Sitting of 1 July 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  WARWICK CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ALIENS

    Dr. Wladislaw Dering
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he can now state what steps he is proposing to take with regard to the applications for the extradition of Dr. Wladislaw Dering as an alleged war criminal.
    Mr. Platts-Millsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Dr. Wladislaw Dering was listed as a war criminal on three occasions by the United Nations War Crimes Commission; that charges against him have been preferred by the Governments of Czechoslovakia, France and Poland; and His Majesty's Government are satisfied that a prima facie case has been established against Dr. Dering that, as an assistant Medical Officer in charge of the Oswiecim concentration camp, he was responsible for the segregation and collection of Allied personnel for destruction in the gas chambers, and that in addition he participated in experiments on living human beings; and whether, in view of all these facts, he will, without further delay, arrange for the deportation of this person so that he can stand his trial as a war criminal.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): It has been found requisite to make some further inquiries which will take a little time to complete.
    Mr. Fletcher: In view of the very serious charges that have been made against Dr. Dering, including charges of having performed sterilisation and other experimental operations on a large scale, and in view of the fact that he has already been detained without trial in this country for a very long time, is it not eminently desirable that this matter should be judicially investigated without further delay?
    Mr. Ede: That judicial investigation, as far as it concerns the establishment of a prima facie case, is going on.
    Mr. Platts-Mills: In view of the fact that the Foreign Secretary informed the Polish Government on 27th April of this year that we were satisfied that a prima facie case was made out and that the man would be deported forthwith, can the Home Secretary say what are the reasons for a further investigation being required?
    Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Some further rebutting evidence was submitted.

    Colonel Tassoev
    Mr. Piratinasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how long Colonel Tassoev was kept at Hammersmith police station; did he ask at the police station to see the Soviet Consul or state who he was; and was he taken to any other place from the police station before leaving the country.
    Mr. Ede: Colonel Tassoev was at Hammersmith police station from 6th May to 20th May, when he was returned to the Soviet authorities. During that period, he was not taken from the police station to any other place. The police knew who he was. As regards the remainder of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave last Thursday to my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).
    Mr. Piratin: Is the Home Secretary aware that the information which he has now given is at variance with what we have been told before, when he told us

    2343
    that this man was temporarily detained at Hammersmith police station, and that now he says he was there for 14 days? May I ask him why could not the Soviet authorities in this country have been informed that he was here and would be transferred to them?
    Mr. Ede: This man came from abroad, and was returned to the place abroad from which he came.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that, last Thursday, he gave an undertaking to the hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Nicholson) that he would get into touch with the Foreign Secretary to consider the desirability of publishing a connected statement about this affair? May I ask him if the Foreign Secretary has been consulted, and who we are to recommend for the Nobel Prize for fairy stories—the Foreign Secretary or the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Ede: I am in consultation with my right hon. Friend. There are no fairy tales about this, and this man is no fairy.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the Foreign Secretary taken into consideration the suggestion which I made to him last Thursday? Is he aware of the very prejudicial effect which the mythical fairy stories concerning this episode have had in Soviet circles and the Red Army, and will he see that a connected account is widely published?
    Mr. Ede: I am carrying out the promise which I gave in answer to the hon. Gentleman last week.
    Mr. McGovern: May I ask if my right hon. Friend is aware that many persons in this country who are opposed to this individual still think that the Government story does not ring very well in the country, and is it not time that he made up a connected story to tell the country?
    Mr. Ede: We are not endeavouring to make up a connected story. I am as anxious as the hon. Gentleman that the full facts shall be made known, but I did not come into the picture until 6th May.
    Mr. Piratin: Will the Home Secretary explain why the Soviet Embassy in this country could not be informed that a Soviet military citizen had been incarcerated for 14 days in a police station without a charge being made against him?
    Mr. Ede: When aliens are landed in the circumstances in which this man was landed, it is not customary to inform the Embassy or Legation.

  CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR (SENTENCE)
  Mr. Collinsasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the remission of the sentence of three years' Borstal training passed on Peter Green, a conscientious objector, at Chelmsford Quarter Sessions, in view of Mr. Green's previous character and the special circumstances.
  Mr. Ede: Green has appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal against his conviction and sentence and has been released on bail. As the case is still before the courts it would be improper for me to comment on it.
  Mr. Collins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this case has caused considerable public concern, and would he say whether there is any precedent for sending a young man of otherwise first-class character to Borstal for an alleged offence of this kind?
  Mr. Ede: I should have thought that that was just the kind of comment I ought not to make while the case is sub judice.
  Mr. McGovern: Outside the trial of the case, is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the magistrate who tried this man did not show a rather vicious trend of mind?
  Mr. Speaker: The case is sub judice, and these questions are undesirable.

  FIRE SERVICES (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS
  Mr. Manningham-Bullerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations, 1948 (S.I., 1948, No. 545), will be revised.
  Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) whether he has yet decided to amend the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations so that disciplinary cases and appeals shall not be

  2345
  proceeded with and concluded in the absence of the accused if he is in legal custody;
  (2) whether he has yet decided that a member of a fire brigade charged with an offence under the Fire Services (Discipline) Regulations shall be entitled to be represented by a person other than a member of the fire brigade without the leave of the fire authority.
  Mr. Ede: In accordance with the assurances given during the Debate on the Discipline Regulations on 7th April I brought this matter to the notice of the National Joint Council. I have now had a report from the Council recommending that revision of the regulations should be deferred until more experience has been gained of the working of the regulations. I am sure this is the wiser course but I shall keep the operation of the regulations under careful review.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Does the right hon. Gentleman recollect that the Under-Secretary gave an unqualified assurance that these regulations would be revised at an early date in view of the objections made in this House?
  Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. I have very carefully considered what my hon. Friend said, and the course which has been taken has carried out the pledge that he gave.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: No.
  Mr. Ede: I have here the concluding words of my hon. Friend's statement. I am as anxious as hon. Gentlemen opposite with regard to this matter. I am keeping under review the specific application of the regulations on the point to which they drew attention. I hope soon to get a recommendation from the Council.
  Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during that Debate I asked the Under-Secretary for an assurance that if the regulations remained in force there should be an undertaking that they would be revised at an early date, and he replied that that was precisely the position as understood by the Secretary of State? Do I understand that that revision will not take place at an early date?
  Mr. Ede: No, Sir. It will take place as soon as I get a recommendation from the
  2346
  Council. May I say that I share the surprise of the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Council itself did not attach the same importance as he attaches to the particular point in the regulations.

  CAR PARK ATTENDANTS, LONDON (LICENCES)
  Captain John Crowderasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department the conditions on which licences are issued by the police to car park attendants in the London area.
  Mr. Ede: These attendants are licensed by the Commissioner as street messengers under Section 19 of the Metropolitan Streets Act, 1867, to supervise car parks and secure observance of the Parking Places Regulations; licences are renewable annually and liable to revocation for misconduct or other sufficient reason. They receive no pay, but may accept gratuities from car drivers.
  Captain Crowder: Can the Home Secretary say if these attendants are under any obligation to the car owners regarding theft from or damage to the cars, and would he consider allowing some fixed charge to be made?
  Mr. Ede: Their duties are laid down in a document which is handed to them when they get their licences; among those duties is that of seeing that the contents of the cars are protected from theft, and that cars while in the parks are properly looked after. I will consider the last point in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's supplementary question.

  WILD BIRDS PROTECTION (JACKDAWS)
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware of the considerable scale on which jackdaws are being kept as pets in Ipswich and elsewhere; that they are sold for this purpose at a catsmeat price; and whether, as fledglings are being taken from the nest by schoolboys, he will take steps to ensure that the provisions of the Wild Birds Protection Act are enforced throughout the country.
  Mr. Ede: I am informed that some 50 school-children in Ipswich have been concerned in taking and selling among themselves jackdaws for pets. Two boys were prosecuted and severely reprimanded. In view of the action of the R.S.P.C.A. and the police, and of the publicity given in the locality to the proceedings, I see no need for further action on my part.
  Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the magistrates in Ipswich have shown a great deal of common sense and humanity in this matter, in so far as they have imposed fines on these boys who have maltreated these particular birds, and will he offer encouragement to other benches of magistrates to follow their excellent example?
  Mr. Ede: I understand that I am prevented from commenting on the actions of magistrates.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether he has any information about the number of jackdaws kept in Bedford?
  Mr. Ede: The last prisoner in Bedford of whom I have any information was John Bunyan.
  Mr. Gallacher: Will the Home Secretary pass on to Ipswich the lines from the poet:
  "Awa', ye thochtless, murdering gang.
  That steal the nestlings ere they flee"?
  Mr. Ede: One of the difficulties of dealing with the case is that liberated jackdaws will return to the place of their confinement.

  JUSTICES' CLERK, BARMOUTH (APPOINTMENT)
  Sir Ian Fraserasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has considered a resolution from the Standing Joint Police Committee of Merionethshire respecting the confirmation of the appointment of a Clerk to the Justices of Barmouth Division; and what action he has taken thereon.
  Mr. Ede: Yes, Sir. Before confirming the appointment of this Clerk to Justices, I took into consideration the representations made by the Standing Joint Committee, as I was required to do by Section
  2348
  34 of the Criminal Justice Administration Act, 1914, but I could find nothing in those representations to justify me in withholding my consent to the appointment.
  Sir I. Fraser: Is it a fact that there were three or four applications for this job; that three of the applicants were ex-Service men and one a conscientious objector; that the ex-Service men lived in the neighbourhood and had qualifications of a kind considered suitable; that the conscientious objector did not, and that the Committee recommended that the conscientious objector should not be appointed, but that, nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman confirmed the appointment?
  Mr. Ede: There were three ex-Service men applicants. This applicant did not live in the county, but just across the border. I understand that the other applicants did live within the county. Being a conscientious objector is no bar to appointments of this kind.
  Sir I. Fraser: Might not the ex-Service men have been given a preference in this case?
  Mr. Ede: I have to consider the qualifications of the applicants. The applicant was fully qualified and was recommended by the bench of magistrates concerned.

  HOUSING

    House Sales (Pre-war Values)
    Mr. Ralph Morleyasked the Minister of Health if he will frame regulations or take other steps to make it compulsory for the vendor of a house built previously to 1939 to announce its 1938 value to the purchaser.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. Aneurin Bevan): I have no power to make such regulations.
    Mr. Morley: Can my right hon. Friend say what steps he proposes to take to deal with the inflated prices of houses for sale at present, and has he not received representations on this subject from national bodies?
    Mr. Bevan: This matter has been raised from time to time. It has been generally accepted that it would be almost impossible to frame laws which would prevent

    2349
    this mischief, and it is not wise to frame laws which can be disregarded by citizens. I believe that housing prices are now beginning to fall.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Does my right hon. Friend consider that the worst abuses in this matter might be obviated if the seller had to register the price last paid with the local authority?
    Mr. Bevan: I have no power to enforce that.
    Sir William Darling: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the worst abuses would be obviated by building more houses?
    Mr. Bevan: That is precisely what is happening.

    Building Costs
    Commander Galbraithasked the Minister of Health why the average cost of building the typical three-bedroom house, which was given by him as £980 on 5th March, 1946, is no longer available.
    Mr. Bevan: The £980 was a tender price. No reliable average figures of final cost are yet available.
    Commander Galbraith: Does that answer mean that the right hon. Gentleman is quite unable at this time to state the price of houses?
    Mr. Bevan: The price of the tender is not always the price which the house eventually costs, because there are almost invariably p.c. items which go up in price, and the final costs are invariably higher. I have got some final costs in mind, but I am not yet able to give a reliable figure for the country as a whole.

    Requisitioning Powers
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Health whether, without requiring applications from individual local authorities, he will delegate powers generally to all local authorities to requisition the unoccupied portions of residential property offered for sale with part-vacant possession.
    Mr. Bevan: I feel unable to accept this suggestion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has expressed his willingness to consider applications from
    2350
    local authorities for these powers? Why impose that condition instead of granting these powers generally?
    Mr. Bevan: Because these powers are conferred by statute upon the Minister of Health, and they are very wide and unusual powers. They were devolved by me upon the clerks to local authorities in exceptional conditions. The conditions are not now so exceptional, but where there are circumstances in which those powers could be used, I can be asked, and the powers can be exercised quickly.
    Mr. Sparks: Why has my right hon. Friend withdrawn from the clerks to local authorities the delegated powers to requisition vacant accommodation for housing purposes?
    Mr. Bevan: For the reasons which I have already given. It is not now necessary to exercise these powers as widely and as frequently as was the case a few years ago. Therefore, we can exercise them through the clerks to the local authorities by delegation.

    Private Building (Standards)
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Health what steps he is taking to secure that before licences are given for the erection of houses by private persons the proposed elevations and materials shall be subject to architectural advice and approval.
    Mr. Derek Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he proposes to make it a condition of the issue of licences for private buildings that the houses shall conform to the standards and requirements of the Housebuilders Registration Council.
    Mr. Bevan: I would refer the hon. Members to Circular 34/47, copies of which I am sending to them. Local authorities will be reminded of the need to ensure a good standard of construction and amenity.
    Mr. Keeling: Is the Minister aware that if something much more effective than that is not done we shall have the same degradation of both town and country that occurred in the 100 years before the war as a result of Tory, Liberal and Labour misrule and bad taste? Why does not the Minister use the powers which

    2351
    he has, under Section 14 (3, c) of the last Town and Country Planning Act, to require local planning authorities to consult architectural opinion?
    Mr. Bevan: I shall bear in mind what the hon. Member has said. I shall be only too pleased to exercise such controls as are necessary to produce good housing standards.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the right hon. Gentleman say specifically whether these houses will have to conform to the standard specification referred to in my Question, which involves the giving of a certificate to that effect?
    Mr. Bevan: It is not intended to do that at the moment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have given every encouragement to the Housebuilders' Registration Council—rather more than was given in the past, I think. This is a matter for some discipline by the builders themselves, and by the local authorities, but if there are likely to be abuses I will certainly take action to prevent them.
    Mr. Driberg: When my right hon. Friend says that local authorities have power to require "good standards of construction and amenities," can he say whether "amenities" in that context includes decent design or merely refers to baths, h. and c., and so on?
    Mr. Bevan: I am afraid it does not include design. We have no Ministry of Fine Arts.
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that his colleague the Minister of Town and Country Planning has ample powers of supervision and control of external appearance and design?
    Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to be able to welcome this urgency from hon. Members opposite to impose more controls.

    Owner-occupiers (Building Licences)
    Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health whether consideration has been given to the position arising on the death or bankruptcy of intending owner-occupiers referred to in paragraph eight of his Departmental circular 108/48, dated 25th June, 1948; and with what result.
    Mr. Bevan: A licence is personal and is not transferable. Where necessary, an application for a new licence to complete the structure would be considered by the local authority on its individual merits.
    Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the Minister give consideration to the specific question asked here, because otherwise contractual difficulties of various sorts might ensue in the event of the circumstances referred to in the Question?
    Mr. Bevan: I will certainly consider that further.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICE (MANPOWER)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement indicating the scope of his discussions with representatives of local authority associations and Government Departments to explore the possibility of simplifying administrative arrangements in order to reduce manpower in the local government service.
  Mr. Bevan: The intention is that the discussion will cover the whole field of the arrangements between Government Departments and local authorities.
  Mr. Swingler: Does my right hon. Friend hold out any hope that the reduction of 30,000 during this year forecast in the Economic Survey will be achieved?
  Mr. Bevan: That is another question entirely. This Question relates to the scope of the discussions about simplifying administrative arrangements.

  NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (COMMITTEE REPORT)
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Toothasked the Minister of Health (1) when he expects to receive the report of the Committee which was set up by him to advise him on the disputed effect of the National Health Service Act, 1946;
  (2) when he intends to introduce legislation to give effect to his undertaking to amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, so as to make it impossible to institute a full time salaried medical service by regulation alone.
  Mr. Bevan: I hope to receive this report by the end of September, and amending legislation to cover anything necessary in the light of the report, together with the point mentioned in Question No. 28 will be introduced as soon as possible thereafter.
  Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Does not the Minister agree that the fact that the doctors are entering the Service before the settlement of the vexed question involved is an indication of their strong desire to give the Service a good start? Will the right Gentleman give a definite undertaking, first of all, that he will implement the recommendations of the Committee when in due course they become known, and in the second place that he will not increase the salary element before legislation is introduced?
  Mr. Bevan: I am very glad to be able to say that despite the prophecies of certain pessimists the doctors are entering the Service in very large numbers, which is an indication of their confidence in the word of the Minister of Health.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Surely, the Minister realises that the reason why the doctors are entering the scheme is because the right hon. Gentleman has accepted the advice given to him from this side of the House, and that if he would accept more of the advice from this side of the House he would be able to get through these difficulties more quickly?
  Mr. Bevan: Before many years are over, or it may be months, hon. Members opposite will even be claiming credit for the Health Act itself, although they voted against both the Second and the Third Readings.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Is not the Minister's recollection leading him astray? The Health Service is due to the proposals of the Coalition Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the votes on this side were directed against eliminating certain features, and we hope that their elimination will now make a success of the scheme?
  Mr. Bevan: The right hon. and gallant Gentleman can derive what satisfaction he wishes from the situation, but the fact is that hon. Members opposite were unable to secure the co-operation of the medical profession in any proposals.

  WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION
  Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement about the first assembly of the World Health Organisation.
  Mr. Bevan: This most important assembly opened on 24th June. More than 50 countries are represented. The United Kingdom Delegation is headed by the Chief Medical Officer of my Department. The main subjects for consideration will, I understand, be malaria, maternal and child health, tuberculosis, and venereal disease.
  Mr. Lindsay: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. In view of the excellent work which this organisation is doing, and the firm technical ground now being established, will the right hon. Gentleman consider next year himself going to this Conference and representing the Government there?
  Mr. Bevan: I attach the utmost importance to the work of this international organisation, and I am delighted to note that most of the great nations of the world are either members of it or are associated with this Conference. I will certainly bear the hon. Gentleman's suggestion in mind.
  Mr. Wilson Harris: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Soviet Union is taking part in the work of this Conference?
  Mr. Bevan: I am glad to say it is.

  WATER RESOURCES (NATIONAL SURVEY)
  Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Health what progress is being made with the National Survey of Water Resources which his Department has in hand; and, particularly, whether information has now been gathered about the best means of providing ample water storage for London in times of drought.
  Mr. Bevan: Detailed surveys of demands and resources by my engineering inspectors have been completed or are in progress for the greater part of the country. It has not been considered necessary to undertake a similar survey

  2355
  for the London area, since a great deal of information on the subject is already available from other sources.
  Mr. Hurd: Will not the Minister make the fullest information available to local water authorities, including the Metropolitan Water Board, so that when they are proposing further projects they will have more reliable information on which to work?
  Mr. Bevan: Certainly.
  Mr. Nicholson: Does the central survey body meet constantly? How often does it meet? Is it the intention of the right hon. Gentleman's Department that the water supplies of the country should derive from a national rather than a regional angle?
  Mr. Bevan: It would be much easier to get water resources from a national rather than a regional angle if legislation for which the party opposite are responsible had been better.
  Mr. Nicholson: That may be a very clever reply, but I would be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman would answer my question.
  Mr. Bevan: It is an apt reply. It is one of the defects of the existing water supplies that water cannot yet be regarded from a national angle but must be regarded from a regional angle. These surveys are in continuous operation, and the reports are available.

  PUBLIC LIBRARY, CHELSEA (LINOLEUM)
  Commander Nobleasked the Minister of Health whether he will reconsider his decision not to assist the Chelsea Borough Council in obtaining linoleum for the Public Library.
  Mr. Bevan: No, Sir. The shortage of supplies makes it necessary to impose severe restrictions on the use of linoleum, and I regret that permits cannot yet be issued for its use in libraries.
  Commander Noble: While I appreciate the Minister's remarks about the shortage of this material, could he not reconsider his decision in view of the fact that it involves replacing material destroyed by
  2356
  enemy action, and bearing in mind the great benefits afforded to students by the public reference library?
  Mr. Bevan: Yes, but they can use the library without necessarily having linoleum. When we are short of linoleum it is necessary to restrict its use to such places as hospitals, maternity hospitals and places of that kind.

  HOSPITAL INMATES, BARNET (TRANSFER)
  Mr. Walker-Smithasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that as a result of the decision of the North West Metropolitan Hospital Board eight men of ages between 62 and 85 who have spent from 10 to 20 years at the Wellhouse Hospital, Barnet, are to be compulsorily transferred to another institution some 20 miles off; and whether he will take steps to prevent this hardship.
  Mr. Bevan: I am advised that these are not hospital patients, and that the County Council have accordingly arranged to transfer them to the nearest suitable institution.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: Does not the Minister appreciate that this is a non-recurrent problem, because it is not intended in any case to replace these eight old men, and would he not intervene in this matter to see that the consideration of humanity prevails over this signal illustration of bumbledom in Barnet?
  Mr. Bevan: I do not agree that the local authority have not exercised humanity in this matter, and hon. Members ought not to make statements of that kind about responsible elected authorities. The impression itself is misjudged.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: When the Minister refers to "responsible elected authorities" does not he appreciate the great difficulty in which those constituents of Barnet are placed when they apply for redress to their Member of Parliament and find that he himself is a member of the board against whose decision they are invoking his assistance?
  Mr. Bevan: That is precisely where the hon. Gentleman is entirely at fault in his Question. This is not the responsibility of the Regional Hospital Board but the responsibility of the local authority, and

  2357
  the hon. Member should inform himself of the facts before making wild statements.
  Mr. Walker-Smith: On a point of Order. In anticipation of that unhelpful reply I have already started balloting so that I can raise this matter on the Adjournment, and I will do so at the earliest opportunity, if I am able.
  Dr. Stephen Taylor rose—
  Mr. Speaker: As notice to raise the matter on the Adjournment has been given no further questions can be asked.
  Dr. Taylor: On a point of Order—
  Hon. Members: Order.
  Mr. Speaker: This is a point of Order and I must hear it.
  Dr. Taylor: Is it not usual for an hon. Member before he gives notice to raise a matter on the Adjournment to allow an hon. Member about whose constituency a Question has been asked to put a supplementary question?
  Mr. Speaker: I imagined the matter was in the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertford (Mr. Walker-Smith).
  Dr. Taylor: It is in my constituency.
  Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but notice of the Adjournment has been given and the rule is as I have said. I am very sorry.
  Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. Is it not the case that the Question by the hon. Member for Hertford was quite out of Order in view of the fact that he had already decided to raise the matter on the Adjournment?
  Mr. Speaker: I think we must go on.
  Mr. Messer: May I ask, Sir, if you have not already ruled that an hon. Member must be responsible for the accuracy of statements contained in his Question and, if that is the case, may I ask whether it has been brought to your notice that the Regional Board has no power whatever in this matter until 5th July?
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Hertford is responsible for his statement. Whether it is an accurate statement or a misstatement, I cannot tell; he is responsible.
  Mr. Gallacher: Further to that point of Order. I would like your Ruling, Sir, whether, if an hon. Member shows he is going to raise the Question on the Adjournment by signing the book before he comes into the Chamber, is he entitled to ask supplementary questions?
  Mr. Speaker: I imagine the hon. Member for Hertford is taking steps to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Whether he has put his name in the book, I do not know. I have no knowledge of that. He may have put his name in the book in order to raise some other subject for all I know.

  ENBORNE RESERVOIR SCHEME
  Mr. Hurdasked the Minister of Health if he has now decided to hold a public inquiry before authorising further trial borings at Brimpton in connection with the Metropolitan Water Board's project for flooding the Enborne valley to make a reservoir.
  Mr. Bevan: I am arranging for one of my inspectors to hold a local hearing into the application of the Metropolitan Water Board for authority under Section 8 of the Water Act, 1948, to enter on and survey lands in the Parish of Brimpton and to carry out experimental borings for the purpose of ascertaining the nature of the subsoil. The applicants and the owners and occupiers of the land who have objected will be invited to attend and to state their case.
  Mr. Hurd: Will some of the public bodies, such as the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Farmers' Union and so on, be allowed to put their point of view?
  Mr. Bevan: I imagine that anyone who has a valid objection will be heard.
  Mr. Nicholson: In regard to what points will the inquiry be empowered to act—to review what aspects of the problem?
  Mr. Bevan: All matters must be taken into account under the statute. I can, of course, express no opinion at all because I am acting in a judicial capacity.

  EDUCATION

    Teachers (Tuberculosis)
    Mr. Anthony Greenwoodasked the Minister of Education (1) whether he has now reminded education authorities of the standing instructions issued by the Ministry of Health and his Department that a teacher found to be suffering from active tuberculosis shall be suspended from teaching;
    (2) whether he has considered the desirability of making it compulsory for all teachers to have a regular medical overhaul in order to ensure that they are not carriers of tuberculosis; and what decision he has reached.
    The Minister of Education (Mr. Tomlinson): I am sending my hon. Friend a copy of a memorandum which has been issued reminding education authorities of the action to be taken when a teacher is found to be suffering from active tuberculosis. The memorandum does not require teachers to be medically examined at regular intervals after their entry into teaching service.
    Mr. Greenwood: Would my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it is extremely dangerous to rely on a medical inspection which may have taken place 15, 20 or 25 years earlier, probably without the assistance of radiography, and how does he propose to make his answer effective without regular medical inspections?
    Mr. Tomlinson: My hon. Friend will see from the memorandum that I am suggesting greater use might be made of mass radiography. But compulsion is a question, I think, which would need to be very carefully considered.
    Mr. Somerville Hastings: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether more could not be done to encourage teachers to have examinations by mass radiography every five or ten years?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I think my hon. Friend will find that that question is raised in the memorandum.
    Sir Wavell Wakefield: Is the memorandum to be printed in HANSARD or made available in the Library to hon. Members?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It has been sent by the Ministry of Education to local authorities, but it could be put in the Library if desired.
    Sir W. Wakefield: Would the right hon. Gentleman put it in the Library?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Yes.
    Mr. Rankin: Would my right hon. Friend also extend that idea to doctors, nurses, milk attendants and all other people who are in very close contact with children today?

    Teachers' Salaries (Special Allowances)
    Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Minister of Education if he will now make a statement on the effect on our schools' staffs of the award of special allowances to certain teachers, causing thereby in a large number of cases the payment of different salaries to persons equally qualified and of equal experience and performing similar duties; and if he will cause an inquiry to be made with a view to remedying this anomaly.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Under the current Burnham scales the local education authority is given discretion within limits to determine the number of posts of special responsibility and the amount of the allowances. This provision, which follows a similar provision in the previous report, received the fullest consideration by the Committee and I see no grounds for a special inquiry.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in many cases these awards are automatically granted every year to members of the staff, and is he not also aware that greater use of these awards is now being made by certain local authorities to try to attract teachers into their employment, and do not these circumstances justify a full inquiry into these matters?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would certainly not accept the first two suggestions made by the hon. Member, and, therefore, the third does not arise.

    Camps (Cost)
    Sir Stanley Reedasked the Minister of Education how many camps were constructed under the Camps Act of 1939;

    2361
    the total cost to the latest convenient date; the purpose to which they are now being put; and the degree to which the accommodation provided is utilised.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Thirty-one camps were constructed in England and Wales under the Camps Act, 1939. The total capital expenditure incurred on them was £1,055,390; running costs are met from the revenue received from the letting of the camps. Twenty-nine are let to local education authorities for parties of children from schools maintained by them, one is used by an orphanage school, and one is occupied by the military. The effective period of occupation varies from nine to 11 months of the year, and the average number of children per camp during the year ended 31st March, 1948, was 177.
    Sir S. Reed: Does the revenue cover the whole of the capital cost as well as the sinking fund and maintenance charges? Is there any reason why the military should remain in occupation of a camp which was set up by order of the right hon. Gentleman's Department for the benefit of children, and to give them a place at which to have open-air holidays?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I could not give the answer to the first part of the supplementary question without notice. With regard to the second part, I will make inquiry.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: In view of the importance of the camps in providing holiday facilities, will my right hon. Friend say whether the National Camps Corporation is still in existence? If it is not, will he consider its re-establishment?
    Mr. Tomlinson: It is in existence, and these camps are let by that Corporation. The fact that 30 out of 31 are being used by school children, and being used for 11 months of the year, seems to me to show that they could not make much more use of them.
    Mr. Pickthorn: In view of the figure of 177, the number actually using each camp on the average, could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what would have been the maximum number, or what percentage 177 is of the capacity of the camps?
    Mr. Tomlinson: When I have been given time to work it out.
    Mr. Scollan: Can my right hon. Friend tell us what steps are being taken to get the military out of the camp, and to make it available for the children?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have already said I shall make inquiry.

    Uncleared Bomb Sites (Warnings)
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Education whether he will instruct local education authorities to give publicity in schools to the danger of children playing on uncleared bomb sites.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sure I can rely on the good sense of local education authorities and the heads of schools to give such advice when it is needed.
    Mr. Janner: Is my right hon. Friend aware that only a low days ago a child was killed on one of these sites? As these sites are dangerous, will he give instructions to education authorities that they should do something about this matter?
    Mr. Tomlinson: Already, on two occasions, not instructions but advice has been given in this direction, and I am sure that this Question and answer will further the advice already given.
    Mr. Rankin: While it is important to warn children of these dangers, will my right hon. Friend use all his influence to get these bomb sites cleared as soon as possible?

    Schools (Special 'Lectures)
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodgeasked the Minister of Education whether he will consider initiating special lectures in schools in urban areas with a view to combating hooliganism and vandalism.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Teachers are accustomed to help their pupils to develop good manners and civilised standards of behaviour, and I do not consider that any special action on my part is necessary.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is not my right hon. Friend aware that there is a local authority in London which has initiated these special lectures with very good results, and will he encourage other local authorities to follow this excellent example?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I would not do anything to prevent them following a line of that kind, but if every experiment made in schools of a particular character is sponsored by the Minister, there would be no curriculum but just a lot of special subjects.
    Mr. Leslie Hale: Will the Minister bear in mind that whatever the standard of behaviour in Bedford, there is no need for these lectures in Oldham?
    Mr. McGovern: Before the right hon. Gentleman attempts to give lectures against vandalism in those areas, will he give a lecture to hon. Members in this House? Has he looked at the telephone kiosks in this House?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have no control over that, but I will consider it.
    Mr. Skeffington-Lodge: Is my right hon. Friend aware, with regard to the previous supplementary question, that my Question did not have its fount and origin in Bedford, but in London?

    Horsa Huts
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education why the provision and erection of Horsa huts is not up to the time and progress schedule laid down by his Department; what are the main reasons for this delay; and what action is being taken to increase the supply of huts during the forthcoming autumn when the full effects of raising the school-leaving age will be realised.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The provision and erection of Horsa huts is not up to schedule for the reason given in my reply to the hon. Member on 4th March last. The supply of huts is adequate but shortages of some items of equipment continue to delay completion of the work. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Works is doing his utmost to accelerate erection of the huts.

