as definite localities. We do not quite know where they are, but we think, at any rate, that they are not "here now," as the relativitists say, and that their inhabitants cannot contact us and affect our daily lives. That is just where we are wrong. The fact is that all worlds are one; the perpetual war of Light against Darkness continues, in that world, be the combatants incarnate or discarnate; and the forces of Darkness depend to a great extent on the recruitment of evil men hurled across the border, whether by war or by execution, filled with rage and hatred and a burning thirst for revenge. Have your Lordships sometimes heard of a poor bemused prisoner, being tried for murder, saying: "I do not know why I did it. I had nothing against him, but I heard a voice inside my head saying: 'Hit him with a hammer; hit him with a hammer.' "If you have heard a story like that, you have heard of one murderer, at least, with whom we did not finish.
This capital punishment clause is very important: to this country, and the decision of this country is very important to humanity. Each one of us who has a

543
vote in this House carries a responsibility transcending the mere political effect of accepting or rejecting the clause. Each one of us must vote in accordance with his conscience. I have chosen to speak to-day, rather than wait for the Committee stage, in order to give time for the study of a point of view which, though perhaps new, many may yet think worthy of consideration.
7.20 p.m.
LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: My Lords, it may perhaps be a relief to your Lordships if I say at once that I do not intend to refer to Clause 1. I think it is a great pity that this debate has been almost entirely overshadowed by Clause 1. I do not mean that I regret a single one of the speeches which have been made. We have had a wonderful debate, and I express the hope that that debate will continue fully when we come to the Committee stage and consider Clause 1. This Bill contains in all seventy-nine clauses, and there are many matters in the other seventy-eight clauses which I would have liked to hear debated on Second Reading. There are some great principles in this Bill, and it is on Second Reading that we refer to principles. I do not intend to enter the discussion as to whether the system should be deterrent or reformatory. I accept what has been said by great authorities in the law, that our system of law must be deterrent. That I accept absolutely, and I would not like to see the law so altered as to cease to be in any way deterrent.
What I am more interested in, if I may say so, is the attempt to make the law reformatory, because if we can reform a criminal, or a potential criminal, we are adding an asset to society which is a permanent gain. Glancing through this Bill—and I do not pretend to have made more than a cursory survey, because we have not had very long since it came from another place—I find that the new system of reformatory legislation is leading, so far as I can see, to some rather strange conclusions. I am going to mention only quite briefly to your Lordships three points which seem to me a little startling. I say at once that I do not doubt the good intention behind these propositions, for I am certain those are excellent, but I do think the proposals require examination.
544
The first point to which I wish to draw your Lordships' attention is that quite an early clause of the Bill provides that a particular form of treatment may be prescribed by Order in Council, limited to persons of one of the sexes. If that is left in the Bill, what becomes of the great principle of equality before the law? I have always been brought up to believe that it is the pride of our legal system in this country that we are all equal before the law—rich or poor, old or young and, I should have thought, male or female. But here we have a provision which is going to permit, by Order in Council, legislation limited specifically to one of the sexes That is a matter about which I should like to know more, and perhaps we shall have an opportunity of discussing it on the Committee stage. But equality before the law is a great principle and I should have thought deserves mention on Second Reading.
The second point is that I find enshrined quite definitely in a later clause—not only in the clause of the Bill which originally dealt with mental affairs—a provision for compulsory mental and physical examination. Again I have always understood it to be a principle of the common law that the person of an accused could not be physically examined without his consent. I believe there are practical reasons for that. I believe, for one thing, that you will not get much benefit from an examination, either from the mental or physical aspects unless you have the co-operation of the prisoner. That, again, I believe to be an entire departure from any principle of law which has been established in this country up to date.
My third point refers to a clause where I find that power is taken to take fingerprints of an accused person before there is any proof of guilt. That, I think, is a provision which we must look at with great care when it comes to Committee stage. I observe with some interest that the Bill provides that a constable is to be empowered in this matter to use "such reasonable force as may be necessary." I hope the Lord Chancellor will tell us what "reasonable force" means. I know what reason is—at least I can always respect reason when I hear it—and I know what force is, but I do not know what "reasonable force" is. On the Committee stage I hope we may examine that matter further,

545
but it is an entirely new principle of law that an innocent person—because a person is innocent until he is proved guilty—should be forcibly made to give a fingerprint. I am not a lawyer, and I hesitate, in a debate in which there has been participation by a galaxy of ex-Home Secretaries as well as a large number of great lawyers, to lay down principles of common law, but I have always understood that among them are these three principles. The first is equality before the law, the second is inviolability of the person of the accused, and the third is a presumption of innocence until the establishment of guilt. I am startled to find that these three principles are, as I see it, infringed in the Bill. Every one of them is a potential weapon of oppression of people who may be defenceless.