    Teachers' Emergency Training Grants
    Mr. Haydn Daviesasked the Minister of Education (1) whether, in view of the fact that men now undergoing emergency courses for the teaching profession are unable to meet their own and family responsibilities under the present grants, he will consider a new scale to cover such full responsibilities;
    2364
    (2) whether he is prepared to make ad hoc payments to cover any necessary family expenditure incurred by men now in training for the teaching profession, where such amounts can be proved to be greater than the grant made to them.
    Mr. Tomlinson: Grants to students in the Emergency Training Scheme are based on rates recommended to me by the scholarship committees at the various universities and include extra allowances to meet the special needs of these students. I am at present considering whether the present scales are adequate, but I cannot yet make any statement. Meantime, I am always ready to consider any individual case of hardship and, if necessary, to increase the grant so far as I have financial authority to do so.
    Mr. Davies: Can the Minister say how long the process of reconsideration is likely to last, and would he, in the meantime, send a copy of his answer to every college, so that all those people in financial distress will know how to secure redress?
    Mr. Tomlinson: I have not found any reluctance on the part of members of colleges who have been in difficulties to write to me. I do not see the necessity for the suggestion.

    Emergency Training Colleges (Ex-Service men)
    Mr. K. Lindsayasked the Minister of Education how many ex-Service men have been accepted for emergency training colleges and are still awaiting entrance.
    Mr. Tomlinson: The number of ex-Service men who have been accepted but not yet offered a place in a college was 8,577 on 24th June.
    Mr. Lindsay: Will my right hon. Friend now consider giving some definite ruling, because these young men have now been waiting for something like two years? Only last night two of them came to see me here. One is earning £140 a year as a temporary teacher, and the other man, with two children, has been waiting for 2½ years. They both said that if the right hon. Gentleman could give a definite ruling that it is not much good their waiting, it would save a great deal of anxiety.
    Mr. Tomlinson: I am sending out a circular, pointing out the effect of our having had to increase the number of women to be taken into these colleges. In the cases which the hon. Member has mentioned, where they have been waiting for that length of time, I have no doubt a satisfactory answer can be given.

  ROYAL TITLE (ALTERATION)
  Mr. Pickthornasked the Prime Minister whether the proclamation on Tuesday, 22nd June, of alteration in the Royal Title, was drafted and issued after consultation with the Dominions.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Was the result of the consultations full consent? Were the consultations entered upon in full cognisance of the Preamble to the Statute of Westminster?
  The Prime Minister: I am sure that that would have been present in the minds of all the Dominions. There was full discussion, and legislation passed by the Dominions.
  Mr. Pickthorn: Was consent complete?

  EMPLOYMENT

    Distribution of Labour
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour whether it is still his policy to bring about reductions in manpower in the building industry, the clothing trade, and the local government service as given in Table XXI of the Economic Survey for 1948; and whether he is satisfied with the progress made in the first four months of this year.
    The Minister of Labour (Mr. Isaacs): It has never been my policy to reduce employment in any industry. As is most clearly explained in the Economic Survey for 1948, the Government's policy is to reinforce the essential industries which are under-manned. The figures showing reductions in certain other industries given in the Economic Survey are merely forecasts of what was likely to happen, and are not objectives.
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the changes in the distribution of labour in the first four months of this year, he is satisfied that the increases referred to in paragraph 186 of the Economic Survey for 1948 can be achieved.
    Mr. Isaacs: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply given on 22nd June to a similar question asked by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick).
    Mr. Swingler: Is it not the fact that these were stated as objectives in the Economic Survey, and that according to the figures of the first four months of 1948 recruitment to the under-manned trades has not been up to the standard set by the Government? Will the Minister make a statement on what further steps he is taking to increase the recruitment during the next few months?
    Mr. Isaacs: The answer to the second part of the supplementary question is that the information was given in the reply to the hon. Member for Uxbridge on 22nd June, which, sets out further figures.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is it my right hon. Friend's policy to increase the number of workers employed in the building trade as far as Scotland is concerned?
    Mr. Isaacs: That is quite another question.
    Sir John Mellorasked the Minister of Labour why he has requested the co-operation of employees and trade unions in reducing the number of workers in the clothing industry; and if he will give an assurance that he will not direct such workers to do other work.
    Mr. Isaacs: I have not asked any industry to reduce the number of workers they employ. What I have done is to ask employers in textile areas to facilitate the transfer of suitable workers to the textile industries. Compulsory directions are not being used under this scheme.

    Blind Workers (Wages)
    Mr. Edward Evansasked the Minister of Labour whether he has recognised for grant aid scales of wages negotiated between the managements of blind workshops and the local authorities, on the one hand, and the recognised representatives of blind workers, on the other; why there

    2367
    has been delay in reaching a settlement of the wage scale; and what difficulties lie in the way of achieving agreement.
    Mr. Isaacs: The payment which it is proposed to make to local authorities towards their costs in providing employment for blind persons is not related to any particular scale of wages. There is, therefore, no question of wage scales needing to be recognised. Their settlement is a matter for the parties concerned.
    Mr. Evans: Could the Minister tell us whether there is any difficulty over duplication of responsibility owing to the duties laid upon local authorities under the National Assistance Act and those laid on his Department under the Disabled Persons (Employment) Act? It is recognised that there are very great difficulties in implementing the national scales under blind welfare, so will my right hon. Friend look into the whole question?
    Mr. Isaacs: As to the first part of the supplementary question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no difficulty between the responsible bodies in handling this question. With regard to the scales, there is some difficulty amongst the local authorities and those acting for the workers in coming to a decision, but that does not affect the grant made by the Ministry, which is made irrespective of rates of wages.

    West Indians
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Labour what progress has been made in finding employment for the West Indians who arrived here from the "Empire Windrush"; and whether there has been any difficulty in finding housing accommodation for them near their work.
    Mr. Isaacs: Of the 223 West Indians who landed from the "Empire Windrush" and who were accommodated at Clapham, 148 have been placed in employment. Eleven are under submission and 49 await placing. There have been no difficulties in finding accommodation other than those normally encountered owing to the housing shortage.
    Mr. Driberg: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the West Indians concerned, and those hon. Members who have been to the Clapham deep shelter to see them,
    2368
    have been greatly impressed by the patience and hard work of his official, who has worked and lived down that deep shelter day and night for a whole week on end?
    Mr. Isaacs: In view of the rather unfair comments that were made about the attitude of the Ministry in certain quarters, I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

    Unofficial Strikes (Inquiry)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Labour whether he will set up a Commission of Inquiry on unofficial strikes, in view of their menace to the food supply and other necessities of life.
    Mr. Isaacs: I do not think this is a satisfactory method of dealing with the problem, but the position is being explored.
    Mr. Freeman: Could not some simpler and more direct method of dealing with such emergencies be developed, instead of waiting until a critical situation arises in the country and then declaring a state of emergency? Is not an inquiry into the whole matter opportune just now?
    Mr. Isaacs: I think most of that supplementary question is wide of most of the Question. These unofficial strikes do not come within the purview of the Ministry of Labour until the Ministry is approached by the organisations concerned, and while we are very much concerned about these continuous outbreaks of resentment against trade union authority, we are not in a position to intervene until we are asked.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend use his best endeavours to speed up the conciliation and arbitration machinery, delay in which is responsible, in considerable measure, for many of these unofficial strikes?
    Mr. Isaacs: As far as I am aware, the instance in question arose without delay of any sort at all.
    Mr. David Renton: Bearing in mind that the national interests are affected by these unofficial strikes, is it safe to leave it uncertain whether a particular body will bring a matter to the notice of the Ministry of Labour?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is difficult to answer matters of general principle on specific cases of this sort. The Ministry of Labour is not a body which can intervene in any of these matters until it has been asked for its services to be given, or until other factors emerge. We have to take each case on its merits.
    Mr. Blackburn: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, contrary to the impression now prevailing, there are strong reasons in the interests of personal freedom for the Government's failing to interfere wherever possible and keeping as far as possible out of matters of this kind?

    Washington Convention (Women)
    Mrs. Middletonasked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the fact that the Social Security Legislation, becoming operative in Britain on 5th July, fulfils, among other things, the conditions laid down in the Convention concerning the employment of women before and after childbirth, Washington, 1919, so far as this country is concerned, the Government is now prepared to ratify that Convention.
    Mr. Isaacs: This is now under consideration.
    Mrs. Middleton: While I thank my right hon. Friend for that assurance, may I ask him if he is aware how much the Members on this side of the House, and particularly the women Members, welcome the fact that legislation has now been passed which will enable us to adhere to this Convention; and, indeed, that a further step has been taken in that both domestic and agricultural workers are covered by it?
    Mr. Isaacs: It is the desire of the Government to implement the Convention, but there are internal problems between ourselves and Northern Ireland which have to be straightened out.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Overseas Visitors (Currency)
    Mr. Granville Sharpasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer in what way he advises all prospective visitors to the United Kingdom that only £5 in British currency may be brought into this country;
    2370
    whether this information has been published in the Falkland Isles; and whether, in view of all the circumstances, he will refund the £8 taken at London Airport in May from Mr. Edward McAtasney, who was unaware of this regulation when he left the Falkland Isles for the purpose of placing orders in this country.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): As the answer is a long one, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Sharp: Can the Financial Secretary say whether this long answer is a favourable one?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think so, like most Treasury answers.
    Mr. Oliver Stanley: In view of the fact that the last part of the Question asks if he will refund the money, can the right hon. Gentleman say how the answer can be longer than "Yes" or "No"?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It does happen to be something more than "Yes" or "No."
    Sir W. Wakefield: Is the Financial Secretary aware that there is great resentment by foreigners arriving in this country who have their money stolen from them—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]—and will he take steps to arrange that when people do come to this country with surplus money, with no intention of defrauding the Government, their money shall be returned to them when they leave for home?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: We have taken steps to apprise travellers to this country of the regulations. There are quite a lot of forged notes abroad, and a large number are bought at discount. It is part of the law of this land that notes above a certain amount should not be brought in, and we must rigorously, if we can, see that the law is obeyed.
    Mr. Nicholson: Can the right hon. Gentleman make a really Herculean effort and say whether this gentleman will have the money refunded to him or not?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: In the Falkland Isles they have announced very properly that only £5 can be brought into this country. The authorities there permit travellers to

    2371
    take out £10, and that being the case we intend to refund to this gentleman a part of the amount.
    Sir W. Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British citizens leaving this country are inconvenienced, and that when they find themselves in possession of more than £5 they have their money confiscated?
    Following is the answer:
    The Central Banks in other countries of the British Commonwealth and in foreign countries are informed of United Kingdom exchange control regulations. In the case of the Colonies, including the Falkland Islands, instructions are sent to the Colonial Governments, who make them public by a public notice or by sending instructions to local banks. The latter should advise any prospective travellers to the United Kingdom at the time application is made for exchange of any regulations which apply to them.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies telegraphed on 8th September, 1947, to all Colonies, including the Falkland Islands, telling them that the maximum amount of sterling notes which could be imported into the United Kingdom had been reduced from £20 to £5 As a result, a public notioe was issued from the Colonial Secretary's Office, Stanley, on 16th September, 1947, but the local Exchange Control, whilst warning travellers that only £5 could be brought into the United Kingdom permits the export from the Falkland Islands of £10. In these circumstances, I am prepared to agree that a further £5 should be returned to Mr. McAtasney.

    Annual Incomes (Assessment)
    Sir W. Darlingasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will give an assurance that the same exactitude is employed in assessing incomes annually as is employed in incomes under the Pay As You Earn system.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Subject to the limitations imposed by present shortages of trained staff, all liabilities to tax are determined as exactly as possible.

    Purchase Tax
    Mr. Piratinasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware of the increasing difficulties which the fur trade is meeting in selling utility fur garments for export; and whether he will assist the trade by exempting such utility fur garments from Purchase Tax.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am aware that the sale of fur garments abroad is less easy than it was, but my right hon. Friend cannot see his way to making any further adjustment of the Purchase Tax rating.
    Mr. Piratin: While I appreciate the fact that it was only a couple of weeks since the Purchase Tax on these garments was reduced to 33⅓ per cent., nevertheless, this Purchase Tax injures the export trade, and will not the Financial Secretary reconsider—taking his time over it—the exemption of these goods from Purchase Tax?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: It can hardly injure the export trade directly because the export trade does not pay Purchase Tax.

    Nationalised Industries (Franked Letters)
    Dr. Segalasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether it is permissible for hon. Members to use officially-stamped envelopes in addressing their letters to the Chairmen of Nationalised Industries.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I am afraid not.
    Dr. Segal: Does not the Minister realise that this will be an extra cost out of the pockets of hon. Members, and can he say how far this cost is likely to be increased during the remaining two years of the Government's term of office?
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these franked envelopes are so much smaller than those normally issued, since they must have considerably more contents?
    Mr. Keeling: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what is the practice of these chairmen when they get unstamped letters? Do they have to pay 5d. on them, do they get them free, or do they return them?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I honestly do not know. I am not one of the chairmen. It is quite possible that they are surcharged, but I really do not know.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In view of the fact that the Minister of Fuel and Power has asked hon. Members to address themselves to the Board and not to him, may we send our letters to the Minister with a request that they be forwarded?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Churchill: Can the Leader of the House make a statement on the Business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday, 5th July and Tuesday, 6th July—A debate will take place on European Economic Co-operation which will arise on the Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister.
Wednesday, 7th July—Second Reading of the British Nationality Bill [Lords];
Report stage of Army Expenditure 1946–47;
Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Employment and Training Bill;
Motion to approve the Greenwich Hospital Accounts.
Thursday, 8th July—Supply (20th Allotted Day):—Committee. A debate will take place on Colonial Affairs.
Friday, 9th July—Committee and remaining stages of the Export Guarantees Bill and the Agricultural Wages Bill [Lords];
Report and Third Reading of the Veterinary Surgeons Bill [Lords];
Committee and remaining stages of the Factories Bill [Lords].
At the end of Business on Monday the Government hope that there will be an opportunity for the House to consider a Motion to set up a Select Committee to revise the Standing Orders. The House will recall that on 4th November last, when we considered amendments to Standing Orders, I proposed to the House that we should set up a small Technical Committee to revise the Standing Orders
2374
following the changes then made, and mentioned that Mr. Speaker had kindly consented to preside over the Committee. Revision is long overdue and the amendments to the Standing Orders, although only of a technical nature, have been found to be so numerous that the Government, after consultation with Mr. Speaker, consider that it would be more appropriate to set up a Select Committee. I hope that the House will agree to this proposal.
Mr. Stanley: Could I ask the right hon. Gentleman one question about the Debate on Monday and Tuesday? In view of the form in which the Motion has been set down, is it the intention of the Government—subject, of course, to Mr. Speaker's Ruling—that the Debate should take a wide form, and that the general economic situation of the country—in regard, of course, to this help that is to be given—should be discussed?
Mr. Morrison: Yes, Sir. It will be seen, as no doubt the right hon. Gentleman has apprehended, that in the Motion there appear these words:
"and having regard to the need to the achievement and maintenance of a satisfactory level of economic activity"—
and so on. The Government thought that, as there had been some request in the House that we should debate the general economic situation, and as the Anglo-American Agreement obviously must be taken in that setting, it would meet the general convenience of the House if the Motion were rather wide so that, subject to Mr. Speaker's Ruling, the Debate could cover the aspect to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred.
Major Legge-Bourke: In view of the fact that if we are to discuss the Eire Trade Agreement at all, we cannot do so under the Vote of any one Ministry, will the Leader of the House say whether it is proposed to find time to debate that Agreement?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I am not advised that Parliamentary approval is necessary. Of course, it could be debated on Supply; but it is one of numerous agreements that deal with these matters of trade relations between our country and another, and I do not think it is a subject which lends itself to a reasonable

2375
request to the Government to provide special time; nor do I think there is any controversy about it.
Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Wilt my right hon. Friend consider suspending the Rule on Monday and Tuesday to enable a few more back benchers to speak?
Mr. Morrison: No, Sir. I think that two days are adequate for this subject, and there may be some other Business to be taken after 10 o'clock.
Mr. Stokes: Will the right hon. Gentleman make quite sure, by examining other than the usual channels, how many people want to speak?—because on the last occasion when he said he would examine the usual channels and he said that he did not think it was necessary to suspend the Rule, in fact over 70 hon. Members had got their names down and my right hon. Friend did not know it. Would he make sure that on Monday he does know?
Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend and I are always doing battle upon this matter, and I do not always see eye to eye with him about it. I do not know that we can settle these things on a mathematical basis; one has to consider the general convenience of the House, and the House has not been exactly idle in recent times.
Mr. Stokes: Nobody need stay if they do not want to.
Mr. Morrison: A lot of people have got to stay when they do not want to; not everybody, but a lot of people.
Mr. Churchill: And a lot of people have to go when they do not want to.
Mr. Morrison: The right hon. Gentleman speaks feelingly from experience.
Major Legge-Bourke: Further to my previous Question, does not the Leader of the House appreciate that the Eire Trade Agreement covers other matters than those arising out of the Ministry of Food Vote; and, in view of that, if we want to discuss the whole thing, can he not allow a day for a proper discussion of it?
Mr. Morrison: If advice is needed on what Vote to put down in order to cover the ground, I am perfectly sure that advice can be obtained from the authorities of
2376
the House; and if the Government could assist the hon. and gallant Gentleman on that point we should be glad to do so.
Mr. Pritt: As one who does stay when the House sits late, could I ask the right hon. Gentleman to keep an open mind about Tuesday, so that if he does see that there is pressure, he might extend the time then?
Mr. Morrison: Well, we have always got fresh and receptive minds on everything, as I hope the hon. and learned Member has.
Mr. Gallacher: Is the Leader of the House aware that a question was raised about the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee; that the Chairman advised us it could only be dealt with in the House; and would he consider giving time to discuss a Motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) and myself in regard to the sittings of the Scottish Grand Committee, about where and under what conditions they should be held?
Mr. Morrison: This is news to me, and as it affects Scotland I should need to be thoroughly briefed about it before I said anything.
Mr. Crawley: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the Debate on Colonial Affairs will cover the entire Colonial Empire, including economic development, or whether we could get further time later on this year, to discuss the economic development of the Empire?
Mr. Morrison: The Vote is the Colonial Office Vote, and I suppose those things will be in Order. But no doubt the Opposition have views about the scope they intend to cover.
Mr. Stanley: I think it is for the convenience always of the Secretary of State for the Colonies that at any rate the first day should enable him to make a general statement about the whole Colonial field.
Mr. Morrison: Then that is all right.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: Will the Motion for setting up a Select Committee to inquire into the Standing Orders of the House be debated in the House; and will there be an opportunity of raising the question whether the Scottish Grand Committee should sit in Scotland?
Mr. Morrison: I should not have thought so. The Motion is, of course, debatable, but I was hoping there would be such a general consensus of opinion that a Debate might not arise. It is competent for a Debate to ensue; but I should have doubted whether the nature of this Motion would bring into its scope the particular point to which my hon. Friend refers. It is, of course, a matter for the Chair.

ARTIFICIAL LIMBS
The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): I will, with permission, make a statement to the House on artificial limbs.
As I told the House on 22nd June, I have been holding discussions with representatives of the artificial limb industry regarding supplies of these articles for the disabled as a part of the National Health Service. I am now glad to say that satisfactory arrangements have been agreed between us which will enable every firm in the industry, which is able to produce a limb of high quality, to continue in production. These arrangements will be as follow:

(1) Every patient requiring an artificial limb will be asked to attend at one of my Ministry's limb fitting centres reasonably close to his home. He will there be examined by a Ministry of Pensions experienced and highly qualified limb fitting surgeon who, in consultation with the surgeon who performed the amputation, will prescribe the type of limb required for his particular stump.

(2) The patient will then be given all necessary information to enable him to make his choice of limb from lists of makers whose limbs have been approved by the Ministry of Pensions and who have entered into a contract for this purpose.

(3) If he chooses a limb such as is now being supplied to war disabled pensioners he will get this as a free issue. If he chooses an approved limb of some other make and this costs more, he will be charged the excess.

(4) If he chooses the free limb, he will be dealt with throughout at the Ministry's limb fitting centre. If, however, he chooses another approved limb he will be put into touch with the maker who will arrange for measurements to be taken and fittings to be given. He will be required to attend at the Ministry's limb fitting centre when he has been satisfactorily fitted in this manner, where he will be examined by the limb fitting surgeon, who will ensure that the limb is satisfactory in all respects.

The considerations I have had in mind in making these arrangements are, firstly,
2378
that the patient should, on the one hand, have a reasonable selection in regard to the type of limb and maker, while, on the other hand, he has at his disposal all the specialised medical skill acquired by the Ministry's limb fitting service during the last 30 years, and it is for this latter reason that I attach great importance to the patient visiting the limb fitting centre both at the beginning and at the conclusion of the limb fitting operation. So far as the limb makers are concerned, these arrangements will enable private firms making high quality limbs to continue production under reasonably favourable conditions whilst, at the same time, safeguarding the adequacy and quality of the supply of artificial limbs which are likely to be required under the National Health Service Act.
Mr. Churchill: May I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his benevolent swan song, and may I, with indulgence, express the feelings of Members in all parts of the House in wishing him a fruitful career of public service in the course which he has chosen?
Mr. J. S. C. Reid: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman questions on two points, which I am sure are not fundamental to this scheme? In regard to the final approval, is it really necessary, where there is a surgeon in the National Health Service who has performed the amputation and has approved the type of limb, for the Ministry of Pensions to be brought in for final approval? Could not the National Health Service surgeon certify final approval? Is it really necessary for the person in that case to go to the pensions centre? The right hon. Gentleman referred to consultations between the two surgeons, and that may entail a good deal of difficulty for the National Health Service surgeon. Cannot the National Health Service surgeon enable the patient to be put into direct touch with the firm concerned?
Mr. Buchanan: These matters have been the subject of discussion, and I have gone into this scheme very thoroughly. I hope that this scheme will not go on without a review at a comparatively early period, but in the early stages I must insist on a limb fitting surgeon. These are men in the medical profession who are accepted as knowing their job extremely well. While I am on my feet, may I say to

2379
the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), with whom I have been associated: "Thank you very much?"
Dr. Haden Guest: Has my right hon. Friend anything to say about improvements to artificial limbs in the future?
Mr. Buchanan: The Ministry have a service at their disposal in connection with improvements to artificial limbs, and we spend a considerable amount of money and time on research. It is our purpose not only to make the results of this research available to the main Government contractors, but to make them available to every maker of artificial limbs.
Sir Henry Morris-Jones: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on this very fine gesture as a last act before he leaves the House, may I ask him to give further consideration to a closer contact between patients and individual firms in view of the record of individual firms in the manufacture of artificial limbs?
Mr. Buchanan: This scheme is a fair compromise, and I trust that Members will give it a chance to work. At the end of a reasonable period of time the matter can be reviewed again.
Mr. Leslie Hale: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the statement he has made will allay a good many doubts and will be received with general satisfaction, as most of his recent statements have been; and that if occasion does arise for him to leave the House, he will leave it with the gratitude and respect of ex-Service men everywhere and with the esteem of his colleagues in this House?
Mr. Spearman: As one who is very particularly concerned, may I pay my respect to the Minister for his bigness in going back on his original policy, and may I express my gratification that he has adopted this course which will help so many of us who have lost limbs?
Mr. Percy Wells: What is the position in regard to repairs to existing artificial limbs?
Mr. Buchanan: It is assumed that the person concerned will go back to the maker of the limb. We have come to an arrangement with the makers of these limbs that the Government will pay the proper costs of repair.
Mr. William Ross: In view of the fact that a patient may have to travel quite a long distance to a limb-fitting centre, will the Minister be still more benevolent and pay the travelling expenses?
Mr. Buchanan: That is one of the reasons for setting up these centres. If it is a reasonable distance which has to be travelled we will meet the reasonable costs, as we do now.
Sir Ian Fraser: May I, with the indulgence of the House, ask the right hon. Gentleman to take away with him the good wishes of ex-Service men generally whom he has served very faithfully in this House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Motion made, and Question put,
"That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]
The House divided: Ayes, 228; Noes, 106.

Division No. 251.]

AYES.

[3.50 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Berry, H.

Chater, D.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Beswick, F.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Binns, J.

Cluse, W. S.

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Blackburn, A. R.

Cocks, F. S.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Blenkinsop, A.

Coldrick, W.

Alpass, J. H.

Boardman, H.

Collindridge, F.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Bottomley, A. G.

Collins, V. J.

Attewell, H. C.

Bowden, Flg. Offr, H. W.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

Awbery, S. S.

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

Corlett, Dr. J.

Ayles, W. H.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Cove, W. G.

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Crawley, A.

Bacon, Miss A.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Crossman, R. H. S.

Balfour, A.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

Barstow, P. G.

Burke, W. A.

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

Battley, J. R.

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

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Bechervaise, A. E.

Carmichael, James

Deer, G.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Chamberlain, R. A.

de Freitas, Geoffrey

Benson, G.

Champion, A. J.

Dodds, N. N.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Dumpleton, C. W.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Sharp, Granville

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Leonard, W.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

Lever, N. H.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

Levy, B. W.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Evans, John (Ogmore)

Lindsay, K. M. (Comb'd Eng. Univ.)

Skeffington, A. M.

Ewart, R.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Skeffington-Lodge, T. C.

Fairhurst, F.

Longden, F.

Skinnard, F. W.

Fernyhough, E.

Lyne, A. W.

Smith, C. (Colchester)

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

McAdam, W.

Snow, J. W.

Follick, M.

McEntee, V. La T.

Solley, L. J.

Foot, M. M.

McGhee, H. G.

Sorensen, R. W.

Forman, J. C.

McGovern, J.

Sparks, J. A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mack, J. D.

Stokes, R. R.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Stubbs, A. E.

Gallacher, W.

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

Summerskill, Dr. Edith

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

McKinlay, A. S.

Swingler, S.

Gilzean, A.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Symonds, A. L.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Granville, E. (Eye)

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Grenfell, D. R.

Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

Grey, C. F.

Mellish, R. J.

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Thurtle, Ernest

Guest, Dr. L. Haden

Mikardo, Ian

Tiffany, S.

Gunter, R. J.

Monslow, W.

Timmons, J.

Guy, W. H.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Tolley, L.

Hale, Leslie

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Morrison., Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, E.)

Viant, S. P.

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Nally, W.

Wadsworth, G.

Hardman, D. R.

Naylor, T. E.

Walkden, E.

Hardy, E. A.

Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

Warbey, W. N.

Harrison, J.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

Weitzman, D.

Hastings, Dr. Somerville

Oldfield, W. H.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Haworth, J.

Oliver, G. H.

West, D. G.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Herbison, Miss M.

Parker, J.

Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

Holman, P.

Parkin, B. T.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Hoy, J.

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Wigg, George

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

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Wilcock, Group-Capt. C. A. B.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Pearson, A.

Wilkins, W. A.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Peart, T. F.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

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

Perrins, W.

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Piratin, P.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Popplewell, E.

Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

Janner, B.

Pritt, D. N.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Proctor, W T.

Willis, E.

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

Pursey, Comdr. H.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Jenkins, R. H.

Randall, H. E.

Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. H.

Johnston, Douglas

Rankin, J.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

Reid, T. (Swindon)

Woods, G. S.

Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

Rhodes, H.

Yates, V. F.

Keenan, W.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Kenyon, C.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Kinley, J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Kirby, B. V.

Sargood, R.

Mr. Simmons and

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Scollan, T.

Mr. George Wallace.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Segal, Dr. S.

NOES.

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

Drayson, G. B.

Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

Baldwin, A. E.

Drewe, C.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Barlow, Sir J.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

Lucas, Major Sir J.

Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Glyn, Sir R.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Grimston, R. V.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Bullock, Capt. M.

Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

Haughton, S. G.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Carson, E.

Head, Brig. A. H.

McFarlane, C. S.

Channon, H.

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

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Churchill, Rt. Hon. W. S.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

MacLeod, J.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Hurd, A.

Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

Cuthbert, W. N.

Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

De la Bère, R.

Jennings, R.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Digby, S. W.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Marsden, Capt. A.

Donner, P. W.

Langford-Holt, J.

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

2382

2383

Mellor, Sir J.

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Matson, A. H. E.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Touche, G. C.

Morris-Jones, Sir H.

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

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Renton, D.

Walker-Smith, D.

Nicholson, G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

Ward, Hon. G. R.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Robinson, Roland

Walt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Nutting, Anthony

Ropner, Col. L.

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

Orr-Ewing, I. L.

Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Smiles, Lt.-Cot. Sir W.

York, C.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Snadden, W. M.

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

Pickthorn, K.

Spearman, A. C. M.

Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Stoddart-Scott, Cot M.

Commander Agnew and

Prescott, Stanley

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Mr. Studholme.

Question put, and agreed to.

SCOTTISH ESTIMATES
Ordered:
"That the Committee of Supply be discharged from considering the Estimates set out hereunder and that the said Estimates be referred to the Standing Committee on Scottish Bills—
2384
Class I., Vote 24—Scottish Home Department;
Class VI., Vote 21—Department of Agriculture for Scotland."—[The Prime Minister.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  EMERGENCY POWERS ACT, 1920 (PROCLAMATION)
  Message from His Majesty [29 th June] considered.
  Mr. Speaker: The following is the Message which it is my duty to read:
  The Emergency Powers Act, 1920, having enacted that if it appears to His Majesty that any action has been taken or is immediately threatened by any persons or body of persons of such a nature and on so extensive a scale as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel, light or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial portion of the community, of the essentials of life, His Majesty may, by proclamation, declare that a state of emergency exists: and the cessation of work in certain sections of the dock industry having, in His Majesty's opinion, constituted a state of emergency within the meaning of the said Act:
  His Majesty has deemed it proper, by proclamation made in pursuance of the said Act and dated the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to declare that a state of emergency exists.
  The Prime Minister: I beg to move,
  "That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, thanking His Majesty for His Most Gracious Message, communicating to this House that His Majesty has deemed it proper, by Proclamation made in pursuance of the Emergency Powers Act, 1920, and dated the twenty-eighth day of June, nineteen hundred and forty-eight, to declare a state of emergency."
  I do not think I need say anything on this Motion, except that, in the altered circumstances, the Government have no intention of issuing any regulations.
  To be presented by Privy Councillors or members of His Majesty's Household.

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  3.59 p.m.
  The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Harold Wilson): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
  The purpose of this Bill is to extend the amount of liability which the Export Credits Guarantee Department is authorised to assume under the Export Guarantees Acts, 1939 and 1945, in order that the Department can continue to provide to the full the services which it now offers to the British export trade, and which is so much in demand by British exporters. The fact that there is a need for this Bill is evidence of the demand for the services which the Department offers to our export trade. The House, is I think, well aware of what those services are and of the long and successful history of the Department's services in this field for the past quarter of a century. It has represented in fact a most successful incursion on the part of the State into the insurance field. It has undertaken risks which the private insurance companies could never have assumed, and it has represented a most successful but little publicised piece of public enterprise, providing first class service at moderate cost to those who have used it, and at the same time without any loss falling upon the taxpayer.
  The guarantees under the Export Guarantees Acts are given subject to the consent of the Treasury and after consultation with an advisory council. There have been arrangements for many years whereby traders can protect themselves against losses in overseas trading by a Government guarantee offered through the services of the Department. Since this Bill raises very substantially the amount of liability which the Department can assume it is right to trace briefly the record of the development of the Department.
  As the House knows, the first export credits scheme was introduced in 1919, and took the form of making cash advances for a percentage of the cost of the goods exported. That system continued for two years. It was discontinued in 1921 and a system of guarantees was introduced. That basis is the one in force today, though the scope of the risks which

  2387
  can be covered by the activities of the Department has now been considerably widened. Broadly speaking, the guarantees now given cover an exporter against a high percentage—up to 85 per cent. for insolvency and 90 per cent. for other risks—of any loss he may incur from causes outside his own control or outside the buyer's control which arise from happenings outside the United Kingdom and which are not normally insurable elsewhere.
  Before the war the main risks covered by these guarantees were for consumer goods—generally the insolvency of the overseas buyer, sometimes the inability of a solvent buyer to remit sterling owing to foreign exchange restrictions, but guarantees were also given in those days for important contracts for the export of capital equipment—on longer credit terms—to overseas buyers, including foreign Governments. In May, 1945, when I believe my right hon. Friend was in charge of the activities of the Department, the Department's guarantees were again extended in scope to assist British exporters in their endeavours to achieve the maximum volume of exports.
  The House should be told briefly what the present services are which are offered by the Department. The standard form of policy for consumer goods, the "contracts" policy, broadly speaking covers an exporter for any risk outside his own or his buyer's control from the time he books an order to the time he receives sterling or some other approved currency due to him in payment for that order. The risks covered include the insolvency of the buyer; the failure of the buyer to pay for delivered goods within 12 months of the due date; exchange restrictions, or a shortage of exchange in the buyer's country preventing the buyer from transmitting sterling to the United Kingdom; the occurrence of war between the buyer's country and the United Kingdom; the occurrence of war, hostilities, civil war, rebellion, revolution, etc., in the buyer's country; the cancellation or non-renewal of an export licence—a very important risk in these days—or the imposition of restrictions on the export of goods not previously subject to licence; the incurring of irrecoverable extra delivery charges due to diversion of voyage; and, more generally, any other
  2388
  cause outside the United Kingdom which is beyond the control of the exporter or the buyer.
  The policies on these consumer goods normally cover the whole of an exporter's overseas trade or a reasonable share of it for 12 months ahead. Contracts for capital goods are dealt with individually but the percentage of guarantee and the coverage of the risk are very similar to those applicable to consumer goods. With the development of trade with Eastern Europe as a result of bilateral trade agreements, and with certain other countries where there exist in pretty heavy measure the risks against which the Department can provide cover, the services of the Department are now more than ever in demand.
  The recent figures show the development of the use made of the Department's services. The value of policies issued for the three years immediately before the war came to about £43 million a year. Wartime figures amounted to £72 million a year, which was also the figure in the first post-war year of 1945–46. The following year, 1946–47, with the development of the export drive, the value of policies rose to £139 million and last year—1947–48—to £186 million. We are, therefore, very near the limit of liability set in the 1945 Act, which itself extended the limit set in the previous Act. It has, therefore, become necessary to come to the House and ask for an extension of that liability limit.
  We are asking that the £200 million over-all liability should now be raised under this Bill to £300 million; that the £5 million for what are called "other matters"—I will explain in a moment what they are—be increased to £15 million; that the £15 million for external trade be increased to £30 million. We are not asking for any increase in the £15 million limit placed on the cover for re-export trade. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, then President of the Board of Trade moved the Second Reading of the 1945 Act he then envisaged the possibility that we might at some future time have to come to the House for some extension of the figure. We are now very close to the £200 million, and that is the reason why, as a matter of some urgency, we have had to come and ask for an extension in the limits.

  2389
  It is not only a question of the over-all liability which the Department can assume. The individual limits for particular classes of cover also require to be raised. For instance what are called in the Act "other matters" have a limit of £5 million. This figure was defined in the original Act as enabling guarantees to be given in connection with transactions which though not necessarily resulting in exports might be "conducive" to the establishing or encouraging of export trade.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Would the right hon. Gentleman state the Section of the Act to which his remark applies?
  Mr. Wilson: Yes, Section 1 (4) of the 1939 Act. Under this we have now gone as far as £4,500,000 of the £5 million allowed. This form of service rendered by the Department is very much in demand by those who deal in this class of trade. What is covered by it principally is the processing abroad of United Kingdom-owned raw materials, such as raw wool and raw cotton, into the finished article, which has been undertaken on a small scale in the last two or three years. Secondly, there is what might loosely be called the export of brains—technical knowledge—especially in consultant services where a growing use is being made of British consultant firms, such as engineers, and there is some risk of nonpayment for their services. These consultant firms now often come to the Department for some form of cover against the risk involved. A third and quite valuable means of earning foreign currency is the sending abroad of contractors' equipment for use in the construction of plant which they have contracted to erect.
  The third thing for which the authority of the House is required is to increase from £15 million to £30 million the amount available for external trade. That is, trade in goods which are bought abroad by a United Kingdom merchant or trader, and sold or shipped direct to a third overseas country. The United Kingdom merchants have made very considerable use of the external trade guarantees given under Section 2 of the 1945 Act, and the transactions are growing month by month. There is about £18 million worth current at the present time. So far the total of the transactions has amounted to over
  2390
  £25,500,000 and the Department has an outstanding maximum liability of about £11 million worth of guarantees, leaving a margin of only £4 million to meet new business. In view of the demand for this class of business, it is necessary to ask the House to agree to a higher limit.
  That is all which is covered in the Bill. It is a short and very simple Bill. Read in conjunction with the two previous Acts, it gives all that we require at present for the Export Credit Guarantees Department to function to the fullest possible extent to which the British traders want it to function. I hope the House will agree to give a speedy passage to the Bill. There is one thing I ought to tell the House. This Bill is intended as a stop-gap measure to ensure that the guarantees and the work of the Department should not have to cease or in any way be restricted during the present Session because of the nearness to the limits of liability, but I ought to tell the House that the powers given under the Export Guarantees Act are at present being reviewed, and if it is found necessary the Government will have no hesitation in introducing fresh legislation in a future Session with the object of improving still further the service available to exporters and of encouraging the maximum development of both our visible and invisible export trade.
  Mr. Bowles: Can my right hon. Friend give any figures about the experience of claims and what has been the experience of Governments or traders in rights of recovery against default in payments from abroad?
  Mr. Wilson: No, Sir. I have no figures immediately available on those points, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to give my hon. Friend any of the information he would like to have, when he replies.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the possibility of a future scheme. Will the future scheme be—and, for that matter, is the present scheme—on a voluntary basis? Are all the premiums entirely voluntary, or is there any intention to effect an export levy compulsorily on exporters?
  Mr. Wilson: The schemes are entirely voluntary. It is a fact that traders are

  2391
  making more and more use of the service of this Department. There are certain fields in which it may be thought that private trade would want to enter, and we are examining that and the possible service which might be provided but which cannot be provided in the absence of future legislation. All I am asking the House to do is to approve the increases in the limits of liability under the previous Acts. I am sure that this is a question which has no party content in it. The Export Credit Guarantees Department has functioned equally successfully under Governments of all political colours, and I am quite sure that the House will agree that it is something which is absolutely essential to our export trade under present conditions and which, with the good will of the House and the passage of this Bill into law, will continue to provide service for the British export trade and to render a good account of itself.
  4.16 p.m.
  Mr. Oliver Lyttelton: We shall, of course, give this Bill an unopposed Second Reading. If it had to be opposed, the Opposition would have had to select somebody else to do so because I have been connected with this scheme for a long time and sat on the Committee for many years before the war. The hon. Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Bowles) has asked about the experience. I am not sure that my figure is right but I think that at the end of 1946 the accounts showed a balance on the underwriting reserve account of just over £2 million. As far as I know, that has not been seriously eaten into since.
  Mr. Bowles: I am much obliged.
  Mr. Lyttelton: I do not know whether that figure is up to date, but I thought it might do currently. I was very glad that the President of the Board of Trade again made public—I hope it will be commented upon widely—the facilities which the scheme offers to the trader. Certainly at times it has suffered from the fact that traders were unaware of the facilities available to them, and it required and still requires some skill, to know exactly how one can insure these credit risks. I have seen the scheme from both sides. The companies with which I am now connected have been large users of it on the export of capital goods. The scheme for the electrification of the suburban system
  2392
  of Rio de Janeiro was insured under this scheme.
  As the President of the Board of Trade said, the outstanding total now amounts to £186 million, which carries us very near the limit allowed by Parliament. We endorse his view that the Bill should pass through all its stages as quickly as possible in order that there shall be no interruption in the facilities which the Department is able to offer to the trader. One of the reasons for requiring this increase, which the President of the Board of Trade did not mention, is the increase in prices generally which has occurred. That has to be added also to the effort which the country is making to increase exports. The Department ought to be congratulated on this occasion, upon a record of having provided a very useful service to the trading community and at the same time—if I may use such a vulgar term—having made a profit for the taxpayer up to 1946 of over £2 million. It is not intended to be primarily a profit-making affair, but the experience of the Department in underwriting these risks has been favourable. The skill with which the officials have conducted the business is a matter for congratulation. If I had not been connected with it myself, I should also have said that there was a contribution from the skill of the business men who advised them on it, but that must take a secondary place. We welcome the increase in the limits in all the classes which the President of the Board of Trade has announced today.
  4.19 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Williams: Just now the Minister was pointing out that the original Act was brought in in 1919 and readjusted in 1921. Very few Parliaments have been subjected to more abuse than the Parliament of those days, and it was curious that the Minister was compelled to draw the attention of the House to the fact that this sound business-like administration was brought in by that Parliament of which you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Abingdon (Sir R. Glyn) and myself are the only Members present at this minute. The scheme was confirmed by that very much abused Parliament of 1939. In other words, both of those Parliaments were using their strength and power to help British trade and industry, and to protect it where possible, and the fact that the Government

  2393
  were backing these exports made payment abroad more certain. That moral backing has been of immense value in trade during all those years.
  I am glad to be able to congratulate the Minister on paying tribute to something done by two Governments about which, I am quite sure, if he looks back at his own speeches he will find he said that they had never done any good at all. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] At some period I am sure he said something near that and, if he has not, he will have a lot to do to convert all the speeches of his colleagues in that respect. There is no harm in pointing out today that he has been strictly accurate in the tributes he has paid to the good work of past Parliaments.
  I should like to emphasise one fact which the Minister mentioned, that a considerable sum of money has been used already for the encouragement of trade, finance and work by our traders with foreign countries. I am particularly glad that is being encouraged because that form of enterprise is much more valuable today, and it is much more important to encourage that, than some of the things which Ministers and others in the Government have done, such as killing the Liverpool Cotton Exchange. It would have been just as sensible to my mind not to have done what they are doing here, as it was to do what they did on that other occasion.
  I should like to mention one point which neither the Minister nor my right hon. Friend has mentioned, namely, that it is not only the increased price of goods but the immense depreciation of sterling that has made it compulsory to have this increased sum available for distribution amongst these trades. That point should be brought forward in the House today as a justification for the higher sum of money which we are guaranteeing. Finally, may I say that owing to the skill with which the original Act was drawn, the Government have been able to administer it in such a way that, even with the present Minister, it has been run at a profit. That Act was drawn during the administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) who is so often abused by the Government for what has been done in the past. It just shows that if anything is to be run by the State, Conservative Ministers are needed to build up and run the scheme.
  2394
  I hope I have been able to say a few things which may cheer the Minister, because of the fact that he has at last done something good, by following the administration of Conservatives who went before him in office.
  4.24 p.m.
  Mr. Wingfield Digby: I am not surprised that the Minister has had to come to the House for these extensions of export guarantees. Indeed, the only thing which surprises me is that it has not been necessary to extend the cover earlier. When a considerable Debate took place on the Second Reading of the 1945 Act it was anticipated, as he said, not only by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but by many others, that it would be necessary to raise this cover. It is perhaps a little disappointing that it has not been necessary to do so before, because, since that time, there is no doubt that the importance of exports has become all the more evident, and the importance of doing anything we can to assist them is much clearer.
  I do not think there is anything controversial about the Measure before us, but I hope that, before we close this Second Reading Debate whoever replies will take the opportunity of giving us a little more information about how this process is working, although we have just heard from the President of the Board of Trade that the matter is under review. It follows from the fact that exports are more important than ever, that we can afford bad debts abroad less than ever. We can afford bad debts even less than was envisaged in 1945, and I am wondering whether, when the Department is fixing premiums, they take this into account, and whether they have any policy for fixing a higher premium where they think there is likely to be a bad debt, which would be against the interests of this country in the present delicate position of the balance of payments. My second point is with regard to the direction of exports. When the 1945 Act received its Second Reading, an undertaking was given that premiums should not be used in any way to try to effect a direction of exports, and I should be glad to know whether that still holds good.
  There has been some complaint about the time taken in certain cases

  2395
  where application has been made for a guarantee, and in view of the importance of speeding up our exports as much as possible, I should be glad to hear something about what steps have been taken to try to obviate these delays. The President of the Board of Trade made some reference to the amount by which consumer goods were helped under these Measures in the past, and I hope we shall be given some figure showing how far they are being used today for the purposes of consumer goods and how far they are being used for capital goods. In 1945 the proportion was something like six or ten to one in favour of consumer goods.
  How far are the smaller firms coming in on this? Again, there has been a criticism that it has helped the larger firms rather too much and the smaller firms rather too little. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how far he has been able to extend these services to the smaller firms which often require them more. I am sure we shall all welcome the assurance that this machinery is under review, and I hope the opportunity will be taken to clear up some defects in the machinery which have manifested themselves.
  4.29 p.m.
  Mr. Rhodes: I should like to congratulate the Minister on this efficient Department of which I have had some experience in recent weeks. I think it is true to say, that it is the smaller firms which require encouragement in the export drive today because generally the bigger firms are already contributing to exports as much as they are able. According to a report issued by the Chief Inspector of Factories, I believe last year, there were 129,000 factories in the country employing too or less, and only 11,000 employing over too. These figures serve as a guide to the importance of the small to medium firms. These firms are loosely knit into associations or federations or have no connection with either. Talks given to such associations on the advantage of export facilities often escape the notice of the small to medium manufacturers.
  Therefore, the Department's representatives must go right down to the individual manufacturers to sell their insurance. They go, either on their own two feet, or by bus, car, or train, or by
  2396
  motorcar provided by the nearest Government car pool. If the provincial office of the Department is in a city with a car pool, fairly satisfactory arrangements can be made; but where a car pool does not exist in the same city, or where a large territory is covered by one man, the car pool is of little use. The result is that highly trained men, through no fault of their own, are wasting many hours each week. In many cases their calls could be doubled if they had cars of their own or if cars were provided for the use of the Department. Private firms do not provide cars for the salesman for nothing and I suggest that it would be good business policy to provide the cars where they are badly needed.
  I should like to know if it would be possible to issue a yearly report on the progress of the Department. Such a report might show the amount of cover provided during the year, the amount outstanding, classification of policies by time, and destinations of exports. I think that this type of information is already prepared for the Advisory Council, so it should not be too onerous for the Department or the Minister to make it available to the House. The President referred to certain transactions taking place with Eastern Europe. Do those transactions come under the special guarantees? They are referred to in the Estimates but no special reference is made to them in the trading accounts and balance sheets. I shall be glad to have a reply to this question and to know also the balance held at the end of March of this year.
  4.33 p.m.
  Mr. Edgar Granville: As the President of the Board of Trade said when introducing this Measure, all parties in some way or another have subscribed to this idea, and the right hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was responsible for introducing it in 1945. There can be no question, therefore, regarding the Bill's speedy passage through the House today. I am glad that the President made it clear, in reply to my question, that it is a voluntary scheme. I have heard it suggested in certain quarters that it was the thin end of the wedge, the prelude to a future scheme which would impose a compulsory premium on all exporters, and was in effect, the Government's method of controlling export

  2397
  policy. I am pleased that the right hon. Gentleman has dispelled any fears in that direction. Only yesterday he said:
  "British exports are passing into the phase where they are no longer limited by production, but by selling methods and the extent to which overseas markets are open to our goods. This year is a testing year for our export drive. We need more surveys in every market."
  I am glad to see that what some of us have been trying to say for two years to the Board of Trade is now realised. That fact alone would be a justification for this increase today from £200 million to £300 million. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the increasing risk in licensing in the importing countries and the right hon. Member for Aldershot referred to increased prices. These two things alone mean that we shall require more money to carry out this scheme.
  I want to raise one point which affects the most important aspect—our exports to the hard currency or dollar markets from which we are importing food and raw materials. One of the difficulties there is the time lag in delivery. Importers are complaining at the length of time between the taking of the order and the delivery of the goods. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows that some exporters have been trying a new and very important scheme to deal with this problem. If it is successful I hope it will be extended. The question arises whether this Export Guarantee Scheme is the proper way to deal with the criticisms that there is too great a time lag, that prices change and so on, before the goods are delivered.
  To deal with this question some manufacturers have been exporting to warehouses abroad rather than to a customer. Through their salesman in a particular country to which they are exporting they learn of the trend of requirements and export in bulk to a warehouse in that particular hard currency area. The salesman there sells direct from the warehouse. He takes his sample and tells his customer that he can deliver the goods within a week. The Minister has heard of this scheme before and I believe several of our large exporting firms have tried it out.
  The question arises whether or not it is too heavy a financial risk for our exporters to take in exporting to warehouses abroad and then selling from bulk stock to the customer, and whether they
  2398
  are able to take that risk as an ordinary commercial transaction. I should like the President to say whether this scheme has met with success, and if so, whether it could be extended in a general way to exporters under the present scheme.
  The President referred to capital goods. We all know that the emphasis in the future will be on the coming switch from consumer to capital goods. The Chancellor the other day referred to some dislocation, and dislocation there must be. Much as we hate controls, much as some hon. Members may not like this type of planning, we must look ahead and face this problem in its early stages so that we shall not be subject to too severe dislocation later. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not hesitate to use this scheme to the full if the tremendous change-over from the export of consumer goods to capital goods has to be made.
  4.39 p.m.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: I must join in congratulating the Government on this Measure. In my case, however, there are a number of questions which I want to ask the Secretary for Overseas Trade who, I understand, will be replying. I must admit that I am very disappointed in the allocation made to the re-export trade. If the Parliamentary Secretary will refer to the figures he will see that when this guarantee was first introduced in 1939 £7½ million was allotted. That sum in the years which have since gone by has been increased to only £15 million. On the other hand, for processing goods abroad in 1939 £2½ million was allocated and that has gone up to £15 million. It is obvious that the emphasis has been put rather on processing abroad than on re-exporting goods. It is appreciated throughout the House how much the industrial welfare of this country has depended on accepting raw materials, or even half finished goods, and then completing their manufacture and re-exporting them, and I therefore feel rather worried that this Bill only doubles the amount for re-exports, but allocates something like six or seven times the amount originally laid aside for processing abroad.
  Under Section 4 of the 1939 Act, £10 million was laid aside by the Government,
  "for any purposes of establishing any trade or any branch of trade between the United Kingdom and any country."

  2399
  Later in 1939, under the Overseas Trade Guarantee Act, that £10 million was increased to £60 million, so that there is a large sum of £50 million over and above whatever we may be discussing this afternoon. I should like to know how that sum is being used. I should also like to know whether it overlaps the other two guarantees—in respect of processing abroad and for the re-export trade. If it does not overlap, can the Parliamentary Secretary say for what that credit is being used?
  If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at the excellent pamphlet produced by his Department entitled "Government Guarantees for Exporters," he will see a paragraph devoted to the risks not covered. Amongst these are the following:
  "(iii) The risk that loss may result from causes which are within the control of the exporter or the buyer."
  It seems very odd that this Department will not cover anything which is within the control of the buyer at the other end. Surely the main purpose should be to protect the British exporter against what may happen through no fault of his own if the buyer the other end defaults. As I read it, that paragraph means that if the buyer for any reason defaults the Export Guarantees Department will not cover the loss.
  The document goes on to say:
  "(iv) the risk that because of a slump in prices or other unfavourable factor a solvent buyer may refuse to take delivery of goods he has ordered."
  I understood from the President of the Board of Trade that that is just the type of case envisaged in the 1945 Act and for which he was asking additional powers this afternoon. I should like to have that point cleared up. There is also the risk that fluctuations in exchange may cause loss of sales made in foreign currency. That seems a great pity. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there are no forward exchange markets at the moment and similar arbitrage cannot go on. It seems most important that these risks on loss by foreign exchange and fluctuations in the rate of exchange should be covered. It is particularly important in view of what the President says about introducing fresh legislation that he should give an undertaking to reconsider that point.
  2400
  This Exports Guarantee Department asks for premiums which range from a quarter to two per cent., and in the handbook it says that the range of premiums rightly depends on the country to which the exporter wishes to send his goods. Those rates seem very high indeed. That is borne out by the fact that a sum of £2 million now stands to the credit of this account. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to give some indication of whether the Government are going to reduce those rates. It seems quite unnecessary to have rates so high. They provide an unnecessary surplus in an organisation which is a non-profit making organisation.
  Will the Parliamentary Secretary also review the percentage of cover which the Department gives? At the moment they will not give more than 85 per cent., or 90 per cent. of the risk. They lay down that it is right for a particular exporter to carry a portion of the risk. From the point of view of the service given to the community they should be willing—I should think only too willing—to take the whole risk.
  Finally, I think the President would be the first to admit that before leaving this Debate we should stress the services which can be given by the Export Guarantees Department in the way of information. They have something like 50,000 reports on firms in all parts of the world. The President would agree that we should stress the amount of information available to anyone considering exporting to any part of the world. This is a service which any industrialist has only to sample in order to know its worth. With those criticisms, I add my support to the Bill.
  4.44 p.m.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: There is a question I wish to ask in all simplicity, ignorance and sincerity. Is this scheme available to those traders who export in place of capital or consumer goods the produce of their brains? I do not know whether they are counted as capital or consumer goods; but I assume they are capital. I am thinking, not unnaturally, of the author, who may very easily find that his foreign purchaser defaults and that his accumulated royalties are not forthcoming when they are due. This has happened over and over again. Authors'

  2401
  royalties and his sale or hire of his copyright are not an unimportant item of our invisible exports. I should be glad to know if authors can cover themselves under this scheme against the risk of such default.
  4.45 p.m.
  Mr. William Shepherd: The President of the Board of Trade has had a very comfortable innings; in fact, no Minister in this Administration has had such an easy time since he has taken office as the President of the Board of Trade. That is largely because there is a clash between the President of the Board of Trade and the Government. On the one hand, the Government are trying to pull the industries of the country to pieces, while on the other hand the President is doing a rather weak and methodical best to pull them together. There are very few things on which we have to speak harshly to him because we feel that, in a Government opposed to the main means by which the country earns its livelihood, he is doing his best.
  I wonder whether the Bill has had the approval of all the Ministers in the Government? It will be interesting if the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us, for example, what the Minister of Health has said about this Bill. In 1945 the Minister of Health wrote a little book about which I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary has heard. Appropriately, it had a yellow back, and in the book the Minister said:
  "By some twist of the Tory mind it is said that it is good trade to persuade someone in a remote part of the world to buy our goods. We are told by some people who ought to know better that we shall need to increase our exports after the war by 50 per cent."
  That was the view held by the Minister of Health. I wonder what are his views today on exports and on this Bill. The present Secretary of State for War was just as emphatic, for he said in 1945:
  "Increased exports are demanded. There was never a greater fallacy uttered in this or any other assembly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd June, 1944; Vol. 401, C. 398.]
  I hope that the Secretary for Overseas Trade will be able to tell us that he has been in touch with his right hon. Friends, and that, having renounced the heresies of 1945, they now take a view more in accordance with the line so long advocated on this side of the House.
  2402
  The President of the Board of Trade, when he introduced this Bill in a commendably short speech, was guilty of a slight harshness towards private enterprise, because he said that this was a risk undertaken by a Government Department which was not undertaken by private enterprise. That is an unreasonable statement to make, because the Board of Trade have not allowed a selection of risk. We cannot go as we could to the ordinary insurance company and select a risk. One of the major defects of this Bill, so far as the traders are concerned, is that one must insure the whole of one's export trade and one cannot take risks against which one wishes to insure. In those circumstances it is quite easy to say that it is better than private enterprise can do, but, in fact, it falls very far short of what insurance companies will do in terms of risk.
  The President was also unfair when he said that this is something entirely outside private enterprise. He has the experts of the Advisory Council, which is composed of wicked individuals like bankers and industrialists. It is true that each of these applications is, in fact, vetted by this Council so that even this Department at once admits the immense good it receives from the assistance which private enterprise gives to it. The President of the Board of Trade opened his speech by stating that the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster had anticipated an increase in the sum to be covered by the Bill. The President did not tell the House that the Chancellor of the Duchy also said that he felt that export prices would decline from 1945. Certainly that has not turned out to be a fact, and we have one more example of how unreliable is the present Chancellor of the Duchy as a prophet, or in anything connected with finance.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) was also brief in his comments on this Bill, and I felt that he had the impression that he was so much connected with it that it would be immodest for him to pour praise upon it; but we feel that this is a Bill of great value and that the scheme has been running so long with so little complaint that the Bill is something we can take without any risk. My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) stressed an exceptionally interesting point,

  2403
  in which he was supported by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre), when he said that this Bill ought to give some cover for our invisible exports. It is very vital that we should do all we can to stimulate invisible exports, because they are the exports we can achieve without importing anything. Therefore, they are, in effect, a greater gain to us in terms of real exports than any other form of activity. We hope to hear how under this Bill steps are being taken by the Government to stimulate invisible exports. In the old days before 1945, the man who was a capitalist was wicked, but the most wicked of all capitalists was the capitalist who invested his money overseas. That is a tale with which hon. Members opposite will no doubt be familiar.
  Today we are bewailing the fact that there are not sufficient people with money invested overseas, and we are seeing a most serious decline in the net revenue from overseas investments. In fact, we pay so much money out, including the interest on blocked sterling balances, that I believe our net return from investments is hardly of any value at all. That is something to which the attention of the Government ought to be directed, and we are rather sorry that the provision for catering for trade other than that which has originated from this country, is as small as it is. It indicates that the Government have no plans for any substantial expansion of our essential, invisible export trade.
  The hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) was his usual practical self. He was so practical that I cannot understand why he is on that side of the House. He pointed out that small firms did not know much about these schemes, and that the facilities of the Department should be concentrated on bringing to the attention of those small firms the service it can render. I agree and I am sure that more publicity for this scheme would result in a wider use being made of it, particularly by those firms which previously did not engage in the export trade. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest and Christchurch raised a number of interesting points which I should have raised myself had he not dealt with them. I am to a great extent indebted to him. The Secretary for
  2404
  Overseas Trade will be doing a service to the House if he will explain to some extent the mechanism of this scheme, because all too few know the principle on which it works.
  We on this side of the House welcome the increase in the amount of money which the Bill guarantees. We hope that our export trade will be such in the year to come as will justify this increase. We hope we are going to see no recession in our export trade, and that the Department will do all it can to publicise all its activities so that, more and more, the traders in this country will take advantage of the service. We give a very enthusiastic welcome to this Bill on Second Reading, and we hope that the right hon. Gentleman will continue to bring in Bills of this nature which will assist the trade of this country.
  4.58 p.m.
  Mr. Bottomley (Secretary for Overseas Trade): The general tone of the discussion indicates that this is a good Bill. It is rather unfortunate that the hon. Member Bucklow (Mr. Shepherd) and the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) should upset the harmony, but that is usual and we expect it from both of them. We are not unduly disappointed. I want to pay my tribute to the members of the Advisory Council. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Lyttelton) said, they are a group of business men and other interests, including the trade unions, who give of their best, and so enable this guarantees scheme to work properly. We all ought to pay tribute to Sir William Goodenough, who was Chairman for a long time but whose health has now broken down, so that he had had to give up the job. We look to a great stewardship under Mr. Geoffrey Gibbs, who has taken over the job. I should also like to pay a tribute to the Department for the work it does; I have met many business men who get assistance from it, and they all tell me what fine work is being done. I am sure the House likes to hear of such tributes.
  With regard to the questions which have been raised, I shall deal with them as best I can, and if I miss any of them I am sure that hon. Members will be quick to tell me which points I have overlooked. Regarding the type of goods covered by the Department, there is at