I now address myself to the Government. This is a Government which I suppose would claim, above all Governments, to be the protector of the oppressed and of the defenceless. I think I would not appeal in vain to the Government as being a Government which set out to see that the underdog gets fair treatment, and we shall look to them to see that very adequate reasons are given for such strange innovations as I have ventured to indicate. There may be others, but those are the three which I happened to notice in the very cursory study which I gave to the Bill. We must see to it that the zeal of the administrator is not allowed to outrun the limit of discretion which the Legislature ought to give him.
7.28 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I shall follow the excellent example set by the last speaker, and say nothing further about Clause 1, except just this about my previous speech. Both the noble Earl, Lord Halifax, and the noble Marquess who leads the Opposition, seemed to think that in that speech I cast some doubt upon the propriety of your Lordships' House dealing with the Bill in any way you thought proper. It is not that I want to justify myself or read it, but if your Lordships would look at what I said, as reported in column 398 of Hansard, you will see that I made it quite plain that I was speaking for myself. For myself the position is quite simple. I was a party to a bargain. I agreed that this matter should be left to a free vote, and I agreed to stand by the result of that
546
free vote. It is quite plain, therefore, that I cannot do anything. I do not suggest for a moment, however, that your Lordships are bound, because you were not parties to the bargain. All things are lawful for you. What is expedient is a matter for you to judge, but certainly your Lordships have constitutionally, beyond any argument whatever, the perfect light to send the clause back to another place for further consideration if you are so minded. If your Lordships will look a little carefully at the words I used, I think you will find that, although I was speaking on the spur of the moment, what I have just said is correct. I think you will find that that is my position. I venture to think, too, that that is not an illogical position. I venture to think it is a position to which I am logically driven by the course which I took. I frankly confess that I expected an answer in a different sense, and if I had received an answer in a different sense I should have made every use of it. Noble Lords will forgive me if I do not go through all the Committee points which have been raised. I am glad they have been raised, because I now have warning in advance of the sort of points which I shall have to meet. But I must say that, having listened to practically the whole of this discussion over the last two days, I think this is one of the most remarkable debates to which I have ever listened. And I am rather proud to say that it has been illuminated, as I think, by great speeches setting forth the two rival points of view. May I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence that we do not think that those who differ from us are soft or mealy-mouthed, or in any sense whatever different from ourselves. The debate has also been illuminated by the speeches of some of the Judges; and having listened in my time to many ma den speeches and having on many occasions had the obligation of congratulating a speaker on his maiden speech, I would say, without hesitation, that, of all the maiden speeches I have ever heard, that made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, was quite the best. I think he showed in that speech that the Judges are not the inhuman creatures they are sometimes supposed to be, not "stick-in-the-muds," talking the language and thinking the thoughts of about 200 years ago.

547
The old gibe about Lord Ellenborough is really not sufficient ground on which to say for ever afterwards "You may completely disregard what the Judges think." After all, Lord Ellenborough was making the mistake of forgetting that juries were not convicting because the penalties were so hopelessly out of proportion to the offences. When (in the year 1832, I think) the Act to abolish the death penalty for forgery was passed, it was the bankers who produced that Bill—not because they were moved by any sympathy for the forger, but because, so long as the penalty for forgery was death, they could not get a conviction. When I recall some of the great Judges since Ellenborough's time, I think, for instance, of Sir Samuel Romilly—and who has done more to restrict and limit the death penalty than Romilly?—and of many other names which will occur to any educated person. And I should like to think that our Judges to-day are in the same great line.