  2405
  the moment cover for £186 million worth of goods. The value of the policies issued in 1947–48 was, for exports, £170 million, and for external trade, £16 million. Of that export figure, roughly 90 per cent. was for consumer goods and 10 per cent. for capital goods. The £16 million for external trade was wholly in respect of consumer goods—mainly raw materials. The terms of payment ranged from cash against documents to about 90 days credit. In very exceptional circumstances credit can be given for six months. Policies for capital goods are of a different character, because very often they have to be carried over perhaps one, two or three years because of the terms of delivery. Where credit has been necessary, very often the exporter has been able to get 50 or 60 per cent. payment by the time the goods are shipped and credit is therefore given for the balances of 40 or 50 per cent. It might happen that the full percentage guarantee would be given in the case of goods covered for business in the current year.
  The premium has been fixed in such a way that it takes into account all the risks. Not only are there commercial risks, but there are political risks. It would be essential in the case of some geographical areas to be a little more careful than in others, and for that reason the individual rates do vary. They vary according to the risks, both commercial and political, and they normally cover the whole of an exporter's overseas business to a reasonable number of countries. Over the business as a whole—and here one has to be careful in quoting figures in case someone says they paid more than that—the average premium is about 15s. on the total turnover.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: Per £100?
  Mr. Bottomley: Yes, per cent. I was asked what were our losses. Our loss experience arose chiefly from the war. We paid out something like £5 million in claims, and something like £1½ million has been recovered since the end of the war. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch (Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre) asked me about re-exports. In connection with re-exports, the suggestion was that we have not made provision to cover them or to cover the amount that might be needed. I can only say in that connection that the demand has been met and there seems to be no
  2406
  purpose in pushing up the figure higher unless it appears necessary to do so. Where it is a question of goods coming into this country for processing and subsequent export, such goods should be considered as direct exports rather than re-exports.
  With regard to the point about the direction of exports, we cannot do that. Our job is to cover risks. The hon. Member for Western Dorset (Mr. Wingfield Digby) asked whether there was a delay in assessing premiums. We are constantly trying to give prompter service and we generally meet requirements within 48 hours, which I think is quite good going. We do not always manage this, but it is our endeavour, and in the main it is being achieved. The hon. and gallant Member for New Forest and Christchurch raised the question of the Overseas Trade Guarantees Act. Of that figure he quoted only £10 million has been used, and during the period since the war, only £2½ million of this figure, so there again it will be seen that we have a fund available to meet trade guarantees.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: My point really was that I could not see how this guarantee differs from those given under the Export Guarantees Act and why these funds were not used by the Government for the purpose of the Export Guarantees Act, leaving this one aside.
  Mr. Bottomley: I think the answer is that there are different kinds of risks involved and for that reason different funds are necessary.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me what the difference is? That is the question I asked him.
  Mr. Bottomley: No, Sir. I cannot tell the hon. and gallant Gentleman what the difference is, but if he will give me the opportunity of sending the information to him, I will do so with pleasure.
  The point was raised as to how many policies had been taken out, or how many are out at the present time. I cannot give the precise figure, but it is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2,000. As I have said already they are taken out within a very short time.
  The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. E. P. Smith) raised the point about the export of brains. We certainly do encourage that. Before the war we did not have

  2407
  a lot of business in that direction. That is not to say that we did not have the brains to export, but we found that we had many overseas invisible exports which helped us to pay our way. Because we have lost many of these invisible exports, the need today is to encourage the export of brains and to get as many people to go overseas as possible and sell their "know-how." The more we can get to go, the better business it is for us. Supposing that a particular job is to be done, e.g., the building of a tunnel, then people with "know-how" go along from different countries and offer their services. A certain sum of money is given to each of them as expenses for having incurred the trouble to go and give their advice and for tenders. The successful man who comes, we hope, from the United Kingdom, does not get his pay until the contract has been completed, or even the whole job finished. Therefore, it is not fair to ask him to take the whole of that risk, bearing in mind that because of commercial or political changes the job may not be completed. The Department covers the contingency that he might give his expert knowledge and receive nothing in return. In this way the export of brains is encouraged.
  Mr. E. P. Smith: It has been an excellent and more informing dissertation to which the hon. Gentleman has treated us, but I did ask specifically about the accumulated royalties of an author in foreign countries, supposing those royalties were defaulted upon. The sum may be unknown. It may be large or small. But has the author a chance of insuring under this scheme on the principle of a floating policy?
  Mr. Bottomley: We would like to look at that from the point of taking a risk. If the author is prepared to pay a premium on the basis that in the future he may have a potential income of so much, the Department will have a look at it. What we cannot do is, after there has been a default, to accept that liability. That, of course, would be bad business. I think I have answered the points that were put, and I might end by saying that we have a reserve. One right hon. Gentleman did ask whether we should have it. I would say, yes. The reserve today is a very reasonable sum. It is £4¼ million, a little more than just before the war.
  2408
  The figures that were mentioned earlier are low, compared with the actual figures. The Department's liability for guarantees before the war was about £30 million. Today, the liability is £130 million. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will see that unsettled conditions abroad and other difficulties that we encounter today entitle us to say that a reserve of about 3 per cent. on outstanding liability is not to be considered excessive and should in no way be taken to indicate that the existing premium rates are too high.
  Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre: If the hon. Gentleman looks at the figures from 1943 to 1946, he will see that the losses were about £5,000 a year. How can he, therefore, justify a reserve fund of £500,000?
  Mr. Bottomley: I mentioned a reserve fund, but in fact the whole of the money goes to the Exchequer. What they have now is a loss. They have to take the whole of the risk which, during the last year, was indeed great. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman feels that we cannot justify that risk in present world conditions, I am bound to say that I disagree with him. We cannot take unnecessary risks, and the three per cent. on all outstanding debts is not excessive.
  Mr. Rhodes: The hon. Gentleman has answered the questions put by Members opposite, but he has ignored mine entirely. I asked him to consult with his opposite number in the Treasury about the use of cars for people who had to get the work. What about the annual report? I mentioned that. Another question was about the balance at 31st March this year. It was £2,400,000 at the end of March, 1946. I was interested to hear that 2,000 firms had insured under this guarantee and that 600 of them live in Yorkshire. It is certain that 600 Yorkshiremen cannot be wrong, and they ask the rest of the country to follow suit quickly.
  Mr. Bottomley: I have not answered the points put by my hon. Friend. I agree with what has been said about him already, that he is practical-minded. I assure him that the observations he made are noted. We shall consult with the Treasury about cars. I have already mentioned the reserve figure—which answers his second question. I am in complete

  2409
  agreement on his third point. There is no need to answer points unless they call for comment. I hope the House is now ready to give the Bill a Second Reading.
  Mr. Digby: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will say something about the extent to which small firms are using this scheme. It has been referred to by an hon. Member opposite as well as by myself and is a most important matter for our exports.
  Mr. Bottomley: Every endeavour is being made to get small firms to use these facilities. Every potential exporter who comes for advice about export guarantees is encouraged, and the Department do all they can to assist him.

  EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 69.—(King's Recommendation signified.)
  [Major MILNER in the Chair]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Export Guarantees Act, 1939, and the Export Guarantees Act, 1945 (called below 'the new Act,' 'the 5939 Act' and the '1945 Act') by increasing the limits on the liability which may be undertaken by guarantees given under section one of the 1939 Act or section two of the 1945 Act, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums which by virtue of the 1939 Act and the 1945 Act are to be defrayed out of moneys provided by Parliament or the Consolidated Fund, or are to be paid into the Exchequer, being an increase attributable to the new Act raising—

  (a) to three hundred million pounds the limit in respect of all the said guarantees;

  (b) to fifteen million pounds the limit in respect of those under subsection (4) of section one of the 199 Act;

  (c) to thirty million pounds the limit in respect of those under section two of the 1945 Act."—[Mr. Bottomley.]

  5.14 p.m.
  Mr. C. Williams: I have so often criticised Financial Resolutions, and rightly, that I am glad now for once, and again rightly, to be able to say that I approve of this Resolution. It guarantees the provision of additional money, partly because of the terrible depreciation in the value of the £ due to the policy of
  2410
  the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. I want to justify this very heavy raising of the amount of the guarantee by something like £100 million for encouraging our export trade, which is of great value. This process is carried out on thoroughly sound and businesslike lines, first of all, under the Act of 1911, as followed in 1921. The Motion refers to the Act of 1939. All those were sound measures of administration. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that they need have no compunction in supporting this Motion. Unlike most of the Financial Resolutions they propose, this one, as the Minister has admitted earlier in the afternoon, is for the purpose of carrying out the sound, practical, sensible legislation which results from having a Conservative majority in the House of Commons. It has been abused by one of the least intelligent Ministers, as has already been mentioned this afternoon, the Minister of Health.
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Lords Amendment considered.
  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Provisions as to payment of compensation for improvements.")
    Lords Amendment: In page 1, line 10, after "tenant," to insert "of a holding."
    5.19 p.m.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment is designed to make it clear that the provisions of the Clause apply only to tenants of holdings to which Part I of the Bill relates.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Compensation to landlord for deterioration of holding.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 17, leave out from beginning to "unless" and insert:
    "Compensation shall not be recoverable—

    (a) under subsection (1) or subsection (4) of this section in any case where the lease was entered into after the thirty-first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty-one, or

    (b) under and in accordance with any lease entered into after the commencement of this Part of this Act."

    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is designed to give effect to the intention of the Government to safeguard the present rights of landlords to claim compensation for deterioration under existing leases.
    Lords Amendment: In page 4, line 30, at end, insert:
    "and shall have effect subject to such modifications (if any) as may be so specified."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    This Amendment gives effect to a suggestion made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) during the proceedings on the Report stage in this House.

    CLAUSE 5.—(Compensation for disturbance.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 6, line 44, after "grazing" insert:
    "or of keeping in his own occupation."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
    As originally drafted, this Clause provided that compensation for disturbance should not be payable in the case of permanent pasture which the landlord has been in the habit of letting annually for seasonal grazing and which has been let to a tenant for a limited period in order that he may put it through a cropping rotation before sowing it back to grass. There is, in principle, no difference between permanent pasture which a landlord has let annually for seasonal grazing and permanent pasture which he has retained in his own hands for grazing purposes. In both cases, the subsequent lets for a rotation of cropping are made in identical circumstances. The effect of the Amendment is to treat both cases on all-fours as regards compensation for disturbance.
    Mr. Snadden: Does this cover the case of a landlord who might have let his parks for cropping because he had no implements? Does it bring such land into the same category as land let for grazing?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, that is so.
    Lords Amendment: In page 7, line 5, leave out "six" and insert "nine."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This is an Amendment to bring the period of six months stipulated in Clause 5 (7) into line with the period of nine months stipulated in Clause 5 (1, a).

    CLAUSE 11.—(Variation of rent of holdings.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 14, line 5, leave out "of an arbiter."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that in cases where arbitration as to the rent of a holding is undertaken by the Land Court instead of by an arbiter, the date of any direction by the court that the rent of the holding should continue unchanged should rank as the commencement of the five-year period which must elapse before it is competent for the tenant to apply again for a revision of the rent.

    CLAUSE 16.—(Leases to continue in force notwithstanding variation of terms, etc.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 18, line 48, after "only" insert:
    "that any new term has been added to the lease or."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment is designed to avoid any possible doubt as to the scope of the Clause. The Clause provides that the lease of a holding shall not be deemed to have been brought to an end by reason only that any of its terms have been varied or reduced in pursuance of any provision of Part I of the Bill. During the Report stage in this House doubt was expressed whether the Clause covered the case where a new term is added to the

    2413
    lease by an arbiter in accordance with the provisions of Clause 14. This doubt is removed by the Amendment.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Construction, citation and application of Part I.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 23, line 21, at end, insert:
    "(3) The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not apply to any holding to which the provisions of the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts, 1886 to 1931, apply."
    Mr. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Government regard this Amendment as being both unnecessary and undesirable. The application of Part I of the Bill, which must be read as part of the Agricultural Holdings Acts, is defined in those Acts, as amended by the Ninth Schedule of the Bill. Those Acts, as amended by the Bill, apply generally only to agricultural land held under a lease. Landholders' holdings are not held under a lease but under statutory tenure. Further definition of the scope of Part I is, therefore, unnecessary, and I ask the House to reject the Amendment.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: I am a little surprised that the hon. Gentleman has sought to disagree with this Amendment, and I am still more surprised that he has not told us in greater detail why he takes that view. I will try to put the points which occur to me, and no doubt the Lord Advocate will deal with them. The hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of a holding. It might be as well that I should deal with what seem to be the points so that the Lord Advocate may inform me if I have left anything out. At the moment, until this Bill becomes law, a holding is defined as any piece of land agricultural or pastural held under a lease. In page 85 of this Bill the word "holding" is redefined, but the definition does not seem to be substantially altered. The word "holding" will now mean:
    "… the aggregate of the agricultural land, as defined in Part VII of the Agriculture (Scotland) Act, 1948, comprised in a lease."
    In page 64 of the Bill it is stated:
    "'agricultural land' means land used for agriculture which is so used for the purpose of a trade or business …"
    It may be that some smallholders do not use their land for the purpose of a trade
    2414
    or business, but certainly a great many do. It is their business to make a livelihood off their holdings and, therefore, they are not excluded by that definition.
    Then the Joint Under-Secretary tells us, "No smallholder holds under a lease." That is quite definitely not so, because there is a class of statutory small tenants and though it is a diminishing class it would be news to me to be told that there are none of them left in the country. The Small Landholders Act makes clear the right of a statutory small tenant to get a renewal of his lease. I do not think that the Lord Advocate will tell us that there is any possible way of holding that a statutory small tenant does not hold under a lease. So far as he is concerned, unless this Amendment is accepted, he will be comprised under Part I of this Bill, as I see it. I do not want to be too dogmatic on this question because the matter is extremely complicated. Although once I knew a fair amount about this department of the law, I do not profess to have the details at my finger tips. I have looked up the matter in the time available, and I cannot see any answer to the point that statutory small tenants are undoubtedly comprised within Part I of this Bill unless they are excluded, and I understand that the intention of the Government is to exclude them. I agree that they are a small class. Most smallholders are landholders.
    As I understand the position, landholders are in one or other of two positions. They may have been put on the land under the terms of a scheme, and, probably, there is then no contract, and never was a contract between the landholder and his landlord, and there never was a lease. It may be that landholders in that position are not holding under a lease, but under a scheme settled by the Land Court, and, therefore, it might be that they are not under Part I of this Bill, but even these people pay a rent. Normally, one takes the view that, if one pays rent, one does so because one holds under a lease, not necessarily a lease under the traditional Scottish Law form of lease. A lease is the tenure under which any tenant holds of his landlord, and, accordingly, I have some doubts in feeling certain that, even in a case where the landholder never had a lease from his landlord in the ordinary accepted sense, Part I does not apply to him.

    2415
    5.30 p.m.
    There is, however, another very extensive class of landholder. There are the landholders who held under a common law lease, or whose ancestors did and they themselves inherited it, and I should have thought it was at least arguable that what the Landholders Act did was not to bring that lease to an end suddenly on the passing of that Act, but to engraft on it certain statutory provisions and rights somewhat analogous to the case of the Rent Restriction Acts. The tenant under the Rent Restriction Acts has very much more extensive and valuable rights than the tenant under the common law. Nobody can suppose that the effect of these Acts was to supersede his lease by some entirely new form of tenure. That was not so, and, although I confess I have not studied it line by line since this matter came up, I do not find anything in the Small Landholders Act to support that, and I should be interested to hear from the Lord Advocate what Section of the Small Landholders Act resulted in the previously existing leases of people who came under that Act being suddenly brought to an end, because that must be the case on which this new Subsection is thought to be unnecessary.
    I cannot remember any commentator on that Act ever having drawn attention to the fact that that Act brought all previous leases to an end, and I should have thought that it was rather more in accordance with ordinary principles of interpretation to hold that the leases of the people then occupying as tenants small areas of agricultural land in Scotland were continued, but subject to the rights engrafted on to their tenure by the Small Landholders Act. If there is any doubt about it, why could not that doubt be resolved?
    It is not enough for the Lord Advocate to say "In my opinion, there is little doubt about it." I think what he has to say, before he asks us to reject this Amendment, is this: "It is as clear as daylight that this is unnecessary, and no practitioner in Scotland and no court could possibly hold the contrary." Unless he can go as far as that, what objection could there be to putting into the Bill two or three lines of print to make the matter clear beyond a doubt? I did not understand from anything which the
    2416
    Under-Secretary has said that putting in these words would do any harm. All the hon. Gentleman said was that they are unnecessary.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): And undesirable.
    Mr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman said they were undesirable, but he did not tell us why, although I know that anything which is unnecessary is undesirable. They can only be undesirable because they throw some other part of the law into doubt. I think I can leave out the Crofters' Acts, which may raise certain other points, because I am not so familiar with them and they applied only td a part of Scotland. I would prefer to base my argument on those people brought in in 1911 for the first time—the small landholders in those parts of Scotland to which the old Crofters' Acts did not apply. It is perfectly true that, so far as any of us know, none of these people since 1911 have ever appealed to the Agricultural Holdings Act for any benefit to themselves. No doubt, it may be suggested that, because of that, the Agricultural Holdings Act was generally recognised as not applying to them.
    I do not believe that is the explanation at all, because there was such a disparity after 1911 between the rights open to a small landholder and the rights open to any ordinary agricultural tenant, that it would never have been any good, so far as I can see, for a small landholder to appeal to the Agricultural Holdings Acts, because he would not have got any more out of it than he was already getting under the Small Landholders Act. Therefore, I think there is at least a case for saying that, throughout that period, the small landholder could have appealed to the Agricultural Holdings Act if he had chosen, but that it would never be worth his while to do so. Now, of course, the case is very different, because there may be instances in which, if Part I of this Bill applies to small landholders, it would be very much in the interests of the small landholder to appeal to Part I of this Bill.
    Let me indicate a course which he may take, and I am sure there are others. Under the Small Landholders Act, a man can only bequeath his holding to a member of his own family in the widest sense; that is, to a person who could succeed

    2417
    on intestacy. The small landholder may frequently wish to bequeath his holding to someone other than a member of his family, and, if Part I of this Bill applies and if the other Agricultural Holdings Acts also apply, it becomes of some value to the small landholder to bequeath his holding to somebody outside his family. Before security was given by Part I of this Bill, that right never had any value, because all the new legatee would become would be a tenant from year to year, outside the protection of the Small Landholders Act; he could have been turned out the next year, and so it would never have been worth his while to do that.
    If the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts with regard to bequests apply to landholders, there is great security of tenure now given to the ordinary agricultural tenant under Part I of this Bill, and it will be worth the while of the landholder, and certainly of the statutory small tenant, to bequeath his holding as an ordinary common law tenancy to, let us say, some friend of his who was not a relative, or to some relative on the maternal side who could not succeed on intestacy.
    I am sure this is of great importance to many people in the Highlands, and it is highly desirable that it should be made quite clear. I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to deal with the point. Let us suppose that we have a person who was an ordinary common law tenant of his small holding in 1911 who came under the protection of the statutory code for the first time in 1911, and who dies after this Bill has become law. Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman quite satisfied that the 1911 Act completely abolished his previous year to year tenancy under the statutory code, and that his successor cannot now say "That landholder has held throughout under a tenancy, fortified no doubt by the Small Landholders Acts; that tenancy is still there; the landholder has chosen to bequeath it to me; I am not a member of his family, but I am entitled to the rights under the Agricultural Holdings Act"? That is a very practical point, and, as far as I understand the law at the moment, I do not think that I would advise anybody that there was no case at all for that legatee. I should have some difficulty in giving that advice. I might well be wrong, and, having studied the matter further, I might say "The
    2418
    matter is doubtful, I really do not quite know; I think, on the whole, perhaps you are not entitled." But I think I should have to say, "There is a chance that you are entitled." If that is so, there would have to be expensive litigation, going to the Court of Session, and all the rest of it. We avoid all that by putting these three lines into the Bill.
    My next point arises on Clauses 13 and 14. Suppose there is a case where some small landholder, or a statutory small tenant, applies under Clause 14; let us say a statutory small tenant at the end of his lease. I do not know that the 1911 Act ever said that if a statutory small tenant fails to make the statutory application for renewal of his lease, he thereupon ceases to have any right to occupy. Indeed, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman looks up a somewhat debatable case which was decided in 1913, I think he will find that the Court of Session took the view that a statutory small tenant was perfectly entitled to continue occupying, although he had not in fact asked for a renewal of his statutory tenancy. I think I am right about that; but, in any case, the matter is very obscure.
    What would happen? He would come forward and would say, under Clause 14, "I want a new lease," and he would thereby bring into operation Clause 13. Under Clause 13 there are extensive provisions under which a landlord is bound to put everything in order. Even if that does not apply, in every case thereafter the landlord is bound to keep the equipment in order. Of course that is wholly at variance with the whole conception of the Small Landholders Acts, and I can see a good deal of doubt arising. What the true view may be, I am by no means too sure, but I can see a good deal of room for legal argument and disputation.
    I do not want to prolong this discussion. I have put at least two of the points which seemed to me to give rise to difficulty. I will sum up in this way. First, are there still such people as statutory small tenants in existence? Secondly, if there are, how can it be said that the definition of "holding" under this Bill does not apply to them? Thirdly, is the Lord Advocate quite satisfied that a person who held under an ordinary tenancy in 1911 and was drawn into the ambit of the 1911 Act, ceased from the passing of that Act to have any tenancy under

    2419
    a lease at all? I do not think "lease" is defined in any of this range of legislation, and I think it must, therefore, have a very wide meaning. I ask the Lord Advocate on what grounds he holds that no small landholder can possibly be the tenant under a lease.
    The Lord Advocate may have conclusive answers to these questions. If he has, we shall be convinoed that the Amendment is unnecessary, but I have not heard those answers given by anybody. I have not been able to discover them by my own researches, and there is a good deal of doubt about this in many quarters. I should have thought that the wise thing to do, even if one were of the opinion that the matter is pretty clear, would be to make it clear beyond doubt by putting these words into the Bill. Finally, I ask the Lord Advocate in what respect would it be undesirable to put these words into the Bill? Upon what other rights would they throw doubt? Whom would those words embarrass? Unless he can tell us either that they would embarrass somebody or that they would throw doubt on some other rights, I cannot see why it is undesirable to adopt the Amendment.
    5.45 p.m.
    This has been subject to a good deal of discussion. I am bound to plead guilty to this extent, that thinking of other matters it certainly did not occur to me in the course of the Committee stage that this point would arise. I plead guilty and acknowledge that it would have been much better if the point had occurred to me or to someone so that we could have had the matter cleared up in the Committee stage. It just shows that even a full examination—which I must agree this Bill has received—does not always bring out all the possible points. This point has been raised at a rather late stage, in circumstances which made it difficult perhaps to give a full explanation, but this is not the first time it has come up, and we have not yet had any statement of a technical character to show why this Amendment is unnecessary or how the matter is free beyond the possibility of a doubt. I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to accept these words in order that there may not be doubt, false hopes and expensive litigation in Scotland. I gravely fear that
    2420
    these things will happen unless the matter is made perfectly clear.
    Mr. Snadden: I do not intend to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes on this rather complicated legal point. Like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), I feel a little guilty that at an earlier stage we did not go into this matter more thoroughly. I must confess that I thought when we were considering the Bill in its early stages that the Crofters Act of 1866 and the separate code that applies to small landholders covered the case of the crofters, and for that reason I assumed that this Bill would not apply to those holdings. Since then we have had a long discussion in another place, and one or two tricky points have been raised by my right hon. and learned Friend.
    I shall not attempt to say much on the legal aspect. I would only make a broad point from the point of view of the practical person who has to administer and who comes under this very important Bill. I think we must try, as they have tried in another place in sending this Amendment to us, to make this Bill as clear as possible, and we must, therefore, assume that it will be read not only by farmers all over the country but also by crofters. If there is any doubt about the application of Part I to the statutory small landholders, surely that doubt should be removed at this stage. I should like to reinforce what my right hon. and learned Friend has said, to this extent that I Think the Lord Advocate should tell us now the reasons for rejecting this Amendment.
    I can only think that if the Government take the view—and I am sure they do take the view—that Part I of the Bill is not to apply to the crofters, there must be some very good reason for not putting into the Bill something which would wipe out all doubts in the minds of the people who are to come under it. What it is I do not know. I can only assume that possibly in some previous legislation some benefits have been conferred upon the small land-holders, and it may be, for all I know, that by inserting these words in the Bill something might be lost in that respect. If that is the reason I hope the Lord Advocate will give a full reply and show why it is impossible for the Government to put

    2421
    these words in the Bill to make the Act crystal clear to all the people who have to come under it.
    Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I see that the Lord Advocate is getting his notes ready for reply and I do not wish to detain the House long, but I am anxious to find out where the crofters stand under Part I of this Bill. The right hon. and learned Member for Glasgow Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) mentioned some doubtful cases, one or two of which would cause some anxiety in the North. As I understand it, a crofter is still fully covered under the Act of 1886 as a statutory tenant in perpetuity and can bequeath and can also assign to people other than members of his own family if he wishes to do so. I should like to know whether he is affected at all by the provisions of this Bill in respect of his rights under the 1886 Act. It appears that all the purposes of this Bill are fairly covered under the 1886 Act so far as the crofters' land and rights are concerned. I believe the crofter under the 1886 Act retains all his rights and tenure security as a tenant if he cultivates the land and shows reasonably good husbandry. The tenancy of the land, of course, in that case would still be able to pass in perpetuity, according to his free wish and subject to existing and well known limitations.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: In order to remain a landholder one has to reside within two miles of the holding and a case will, therefore, arise where someone goes more than two miles away and claims to be an ordinary tenant. That is another problem.
    Mr. MacMillan: There is a certain laxity in the application of the law, and I know of crofters and people who are statutory tenants by law who write to me from as far away as New Zealand and Kentucky, but who are the sons in the family to whom the land falls when the father or mother or the tenant next-of-kin or previous in succession dies. Some may have lived in Australia and New Zealand all their days. Somebody may be a sub-tenant, cultivating the land to satisfy the conditions of the Act of 1886, but the legal tenant in these cases is thousands of miles way and certainly not within the two miles.
    2422
    Owing to the laxity of the application of the 1886 Act protection is perhaps even too generous in cases to the tenant, because in such cases he is doing nothing whatever to cultivate the land. He lays claim to it and the person who is cultivating the land in his absence—it may be a member of his own family, a brother or a sister—has no statutory claim to the land, although he is doing all the work in developing it. It is quite common, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, under the 1886 Act, for a crofter to sign away the tenancy to a person right outside his own family. He has that freedom. In many cases it is desirable to do so rather than to treat as necessarily the most desirable person to be next in succession somebody closely related, but living in New Zealand or Kentucky who has no intention of residing within two miles of the land or of engaging in agriculture.
    But we must consider here what we are being asked to approve finally in the Bill. On my layman's reading, I do not think the crofters are disturbed in any of their rights or obligations under the 1886 Act by reason of this Bill, but are we to rely on the omission of any specific reference to their exclusion as being confirmation of the crofters' position under the 1886 Act? Are we to rely on the omission of any specific mention from the Provisions under Part I of the Act as a guarantee that he will not be disturbed in any of his existing rights?
    I should like to be much clearer on the point than I am at the moment. There may be a danger of a little too much prejudice because of the origin of this particular Amendment. Let us guard against that for the purposes of this particular discussion. We might unwittingly be doing an injustice—not a conscious injustice by the Lord Advocate or those handling the technicalities of the Bill—and lending ourselves to an injustice which might in administration subsequently arise. It would I know be quite unwittingly; I am not suggesting for one moment it would be contemplated or deliberate, but it could possibly arise. I do not like to feel that we are relying on the omission of a specific reference to the exclusion of the crofters as a guarantee that we are not depriving them of any of their rights under the 1886 Act. I should like clarification on that point.
    Major McCallum: I rise to put a point very briefly about the position under Part I of this Bill, of the crofter and the statutory smallholder. I share a certain anxiety which the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) brought out very clearly, I think. In his interjection early in the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid), the Lord Advocate said it would be undesirable to insert this Amendment into the Bill. I wonder if he can make it quite clear—and I am talking more about the crofter than the statutory smallholder—why it should be undesirable to put it down in black and white that this provision does not apply to them. During the earlier passage of this Bill through this House, and during discussions with farming organisations, I always understood that it would not apply to them, but I feel it would clarify the position to put it down in the Bill. I should like to ask the Lord Advocate if he can give that explanation.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, when explaining the reason for our opposition to this Amendment, explained that the Amendment was in his opinion unnecessary and undesirable. Perhaps I may first deal with the question of undesirability. I should point out that for a number of years there has existed side by side in Scotland two separate codes—the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act code and the Small Landholders (Scotland) Acts code. No confusion has ever arisen in the minds of any of the persons dealing with either of those codes as to the dividing line between one and the other. There has been no confusion either for the landholder himself or the lawyer who had to deal with it or even for the Land Court. The distinctions between these two codes are quite clearly marked and defined. Matters such as security of tenure, the method of fixing rents, requirements as to residence, cultivation of holdings, rights of succession, rights of compensation and improvements, are all matters quite clearly defined as between the different types of holding.
    May I remind hon. Members and particularly, perhaps, the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C.
    2424
    Reid) that in the Small Landholders Acts there have been incorporated from time to time provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act, so that these provisions are incorporated into the other code out of the Agricultural Holdings Act code. From the point of view of its being undesirable I would first stress the point that if this Amendment were accepted it would throw great legal doubt on the question whether it did not also repeal those provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which have been incorporated in the Small Landholders Acts.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: If all we say is that this part of this Act shall not apply, that does not prevent the remaining parts of the other Acts from applying, surely?
    The Lord Advocate: This part of the Bill has to be read as one with all the other Agricultural Holdings Acts to which reference is made in Clause 25. The incorporation into the other code of various provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts means, I think the right hon. and learned Gentleman will agree, that, under the Interpretation Act, they must be read in future as embracing all the Agricultural Holdings Acts in existence. That being so confusion would certainly be created if this Amendment were accepted, and doubt would also arise as to whether or not this inevitably meant that, in so far as the provisions of this part of the Bill have now to be read as part of the agricultural holdings code, those parts of the agricultural holdings code which have been already incorporated into the other code, were automatically repealed. For that reason, and that reason alone, it would be very undesirable to accept this Amendment.
    But, of course, there are other reasons. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the definition of "holding" as it now exists by virtue of this Bill. The expression "holding" now is defined as "agricultural land held in aggregate comprised in a lease." Therefore, the whole basis of the applicability of this Bill is, that it applies to land comprised in a lease; the justification for applying the Bill is that the land is held by the tenant by virtue of a lease. The fundamental distinction between land to which this Bill applies and land to which the Small Landholders

    2425
    Acts apply is, that the basic qualification under the Small Landholders Acts is not the lease at all, but the statutory form of tenure which is authorised by those Acts.
    I should like to develop that, because since the qualification under this Bill is land comprised in a lease, and lease is defined under the 1923 Act as a "letting of or agreement for letting land for a term of years or for lives or for lives and years or from year to year," that is the criterion as to whether or not a particular holding falls within these Acts or not. But when we come to the Small Landholders Acts we find that what gives the effect of these Acts is not the holding under a lease but the fact that a person is registered in respect of that holding, and that it so becomes a registered holding; and the benefits of the Acts are attracted to that holding by virtue of that registration. Accordingly, it is from the registration under the Small Landholders Acts that the rights flow so far as those particular holdings are concerned; whereas it is by virtue of the lease the rights flow so far as the Agricultural Holdings Acts are concerned. There we have the funamental distinction.
    We find that under Section 2 (2) of the 1911 Act the qualified class of lease holders become landholders within the meaning of that Act. Accordingly, they hold and benefit not by virtue of their lease but by the statutory terms of the Act, and that applies, not only to leaseholders existing as at 1911, but to all other landholders who wanted to come within the Act and for whom provision is made in registration. It is that fundamental distinction which entitles us to say that landholders under the Small Landholders Acts are not people to whom the Agricultural Holdings Acts apply directly. The Agricultural Holdings Acts apply only to the small landholders by virtue of the indirect incorporation of parts of the Agricultural Holdings Acts into the Small Landholders Acts, and when a person has been registered as a small landholder—or, rather, the holding has been registered as a small landholding—under the Acts, it is the provisions of those Acts which govern the treatment of that particular holding.
    In these circumstances it seems to me, perhaps, too clear—because if anything seems too clear one begins to wonder if one has hold of the right end of the stick
    2426
    or not—that that is the justification for the long-time recognition of the distinction between the two codes: that one is based on leases, and the other is based on registration; and a holding which gets the benefit of the Small Landholders Acts by virtue of being registered is divorced, to that extent, from the Agricultural Holdings Acts. It does, however, enjoy some of the benefits of the Agricultural Holdings Acts because by various Statutes certain of the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts have been incorporated into the Small Landholders Acts. If the holding is registered under the Small Landholders Acts the small landholder is bound by the provisions of those Acts. He cannot say, "I want to make the best of both worlds." I think that, to a certain extent, answers one of the points raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    As to the question, "Are there still statutory small tenants in existence?" I say that the answer is, "Yes." Since, however, the number cannot be increased it will be appreciated that they are a diminishing number. I revert to the point that if a person has become a statutory landholder, then his lease has been converted into a statutory qualification; and it is the statutory qualification which is the basis of his right to the protection of the Small Landholders Acts.
    I was asked about the position of the small landholder who leaves his holding and goes out with the two mile limit. He may go three miles, and become a bona fide traveller on a Sunday. He may go to New Zealand, Australia, or some other parts of the world mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) as the places in which his friends land. What is the position of such a one? It is this. It is the holding which still remains a smallholding under the Acts. If it becomes vacant it cannot be let otherwise than by consent of the Department of Agriculture or, failing that, the Land Court. Accordingly, we cannot cease to qualify a particular holding as a landholding merely because the occupant of that holding goes outwith the two miles' limit. Therefore, I do not think that the particular difficulty adumbrated by the right hon. and learned Gentleman applies in this particular case.
    Mr. Charles Williams: Supposing the occupier of one of these

    2427
    holdings goes to New Zealand and dies there. Can he leave that holding to someone, else? Supposing it is taken over by the Land Board in the meanwhile or that they have reached a decision on this matter, as the Lord Advocate has just said, and they give that decision without the person to whom it is left knowing that? Supposing it gets let to someone else, and he comes back to this country. What is the position? Is he entitled to the occupation of the holding, and how does he proceed if he is entitled to that occupation to get the possible present sitting tenant out?
    The Lord Advocate: It sounds like a guid ganging plea.
    Mr. Williams: What is that?
    The Lord Advocate: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interfere in Scottish affairs, he ought to learn the Scottish dictionary. The position is that his holding remains a statutory holding under the Small Landholders Acts until such time, either by the operation of law or otherwise through the consent of the Department of Agriculture, it is transferred to another person, who will be registered again as the landholder in respect of that holding; but if the landholder left and went elsewhere, the question as to whether or not he had lost his right to that holding would be a matter of determination eventually by the Land Court. If they decided that he had lost his rights, and the rights went elsewhere, and he tried to bequeath the land and rights which the law said no longer existed, I do not think that any real difficulty would arise. In those circumstances, I think that many of the points posed by the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead disappear.
    If we look at this from the point of view that under the small landholders code there are certain provisions made regarding the disposal of the land, the right of bequeathing it and various other things, attach to that holding so long as it remains a smallholding within the Small Landholders Acts. If the holding does not fall within that category but would satisfy the definition of agricultural land under this Bill or the existing Acts, then the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts would be attracted to that holding.
    To sum up, I would submit to the House that in the first place by virtue of the
    2428
    different definitions, and by virtue of the different manner under which the holdings attract the attention of the respective codes, it would be unnecessary for us to incorporate this Amendment in the Bill, particularly if I may make reference to one typical example. Under Section 32 (5) of the 1911 Small Landholders (Scotland) Act it is provided that—
    "Except so far as varied by this Section, the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Acts, 1908 and 1910, shall apply in the case of the tenancy of a statutory small tenant in the same manner as if the tenancy were a lease."
    That conclusively indicates the recognition by statute of the different basis of the two holdings. But the 1908 and 1910 Acts have been caught up by the 1923 Act and now form part of a uniform code which we read together when construing those Acts.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Is the Lord Advocate prepared to admit that Part I of this Bil will necessarily apply to all statutory small tenants, contrary to the intentions of the Government?
    6.15 p.m.
    The Lord Advocate: I am saying that in so far as the existing law for statutory smalholdings has incorporated as part of their code the Agricultural Holdings Acts we intend to leave that untouched, and if we accepted the Amendment which was passed in another place it would undoubtedly lead at least to confusion as to whether that did not automatically repeal the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Acts which by statute had been incorporated into the other Code. That is a possibility which we do not wish to arise, and we feel that by leaving out this Amendment we leave the law not in any doubt but in a much clearer position than it would have been in, even if the Amendment had been accepted, and in exactly the same position with regard to smallholdings as it was in the past. In those circumstances, I urge the House most respectfully to disagree with the Amendment that has been passed in another place.
    Mr. Williams rose—
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): I think the hon. Gentleman has already spoken once.
    Mr. Williams: I only asked a question.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member asked what seemed to be a very long question.
    Mr. Williams: I only asked a question, and I have not spoken on this Amendment at all. I am in considerable difficulty about this Amendment to know precisely what I am to do. Only the other day, I was reprimanded by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury for not knowing all about this Bill, and now the Lord Advocate seemed to resent my asking him a question while he was speaking, although he very courteously gave way.
    The Lord Advocate: I did not in any way resent the hon. Gentleman asking a question. I merely suggested that it was unfortunate that he did not understand the Scottish lexicon.
    Mr. Williams: That is why I hoped that he would explain it, and why I was disappointed that his explanation did not seem to mean very much. Perhaps I may remind him, if he knows all about Scottish law, that I have been able to amend Scottish law in the Scottish Committee long before he was in the House. If he wants to know more about that, I will give him a little knowledge of Scottish law afterwards, although my knowledge is not very deep. I see the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting there. He is clear and he could quite easily, as we know from experience, get up and enable us ordinary laymen sitting in different parts of the House to understand the answers to two or three simple questions about this Amendment. I am afraid that we no longer have the pleasure or possibility for the moment, of having any help from the previous Secretary of State for Scotland.
    The first point I want to know about this Amendment concerns the assurance by the Lord Advocate that it is not necessary. He seemed to me to give quite a number of reasons why it was not necessary, and also rather contradictory
    reasons. Cannot the Secretary of State for Scotland tell me quite clearly and precisely why this Amendment is not necessary, and can he also tell me precisely who would be injured by the Amendment and how it is going to injure them. I cannot for the life of me see how simple words such as are in this Amendment, which would seem to me to be making quite certain that something is not done to the small landholders which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) explained with great clarity, will make their position less certain.
    From the opening remarks of the Joint Under-Secretary today, it rather appeared that he had not at the back of his mind those fighting resources which would have enabled him really to believe in his opposition to this Amendment. For that reason, I wonder whether I could have an answer to those two or three questions? If so, I am sure it would be very welcome, not only to hon. Members on this side of the House but to hon. Members opposite, because there was in the mind of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) some doubt as to the exact position.
    Mr. M. MacMillan: I think that is quite clear now.
    Mr. Williams: There was some doubt?
    Mr. MacMillan: Yes, but it is clear now.
    Mr. Williams: He had some doubt, and I am sure he was not reassured in his mind by the Law Officer. We want not only legal arguments, but to know exactly how it will work out in practice. That is why I want a practical reply from the clear-headed Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The House divided: Ayes, 185; Noes, 121.

    Division No. 252.]

    AYES.

    [6.23 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Ayles, W. H.

    Berry, H.

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Beswick, F.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Binns, J.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Balfour, A.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Barton, C.

    Boardman, H.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Battley, J. R.

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

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Belcher, J. W.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Benson, G.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

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

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Burke, W. A.

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Rhodes, H.

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

    Johnston, Douglas

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Champion, A. J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Cluse, W. S.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Royle, C.

    Cobb, F. A.

    Kinley, J.

    Sargood, R.

    Cocks, F. S.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Collindridge, F.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Sharp, Granville

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Cook, T. F.

    Leonard, W.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Corlett, Dr. J.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Cove, W. G.

    Levy, B. W.

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

    Crawley, A.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Snow, J. W.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Longden, F.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

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

    Lyne, A. W.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    McAdam, W.

    Stokes, R. R.

    Donovan, T.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    McGovern, J.

    Summerskill, Dr. Edith

    Edelman M.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Sylvester, G. O.

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Evans, E. (Lowestoft)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Thomas, Ivor (Keighley)

    Ewart, R.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Fairhurst, F.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Foot, M. M.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Forman, J. C.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    Messer, F.

    Ungoed-Thomas, L.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Viant, S. P.

    Gilzean, A.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Grey, C. F.

    Monslow, W.

    Weitzman, D.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Guy, W. H.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    West, D. G.

    Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

    Nally, W.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Naylor, T. E.

    Wheatley, Rt. Hn. John (Edinb'gh, E.)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford)

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J. (Derby)

    Wigg, George

    Haworth, J.

    Paget, R. T.

    Wilcock, Group-Capt C. A. E.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Hobson, C. R.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Holman, P.

    Parker, J.

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Hoy, J.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Willis, E.

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

    Pearson, A.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Peart, T. F.

    Wilmot, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Perrins, W.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Popplewell, E.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Proctor, W. T.

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

    Pursey, Comdr. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Janner, B.

    Ranger, J.

    Mr. Simmons and Mr. Hannan

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Rees-Williams, D. R.

    NOES.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

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

    Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Erroll, F. J.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells)

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Bossom, A. C.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Linstead, H. N.

    Bower, N.

    Fraser H. C. P. (Stone)

    Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

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

    Low, A. R. W.

    Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n)

    Gates, Maj. E. E.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Challen, C.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Channon, H.

    Gridley, Sir A.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Grimston, R. V.

    MacDonald, Sir M. (Inverness)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley)

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

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

    Harris, F. W. (Croydon, N.)

    Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Haughton, S. G.

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

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

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Digby, S. W.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Donner, P. W.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Marsden, Capt. A.

    Drewe, C.

    Hutchison, Col. J. R. (Glasgow, C.)

    Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

    Dunean, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lond.)

    Jennings, R.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    2432

    2433

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

    Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

    Robertson, Sir D. (Streatham)

    Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Robinson, Roland

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Sanderson, Sir F.

    Walker-Smith, D.

    Nutting, Anthony

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Ward, Hon. G. R.

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

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

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Willoughby de Eresby, Lord

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Prescott, Stanley

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Commander Agnew and

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Major Ramsay.

    Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

    Teeling, William

    Question put, and agreed to.

    CLAUSE 29.—(Directions to secure good estate management and good husbandry.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 37, after "equipment," insert:
    "on a holding (as defined in the Act of 1923)."
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment requires to be taken together with the next Amendment in line 38. We have not yet got away from the small landholder's tenure. In the case of a landholding tenure it would be inappropriate to issue directions to an owner in respect of fixed equipment, since in most cases the responsibility for the provisions on upkeep of the equipment rests on the holder. The Amendment meets the point by restricting the operation of Subsection (4) to holdings to which the provisions of the Agricultural Holdings Act apply.
    Lords Amendment: In page 26, line 48, after "with," insert:
    "and the Secretary of State is satisfied that an adequate opportunity has been afforded to the person to whom the direction has been given to carry out the direction."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The insertion of these words makes it clear beyond doubt that action under the Subsection will not be taken by the Secretary of State unless he is satisfied that adequate opportunity for compliance has been afforded to the person to whom a direction to carry out the work has been given. The Amendment merely defines in the Bill something to which effect would otherwise have been given by administration.
    Mr. McKie: I am grateful to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for asking the House to agree to this Amendment. He will be aware that Members on this side pressed on many occasions during the Committee stage that action contemplated under this Clause should be taken only after the Secretary of State and those associated with him were absolutely satisfied that the fullest opportunity had been given to the person upon whom a direction notice was served to carry out the requirements. I congratulate the Joint Under-Secretary on having the temerity to persuade his own party to agree to this Amendment. I feel sure that his ready acquiescence will not be shared by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes). I assure the Joint Under-Secretary that no matter what may be said by any of his hon. Friends on this point he is certainly on firm ground.
    I say so, because this Clause will certainly have far-reaching effects. There can be no dubiety about that. The whole Bill will have very far-reaching effects, but this Clause is bound to have a far-reaching effect on the land system in Scotland as we have known it in the past. No doubt that will be a matter of extreme jubilation on the part of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire and the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay), but many of us who take a more balanced and commonsense view of this subject do not share that jubilation. That is why we are delighted that the joint Under-Secretary has agreed to what I might describe as the breathing space, which the noble Lords, in their great wisdom, have seen fit to propose in this Amendment.
    I have mentioned the far-reaching effects of this Clause, and I would make so bold as to say that in a very few years we shall see an ever-increasing quantity of land being offered on the market as a

    2435
    result, even if the Joint Under-Secretary does agree to the incorporation of this Amendment. I am sorry to see the Lord Advocate looking so pleased, but he knows that what I am saying is absolutely true, and that a very great burden will be laid by this Clause upon the unfortunate owners of land. Many of these people have been unable in the past to meet all the requirements laid upon them, but now their difficulties will be almost insurmountable. This Amendment will give a breathing space and an opportunity for these matters to be carefully investigated.

    CLAUSE 50.—(Prohibition of night shooting and use of spring traps.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 47, line 15, leave out "of a spring trap."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    This Amendment and the following two Amendments in lines 16 and 20 bring us back to the question of the employment of spring traps for killing rabbits. We discussed this matter at some length during the Committee stage, and it was also discussed very fully in another place. When the Bill was introduced, we proposed that the status quo in regard to the employment of spring traps should be maintained. During the Report stage we provided for the complete prohibition of spring traps, and the Amendment which I am now asking the House to accept provides that spring traps shall be permitted only if they are of a type approved by the Secretary of State, except that the Secretary of State may by order authorise the use of other traps. What we have in mind is the ordinary gin trap, which is being used at the present time, and it will be used only by the authority of the Secretary of State.
    One of the Amendments provides that the Secretary of State may by order restrict the nature of the land on which he will grant authority to use a trap of a non-approved type. At the end of the day, when he is satisfied that there are sufficient supplies of traps of an approved type to satisfy the needs of those whose business it is to destroy these destructive
    2436
    animals, he may by regulation withdraw all authorisations given. My right hon. Friend has given a lot of thought to this matter. He was appreciative of the desirability of limiting to the utmost the employment of instruments which are cruel in their use. It was for that reason, and in response to the views expressed on Committee stage, that he moved the Amendment during the Report stage prohibiting the use of steel traps. It was evident then that the Government were not wholly satisfied that the rabbit menace would not increase as a result of the complete prohibition of the spring trap.
    The matter was discussed at great length in another place, but since then we have had the strongest representations from agricultural interests in Scotland. I myself, during an extensive tour of agricultural areas in Scotland, spoke to many farmers, and others whose interest it is to protect crops, and nowhere did I find anyone who believed that we could keep the rabbit population within reasonable limits at present if the gin trap was prohibited. These Amendments seem to be the right kind of compromise, having regard to the humanitarian considerations which have been advanced from time to time.
    If they are accepted, the Clause will provide for the Secretary of State by administrative action, to limit the employment of the gin trap. When the regulation is made—and when that will be I do not know—providing for the complete prohibition of the gin trap, or any other trap which is not approved by my right hon. Friend, the House will have an opportunity of considering the matter. There is no doubt that if the gin trap were prohibited now the rabbit menace would increase, and there would be a considerable loss of valuable food in Scotland.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope there will be a little further elucidation of this Amendment, because although legal brains have been at work trying to interpret the expressions of opinion in Standing Committee, and in another place, I believe it leaves a lot to be desired from the point of view of clarity. I represent an agricultural constituency, but there is also a section of the population in Scotland which will look upon this Amendment as an attempt

    2437
    to interfere with private enterprise. I refer to miners, who are also interested in rabbits. The penalties which can be inflicted upon poachers can be regarded as being rather harsh; £20 for the first offence and £50 for the second offence will alarm those who engage in this kind of enterprise. I think the national union of rabbits has every reason to compliment itself upon its great victory in this Bill, and upon the humanitarian views which have been expressed in relation to the war on rabbits. I only wish that the same humanitarian feelings had been expressed about war against human beings.
    In Committee, we spent the better part of two hours, and in another place they had a very long Debate, talking about the humane way of exterminating rabbits. By this Amendment the instruments which are to be used, the new kinds of traps, have to be approved by the Secretary of State. By considering it a great crime to shoot a rabbit during the first hour after sunset, we have set our way towards humanitarian considerations in the extermination of these animals. I only hope that the House, which has spent so much time in considering the humanitarian aspect of killing rabbits, will apply the same point of view when it comes to discuss the slaughter of human beings.
    6.45 p.m.
    Mr. StubbsI want to join with the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) in his criticism of this Amendment. The Bill prohibits the use of steel traps in a hole and the English Act prohibits the use of them on the ground. In Committee, we were nearly unanimous about the use of these new traps, and I am astonished at this Amendment, because it was made clear then that it was cruel and inhuman to use these steel traps. The traps must be approved by the Secretary of State. What is the trap, and how will it be used? I doubt very much whether my right hon. Friend has seen a trap that is supposed not to be cruel. In my opinion, all steel traps are cruel. I should have thought that he would have brought a trap here, and showed us how it works. Suppose a rabbit catches one of its paws in a trap, and has to stay in it all night. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary would not say
    2438
    that that was not cruel. Why leave this matter to the Secretary of State? Why should not the law decide to prohibit this cruel instrument of torture to rabbits? According to the regulations made during the war, and still in force, rabbits are vermin, and must be destroyed. Why not use humane means of destroying them? Why use a cruel instrument to destroy them? Why not poison them? Rabbits destroy far more food than they themselves provide, and we must take care that they do not destroy crops.
    I come from a purely agricultural constituency. Only last week I was on a farm where rabbits had destroyed a ten-acre field of Brussels sprouts. The field belonged to a landlord, but the tenants had to go to the expense of wiring the field to keep the rabbits off. If in the interest of food production we have to get rid of rabbits, let us do it in a humane and not a cruel way. It is not English, nor is it Scottish, to use an inhuman instrument such as it is proposed to sanction here. We have had no description whatever, of this trap, but to my mind steel traps, no matter what the construction, are cruel and inhuman. I will not vote for this Amendment, and the fact that we convinced ourselves in Committee that these horrible things should go makes me oppose this Amendment still further. I say that in these enlightened days it is not necessary to use these cruel instruments to get rid of rabbits. The only proper and humane thing to do is to abolish the use of steel traps once and for all.
    Sir William Darling: I support the hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Stubbs). I was disappointed to hear the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) miss the opportunity to quote from a poem by Robert Burns on the wounded hare, which tells of the agonies which these poor creatures suffer when in traps
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: The hon. Member for South Edinburgh (Sir W. Darling) misunderstood what I was saying. I was not advocating inhumanity to hares or rabbits; I was claiming that the same consideration should be given to human beings as is given to hares and rabbits.
    Sir W. Darling: I observed that, and the irrelevancy was also apparent to

    2439
    other hon. Members. Instead of human beings, the hon. Member for South Ayrshire could have discussed the poem on a wounded hare which was written with such force and vigour by Burns when he was a resident of the hon. Member's constituency. This is an unsatisfactory Amendment. We hear today a great deal about scientific research. It is now within the compass of the Secretary of State for Scotland, if rabbits are vermin and have to be destroyed, to approve this cruel means of destruction. I think it is a little foolish that the use of these traps can only be permitted under the special permission of the Secretary of State. Surely this was an opportunity for him to ask that within the next 12 months he should receive designs and patterns for the painless extermination of rabbits, if they are vermin. Not only would that be an opportunity of stirring up the Scottish inventive genius, but it would be an opportunity of setting up a new Scottish industry.
    Instead of that, the Secretary of State has accepted this Amendment from the Lords as a compromise, and the use of these traps can be continued under his special licence. That is a very inadequate way of approaching the problem. If this is an evil, it is a cruel way to stamp it out, and I am sure there is a more forthright way of carrying it out than is proposed in the Amendment. The farming industry should be allowed to use its own resources. The hon. Member for South Ayrshire indicated that in his constituency there were a large number of voters—and I take it they were his supporters, too—who used another method of exterminating rabbits. I personally would rather see an irregular approach to the extermination of rabbits persisted in, instead of the use of steel traps.
    Nothing has been said about the value of the rabbit for food. I am informed that the ordinary rabbit contains more protein than a chicken, and far from discouraging rabbits, the Secretary of State might well encourage them for food, because food is a very important matter at the present time. Instead of that, the Secretary of State says of this great and previous evil, "I will perpetuate it, though I will no longer perpetuate it generally, but under special licence given under my own hand." I think that is unworthy of him.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I should be very sorry if the unusual and entertaining combination between Cambridgeshire, South Ayrshire and South Edinburgh were to weaken in any way the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment. I never could understand why on the Report stage the Government inserted an Amendment in the Bill that the use of spring traps should be prohibited for killing hares and rabbits, nor could I understand at whose instigation that Amendment was inserted. It was not at the instigation or request of any agricultural body in Scotland, because, as the Joint Under-Secretary has told us, he has ascertained that informed, experienced agricultural opinion in Scotland views with the greatest alarm the spread of the rabbit menace and feels that it would be quite impossible to keep that menace within reasonable bounds unless it can continue to have the use of traps.
    Much as I agree in my heart that the use of steel traps is undesirable, I feel that the way in which this Amendment has been worded is the right way. The Secretary of State is allowed by regulation to continue the use of spring traps until such time as a proper trap can be produced in sufficient numbers to keep the rabbit population down. As I say, I hope the Secretary of State will not weaken in his support of the whole of agricultural opinion in Scotland, that it is the right thing that this Amendment which the Lords have inserted should be supported by this House.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Establishment and functions of Agricultural Executive Committees.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 55, line 24, leave out "by the Secretary of State or," and insert: "whether on the requirement of the Secretary of State or not."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Previously there had been some doubt about whether the sub-committees of the committees which are to be set up under the Clause would be expected to carry out the directions given to them directly by the Secretary of State, and the purpose

    2441
    of the Amendment is to make it quite clear that the sub-committees in each case receive directions from the main committees.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Applications for certificates of bad husbandry.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 70, line 16, leave out from beginning to "deemed" and insert: "Within one month of notice of a proposal being given or being."
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    Paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule of the Bill provides that the landlord or the tenant may require that any proposal by the Secretary of State to refuse or to grant a certificate of bad husbandry shall be referred to the Land Court. It was suggested earlier in our discussions in this place and certainly in the discussions in another place that a time limit ought to be fixed. The Amendment fixes a time limit of one month within which such a requirement must be met.
    Amendment agreed to.

    EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Agricultural Executive Committees and Sub-Committees.)
    Lords Amendment: In page 77, line 35, at end, insert:
    "3. It in relation to any appointment of a nominated member it appears to the Secretary of State that the college, council or organisation concerned have failed, within a reasonable time after he has called upon them by notice in writing so to do, to nominate a person for the appointment, the Secretary of State may, notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Schedule, appoint as the nominated member in question such person as he thinks fit.
    4. A Committee shall be deemed to be duly constituted and shall have power to act notwithstanding any vacancy among the members thereof."
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."
    The Amendment speaks for itself. It permits greater flexibility in the setting up of agricultural advisory committees.
    Remaining Lords Amendments agreed to.
    Committee appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to one of their Amendments to the Bill. The Lord Advocate, Mr. McKinlay, Mr. J. S. C. Reid, Mr. W. Ross and Mr. Snadden. Three to be the quorum.—[The Lord Advocate.]
    To withdraw immediately.
    Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords Amendments reported, and agreed to.
    To be communicated to the Lords.

  INCOME TAX ARREARS (EX-SERVICE MEN)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Hannan.]
  7.1 p.m.
  Sir David Robertson: On, 8th June, 1948, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer:
  "The number of claims made and outstanding for under-payment of Income Tax by the Inland Revenue Department against ex-Service men in respect of their wives' earnings in industry during the war, and the total amount of taxation arrears involved."
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
  "I regret that this information is not available. I should, however, say that in such cases the Inland Revenue do not ask for immediate payment of the arrear. They arrange as a rule for its collection by increased P.A.Y.E. deductions spread over a later year or years."
  I asked the Chancellor if the information would be available if I put down a Question the following week. The Chancellor replied:
  "No, Sir. It would be much too expensive to collect all this information, and it would disrupt the very important and useful work now being done in the collection of taxes "
  I asked a second supplementary question:
  "Are not these claims entirely due to the negligence of Service Departments and of the Inland Revenue, and is it not most unfair to burden these men who have difficulty in meeting their current liabilities?"
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer replied:
  "No, Sir, it is certainly not due to negligence either by the Inland Revenue or the Service Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th June, 1948; Vol. 451, C. 1875–6.]
  The Chancellor's replies revealed three matters of considerable importance. The first is that information which is rightly the due of this House is refused to it.

  2443
  The second is that P.A.Y.E. is being used to compel employers to deduct tax on war Service earnings from current civilian earnings. The third is his denial of negligence by the Service Departments and the Inland Revenue Department.
  On Monday I wrote to the Chancellor informing him that I intended to ask the following questions tonight, because I am anxious to give him another chance to deal with this very important matter. The first question is: The total number of claims for arrears of Income Tax on joint incomes made against ex-Service men? The second question is: The estimated number of similar claims which remain to be made? I have deliberately omitted asking in these two questions for the amount of money involved, so that it will make it easier for the Claims Department to give an answer. The third question is: Are these claims made against ex-Service men irrespective of the rank they held? I expect answers to those questions from the Financial Secretary tonight. They are important, and they affect all hon. Members. They affect every constituency in Great Britain, because there must be very many men and women who are affected by this pursuit of them for ancient arrears.
  The case which prompted my Question is that of a constituent of mine who was mobilised as a private soldier in the Territorial Army on the outbreak of war in 1939 and went through the various stages—corporal, sergeant, officer cadet, second lieutenant, and so on—and served at home at various stations and overseas for the invasion of Normandy, right through to the Rhine and Berlin, and was released in May, 1946. In 1942 he married—I imagine when he became commissioned—and in every year of his commissioned service he filled in the appropriate form showing his income and recording the fact that he was married and giving the name of his wife's employer. She was employed by the Ministry of War Transport, and she continued in that employment.
  Every year the tax assessor at the War Office, who, I presume, is a representative of the Inland Revenue Department, deducted, or instructed the Army agents to deduct, from the soldier's pay the proper amount of tax which he was due to pay. In the form which the soldier filled in
  2444
  there was a reference to the amount of his wife's earnings. Of course, the soldier was not able to say what these were. His wife had a basic salary which was subject to increase and also subject to war bonuses and to overtime, and he honestly stated that he did not know what it was. He gave the name and address of his wife's employers—the Ministry of War Transport, Berkeley Square The wife paid her Income Tax. The tax assessor in that Department, who, I presume, was a representative of the Inland Revenue Department, fixed the amount of tax to be deducted from her pay. These were two citizens rendering the highest service in their power to the State, and they paid the amount of tax which they believed to be their due each year as it became due, and both of them were under the control of the Government.
  When the husband was released in May, 1946, his wife immediately left the service of the Ministry of Transport. They set up home in my constituency where they had lived before war broke out, and, like good citizens, they are raising a family. Already they have one child, and I hope they will have many more. In March of this year my constituent received a demand for £88, being arrears of tax from the year 1943 in respect of their joint income as husband and wife, which for the first time was being amalgamated. To a little man of modest means—an income of probably £300 or £400 a year; I do not exactly know how much—£88 is a burden which must be intolerable in these days. All of us find it difficult enough to meet the savage taxation we have to pay and the high cost of living. I well recollect that at the end of the 1914–18 war I was in a very similar situation to this. I was a young soldier and I had two children and I had to come back and start life afresh. It was not easy.
  The second case which has come to my notice is again of a fellow who went through the ranks and rose to commissioned rank. He is a single man. One day his employers came to him, over two years after he had been demobilised—he was also a 1939 soldier who went through to the end—and they told him they had received a communication from the Inland Revenue Department to code him at the lowest P.A.Y.E. code, which meant that he had to pay the highest rate of tax at 9s. in the £ and had no allowances at