The question was asked by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, as to whether there would or would not be a free vote, so far as our side is concerned. That, of course, is a matter for my noble friend the Leader of the House. All I can say, because I have not had an opportunity of consulting him, is that he is aware that the suggestion has been made. He will look carefully at the suggestion, and he will no doubt take an opportunity of communicating with the noble Marquess about it. I cannot, at the moment, go further than that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I should not presume to expect an answer from the noble Viscount the Leader of the House on what instructions he intends to give to his Party. All I can say is that I hope there will be a free vote. I do not wish to carry the matter further than that.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The question of whether or not there will be a free vote will depend upon the instructions given by the Leaders of the four Parties—and, of course, upon whether their followers follow their lead. I was also asked whether I would prepare a White Paper. I have not had an opportunity of consulting the Home Secretary about it, but I am sure that he would be quite willing to obtain for noble Lords any available information which there may
548
be. It seems to me—though I am speaking without authority—that it is quite impossible, between now and the Committee stage, to prepare a White Paper dealing with this matter. The reference I made to Belgium also relates to a large number of other countries. It is set out in an Appendix to the Report of the Committee of 1929–30. This volume is, of course, in our Library and the facts I stated about Belgium are derived from it. Whether there have been any alterations in the facts and figures since 1929–30 we could no doubt ascertain by inquiry. The statement I made—and I have checked it since—was accurate as at 1929–1930, and your Lordships will find there also the statistics and figures for many other countries. It is quite impracticable, in any period of time short of months, to bring that sort of information up to date. But I will gladly convey to the Home Secretary the requests which several noble Lords have made and ask him to consider to what extent, if any, he can satisfy them.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: If my memory serves me aright, it was not a very harmonious Committee in 1929–30. One Party walked out long before the Committee had concluded their discussion, and therefore this Report represents only one side; the minority never presented a Report at all.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is quite right. But the evidence which was given is all there. The statistics were all given in evidence. The book which the noble Marquess has in his hands is only the Report and not the evidence. That is all in this formidable document I have here which I borrowed temporarily from our Library.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount for one moment? I wonder whether he could not communicate with our representatives in, say, Belgium, The Hague and the Scandinavian countries, to ascertain the latest information upon the points that I raised to-day. If so, I think he will find that a great deal of the information of 1929–30 is out of date. I should have thought it was quite possible, through the Diplomatic channels, to have obtained, I do not say a detailed analysis but a general picture of the changes that have taken place since the taking of the evidence.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am perfectly willing to consult the Home Secretary about it, and to tell him what is wanted. The matter was raised only to-day, and I have not had an opportunity to consult him. If he can do anything, I have no doubt that he will do it.
I should like now to refer briefly to some of the matters which have been mentioned in the course of the debate. May I justify myself to the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, as to what I said about sending children to prison on remand? If he will refer to Section 33 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, he will find that I quoted that section correctly.
VISCOUNT SIMON: I am greatly obliged to the noble and learned Viscount. What I meant was that, however that may be, I am sure that the case I mentioned occurred—in that I was confirmed by the noble Lord, Lord Schuster—because I had to take action.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not know the date. It may, of course, have been before 1933. The noble and learned Viscount will know that it sometimes happens that magistrates exceed their jurisdiction; but under the law they are not entitled to send a child to prison on remand.
The noble Viscount raised another question—I am dealing only with a few of these broad issues—whether we should take this opportunity for ending what he referred to as a preposterous anachronism with regard to the trial of Peers and their wives. To my way of thinking, it is a preposterous anachronism. He poked some fun at it and, if he had had unlimited time, he could have poked much more fun at it. It often happens that a set of circumstances give rise to two crimes, one of which is a felony and the other a misdemeanour. Lord de Clifford was tried for manslaughter. Manslaughter is a felony, and the ordinary courts of the land had no jurisdiction to try him. He had to come here. I hope I am right about this. When a man is charged with manslaughter, he can be convicted of dangerous driving. Dangerous driving is a misdemeanour, and for misdemeanour we in this House have no jurisdiction at all. So the unfortunate man, having been acquitted here of the charge of manslaughter, which is a felony, then had
550
to go to the Old Bailey to be acquitted there of dangerous driving, which is a misdemeanour. When I tell your Lordships that this applies not only to ourselves but also to our wives, I am sure you will appreciate in what peril we all are!
Some years ago, this House passed a Bill to alter all that, and we sent it down to another place hoping that we should get it through. I think the date was about 1937 or 1938. When it reached the other place, no less a person than Mr. Churchill himself gave notice that he was going to move this Resolution:
"That this House declines to proceed with the Second Reading of the Bill in advance of the measures for the general reform of the House of Lords formulated in the Preamble to the Parliament Act, 1911."
I cannot help feeling a little alarmed for the speedy passage of the Criminal Justice Bill if, when it reaches another place, it is to be held up by consideration of the reform of the House of Lords as promised by the Parliament Act of 1911. Therefore, I am a little disposed to think that, unless we can secure the most complete assurances of what will happen, it may be better to do it by means of a, separate Bill. If I talk about any new or separate Bills, the noble Viscount the Leader of the House will look rather glumly at me. So far as sympathy with the project is concerned, I am entirely with the noble Lord, either in this Bill or in some other Bill if time permits, but I make no promise that it shall be done.