  2445
  all. That was the first intimation this man had.
  P.A.Y.E. was brought in to avoid the burden of only one year's arrears on the people of this country—not five years or seven years as in the case of these soldiers—and to ensure that the Revenue did not suffer loss, but it is now being used as a debt collecting instrument to hound and harass these ex-Service men and their wives in this fashion. I say that that is quite illegal, and, if necessary, I shall do all I can to have this tested in the courts unless the Government take the action which I believe they will take as a result of this Debate.
  What are the actual facts so far as the Inland Revenue is concerned? I have a great regard for that Department of State, as I am sure we all have. I am the son of a civil servant, and in no circumstances would I throw stones at civil servants, because we all owe them a tremendous amount. They are hard-working men of character who, in the old days, did not get very much pay, and they are magnificent citizens, but they were burdened with an impossible job in attempting to assess the incomes of men and women in the Services on top of all their other burdens. With men situated all over the world, in the Eighth Army, Burma, in the Normandy invasion, it must have been extremely difficult for accurate returns to be made. But to come along now, two or three years after the end of the war, as is happening, and to raise claims going back five years, and to use P.A.Y.E. as an instrument of collection, savours of the worst that a usurer could do, and much worse than the law permits a usurer to do.
  There is another important aspect which I must not omit from my brief remarks. I estimate that there were not fewer than 1,500,000 wives of ex-Service men in employment during the war. I have every reason to believe that that figure is accurate. The combined earnings of husband and wife would bring the majority of the men, irrespective of rank, within the clutches of the Claims Department. The disparity that used to exist between the income of the officer and of the other ranks is not nearly so much as it was. I anticipate that other ranks are being completely ignored in creating these claims for five, six, and seven years' arrears against the contributions. I hope they have been
  2446
  ignored. I have not the slightest objection to their being forgotten provided exactly the same policy is being followed for all ranks. In view of the small disparity in pay, and in view of the fact that an overwhelming proportion of the officers in the recent war were men who came up from the ranks, surely it would be wrong if the Government were simply putting a fence round a majority of the men and saying that these officers, these ex-corporals and ex-privates, and their working wives have to be subjected to this infernal persecution—because that is what it amounts to, to come along five, six and seven years after the tax should have been assessed and paid.
  The fact that the wife I referred to was a Government servant does not make this case any better than the majority, because all the working wives were subject to P.A.Y.E. from some date onwards, also the husband—the soldier, sailor or airman—was under the control of the Government and was paid by the Government. The wife's income, whatever she did, was subject to control by the Government, and when the Chancellor said in reply to me that there was no negligence on the part of the Service Departments or of the Inland Revenue, and I am able to give the House an example which I am certain is one of thousands, it is ludicrous to say that there was no negligence. There was a complete breakdown, and I say that these claims should be written off as a war loss, because that is what they are. If the other ranks are not being taxed, then the ignoring of them is treating them as equivalent to a war debt. I say to the Government, let them rise to this. If they hesitate because some of the victims have paid, and I know they have, the difficulty can be overcome by repaying them.
  The Government have a chance to act generously towards the men and women who deserve the best treatment we can give them. If they do so, the Government will be applauded not only by all hon. Members in this House but by all the people outside this House who, I am perfectly certain, are heartily behind the appeal I am making now, and which I know other hon. Members support. If, however, the Government fail to do that, they will be condemned by all decent citizens.
  7.15 p.m.
  Mr. Granville Sharp: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) for raising this matter tonight, because I am sure that most Members of Parliament have had complaints from their constituents of the way in which they have been treated in this matter. I will only mention one case.
  A young man was demobilised from the R.A.F. in June, 1946, after five years' service. At that time he was a single man. So far as he knew—and he had taken steps to ascertain that this was done—Income Tax deductions had been made from his pay while he was in the R.A.F. He was demobilised. He had been a warrant officer and had been able to save a little money. He decided to get married. He set up house and, in due course, got employment, but at a lower wage than the pay which he had been getting in the R.A.F. At present he earns about £6 a week and he thought everything was cleared until December, 1947, when he got a statement from the Departmental Claims Branch, Liverpool, telling him that he had underpaid Income Tax whilst in the R.A.F. to the extent of £88, and that it was proposed to deduct this amount in the usual way through P.A.Y.E.
  In view of the fact that, with other deductions, including Income Tax deductions, he was even then only normally getting about £5 10s. a week, that did not make his future prospects look very bright. It certainly did not enable him to think that he could keep up a decent standard of living, not only for himself but also for his wife and, possibly, enable him, later on, to rear a family. He wrote to the R.A.F. and asked why it was that these deductions had not been made in the proper way, and on 3rd April, 1948, he received a reply from the Air Ministry which included the following paragraph:
  "As firm liabilities were not reported by the Chief Inspector of Taxes, Departmental Claims Branch, Liverpool, for the years 1944–47, your respective accountant officers deducted tax based on provisional liabilities only."
  It appeared that during the year 1944–45, whereas he should have had tax deducted to the extent of £37, only £17 was deducted, and whilst, during 1945–46 he should have paid £110, only £43 was deducted, and there was also a slight underpayment made during 1946–47.
  2448
  Who was to blame? The Air Ministry say it was the Department of the right hon. Gentleman. It may be; I do not know. He may say it was the fault of the Air Ministry, but they have it between them and they should decide it between them. The Service man himself was not to blame.
  Of course, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Streatham that it is illegal to come on such Service men for such tax liabilities. I think it would be correct to say that the officials of my right hon. Friend's Department would not be doing their job properly if they decided not to make such claims without some instructions from his Department. What I want him to do tonight is to say that he will issue instructions to all his officers, who have power to deal with such cases, telling them "Be generous in your treatment. Be willing to write them off. Never mind the effect on the Revenue because these men have served their country for a long number of years. We"—that is, the right hon. Gentleman's Department or those who were in charge before him—"have been at fault for not seeing to it that those demands were made at the proper time when the amount could have been paid." These amounts which are now being asked for from such ex-Service men cannot be paid without severe hardship. I ask my right hon. Friend to say tonight that he will consider very favourably the claims for these payments to be discharged.
  7.21 p.m.
  Mr. Blackburn: I would like to appeal to my right hon. Friend, who is himself an ex-Service man, to consider what has been said tonight. If I might perhaps introduce a note of levity I would say that, in my view, with the sole exception of the Senior Counsel to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue, the greatest authority on the subject of Income Tax in this country is Mr. Nathaniel Gubbins. I believe there is more sense in what Mr. Nathaniel Gubbins writes on Sundays about Income Tax than in many learned tomes on the subject. However that may be in relation to the broad run of our Income Tax affairs, the case of the ex-Service man is entirely different.
  There is a very strong—indeed, an overwhelming—case for the view that the rate of Income Tax today is far too high

  2449
  in relation to the ordinary individual who is earning his living. But we are dealing with a different case, an even more overwhelming case, that of the ex-Service man, and, in particular, the ex-Service man whose income has been aggregated with that of his wife because she has responded to the appeals of the Government in time of war to be patriotic and to give her own effort to the community.
  I want to go still further and to say that we are dealing with ex-Service men who, on the whole, would have been making more money in all probability if war had not occurred. I remember what was once said by my hon. Friend the junior Member for Oldham (Mr. Hale) What happened with him occurred in my case also. He, a solicitor, joined up when the war began and was paid, as I was paid, 3s. per week. That was what I received as a private soldier for the first four months of the war. The son of an hon. Gentleman opposite was with me at the time. I think he received a little more because he was not married. Before joining up we had been receiving a very substantial sum. I hope my right hon. Friend will bear with me in this argument, which I believe to be relevant. On the whole, those who joined up when war began suffered an enormous financial loss as a result of doing so. That financial loss was never recouped. I agree that at the end of the war Army pay was reasonably generous, having regard to all the allowances, but those people were never recouped for their original loss in joining up. That is a factor which my right hon. Friend, who himself suffered in the same way, ought to bear in mind in relation to this problem.
  I want to turn now to a slightly different subject, which I know the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) has in mind. With deserters we have already indicated that if they come forward we are prepared to be generous to them. A large number of the Members of this House—over Zoo already—believe that all deserters ought now to be pardoned. Can it be seriously suggested that we ought not to be generous with Income Tax to those who consistently fought for us during the war while, on the other hand, we are going to be generous in relation to the penalty on those who forbore from fighting when they were members of the Armed Forces of the Crown?
  2450
  I put to my right hon. Friend with great sincerity my opinion that the best thing he can do tonight is to say that he will reconsider this matter. I do not think any hon. Gentleman on either Front Bench is more sincerely regarded than he is and, if he says he will re-examine this matter, I am sure that his decision will carry great conviction. This is an overwhelming case. We are thinking here of men and women who are comparatively young. The hon. Member for Streatham raised the case of the man with, I think, one child—and we hope that he will have more. He must have if this country is to carry on. Surely we can be generous to somebody of that kind who has tried to give all for the benefit of the country. That is the characteristic of a great form of civilisation—that it is capable of being generous in emergency cases of this kind. I do not want to burden the House by any further observations except to say that on many occasions—and, I believe, on this one—magnanimity is the truest sign of genius. I hope that my right hon. Friend will show it tonight.
  7.27 p.m.
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): May I first of all answer the three questions put to me by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson)? I think they are much the same as the questions he put to my right hon. and learned Friend some days ago. I am afraid the answers must be the same as those then given by my right hon. and learned Friend. The information which the hon. Member seeks in answer to his first two questions is not available. It would be very difficult to obtain it. It would mean a long search in every tax office and, even then, we do not think we should be absolutely certain that we had arrived at the full and accurate figure. We keep no record of cases in which ex-Service men owe tax, whether or not it is attributable to the earnings of their wives from going out to work during the war.
  Sir D. Robertson: Is not the claims department of the Inland Revenue at Llandudno the Department from which all these claims emanate?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No. We are rather used to thinking of Llandudno as the centre. That is because we happen to be

  2451
  Members of Parliament and the Departmental Claims Branch has been functioning from there. It will, however, shortly be moved; part of it has already gone to Cardiff.
  On the hon. Member's last question, whether these claims are made against ex-Service men irrespective of the rank they held, the answer is, "Yes, most certainly." The rank is immaterial. It is the liability of the ex-Service man, not his rank, which is taken into consideration. We have never assumed that, because a man is of a certain rank, we should take no notice of him, or that, because another man is perhaps of a higher rank, we should harry and harass him—which was the phrase used by the hon. Gentleman.
  The trouble really arises from the fact that Income Tax has to be based on total emoluments for the year and that, until the year is over, it is impossible to know the total of an individual's income and that of his wife. If it is below a certain level, a graduated rate of tax is charged upon it. Moreover, the allowances to which an individual will be entitled are often not known for certain until the end of the year—for example, the earned income allowance, within certain limits, is based on the total emoluments he receives. With a very large number of people, whose salaries or wages are fixed, it may be known, for example, that they will have no children during the year to complicate the calculation; but, apart from those cases, of which unfortunately there are few, it is impossible to say definitely and beyond any doubt until the year is up what the assessment of any individual will be.
  That has been at the root of the trouble with which we are dealing. As my hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) said, a large number of men went into the Forces and suffered a grievous loss in income. Unfortunately we cannot take that into account when considering what should be done in cases of the type which have been put forward with such force and sympathy this evening. We have to use a different yardstick. We have to anchor ourselves first to the law and then temper the law with as much common sense and sympathy as is open to us. We must remember that it is not only ex-Service men, but everyone, who
  2452
  is up against the simple fact that, when tax is being deducted, it is provisional until the year ends and an accurate assessment can be made. Only then can one see whether a person still owes a certain amount or whether, as sometimes happens, he or she has overpaid and a refund is due. We discussed this matter on the Finance Bill. In all cases where arrears are due to a person who has overpaid, they are paid; but the House recently agreed to a Clause in the Finance Bill under which an individual who has underpaid under P.A.Y.E.—which is a fairly accurate but not entirely accurate system of deduction—may be absolved from paying the small arrears due. In that sense we are doing what the hon. Member for Streatham wishes us to do. From information that comes to me, I am happy to think that the number of cases is not so great as he would have us believe.
  In regard to Forces pay, the procedure followed was that the allowances which would be due jointly to a man and his wife were taken from the Service pay, that is they were set off against it. The great majority of married other ranks, apart from sergeants and warrant officers, found that there was no Income Tax due from them. But difficulties arose where the wife went to work. Sometimes it was very difficult to know within an appreciable time whether the wife had, or had not, gone to work. Of course, the husband knew, but the Inland Revenue and the Service Departments very often did not, and only later did the facts come to light. Then the Service Departments and the Inland Revenue Department realised that the wife had been to work and that the allowances which were being made and the tax which was being charged was not enough, and arrears piled up. That happened in a large number of cases.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: How many years afterwards was it discovered? What was the length of the time lag?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: The period varied. The difficulty during the war was one which we have had in other directions. Thousands of men went into the Forces, some were single men who, during their career in the Forces, got married; others were already married and, when they joined up, the wife did not go to work, but did so later. There were all sorts of

  2453
  permutations. The Services had to contend with all the changes and then the Inland Revenue Department had to catch up on all the changes. That happened not in one or two instances, but in thousands of cases. At that time, as now, the Inland Revenue Department was extremely under-staffed. Every change took time to reach the stage at which the man or his wife had the proper deductions made from pay. As a result, arrears were built up. I do not think anyone is to blame for it. It may be that, here and there, a mistake was made in a tax office and that something was allowed to go through which should not have gone through; then it had to be rectified. There is always the human factor and the chance of error. In the vast majority of cases, arrears are due to nothing more than the fact that there was a vast number of people to deal with, that changes were occurring continually and that, because of the shortage of staff, certain individuals got behind in payments. Inevitably there was delay
  So far as I know, there are no cases where claims going back for seven years are now being made. As a matter of fact, under the law, unless there has been fraud—when one can pursue an individual in respect of something a long way back—I do not think a claim can be made for more than six years back. My information is that, in the majority of cases, the claims do not go back anything like so far as has been suggested.
  Mr. Blackburn: I am speaking without reference to authority, but while I think it may be true that one cannot claim after six years has elapsed, I think that deductions can be made after six years have elapsed. It would be a very important statement if the Financial Secretary were to say tonight that there is no intention from now on of deducting under P.A.Y.E. for any Income Tax claim which arose six years after the time it should have been deducted.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: My information is that one cannot go back more than six years.
  Mr. Blackburn: But one can deduct?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: My information is that that includes deduction. It would be mere playing with words on my part to make a statement that we could not do
  2454
  so and then to ride off knowing full well that we could deduct. When I used the phrase, I used it in the full sense, and it is my information that six years is the limit and that, for claims arising after that, one can neither deduct nor claim repayment of tax unless there has been fraud on the part of the individual concerned. Then, I believe, there is no time limit for the claims.
  Part of the trouble has arisen owing to the introduction of P.A.Y.E., which did not apply to Service pay until 1947–48. If it had been introduced earlier, some of these difficulties would not have arisen. It was not applied to the Services during the war for obvious reasons, but it has now been applied. That being so, it is possible that some of these men who were grossly in arrears are finding, in the clearing up which is now going on, that they owe what to them are considerable sums. In the case which he brought to our notice, the hon. Member for Streatham said that the individual concerned owed £88. That is not my information. My information is that the amount owing is £54 but I will not quarrel with the hon. Member about the amount.
  Sir D. Roberston: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the figure I gave is correct, and that £88 is the sum claimed by the Inland Revenue for 1943 onwards. The Government have appropriated this man's post-war gratuity against the claim but the amount of the claim was the figure I gave. There were no inaccuracies in my speech.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course I accept what the hon. Member says, but I have here a note of the case. The Inland Revenue gave it to me on the assumption that the hon. Member would raise this case, as indeed he has done.
  Sir D. Robertson: I sent the right hon. Gentleman the papers before I raised the question.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but the figure I have here is £54. I think that what the hon. Member says is true, and that the Inland Revenue has taken over the postwar credit for 1945–46 which, as the House knows, they are doing in certain selected cases in order to help the individuals concerned. Whether they should do that or not is another matter upon

  2455
  which I believe the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) holds strong views.
  In the case of individuals who should have paid tax just after or when it was due, and who find that the amount has piled up and that it is now very large, the Inland Revenue has tried to temper the wind to the shorn lamb by taking in part payment any post-war credit due for 1945–46. I wish to tell the hon. Member and the House that, whether the amount in this case is £54 or £88, only a few pounds of the amount will be taken this year. By that I mean a few pounds, I do not mean £10 or £20. In all the cases that have been brought to my notice, the Inland Revenue have spread the payments over a very long period indeed. They cannot go down the years indefinitely, because no one knows whether, among some of these individuals, we might find a Nuffield or someone else who will presently make considerable sums—
  Mr. Blackburn: May I ask my right hon. Friend a question which I have raised privately with him before in relation to a much larger sum of tens of thousands of pounds. Has anyone got discretion in these cases to relieve the person concerned from the obligation to pay? As I understood my right hon. Friend previously, he has no discretion of this matter, that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue is the only authority and that it has an absolute duty to exact the sum. Is that the case or has my right hon. Friend discretion in this matter to see that these people are excused payment if he feels that they should be? I hope that he has and if he has I hope that he will exercise that discretion.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Legally the amount that is due should be paid, but the Inland Revenue has the authority to temper payment to the circumstances of the individual concerned. For example, as sometimes happens, an ex-Service man may die and his widow may find that the arrears of tax which he would have had to pay had he lived are due from the estate, that she will have to find the money, and that she cannot do so. Cases of that kind which go to the Inland Revenue are treated with the utmost sympathy.
  2456
  Sometimes, when it is obvious that the money cannot be recovered, the outstanding sum is written off. But, where individuals such as ex-officers—who appear to be the people whom most hon. Members have most in mind—come back into civil life and it is obvious that they have received more income than they have been charged for, they should, like every other citizen, pay their tax due under the law. In such cases, the Inland Revenue quite definitely do not wipe out the amount owing and it would be wrong of them to do so. They do, however, take into account the circumstances at the moment of the individual concerned, and they see to it that the extra imposition upon him in order to clear off the arrears is not such as will cripple him financially and reduce his income below a certain level.
  In the case which the hon. Member has mentioned tonight, although the man still owes £54, I can assure the hon. Member that, unless his circumstances change very much for the better, it will take him many years to pay off the arrears. During this year, as I have said, the amount asked of him will be only a few pounds.
  Sir D. Robertson: I very much doubt whether the important point which was raised by the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) has been replied to adequately. As I know the law on this matter, Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1918, gives the Inland Revenue power to go back for six years if they themselves decide to do so. There is no compulsion on the Board of Inland Revenue to go back for six years or any shorter time. The House must realise that these claims are being deliberately embarked upon in large numbers. It is not good enough for the right hon. Gentleman to say to me that the figure I have in mind is all wrong. I have never stated any figure, nor has he. That I suggest is the material factor, and it will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to try to lead this House into the belief that the Inland Revenue or its Government masters are treating this matter—
  Mr. Speaker: That is a speech not a question, and the hon. Gentleman has already made one speech.
  Sir D. Robertson: Then, Mr. Speaker, at a later stage, by your leave and by leave of the House, I will ask leave to speak again. So many inaccuracies have

  2457
  been made in the right hon. Gentleman's speech that this matter cannot stand where it now is.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry if the hon. Member thinks that I am trying to mislead the House. That is the last thing I desire to do. I could, of course, retort that the hon. Member's speech was full of the grossest inaccuracies, but I will not do that.
  Sir D. Robertson: The right hon. Gentleman cannot do it.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: To be frank, I do not want to try. We are all trying to do justice, if we can, to ex-Service men who through no fault of their own find themselves heavily in arrears with Income Tax payments. I wish to deal with that in the most sympathetic way open to me. The facts are that these claims exist. They are not, I think, so numerous as the hon. Member would lead this House to believe; but, even if they are, the principle is just the same. It is obvious that, to some of these people, a tax arrear is an onerous burden. I assure the House that the Inland Revenue does try to spread the burden over as long a period as possible. What I cannot do is to say to the House that the Inland Revenue will wipe the slate clean in all these cases.
  Mr. Blackburn: Has the Inland Revenue power to wipe the slate clean?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I think not. That would be straining too much the powers it has. What it can do, and what I have indicated that it does do, is to wipe the slate clean in certain cases which should be treated as special cases. But it has no right to, and could not under the law, wipe the slate clean of all the arrears that may be outstanding from all ex-Service men, whoever they may be.
  Mr. Speaker: To wipe the slate clean would involve legislation and is therefore out of order on the adjournment.
  Mr. Blackburn: On a point of Order. I was not trying to raise any point affecting legislation. I was merely trying to suggest that in certain circumstances the Crown might exercise its prerogative, which does not affect legislation, and might not accept payment. I was anxious to avoid raising any matter affecting legislation.
  Mr. Speaker: I was not reflecting on anything the hon. Member raised. I merely thought that it might be for the convenience of the House to remind them that "wiping the slate clean" generally would mean legislation, and was therefore out of Order.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not think that there is any more I can say. Even if I wind up with this final statement, I shall, I am afraid, repeat what I have already indicated to the House. The Inland Revenue and my right hon. and learned Friend do desire to treat these cases with the utmost sympathy. It is, however, impossible for my right hon. and learned Friend not to ask through the Inland Revenue for payment where it is felt that that payment is not such as to be unfair to the individual concerned. Where cases are brought to the attention of local inspectors of taxes, or to that of the collector, the staff are empowered to treat them with the utmost sympathy. Where payment is asked for, it is, in some cases, spread over an extremely long period.
  Sir D. Robertson: How long?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: It depends on the case. Where it is quite obvious that payment will never be made, and here I am repeating myself as I am afraid I must, where it is quite obvious that it is impossible to pursue the claim, then the claim is dropped. But where it is felt that the circumstances of the individual, either now or presently, may improve, the claim is kept alive in the expectation that presently that individual will pay what all of us have to pay, that is, our proper taxes under the law. We dislike it, but nevertheless we have to do it. Therefore, I am sorry, but I cannot give the full promise which the hon. Gentleman opposite obviously wants. I feel that we have done our best in difficult circumstances.
  Mr. Blackburn: May I ask one question of my right hon. Friend? I think it wilt clarify the position. Is he prepared himself to consider any case which is submitted to him by an hon. Member of this House so that that case may then be sent to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue with some kind of recommendation?
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: Yes, I can say, and I think most hon. Members are aware of it, that cases do come to me almost daily.

  2459
  I go through them very carefully. I consult the tax office concerned and, once I have the facts, I go through them with the utmost sympathy. We do spread the amount due over a very long period; sometimes, where it seems the best course, the claim is completely wiped out.
  Mr. Swingler: Arising from the question put by the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) may I ask this question? Could my right hon. Friend say quite definitely if it is a fact that the Commissioners are absolutely bound to press these claims for arrears, unless there are exceptional circumstances, or is it a fact that the Commissioners have the legal entitlement to forget about these claims? I am still not clear whether the Commissioners could disregard these arrears according to the powers given to them.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, they ought to be reported. Hon. Members who follow the accounts printed yearly and the deliberations of the Public Accounts Committee will see that, where claims are dropped, either for bankruptcy or because the person has died or some other reason—and there are a variety of reasons why claims are not pursued—these matters have to be reported to the House, and agreed to by the House as part of its normal financial procedure year by year.
  7.55 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: I am glad, as I think other hon. Members will be, that this evening we have reached the Adjournment at an hour which enables us to have a rather fuller discussion than is customary. The House should be grateful to the hon. Member for Streatham (Sir D. Robertson) for having raised this important topic and to the Financial Secretary for the helpful tone in which he has replied to the points put to him. This is an entirely non-party matter. It is a question of administration or, as the Financial Secretary has made clear, of the lack of it. The trouble is in the machinery for the collection of taxes.
  The cases I was going to submit to the right hon Gentleman outrun in terms of longevity those raised by the hon. Member for Streatham and the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Mr. Sharp). There
  2460
  were cases for 1939–40 and 1940–41 where there were no such complications as marriage, or the birth of children, or the wife going out to work, but where a man, demobilised in 1945, received, in December, 1946, claims for those two financial years, 1939–40 and 1940–41 amounting to £85. It is remarkable how the amounts are similar. I was going to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, what I believe is legally described in civil liabilities as the Statute of Limitations operated in these cases. From what he has said, I understand it does. These claims must therefore fall and so there is one question satisfactorily disposed of.
  Mr. Glenvil Hall: I do not know the details of the cases referred to by the hon. and gallant Member but he knows as well as I do, and if he does not the hon. Member for King's Norton (Mr. Blackburn) who is a lawyer, will inform him, that it is possible to keep claims alive by making application. It is possible that some application was made in an intermediate year, which means that the period of six years under the Statute of Limitations has not yet run out.
  Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: That may or may not be so, but no application was made to the individual. What passed between the Treasury and the Naval Paymaster—for these are naval cases—I do not know, but the first the individual knew of it was in the month of December, 1946. As the right hon. Gentleman knows I put some questions to him on this matter, and I followed them up with a question to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty, where it seemed to me that the fault might lie, and that there might have been delay in the making up of the man's liabilities by the Naval Paymaster. The Financial Secretary will have noticed that the reply which I received last week from the Admiralty was that the average delay in transferring accounts from the Navy to the Board of Inland Revenue was two months. Therefore, I think one is reasonably entitled to ask what has happened since 1939–40 and 1940–41 and since October, 1945, to cause this long delay in the claim being made from the Departmental Claims Branch, which in this case is situated at Cardiff.
  The right hon. Gentleman has stated that it is due to pressure of work and

  2461
  shortage of staff, and so on. That the House will understand and appreciate. But the fact remains, as was stated by the hon. Member for Streatham, that it is no fault of the men concerned that this delay has taken place. Therefore, for the shorn lambs, as the Financial Secretary described them, the shearing is none the less unpleasant because it has been delayed all this time. In fact, it is a far more painful procedure than if the lamb had been less severely shorn at regular periods of time. Nor, with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, is it any comfort to the man to be told that these payments are to be spread over a long time ahead. That is a most gloomy and dismal outlook for anybody to regard. To be told, "As a result of your war service you are £85 or £88 in arrears, but we are going to be merciful and ten years may elapse before you clear off this liability," would weigh very heavily upon my spirit.
  The right hon. Gentleman included in his speech a reference to post-war credits. I do not think that the views I hold about post-war credits are unreasonable. I was in the House of Commons when Sir Kingsley Wood introduced the post-war credit system and many of us thought that it would result in a nest-egg for the Service man when he came home. It was largely on that basis that the post-war credits proposals were accepted. Even then, some of us raised the question whether the post-war credits might not be used as a set-off against Income Tax liability. Sir Kingsley Wood denied that that was his intention.
  I know that one Parliament cannot bind another and that new Governments can make entirely fresh arrangements, but that would be a complete breach of the whole spirit of the post-war credits system. A man may have come home hoping to find some post-war credit available for the holiday he was hoping to have or for a little knick-knack that he wanted to buy for the house, but in fact he finds that the credit is to be set off against one of these Income Tax demands. We can ask the Government to have a sense of proportion in this matter. The Government have just writen off £58 million for what the previous Secretary of State for War called the merry game of the black market in
  2462
  Germany. They wrote that off in a moment, almost laughed it off, when the subject was raised in this House. Now we are told that all these miserable sums of £50 or £80, so far from being written off have to be spread over a period of years.
  I appeal to the Financial Secretary, in the terms used by his hon. Friend the Member for King's Norton a few moments ago. We all know that the right hon. Gentleman was a gallant officer in the first war. We know that he had a distinguished record. We believe that he cannot approve of this system. I am sure he does not approve of it. He cannot agree with such a millstone being placed round the necks of our returned fighting men about something which is in no sense their fault. I hope that this useful little Debate on this early Adjournment, which has come so fortunately at this hour, will not only cause a more merciful attitude in the Departmental Claims Branch but will result in the right hon. Gentleman approaching his right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer once again on this matter.
  The will of the House of Commons is unmistakable in this matter. If there were crowded benches tonight the view would be just the same; in fact, the right hon. Gentleman would not have had such an easy passage as he had just now. Let him convey to his right hon. and learned Friend our views. The House of Commons must assert itself over the Executive in this matter. We private Members are the rulers, after all, when we like to assert ourselves. Although the right hon. Gentleman has been sympathetic in his attitude, and we are grateful to him for that, I am quite sure that the last has not been heard on this issue.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot rose—
  8.4 p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I am grateful to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) for giving way. I have been trying to extract the very last possible crumb of comfort I could from the statement made by the Financial Secretary. I must confess that when what he has said is all boiled down to its essentials, he has not made a very great concession. He has said that if Members of Parliament will write to him

  2463
  and bring hard cases to his attention he will see that those cases are properly investigated. Those of us who have had dealings with my right hon. Friend know that he always goes to the utmost pains to deal with any cases which are brought to his notice. When he repeats that assurance tonight, he is not telling us anything new. He also pointed out that in those hard cases where the ex-Service man dies and his widow is left in difficult circumstances, the Department will not press the claim. He has said that he will make representations, or in particular cases that are brought to his notice, will give instructions to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. The question is whether the Commissioners are bound to accept his advice or his instructions in the matter. If they insist upon collecting the tax we are no better off than we were before my right hon. Friend gave the House his assurance.
  Almost all these cases affect men who have had long service in the recent war. They are almost entirely men who came into the Forces in 1939 and 1940. By virtue of their long service many of them reached a very much higher rank at the end of the war than they had at the beginning. By reason of that higher rank they frequently suffered a considerable diminution in their income when they went into civilian life, their second. They suffered their first diminution when they went into the Army in 1939 from a good job, and became privates, or were called up by reason of their Territorial Army obligations. Those considerations ought to be in the mind of my right hon. Friend when he is looking into this matter.
  The concession that he has announced that he is willing to spread the liability over a number of years has been rightly described by the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness (Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite) as no concession at all. It savours to me of cat-and-mouse tactics. The men are to have this threat hanging over their heads indefinitely. Rather than that they should find themselves in this unfortunate position it would be very much simpler for my right hon. Friend to make the concession for which we are asking. He would not suffer any undesirable repercussions afterwards if he did so.
  2464
  No one would reproach him for it subsequently. We have the assurance of the hon. and gallant Member for Holderness that it would not be thrown up against him on that side and it certainly would not be thrown up against my right hon. Friend on this side of the House. He has the opportunity to make a very useful concession. If he cannot pin himself down to anything definite tonight I hope that he will find it possible to do something about this matter in the near future.
  8.8. p.m.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: It is clear that the House is unwilling to leave the matter exactly where it stands. Admittedly, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury can go no further tonight than he has gone, but part of the purpose of the Debate is to urge upon the Minister, who is not the finally responsible Minister, the duty of taking up the matter again with his right hon. and learned Friend and discussing it further. It is true that from time to time, owing to the working of the machine, demands are made upon individuals which they feel are an intolerable burden and would not have been made if the machine were working with a humane discretion.
  When I was a director of public relations, I had a staff officer and other officers brought up to town to broadcast on the Battle of Britain or from a submarine. They came from some active and perilous position, on active service. When the officer broadcast, the Treasury required of him all the money that he had received from the B.B.C. They said that he was paid to fight for the whole 24 hours and seven days a week and that if he did anything else, the money for it had to come to the Treasury. It took years before even the slightest concession could be made, but it was made, and without any injury to the principles of public finance. That is one example.
  There is another and more bitter one. In the case of my young brother, who was killed on 28th June, 1915, at Gallipoli, my father received two messages, one of sympathy from the King on the death of his son, and the next from the Treasury saying, "Your son was paid to fight to 31st June and he has only fought to 28th June. We, therefore, demand the balance of the pay which was given him to fight until the 31st June." That kind of demand is still being made.
  Mr. Blackburn: It is not as bad as that.
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Yes. I know a highly respected Member of this House, with whom I was discussing that particular matter on the Front Bench not more than a few minutes ago. He had an exactly similar demand made upon him.
  Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: In the 1914–18 war?
  Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: No, in respect of the last war. This seems rather trivial, but the bitterness engendered is beyond all reckoning. The case of my own brother I know very well. Whatever concession has been made since, that case remains as a bitter memory. Arising out of the last war, I have had a case, as hon. Members in all parts of the House have had cases, of a school teacher who is now setting up his house again. He was mobilised in 1940 and he now finds that some sums he was due to pay, I think in respect of superannuation, were not paid. They have accumulated to what for him is a relatively large figure. He is now faced with the prospect of selling up his furniture in order to meet those sums. Nor is it any real tempering of the wind to the shorn lamb, to use the somewhat stretched phrase which the Financial Secretary used, to say, "We will only confiscate your post-war credits." In fact, that is not tempering the wind to the shorn lamb: it is going over the shorn lamb with a safety razor after the shears have been pretty thoroughly run over its skin. That, of course, is only a figure of speech: one does not usually shear lambs. When it gets going, the machine will shear lambs, and indeed, it will run a razor over them until it is sure that it has got the skin absolutely clean.
  The Financial Secretary said that it is the duty of the Treasury, when it is thought that the circumstances of the person, now or presently, may improve, to keep the claim alive. In civil life, in the case of relief in the form of assistance given in trade disputes, one of the bitterest resentments was that, years after, those claims were being collected. People who had received assistance of one kind or another found that claims were collected years afterwards and payment was accepted by instalments. That caused great bitterness. Relief and loan has been abolished by the will of the House on the very ground that to keep the claims
  2466
  alive was the sort of thing that roused resentment and bitterness in a man's heart and actually diminished his power to work. The House there, and in other instances, introduced the principle of what is called "disregard." There is a disregard of certain sums. Quite considerable disregards are now allowed in the case of assistance. They have been given by general good will.
  I have been Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. I am sure that if a set of these figures came before the Public Accounts Committee, it would not prove itself unduly harsh in its review of those sums. From the mere accounting point of view, the Financial Secretary has said that in the case of the officer mentioned—a man who first owed £84—his post-war credit was swept away and now he owes only £54. The Financial Secretary says that it will be many years before the sum is finally collected. I suggest that from the mere business point of view the book-keeping involved in those long-maintained claims is in itself a financial disadvantage.
  This is one of the cases where the House may justly press the Minister to represent to his chief that uneasiness is felt here, and that this is the sort of thing which will come up again. Discretion could be given to forgive sums up to, let us say, a ceiling of £50 or £100, if there were not involved some principle that the financial authorities must needs look for a possible Nuffield, that is to say, that these men may eventually become very rich and be able to repay far larger sums. While we are waiting for one Nuffield, 50,000 ordinary people are kept on the rack. I suggest that if the principle of disregard which has been introduced into civil life could be introduced in the matter of these military debts, and others due to circumstances arising out of the war, it might easily prove a great alleviation of the burden of bookkeeping upon the staffs.
  Staffs of Government Departments tend to keep things alive for a very long time. I remember a friend of mine receiving a demand for a tithe charge amounting to 1d. I sent it, I think, to the right hon. Gentleman indicating that probably the stamps on the demand would amount before very long to far more than the sum total of the tithe charge. Yet the machine keeps the thing alive. It pursues this

  2467
  claim. It says, "This man owes me a penny and I will extract this penny if it costs me £100 to do so." There are certain cases in which that is right. But in these cases of persons who in the desperate days of 1940 were mobilised, no doubt they received notifications of statements of one kind or another, and either disregarded them altogether or indignantly sent them back, saying that they were really too busy defending the country to be bothered with things like that, and that disposed of the matter from the men's minds and wiped it out of their minds altogether. But not so with the machine. The machine keeps the matter going and says, "Here is a man who owes us something and has done nothing about it; it is very reprehensible, and if such practices were to spread, the financial stability of the country would be endangered."
  Let us hope that 1940 will not come again, or that, if it does come again, it will be met with the same heroism as it was then. Let us hope that, if it does, the State may disregard this business of meticulous accounting to the extent that
  2468
  a certain number of young men have run up arrears of £50 or £80 of indebtedness to the State, and that the State will "call it a day" and will pass a sponge over these figures. Let us hope that the State will say that there are certain things which are repaid in other ways than by cash, that this debt has been paid and that the best thing that the State can do about it is to recognise it as discharged and give to the person in question a receipt, saying, "Rather does the State owe this man something than that the State is owed something by this man."
  Sir D. Robertson: May 1, by leave of the House—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): If leave is refused, the hon. Gentleman cannot speak again. Does the House grant leave?
  An Hon. Member: No.
  Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes past Eight o'Clock.

  BOXING TOURNAMENTS (POLICE ATTENDANCE)
  BOXING TOURNAMENTS (POLICE ATTENDANCE)
  WINDOW CLEANERS
  WINDOW CLEANERS
  FASCIST MEETINGS (SPEECHES)
  FASCIST MEETINGS (SPEECHES)
  HOLLESLEY BAY (HOUSES)
  HOLLESLEY BAY (HOUSES)
  MURDERS (STATISTICS)
  MURDERS (STATISTICS)
  FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS
  FIRE SERVICE (DISCIPLINE) REGULATIONS
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
  CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
  RURAL HOUSING
  RURAL HOUSING
PUBLIC HEALTH
  Day Nurseries
  Day Nurseries
  Dental Surgeons (Drugs)
  Dental Surgeons (Drugs)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Nurses and Midwives (Transport)
  Nurses and Midwives (Transport)
  Ophthalmic Benefit
  Ophthalmic Benefit
EDUCATION
  Technology (Wales)
  Technology (Wales)
  School Children (Health)
  School Children (Health)
  Scholarships and Awards (Working Party)
  Scholarships and Awards (Working Party)
  Youth Leaders (Training)
  Youth Leaders (Training)
  COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
  COMMUNIST ACTIVITIES
EMPLOYMENT
  Coal Industry (Recruitment)
  Coal Industry (Recruitment)
  Toll Bridge Workers (Hours)
  Toll Bridge Workers (Hours)
  Dockers, Glasgow
  Dockers, Glasgow
INDIA AND PAKISTAN
  British Cemeteries
  British Cemeteries
  Military Widows and Orphans Fund
  Military Widows and Orphans Fund
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (NATIVE TAX)
  AFRICAN TERRITORIES (NATIVE TAX)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Waste Paper Collection, London
  Waste Paper Collection, London
  British Films, Latin America
  British Films, Latin America
  Worsted Cloth Exports, Belgium
  Worsted Cloth Exports, Belgium
  Newsprint
  Newsprint
  Wire Nails (Export Licences)
  Wire Nails (Export Licences)
  Trade Publications (Overseas Distribution)
  Trade Publications (Overseas Distribution)
  Factories (Welsh Estates)
  Factories (Welsh Estates)
  Grenfell Factories, Rhondda
  Grenfell Factories, Rhondda
  New Periodicals and Newspapers
  New Periodicals and Newspapers
  Toys (Restrictions, Removal)
  Toys (Restrictions, Removal)
COAL INDUSTRY
  Industrial Allocations
  Industrial Allocations
  Opencast Production
  Opencast Production
FUEL AND POWER
  Electricity Undertakings (Employees' Pensions)
  Electricity Undertakings (Employees' Pensions)
  Petrol Allowances (Overseas Visitors)
  Petrol Allowances (Overseas Visitors)
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Supplementary Petrol Allowances
  Government Departments (Petrol Allowances)
  Government Departments (Petrol Allowances)
  Coke (Domestic Consumers)
  Coke (Domestic Consumers)
  GREECE (BRITISH TROOPS AND MISSIONS)
  GREECE (BRITISH TROOPS AND MISSIONS)
  TOBACCO DUTY RELIEF TOKENS
  TOBACCO DUTY RELIEF TOKENS
  BUILDING MATERIALS (DISTRIBUTION)
  BUILDING MATERIALS (DISTRIBUTION)
  AGRICULTURE (GRAIN PRICES)
  AGRICULTURE (GRAIN PRICES)
  SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, MALAYA
  SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS, MALAYA
  KENYA (DETAINEES, GILGIL CAMP)
  KENYA (DETAINEES, GILGIL CAMP)
  BAUXITE MINING, JAMAICA
  BAUXITE MINING, JAMAICA
  DISTURBANCES, ADEN (REPORT)
  DISTURBANCES, ADEN (REPORT)
  SUGAR WORKERS' STRIKE, BRITISH GUIANA
  SUGAR WORKERS' STRIKE, BRITISH GUIANA
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)
  FALKLAND ISLANDS (LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL)
  BERMUDA (JOINT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  BERMUDA (JOINT COMMITTEE'S REPORT)
  SEYCHELLES (TAXATION)
  SEYCHELLES (TAXATION)
  PALESTINE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (COMPENSATION)
  PALESTINE GOVERNMENT OFFICERS (COMPENSATION)
Preamble
The House met at four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  POLICE PENSIONS REGULATIONS, 1948.
  4.4 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Police Pensions Regulations, 1948, a copy of which was presented on June 10, be approved. Your Lordships may recall that during the debates on the Police Pensions Bill in March last, I explained that it was necessary to adapt the police pensions code to take account of the National Insurance Scheme when it came into force on July 5. Policemen—who have previously been one of the excepted classes for State insurance—will, after July 5, be insured both under the general scheme and under the industrial injuries scheme, and it is necessary to make changes in the police pensions code in the light of this fact. The draft Regulations now before the House are proposed to be made under the Police Pensions Act, 1948, and taken together with that Act they replace all the existing legislation dealing with police pensions and form a comprehensive code which applies to all police officers. In the main, therefore, the draft Regulations represent a consolidation of the mass of pensions legislation affecting the police. The opportunity has been taken, however, to clear up some of the questions of doubt which had arisen on the interpretation of the Police Pensions Act, 1921, and of the legislation covering the effects of various kinds of war service on the pensions position of policemen and auxiliaries. Your Lordships must accordingly bear in mind that the new Regulations should be compared in size and complexity, not only with the old 1921 Act, but also with all this other legislation which will cease to have effect on July 5, with, of course, the added complication of fitting the police pensions
  174
  code into the general scheme of the National Insurance Act and the Industrial Injuries Act.
  In the White Paper issued in January of this year, the main provisions proposed for inclusion in the Regulations to be made under Clause 1 of the Police Pensions Bill were summarised, and the Regulations now before the House follow the lines indicated in that White Paper, with amendments where required to implement undertaking—for example, in relation to widows' pensions—given in the course of the passage of the Bill through Parliament. As the Police Pensions Act requires, the Police Council have been consulted about the draft Regulations. Many suggestions were made by the Police Council and, where a unanimous recommendation for a change in the pensions code was made, that change has been incorporated in the draft Regulations. The Regulations thus include a number of differences from the existing code, quite apart from the changes which have necessarily been introduced because of National Insurance.
  As your Lordships are aware, a Committee have recently been appointed by the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland, under the chairmanship of Lord Oaksey, to examine the whole field of police conditions of service, including pensions. There are some features of the existing police pensions code in respect of which changes were suggested at the Police Council, but on which the Council were unable to make a unanimous recommendation. In these matters, the existing position has been reproduced in the draft Regulations. This does not mean that the matter cannot be considered further by the Oaksey Committee, which will have the advantage of hearing evidence from all the interested parties, and it will be for the Committee to decide whether to recommend further changes in the police pensions code.
  I will give your Lordships a brief outline of the scope of the draft Regulations. Part I describes very broadly the classes which are to receive pensions, the circumstances under which they will receive them, the authorities responsible for paying them, and so on. Subsequent Parts of the Regulations deal with all these topics in much more detail. Part II deals with awards on retirement and disablement. There are two main changes here. The first is the scheme for the reduction

  175
  of the pensions of new entrants to the police forces when they reach the age of sixty-five. At this age, the pensioner will be eligible to receive a National Insurance retirement pension and, as explained when the Police Pensions Bill was before the House, both the police pension and the retirement pension are being subsidised—and I may say heavily subsidised—from public funds. It would not be reasonable to expect either the taxpayer or the ratepayer to subsidise the full duplication of both pensions. The other important change, which was foreshadowed in the White Paper, is the replacement by a single scale of the existing two scales of special pensions when a policeman is disabled or killed by an injury or disease received in the execution of duty. This new scale was unanimously recommended to the Home Secretary by a committee of the Police Council on which all the interests concerned were represented, and its introduction will mean the removal of a fruitful source of dispute as to the appropriate classification of particular injuries. In the case of the disabled man, the new scale is almost exactly midway between the old so-called non-accidental and accidental scales. Where the man dies from the injury, the distinction between the two scales of widows' pensions has been removed by bringing up the lower scale to the level of the higher.
  Part III deals with awards on death—that is, awards to widows, children and dependants of police officers. Special provision is made for increasing the pensions and allowances of widows and children whose husbands are already dead, and of those whose husbands die before having paid a sufficient number of contributions to entitle them to benefit under the National Insurance Act. These pensions and allowances will be increased in much the same sort of way as pensions of widows of persons insured under the Contributory Pensions Acts are being increased under the National Insurance Act. A similar concession has been extended for the first time to widows of men who retired before 1918. In the future, policemen will be insured under the National Insurance Act and their widows will be able to get whatever benefits they are entitled to under that Act and a small police widow's pension in addition. Thus a future
  176
  widow who gets a National Insurance pension will receive at least 37s. 6d. a week altogether. Part IV deals with the computation of pensionable service and follows very much the lines of the existing provisions. Part V relates to pension contributions. The Police Council were not unanimous on the question of what the appropriate rate of contribution should be, and for the time being, therefore, until the matter can be considered by the Committee on Police Conditions of Service, the old rate has been reproduced, subject to a small reduction due to the modification of pension benefits on account of National Insurance. The remaining parts of the draft Regulations are not very different from the substance of the existing law.
  I do not think I need say much more about the scheme. It is quite true it is lengthy and detailed, but it replaces lengthy and detailed provisions. It has been considered and discussed in principle and in detail by the Police Council for many months, and over a wide field the Council were able to reach agreement. The Council were not able to agree on all the topics which they discussed, but there will be ample opportunity for the Committee under Lord Oaksey to consider these contentious issues against the background of the whole field of conditions of service. Apart from these issues, the draft Regulations set out a satisfactory and comprehensive code for the police service, with safeguards for existing police officers and, in some cases, especially in relation to existing police widows, provide for substantial improvements in conditions. I should add that in these Regulations there are three misprints which I will correct, if I may. On page 37, First Schedule, Part III, paragraph 2, "Regulation 42" should read "Regulation 41" Then on page 38, First Schedule, Part III, paragraph 3, "Regulation 42" should read "Regulation 41" On page 38, First Schedule, Part III, paragraph 5, "paragraph (6) of Regulation 69" should read "paragraph (7) of Regulation 68" Those are mere clerical errors, and it must be understood that in moving the Motion, as I do, I move that the Regulations be approved with those minor amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 23rd of June last, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  4.18 p.m.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I rise on behalf of noble Lords who sit on these Benches to support the Motion which has been made by the Lord Chancellor, and I believe that the House would be well advised to approve these Regulations even though, as the noble Viscount said, they incorporate only those recommendations which have been unanimously agreed. As the Lord Chancellor stated, it is essential to have a new code in existence by July 5, to coincide with the coming into force of the National Insurance Act. I understand from what the noble and learned Viscount has said that, where differences of opinion have arisen in drawing up these Regulations, they will, in point of fact, be referred to the Committee which has been set up under the chairmanship of Lord Oaksey, and that at some time in the future the Home Secretary will have to lay further Regulations before your Lordships' House.
  There is little in these Regulations which calls for any comment, as the Government have fulfilled all the promises which were made during the passage of the Act. But I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor one question concerning Regulation 15, which enables a gratuity to be given to a policeman's widow in lieu of a pension. I am not wholly clear about the reasons which are likely to be considered sufficient for granting the widow a gratuity in lieu of a pension. It may well be that she has a wish' to purchase property. I do not know whether the Lord Chancellor could enlighten me on the matter, especially as under Regulation 21 the policeman's widow will forfeit her pension if she re-marries. I cannot believe that it is also intended that she should in any way forfeit a portion of her gratuity if she ultimately re-marries. The only further comment I have to make is, that I trust that a new entrant into the police force will have something simpler to digest concerning his pension rights than the very complicated Regulations which are embodied in this Paper. Finally, let me say this: that in the days when I was at the Home Office, keeping a quiet and watchful eye on the then Home Secretary, Mr. Herbert Morrison, we did not make these silly little mistakes. If we ever went into error at all we did it with vigour, as on the occasion when we completely forgot to put the Fire Service Regulation before
  178
  Parliament at all. It seems that the Home Office have a peculiar knack of omitting to do that which ought to be done. With those few brief observations, I would support the Regulations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may I will answer now the questions which have been put to me. The question whether a gratuity or a pension should be granted is entirely a matter for the authority to decide in accordance with their discretion. On the one hand, the broad general principle is that there is always a danger that if a lump sum is granted, that sum may be squandered. That leads the authority to lean towards a pension. On the other hand, there may be an instance—as, for example, where a mortgage has to be paid off—in which the recipient can make out a case for payment of a lump sum down rather than a pension. It is entirely a matter for the authority to deal with according to their discretion. As to the noble Earl's question relating to Regulation 21, I would say that if a widow who, has had a lump sum awarded to her marries again, that which she has had she keeps. She is under no obligation to, repay any part of it. I am very sorry for these small error. I justify them on the classical ground: "Is it no: a little one?"
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  POLICE PENSIONS (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS, 1948.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Special Order as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, June 23 last, be approved. After the very full statement which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has just made upon the Police Pensions Regulations, 1948, perhaps it would be for the convenience of your Lordships if I merely stated that with the exception of certain peculiarly Scottish provisions, these Regulations are exactly in line with those for England and Wales. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the Special Order, as reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, June 23 last, be approved.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill read.
  Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly:
  [The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
  THE EARL OF DROGHEDA: The three Amendments on the Paper have all been proposed by the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, and with the permission of the Committee I will follow the usual course and move them altogether.
  Moved, That the Amendments recommended by the joint Committee on Consolidation Bills be made.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

  CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
  4.24 p.m.
  Further considered on Report (according to Order).
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not know whether I may say a word now upon a point of order. I wish to do so merely for the convenience of the House. We are in a certain difficulty here. We have four Amendments relating to Clause 36. The first is by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. Then there is an Amendment to that which is to be moved by Lord Goddard. Next comes an Amendment in the name of Lord Llewellin, and finally there is an Amendment to leave out Clause 36 altogether. I wonder whether it would not be for the benefit of those of us who are among the less well-informed on this difficult question if there were some general discussion on these Amendments before we proceeded to debate them separately; otherwise we shall be asked to decide the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, then Lord Llewellin's Amendment and then the Amendment to leave out the clause altogether. We shall not know exactly what the general view of the House is on the principle involved until the last
  180
  Amendment is moved. I wonder, therefore, whether it would not be possible to have some general exposition by the exponents of the various points of view before we come to debate the Amendments. The House generally may not feel that that is right, but it seems to me that we are in a difficulty, for this is really a difficult and technical matter.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I think the suggestion which the noble Marquess has just made is a good one and that it would meet the convenience of the House if we acted upon it. But we must have some peg on which to hang our discussion, and I think that I had better formally move my Amendment. I take it that the discussions on that Amendment will range over the whole field. In due course I shall, I hope, with expert advice, try to formulate the question which I have to put to your Lordships. As I say, I agree that the idea of the noble Marquess is in principle a good one.
  Clause 36:
  Power of Court of Criminal Appeal to order new trials.
  36.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in section four of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, where an appeal against conviction is allowed by the Court of Criminal Appeal under that Act and it appears to the court that the interests of justice so require, the court may, instead of directing the entry of a judgment and verdict of acquittal, direct the appellant to be re-tried upon the whole or any part of the indictment:
  Provided that—

  (a) where the appeal relates only to part of the indictment upon which the appellant was tried, the court shall not direct him to be re-tried upon any other part thereof unless in the opinion of the court it is necessary to do so for the purposes of the proper retrial of the appellant upon any part thereof to which the appeal relates; and

  (b) if the appellant, being convicted on the re-trial, again appeals against his conviction under the said Act, the court shall not direct him to be re-tried a second time.

  THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (1), to delete the whole of paragraph (a) except the words "where the" and to insert:
  "appellant was acquitted on any part of the indictment, the court shall not direct him to be retried on that part; and".
  The noble and learned Viscount said: I will now, if I may, move my Amendment. I will do it shortly, because I will not

  181
  conceal from your Lordships that I do not pose as an expert on this branch of the law. There are many of your Lordships here who know far more about it than I do. The broad general question is of course this: Is it desirable that there should be conferred upon the Court of Criminal Appeal, in any circumstances, and if so in what circumstances, a right to order a new trial? The framers of the legislation in this connection—and I am old enough to remember how fiercely assailed the Court was at the time—did not, and quite deliberately did not, confer upon the Court this power.
  But the experience of the last forty or fifty years has thrown plenty of light on this topic, and, so far as I am concerned, I naturally attach great weight to the opinion of the Chief Justices. I think I can tax my recollection to this extent, and I believe I am not inventing, when I tell your Lordships that I have discussed the matter with the present Lord Chief Justice and with his three predecessors, the late Lord Caldecote, the late Lord Hewart and the late Lord Reading. Each and every one of them expressed to me the view that it was desirable that there should be a power in the Court to order a new trial. Now I attach importance to that, because habitually, unless he is engaged on circuit, the Lord Chief justice presides over the Court of Criminal Appeal. Whereas other Judges come and go in the Court of Criminal Appeal, the Lord Chief Justice, unless, as I say, he happens to be away on circuit, is always there. For my part, therefore, I am bound to attach great weight to the opinion which these eminent lawyers have formed on this matter, because, with the greatest possible respect to penologists, of whom we hear a great deal, I feel that His Majesty's Judges do know something about this topic. That being so, I should myself be in favour of conferring upon the Court of Criminal Appeal power to order a new trial. I state at once that I think it is a power that ought to be very sparingly exercised. I am certain that it would be the view of the Court itself that such a power should be seldom exercised.
  Recently the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, made a most powerful speech in which he criticised in particular the idea that the Court should ever be able to order a new trial on an issue on which a man had been found not guilty. The Amendment which the Lord
  182
  Chief justice has on the Paper, if I understand it aright, is to this effect. Though that is, of course, an exceptional thing, yet where there are two verdicts which are repugnant with each other, which do not make sense together, there should be power to hold a new trial, even on an issue on which a man has been found not guilty. I would suggest to your Lordships—and my Amendment has this effect—that a reasonable compromise is possible—namely, that power should be given to the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial when they think it proper, but that there should never be power to order a new trial on an issue on which a man has been found not guilty.
  The clause with my Amendment would apply only when a man has been found guilty. Then, if the Court of Criminal Appeal say that an error was made by the Judge in summing up, they ought to be able to order a new trial. At the present time all the Court of Criminal Appeal can do, unless they are prepared to say the error could not have made any difference (I am not using technical language, but I think this is the substance of it), is to say that this man must go free. I must add that the Home Office takes no side on this matter at all. They are perfectly prepared to leave it to the collective wisdom of your Lordships' House to decide what is proper. It is not in any sense a departmental mater, and still less a Party one. So far as my guidance is of the smallest value to your Lordships, I would suggest what I call a compromise: confer power on the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial, but do not allow a man acquitted on an issue to be tried again on that issue. On this Amendment we can have a general discussion. Accordingly, I beg to move this Amendment, as a peg on which to hang the general discussion.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 9, leave out from the first ("the") to the end of line 15 and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I had not expected to be given an opportunity of speaking about the clause as a whole so early this afternoon, but I am very glad to do so. I recognise the convenience of the arrangement which, by general consent, has been made. Of course, I entirely concur in the observation of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord

  183
  Chancellor, that this is not a political matter. It is not a Party matter. Nor, as he has just told the House, is it a departmental matter, because the Home Office, as we have just been informed, take no side in it at all. It is preeminently a matter on which every one of your Lordships, considering the argument on either side, will form his own conclusion, without prejudice; and the matter will be decided by the vote of the House. When the vote is taken on the omission of the clause, which is what I propose, and I am supported I think in several quarters of the House, I expect to find in each Lobby a mixture from either side. We shall apply our minds as well as we can to a very important matter, on which every noble Lord must form his own judgment.
  There is one other observation of the noble and learned Viscount to which I would refer. He told us that he was relying only on his memory—which is a very good one—and that he had heard a view expressed by many previous Lord Chief Justices that a clause something like Clause 36 should be enacted. Well, I have not the advantage of being able to say that. I can only say that I knew Lord Chief Justice Reading well, having been a law officer with him for some years, and afterwards seeing him constantly when he was Lord Chief Justice. It may be so; but he did not express the opinion to me. However that may be, your Lordships will have to decide this question as well as this House can decide it, and this House is admirably equipped for deciding, "yes" or "no" on questions of this character.
  The first point to which I wish to draw the attention of your Lordships is the history of the clause. The Home Secretary, Mr. Chuter Ede, introduced the Criminal Justice Bill in the House of Commons. It did not include this clause. The Home Office have most abundant opportunity of gathering opinions on questions of this sort, and though they had lots of time to give this mature consideration, the Home Secretary's Bill did not include this clause. Nor was it in Lord Templewood's Bill in 1937. When the House of Commons had dealt with this Bill, both on the floor of the House and in Committee, still (so far as I know) nobody had proposed to insert this clause, and it came to this
  184
  House without any clause which would confer on the Court of Criminal Appeal this new power to order a fresh trial in respect of a man who had already been convicted. It was introduced during the Committee stage, and impressive speeches were made. I need not say that I most warmly concur with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, when he says that he attaches special importance to the opinion of the Lord Chief Justice in this matter; and we know he thinks that this clause, or something like it, would be a good thing. I must say, however, in the presence of some of your Lordships who may have been here on that occasion, that I think the speech which most impressed the House was the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq. I have seldom heard a more powerful argument delivered by a Law Lord in a matter of this kind, and many of your Lordships were greatly impressed, as I know from subsequent communication, with what he said. We are not here engaged in examining everybody's credentials, but I would remind the House that Lord du Parcq has a very long experience as a criminal Judge, and in past days constantly sat on the Court of Criminal Appeal. So we may assume that there is a pretty good argument to be heard on either side. No doubt the noble Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, who will forgive me for taking a view opposite to his, will put his point of view, shortly and effectively.
  I do not claim to speak with the same authority as the noble Lords I have mentioned, though in fact in times past I have had a good deal to do with the Court of Criminal Appeal. What strikes me about it is this: that we cannot fully judge this matter unless we first spend a few moments in realising exactly what are the present powers and duties of the Court of Criminal Appeal. I would mention briefly three points. The first is that the right of appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal is a right given solely to a person convicted. Nobody else can appeal. The prosecution may think it has a good case, may think that witnesses proved it, but if a jury declare that the man is not guilty, there is no question of the prosecution going to the Court of Criminal Appeal. Secondly, it is by no means the case that the Court of Criminal Appeal then proceed in some formal way

  185
  and, because they find there is something irregular in the trial say "This will never do; therefore this man must be discharged. "Not at all.
  I would venture to read to the House the provision in the Act. It is extremely plain:
  "Provided that the court may, notwithstanding that they are of opinion that the point raised in the appeal might be decided in favour of the appellant"—
  that means the convicted person—
  "dismiss the appeal if they consider that no substantial miscarriage of justice has actually occurred."
  So the Court of Criminal Appeal do not simply listen to an objection—which may be a well-founded objection, because even the best-conducted trials sometimes go wrong—and say: "Well, it was not quite regular and, therefore, we must allow the appeal" Not at all. The Court of Criminal Appeal will say: "You are a convicted man, and you will remain convicted, notwithstanding that you have satisfied us that the summing up was not quite what it should be, or that there was evidence admitted which should not have been admitted, because we ourselves take the view that there has been no substantial miscarriage of justice."
  There is a third point. It is rather more technical, perhaps, but no less important. Anybody who is familiar with this subject will appreciate its importance. In some quarters, at any rate, it used to be supposed, when there was proved to have been something irregular, that before the Court of Criminal Appeal could say: "None the less, we will confirm the conviction. You will lose your appeal, and you, the convicted man, must serve your sentence," that the test was whether they could be sure that a jury, with proper material before them, would convict. Indeed, the expression was actually used that they ought to feel that that would be the "inevitable" consequence. Quite recently, the House of Lords, acting in its judicial capacity, has decided, and unanimously decided, that that is not the right way to look at the matter. The question which the Court of Criminal Appeal now ask is this: Suppose that there were a reasonable jury, and they acted reasonably; and that they had before them that part of the material which is not objectionable, and a proper summing up: would this reasonable jury (that
  186
  is the true test) still have convicted? If the Court of Criminal Appeal reach the conclusion that they would, they do not discharge the man. They take the substantial common-sense view: "Well, you may have objections; you may have proved that this or that was irregular; but, none the less, we are not going; to allow your appeal, because in substance we are satisfied that you would have been convicted by a reasonable jury on proper evidence, omitting what was improper."
  That is a striking contrast to the met and which used to be followed, at any rate, in many courts in America. If I do not misunderstand, in the United States the cases in which new trials are ordered in criminal matters are very numerous. There were those two people called Sacco and Vanzetti, who waited for seven years before the courts in America decided whether or not they should be convicted; and similar cases have arisen in the Southern States in the case of negro boys. From the very beginning our principle has always been quite different. I myself think (it is only my own opinion, but it is arrived at after much reflection, because I did not take part in the debate in Committee; I listened to what was said) that we ought not to insert this clause, and that it would be better in respect of this matter to leave the law as it is.
  I will state why I hold that opinion. The first reason—I say this subject to correction, but I believe it to be an absolutely accurate statement of a fundamental principle of our criminal law—is this. It is a fundamental principle of our criminal law that when a person has been tried before a competent court for an offence, and has been convicted, then he can never in any circumstances be compelled to stand his trial a second time for the same offence. I know of no exception whatever to that principle. It is true, of course, that a man convicted by magistrates may appeal to the Quarter Sessions, and that in effect there is a new trial. But that is because he chooses to appeal. There is no case known to me in which, under our law, we recognise the possibility of a man who has been convicted by a competent court being told: "That is all very well, but you will now have to stand a second trial" I will venture in a moment to point out why I think that would be an unwise change for