There was some criticism of the Bill on the ground that all this project is really very much in the air. I said something of the same sort to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on some earlier occasion. Of course, it is true that there is no doubt: hat we have to build detention centres, and the like, but there is not much chance of building them at the present time. On the other hand, for some purposes—I do not say these purposes, because we should require secure buildings out of which people could not escape—we are able to obtain accommodation in the form of large country houses. Indeed, we have done so. So far as probation homes and hostels are concerned, they will not necessarily involve any building at all; it is merely a question of obtaining suitable premises. Remand homes already have to be provided by local authorities,

551
and this Bill does not add to their commitments. Borstal institutions are available and we have obtained some country houses to deal with this particular matter. I agree that it will be some time before remand centres and detention centres can be built, but it is just as well now to take the power to build them so that, when the opportunity does arise, we shall be able to do so.
The Prison Commissioners also have their plans about building. Part of their plan is to pull down a number of old, antiquated prisons and that will take some time. I do not want your Lordships to go away with the idea that this is a "soft" Bill. It is nothing of the sort. It enables any court dealing with a serious offence to impose a severe punishment if, in the opinion of the court, a severe punishment is required. The whole distinction between penal servitude and imprisonment is now very little. For a very long time it has been the practice for convicts to serve sentences in local prisons. Again, the distinction between hard labour and ordinary imprisonment has almost ceased to exist. Hard labour was described as being
"any labour which does not visibly quicken the breath and open the pores."
I suppose that was in connection with the working of cranks and treadmills, and also shot-lifting. I really think—and I am sure that everybody who thinks about this takes the same view—that that is a completely antiquated idea. I am quite convinced that one of the secrets is to make the man engage in useful work. I mean that even supposing we do not have that very hard form of labour, to make a man dig a hole and fill it up again is, to say the least, soul-destroying. We want to give him useful work to do, work in which he can take a pride and nothing will restore his self-respect better than such an opportunity. It may be that some of your Lordships saw a letter in The Times recently from Lord Justice Wrottesley in which he expressed this point of view. I feel certain that the Prison Commissioners—I am only saying what they desire to do—must try to introduce more useful work into the prisons, into the prison workshops and so on.
We were criticised upon the fact that we had not been able as yet to introduce a Bill dealing with the most valuable
552
Report of the Roche Committee on Magistrates' Clerks. There again, I can say that I am very anxious to be able to introduce a Bill to implement that Report. However, as I have said before, it is more than my post is worth to promise a particular place for it in any particular programme of legislation. In the meantime, it is the fact that we have been doing what we can without legislation. The amalgamation of the justices' clerkships with adjoining areas, so as to provide whole-time clerks can, to some extent, be carried on without legislation. That is being done.
Now just a word on the divisions of prisons. There used to be a first division, a second division and a third division. That system has now become completely obsolete, if only because the Prison Commissioners themselves have a much more detailed classification than that. It depends to-day upon many considerations. All this is worked out in prison rules, and the clause regarding first division, second division and third division strikes out of the Statute Book much unnecessary and old learning.
I could not agree more than I agree with the Lord Chief Justice in that we must clear our minds with regard to these detention centres. I cannot pretend to-day to give your Lordships details of the courses that will be instituted there. The buildings are not yet built, we have not yet got the staff and the whole scheme lies in the future. But I think it very desirable that we should have a system in a detention centre whereby we can bring home to a wrongdoer, by means of short but sharp punishment, that he had very much better not work against society but try to become a useful member of it. That is the line on which we shall try to work these centres. Of course, before Judges are expected to send people to these centres they must be told about them, so that they can see for themselves exactly what we are doing.
I am not going to detain your Lordships any longer at this late hour. Although I have not mentioned many of the matters which have been referred to, I can promise that all the suggestions which have been made will be most carefully examined and, when we get to the Committee stage, we shall of course be able to give detailed consideration to those various matters. I myself agree with the

553
last speaker: I think it is a pity in a way that, by reason of the fact that Clause 1 has taken such a prominent part in our discussions, we have at times seemed rather to forget that there are seventy-eight other clauses. But when we reach the Committe stage we shall be able to correct that, and I, with the assistance of some of my noble friends, will do the best I car to answer the points that have been raised, and to try to justify the various proposals. The discussions we shall have
554
will, I have no doubt, be friendly—they always are, more especially when there are no Party politics in; he Bill. I have no doubt that from those discussions, and in the light of your Lordships' experience, we shall be able to make what I claim is a good Bill an even better Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at five minutes before eight o'clock.