  187
  us to make. I do not think that we should invade that principle.
  I concede that cases do arise (and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice, gave us one or two examples) under our present law, with the result that a man who we feel is guilty none the less escapes by the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal. That is certainly true. But, as my noble and learned friend Lord du Parcq, and indeed, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, said in Committee, it is far better, for preserving our criminal law, and the prima facie right of a man who is presumed to be innocent, that that should happen occasionally than that one innocent man should be convicted. I would go further and suggest to your Lordships this proposition. If it be the case that by putting a man on his trial a second time for the same offence he will be prejudiced, or may be prejudiced, then that is a very good reason for refusing to change the law, and for saying that he ought not to be put on his trial for a second time. The all-important thing is that nobody should run any risk of being tried unfairly. It seems to me that the proposal that a man who has already been convicted may be ordered to be tried a second time may well lead, at any rate in some cases, to unfairness.
  Consider what are the circumstances in which, if this clause were included in the Bill, the Court of Criminal Appeal would order him to be tried a second time. I heard my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice say on the Committee stage that this power would, of course, be used but rarely; and the same thing has just been said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I am sure they are both right, though there is nothing in the clause to say so. You cannot put that kind of thing into the clause at all. I am willing to believe that it would not be exercised without great consideration. But what are the circumstances in which they would make such an order? If the Court of Criminal Appeal are satisfied that a reasonable jury would convict the man if there had been no irregularity, then, as the law stands, the Court of Criminal Appeal will say that he must remain convicted. There is no question of ordering a new trial there.
  188
  If the Court of Criminal Appeal are satisfied that a reasonable jury would acquit him, surely you are not going to tell me that, in those circumstances, the Court of Criminal Appeal would order a new trial. If they feel confident that he would have been acquitted by a reasonable jury, they would never dream of putting him at the peril of being tried a second time.
  It follows, therefore, that the only case in which it would be supposed that this power would be used—the only case where one can imagine it being used—is where the Court of Criminal Appeal think that the first trial was so irregular that it really cannot stand, and yet feel uncertain whether, with a properly conducted second trial, the man would be convicted. I must say, for myself, that I should have thought that there the very important principle came in: that no man is presumed to be guilty; that every man is to be treated as though he were prima facie innocent and that if there is a reasonable doubt about it he is entitled to be discharged. But be that as it may, I am afraid that I think it is quite inevitable that a jury in those circumstances might, in some cases, be in a position where the man would not get an entirely unprejudiced trial. Juries in this country ought to know nothing about the previous history of the man. Is it really to be said that the jury will not say in many cases: "Oh, I remember this man; I read about him in the papers. The case is quite notorious. He was convicted before. He appealed to the Court of Criminal Appeal, they have sent him back to be tried again and I can quite see why" I cannot think that in many cases that is a fair thing to do.
  I will put a second point, which is quite important, though it is a financial point. It was put most powerfully by my noble friend Lord du Parcq on the Committee stage. The noble Lord asked us to imagine what it was like to be put in the dock and charged with a given criminal charge—a man who may be innocent, who may be guilty, but at any rate has not been proved to be guilty. The small man with limited resources will do everything that he can to secure his acquittal. He may, and often does, exhaust his small resources in the process. None the less, he gets convicted. He goes to the Court of Criminal Appeal and he establishes that, as a matter of fact, the trial

  189
  was so irregular that it ought not to stand. Is the Court of Criminal Appeal then to say to him in effect this: "Well, it is true that you mortgaged your house and you used all your resources in order to defend yourself. It is true that you live in a country where it has always been the principle that a man cannot be put on his trial for a second time after he has once been convicted. But Parliament has altered all that, and now you are going to be put on your trial for a second time" I do not think that that is the proper way in which to frame our criminal code.
  The fact that there may be prejudice in it is implicitly admitted by this clause. If your Lordships look at the clause you will see that it goes on to provide that he shall not be tried more than twice. Well, why not? If the principle which is supposed to be at the back of this clause is supposed to be a good principle, why should he not be tried more than twice? The reason, of course, is that it is realised that at a point it does not become fair to put a man on his trial again after he has been convicted. The lawyers in this assembly will know that that principle is so old that, even to this day, the defence: "I have been already convicted and, therefore, you cannot try me again" is expressed in old law French. It goes back to the days when we still used a sort of mongrel French for our pleas in the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is autrefois convict—"I have already been convicted" That was an absolute reason why a man should not be tried again. If this clause is added to the Bill, that would no longer be true, and I am very unwilling to see that change made.
  Finally, I want to put a point which is perhaps more for the Lord Chancellor than others. Of course, as the Lord Chancellor and others know, in very rare cases there can be an appeal to the House of Lords from the Court of Criminal Appeal. It is done on the certificate of a Law Officer who says that a general point of importance is involved. I wonder how this clause is going to work then, because you might have a man who has been convicted at the Old Bailey, who then goes on appeal to the Court of Criminal Appeal and is still treated as convicted. He gets the certificate of the Attorney-General that the case should be heard in the House
  190
  of Lords by the Lord Chancellor and the Law Lords. At present, all that the House of Lords can do is either to confirm the conviction—in which case the man serves his sentence or whatever it is—or to say that the appeal is well-founded, whereupon the man goes free. But if you are going to adopt this principle, because you have some reason to fear that a man who really is guilty is going free, what is the House of Lords to do? We shall get to the height of absurdity if the House of Lords is then to be entitled to order a new trial, to begin right down at the bottom again and mount up the stairs for a second time. Those are the considerations which have appealed to me. I am quite aware that there are many (whose experience and judgment I most sincerely respect) who may take a different view, and what I put—I hope, without any quarrelsome temper—I put merely because I trust that your Lordships will consider the weight of these arguments.
  There is just one further thing to be said. I have concerned myself, since the Committee stage, in reading the proceedings which took place in Parliament in the years 1906 and 1907 and which led to the passing of this Criminal Appeal Act. There are one or two others in your Lordships' House—one certainly—who took part in those discussions in 1907. When that Bill was introduced it was in the time of Lord Chancellor Loreburn, formerly Sir Robert Reid, and was introduced by the Liberal Government of that day. When the Bill was introduced it contained no provisions for a new trial. There were certain legal members of this. House who thought that there ought to be a provision for a new trial and, consequently, that was inserted. In the House of Commons that was considered and; by a great weight of opinion, the provision for a new trial was rejected. When it came back to your Lordships' House, Lord Loreburn dealt with the matter, and with your Lordships' permission I will read a short extract from what he said. He said this:
  "Under the Bill of last year as originally introduced the Court of Appeal might either confirm the conviction, or quash the conviction, but they were not entitled to order a new trial That was my own original view, and I thought it was the best view…or I should not have inserted it in the Bill. But during the progress of the Bill through Your

  191
  Lordships' House high legal authorities expressed the opinion that the Court of Appeal ought also to be given the power to order a new trial, and I yielded to that opinion although it did not correspond entirely with my judgment. That provision for a new trial was contained in the Bill as it was introduced in the House of Commons; but the provision was struck out by the Commons. Mr. Akers-Douglas"—
  a previous Home Secretary—
  "Sir Edward Carson, Lord Robert Cecil, and others of experience and knowledge took an extremely strong view on that point, and I think there is a great deal to be said for the action of the Commons, because it approaches the confines of torture to put a man on trial twice for the same offence"
  I am not responsible for the then Lord Chancellor's expression, but I am entitled to say that very distinguished men thought when this Bill was passed, and the very matter was before them, that to try to put a man on trial twice after being once convicted was not a wise, course to pursue.
  I have learned one important thing from reading these old debates. It has not been mentioned and it is rather interesting. One of the principal reasons for urging the passage of the Criminal Appeal Act in 1907 was to relieve the Home Secretary from a very awkward and difficult task. If there were no Court of Criminal Appeal, and if there were a petition to the Home Secretary to modify a sentence or to let a man go, one of the things the Home Secretary had to consider was whether the evidence that was called in the case was all admissable, and whether the summing up was a proper summing up. Those are questions which, as your Lordships will at once see, are not necessarily very easily decided by the Home Secretary—unless he has a quite exceptional experience of the operations of criminal law. The Court of Criminal Appeal Act relieved the Home Secretary of that task and he was merely left then with the duty—though it was a grave enough duty and not by any means limited to capital cases—of considering whether or not the sentence should be reduced or the man let off.
  But before the passing of the Court of Criminal Appeal Act, nobody ever dreamed that the Home Secretary should say, "Let the man be tried again" It would be utterly contrary to every principle. I believe, therefore, and I submit to your Lordships, that the better course
  192
  in this matter would be to omit this clause. I am supported in this view by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and also by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, whose name would be down to it but for a technicality. I believe I am supported in this view by a number of noble Lords in different parts of the House. It is a matter on which it cannot be said that the argument is all on one side, by any means; but I think there is strong reason for saying that, on the whole, it would be wiser not to make this enactment. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor two days ago, when he was discussing what should happen if there were a breach of a probation order, quoted both in Latin and English—though in another connection—the maxim which I am seeking to apply here. He said that in plain English the maxim meant that you could not "have a man up twice for the same offence" Once convicted, he cannot be tried again. It is much too serious a thing to impose upon him, and it is better that every now and again there should be somebody who escapes, who you and I may well think is a guilty man, than that we should fundamentally alter the law of this country and say for the first time in effect: "I do not mind that you have been convicted before; the circumstances are such that you must be tried again."
  4.55 p.m.
  LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I would far rather have taken part in this discussion at a later stage, when I had heard some more arguments, but unfortunately my duties oblige me to be opening the Commission at Stafford to-morrow and I shall very shortly have to leave for that county. I would therefore ask your Lordships' indulgence to let me place before you the arguments on the other side of this matter, for I think it is a matter on which many of the Judges who habitually sit with me in the Court of Criminal Appeal feel strongly. I shall presently give your Lordships a few quotations to show why I think that.
  I know that there is a great weight of opinion against this clause. I shall not be able to address your Lordships with the eloquence and vigour of the noble and learned Viscount who has just spoken, or with the eloquence which my noble and learned friend Lord du Parcq used on Committee stage. But there are,

  193
  I venture to think, substantial reasons, which become more apparent as time goes on, why you should give to the Court of Criminal Appeal the same power as is possessed by every other Court of Appeal. First, let me say that I fully appreciate the bearing of certain arguments which are used against this clause. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon said at the beginning of his speech that it should be borne in mind that only the convicted person could appeal. That is so; therefore we start with the fact that the Court of Criminal Appeal have no jurisdiction at all, and never entertain any case unless the man has been convicted of something. I cannot, therefore, understand how any argument about the risk of an innocent man being convicted, or that it is better that ten guilty men should be acquitted than that one innocent man should be convicted, has any bearing on this subject. A man appeals to the Court of Appeal because he has been found guilty, and he desires the court to say that that conviction ought not to stand. That is the first point.
  It is said, and said with great force, that this introduces an entirely new principle into criminal law. I am going to deal in a moment with the question of re-trials and whether re-trials have not, in fact, existed for centuries in this country. But assuming for a moment that it is a new principle, the reason is that criminal appeal is a comparatively new principle. There was no appeal, in the true sense, until April 18, 1908, when the Criminal Appeal Act of 1907 came into operation. Until then, the only means of appeal appeared if the Judge or presiding Chairman who tried the case chose to reserve a question of law—and of law only—for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved. The prisoner had no right to appeal; he could not appeal to anyone—I leave out an appeal on the ground of a writ of error, which is a very highly technical matter and lies only in certain very curious points that might arise. No appeal on the ground of misdirection, no appeal on the ground of misrepresentation of evidence, no appeal on the ground that the verdict was unsatisfactory and ought not to stand, could lie—except, of course, that on a question of misdirection a learned Judge might take the opinion of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved if he did not know whether his direction
  194
  was right. In 1907, he law was fundamentally altered, and the extensive right of appeal that was given by that Act came into English jurisprudence for the first time. When there is a fundamental change of that sort, it naturally means that other changes must follow. What happened was that the Court of Criminal Appeal were given two powers, and two powers only: to confirm a conviction or to quash a conviction.
  The noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon (as did my noble friend, Lord du Parcq, on Committee stage), emphasised the fact that there was a proviso, as we always call it, in the Bill enabling the Court, if they consider that the misdirection was unimportant, and did not cause a miscarriage of justice, to confirm the conviction, even though they think what the objections taken by the prisoner have foundation. The noble and learned Viscount has reminded us that your Lordships' House, sitting judicially, has recently laid down that the question is whether a reasonable jury would have found the same verdict. The difficulty which the Court so often feel in applying this proviso is one of the principal reasons why we often think that there should be a new trial. If I may say so with all due respect, if we had the advantage in the Court of Criminal Appeal of having the noble and learned. Viscount presiding there, he might, with his great legal knowledge and attributes, be able to evolve a scheme by which we could come to a conclusion more readily than we now can as to what a reasonable jury would do. Every jury is supposed to be reasonable, but bitter and long experience has shown me that there are such things as unreasonable juries. However, it is almost beyond the wit of man to say in every case, and certainly from the point of view of doing due justice to the prisoner, whether if so and so had not happened in the course of the case, and if such and such a direction had not been given, a jury would assuredly have come to the same conclusion.
  I do not want to bore your Lordships by citing cases, but may I cite one instance of a recent case, which I believe I mentioned on Committee stage. It was a case in which a man who was tried for burglary at Southend and was arrested in London set up an alibi, and said that

  195
  at the material time on a Sunday evening he had been in a billiards club. Unfortunately, nobody—neither the learned chairman nor counsel—remembered that what he had said was "billiards club," or, if they did, they did not notice the significance. The learned chairman thought that he had said "in a billiards room," and not once but I think three times in the course of his summing up he said: "You can judge possibly the truth of the prisoner's alibi by the fact that he said that he was in a billiards room. Billiards rooms are not open on Sundays." But billiards clubs are. The proprietor or manager of the very billiards club to which the prisoner said he had gone was called to give evidence, and he said: "I cannot say that the man was in the club. I do not remember whether he was in the club two months ago, but the club was open."
  What were the Court to do? There was a cardinal point in his alibi. I am bound to say that I do not think the Court had much doubt as to the guilt of the man, but we could not put ourselves into the place of the jury. We do not usurp the functions of the jury. That is one of the things about which we are most careful. If a jury arrive at a verdict, on the evidence, and on a proper direction, we say that the verdict of the jury, the constitutional tribunal, must stand. We could not say in that case what the jury would have done if that point in the alibi had not been taken. The man's alibi was, to a great extent destroyed by that. There was, I think, no more truth in his alibi than there is in most alibis. But there it was; it was his defence and he had a right to have that defence put to the jury. Unfortunately, it was to a great extent destroyed by what the learned Chairman said. That was a case in which an accident had happened. Would not justice have required that that man should be tried again? Why should he not be tried, if he had been convicted by a jury? I will deal with some other aspects of the question in a moment. We were forced to say: "A mistake has been made which may have misled the jury, and we cannot say that it has not." That is one of the cases in which, if justice is to be done—and the great test is: "Can justice be done?"—a new trial might have been ordered.
  196
  As soon as the Act of 1907 came into operation, a new state of affairs arose, and that ought to be remembered. A right of appeal was given where no right of appeal had been given before. I venture to say that it is right and logical that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the same power of ordering a new trial, but only in exceptional cases. I agree that you cannot define them, but you can trust the Court, as in civil cases you can trust the Court of Appeal, who are most reluctant to order new trials but do so when justice requires that it should be done. This right for very many years has certainly been longed for by the Judges who form the Court. I do not know what the views of my noble and lamented friend Lord Caldecote were, because I never sat with him in the Court. But I sat for many years—at least six years—on occasion with Lord Hewart, and I know that he took that view. I know that the Judge who, of all others, has had the greatest experience of the Court of Criminal Appeal—namely, Mr. Justice Humphreys—and who, for the last twenty-one years, has sat more often and has rendered greater assistance to that Court than any other Judge who has ever sat in that Court, has said, not once but many times, that it is essential for the due administration of justice that the Court should have this power.
  A point which was raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was, what was to be the position of the House of Lords? In that connection, I should think that it is in exactly the same position as it is in civil matters. The fact that the Court of Appeal order a new trial in a civil matter does not disable a further appeal to the House of Lords. I have never heard that a further appeal to the House of Lords has caused any difficulty or embarrassment to anybody, and I do not believe that it would in this case. May I take another point? It is said that this power will create a new principle: that a man who has been convicted should be tried again. There is a certain truth in that, but it is not a new principle that a man who is charged with an offence should be tried twice for that offence. It is what happens every year in many instances, because juries disagree and therefore the man has to stand the torture or hardship or ordeal—use any words you like—of a second trial.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: May I be forgiven for interrupting? The Lord Chief justice is misunderstanding me. I was not talking about the case in which the jury fail to agree. My proposition was that our law has laid down quite clearly the principle that once a man has been convicted he ought not to be exposed to a second trial, and that if he is exposed to a second trial he has a complete defence on the ground that he has been already convicted. With great respect, it has nothing to do with there being a disagreement.
  LORD GODDARD: With great respect to the noble and learned Viscount, I thought I said that I agreed that the question of a further trial where there has been a conviction would be a new departure. That I quite agree. But I would also point out that once the conviction has been set aside, he has not been convicted. That is the whole point; he has not been convicted because the conviction has been set aside. I thought, and I still think, that one strong point which was made here on behalf of the opponents of this clause, by my noble friend Lord du Parcq (whose speech I listened to with care and with admiration), was that it was a hardship on a man to stand trial again; and that, I understand, was what Lord Loreburn meant in the passage which was read out a few moments ago by the noble and learned Viscount. I took the trouble to communicate with the Central Criminal Court yesterday to find out how many cases of re-trials there have been recently, and Sir Wilfrid Nops, the Clerk to the Central Criminal Court, tells me that between June 1, 1946, and yesterday there were 22 cases in which people had to stand their trial a second time because the jury had disagreed, and in 37 more cases re-trials had to take place as the jury had to be discharged without giving a verdict because of some inadmissible evidence creeping in—probably some evidence to show that the man had been previously convicted. Then there are other cases, rare, I agree, but cases which I have known, which are in law called "cases of mis-trial," where a man has been convicted but for some reason or another, probably owing to a defective constitution of the court, he has not been in peril because technically there has not been a court to try him.
  198
  Perhaps I may give an example. Some years ago the learned Recorder of a town in East Anglia fixed his Quarter Sessions, and he was taken ill. Living close to the town was a gentleman whose name I will not mention (he is still alive), who occupied an important judicial position in regard to the Railway and Canal Commission. He was also Chairman of Quarter Sessions for one of the Northern counties. Not unnaturally, the Recorder turned to him and asked him to sit in his place. He did so, and a man was brought up, indicted, arraigned and convicted. Then the prisoner's solicitor, with an ingenuity almost worthy of a better cause, discovered that this gentleman was technically not qualified to sit—in fact he was a solicitor and not a barrister, and therefore the conviction had to be set aside and the man had to be re-tried. There again there was a re-trial; the man had been convicted in one sense, but of course he had not been convicted. I am urging this only to show—if it is to be said of such a re-trial that no man ought to be put upon his trial a second time, although the first conviction has been set aside—that it is a common feature of criminal courts to try a person a second time when he has already stood his trial, by reason of the fact that the jury have not come to a verdict, or because there is some defect in the constitution of the court, or something of that sort.
  I remember that in my early days at the Bar, in Wiltshire, I defended a woman charged with murder. The jury disagreed at the first trial, and she had to be tried again; and she was tried again in the sane town. The fact that the jury had disagreed at the first trial, at any rate, showed that some of those jurymen thought she was guilty. But that did not affect the jury in the second trial; she had a perfectly fair trial on the second occasion, and she was acquitted. About the same time there was the famous case in the East of England called the Peasenhall murder case, in which the jury disagreed not once but twice. The prisoner was not tried a third time because it was thought improper—as I am sure your Lordships will agree that it would have been—and the Attorney-General, in the exercise of his undoubted prerogative, ordered the prosecution to be withdrawn. So I beg of you, when considering this question, not to consider it merely from the point of view as to whether it is unfair

  199
  or a hardship on a man to have to stand his trial twice, because people have to stand trial twice now. My noble and learned friend Lord Simon says that it would be an innovation that a man who had been convicted should be tried again, but the moment the Court of Criminal Appeal have set aside the conviction there is no conviction; and the man certainly cannot plead autre fois convict because the conviction has gone.
  Then the point is made—and Lord du Parcq laid great emphasis on this in Committee—of the expense to which the man has been put: he may have mortgaged his house, he may have mortgaged his goods, to raise money for his defence. I think the short answer to that point is that in the vast majority of cases—I would say in certainly 90 per cent. of the defended cases at Assizes or Quarter Sessions—the prisoners are defended at the public expense, under the Poor Persons Defence Act. Those defences are given with a freedom which, years ago, they certainly were not. Now one finds every prisoner represented, even if he is pleading guilty, and one could wish that many of them felt more grateful or had a more proper appreciation than they have of the privilege given to them. Time and again, in the Court of Criminal Appeal, one finds prisoners, after they have pleaded guilty, and after having been represented by counsel, saying that they pleaded guilty only because their counsel told them to and asking whether they could have a new trial. In those cases the prisoner is defended without any expense to himself.
  In the Bill now before your Lordships there is a clause which has been accepted by the House—and it was in the Bill as it came to here—providing that where a person is acquitted, either in the court of trial or by the Court of Criminal Appeal, if he has provided his own expenses he can recover his expenses from the county, just as it is possible to recover the expenses of the prosecution. I do not know that we need feel any particular tenderness for a man who has been convicted, even if he has had to spend a lot of money. But if he is acquitted, although he may not have been defended under the Poor Persons Defence Act but by his own solicitor and counsel, there is a provision enabling the court to award him his costs.
  200
  So again I hope that that is not an objection which will really appeal to your Lordships
  There is one other matter that I think I ought to mention. As your Lordships know, there is still an unfortunate distinction in law between felonies and misdemeanours. Misdemeanours are sometimes very serious cases. Obtaining money by false pretences is a misdemeanour, although stealing a halfpenny is a felony. Obtaining £5,000 by false pretences or fraud is a misdemeanour; fraudulent conversion is a misdemeanour. Many other cases, including perjury, are misdemeanours. I have with me a work of authority which I will show to any noble Lord who is interested in the matter—namely Chitty's Criminal Law—which says that, at any rate from 1655, and probably before the Court of King's Bench always claimed the right to order a new trial in misdemeanour. It says:
  "A new trial may be granted by the superior Court for a variety of reasons, in order to further the purposes of justice."
  That is what we are asking now—to further the purposes of justice.
  LORD DU PARCQ: Might I ask which court would have that power now?
  LORD GODDARD: I said it was not a new principle in English law, and that the court had power is laid down by Chitty. I believe that the noble and learned Lord if he looks will also find it stated in Archbold that for misdemeanours a court could order a new trial.
  I referred a moment ago to Mr. Justice Humphreys who, in my view, is the Judge who has had the greatest experience of any judge in this Court since the Act came into force. I have a short extract from a judgment of his in which he asked for this power. Before I read the extract from the judgment, let me tell your Lordships what the case was, so that you may see the class of case in which it would be available. A roll of cloth was stolen in Manchester. Shortly afterwards a woman was seen walking through the streets with the roll under her arm. She was, therefore, in possession of property recently stolen. She was seen to deposit the roll in a certain place. She was identified as the person who had done it and she was arrested. The only explanation which she ever gave was: "I know nothing about it." She,

  201
  therefore, was in possession of property recently stolen and she gave no reasonable explanation. When she came before the Assistant Recorder at Manchester Quarter Sessions, an unfortunate state of affairs arose. Her counsel was not present There was, it seems, some mistake. It was thought that the case was not coming on until two o'clock. Now it was the only case before the court, and the jury were in the box. The Assistant Recorder said he could not put the case back. No explanation was then given as to why counsel was not there, nor was it stated if he was ever coming. The woman was tried. The Assistant Recorder did all he could for her, and tried to persuade her to give some explanation. She said she could not do it in the absence of her counsel. The jury convicted her. She appealed. When the appeal was heard, counsel appeared for her and told the Court of Criminal Appeal of the mistake which had occurred. He satisfied the Court that, at any rate, there was some point which he had desired to put before the jury. It was, therefore, clear that the woman had been convicted on legal evidence after a fair trial, but, of course, her own defence—if she had one, which really never appeared—was not put before the jury.
  Mr. Justice Humphreys presided at the hearing of the appeal and in the course of his judgment he said:
  "If this Court had the power which this Court time out of number stated that it ought to have, of ordering a new trial in the very, very few cases in which the court would consider a new trial was the appropriate remedy, there is no question that this case is one which is crying out for a new trial if we had power to order it. It is exactly what is wanted, a new trial when the defendant could be represented and justice could be done one way or the other, but we have no such power… I can only say, as a member of this Court, I think with the approval of my brothers"—
  I believe that the other two judges were Mr. Justice Oliver and Mr. Justice Birkett—
  "that we all hope that there will be such power given to this Court, and it will be difficult to imagine a case which more urgently calls for sue h power being entrusted to the Court than the present one."
  There is, of course, this point, and the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack has referred to it: that as the clause stands and, as I confess I should prefer it, there would be power given to the Court to re-try the whole indictment,
  202
  though the prisoner might have been acquitted on some counts, if the acquittal on those counts is inconsistent with the conviction on another count or counts—or, to put it in a better way, where the conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal. The classical example is the case of the two metropolitan police constables which was heard a short time ago. They were charged with conspiracy to rob, and with robbing A, B and C. For some reason they were convicted of conspiracy and acquitted of the robbery of A, B and C. The only evidence that those two men had conspired was evidence that they did rob A, B and C. That was the case for the prosecution. The Court of Criminal Appeal had to quash the conviction because it was inconsistent to acquit those, men on the facts of lie robberies, and yet, at the same time, say that they conspired to rob.
  If your Lordships think that in no case should a man be tried again upon a count upon which he has been acquitted, I would gladly give way on that point, rather than that your Lordships should refuse to give the Court of Criminal Appeal any power at any time to order a new trial. I do not want to detain your Lordships further except to say that in a civil case very often issues are raised which are quite as important to a man as those which can be raised in a criminal case. A man may have to bring an act on for defamation because he has been accused of shocking conduct and his whole future depends on his getting a verdict. A woman whose honour may have been attacked may have to defend herself by bringing an action for slander or libel in the courts. A man may find himself sued for fraud, with allegations which, if true, would render him unfit to carry on any business in the City of London and might imperil the whole of his fortune. Those people surely will have just as much and just as bitter anxiety as anyone who is put into the dock, the only difference being that, for the moment at any rate, they cannot be convicted, though if they lose the case it may be that the shadow of the criminal law looms over them. Yet if they win their case it is open to the other side to take it to the Court of Appeal.
  The Court of Appeal will no doubt be reluctant to put the parties to another trial, but the circumstances may be too strong for them, and the Court may say

  203
  that they must order a new trial. Why must they? They do it in order that justice may be done, that justice may prevail. That, surely, is what we all want to aim at. Whether we are in a criminal court or in a civil court, let justice be done. When we talk about justice being done in a criminal court I fear that many laymen get into their heads the idea that we are thinking only of the acquittal of the prisoner. That is not necessarily justice. There is an old saying: Judex damnatur ubi nocens absolvitur. I would prefer to put it in this case Lex damnatur—the law is to be condemned if it allows the acquittal of the guilty in this way. We ask for no more than that the Court of Criminal Appeal should have the same powers as the Court of Civil Appeal, and we ask it for the same reason—that we may do justice.
  5.28 p.m.
  LORD DU PARCQ: My Lords, every noble Lord has listened with attention to the speech which has just been delivered by my noble and learned friend Lord Goddard, and everyone must have been impressed by it. But there are some matters which I should like to dismiss at once. First of all, let me say that I wish to waste no words on the question which was much before us in the Committee stage—namely, whether it should be possible to re-try a count on which a man has been acquitted. The Lord Chief Justice says that he will not press for that, though he would like to have it. I believe—and I hope that I am right—that this House would reject by a very large majority any such suggestion, and I am not going to say any more about that matter. Others of your Lordships perhaps may. I am going to deal with the great question of whether the Court of Criminal Appeal ought to be given this power, and some of the things I would like to get out of the way are these.
  First, this is not a matter to be decided by a counting of heads of legal luminaries and saying: "So many Judges on one side, and so many Judges on the other." This is a case for lawyers, in the sense only that lawyers, whether at the Bar or on the Bench, get a good deal of experience and are brought into touch with the people who are most concerned—the people, sometimes innocent, who find themselves in the dock. Then something
  204
  was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about penology. This is not a question between lawyers and penologists. Penologists are not in the least interested in innocent people. They are interested as penologists only in people who have been convicted, and who are to be punished. I well remember that I was very pleased once, as a young man at the Bar, when after I had conducted an enthusiastic defence, a woman who had been charged with obtaining goods by false pretences, was acquitted. As I came out of the court I met a most excellent lady—she was not, I think, a probation officer in those days, but a court missionary. She was almost in tears. "I had all the arrangements made to look after this woman when she was convicted," she said. "I would have saved her. You have ruined everything by getting her off."
  We need not trouble about penology here. This has nothing to do with penology. And it has nothing to do with the technicalities of the law. I hope I can put this before your Lordships as quite a simple matter. This is no question of civil action. It is true that, occasionally, people are concerned in a civil action where their reputations are at stake. More often, however, money is at stake. In the great majority of cases the fight is a fight between two insurance companies. I am not talking about the small matters which occupy so much time, such as cases of accidents on the road, or actions brought to recover possession of a borne. In these fights everyone is pining for a new trial. What they want is either to obtain, or to avoid having to pay, large sums of money. Whoever would have thought that one would hear in either House of Parliament anybody say that we ought to judge our criminal law by the law which applies in civil actions. The two things are totally different. It is ignorance on my part, but though I know the maxim I do not know who is the author: Judex damnatur ubi nocens absolvitur—The judge is condemned when guilty men escape. That is not English law. If it were English law that, whenever a guilty man escaped his judge was condemned, very few judges (and my noble and learned friend would not be one of them) would escape condemnation. The whole point of the law is that you deliberately run the risk

  205
  of guilty men escaping in order that you may be absolutely certain that an innocent man will not be convicted.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord, but is that a Latin or other maxim?
  LORD DU PARCQ: I think it is common sense and English justice.
  A NOBLE LORD: And English law.
  LORD DU PARCQ: And it is English law. It will not make it any better if I translate it into Latin. If you wanted to make sure that guilty men are always convicted, you would have to start to reframe the whole of our law. You would have first to make it possible to cross-examine a prisoner, whether he is willing to give evidence or not, to get to the bottom of things, as is the case in many Continental countries. I am not criticising these countries; it is their way. But it is not our own. You would have to permit a man's criminal record, if he has one, to be placed before the court. You would have to permit many things which we in this country have always refused to permit. I leave it there. You cannot compare—you ought not to attempt to compare—civil actions and criminal trials. In civil actions there are two litigants who are anxious to get the better of each other. In a criminal trial, there is no such thing.
  If a young man at the Bar wants to be severely criticised and put in his place by his fellow barristers, let him come in, when he has been prosecuting in Assize and has obtained a conviction, and say, "I won my case to-day." Some of your Lordships know perfectly well that he cannot commit a more terrible solecism. You never talk about "winning" a case. You never try to win a case, in the sense of fighting an action. You are representing the Crown, and the Crown is not eager for conviction at whatever price. The Crown is there only to see that justice is done, but that it is done with every possible precaution and safeguard to prevent the possible conviction of the innocent, even though some guilty persons may escape. I am sure the noble and learned Lord said this banteringly, and I do not think that he was seeking to obtain any laugh by it, but I must confess I am always pained—I feel genuinely distressed, because of my own
  206
  experience—when I hear it said: "One never knows what a jury will do."
  I was a Recorder for three years, a Judge for six; and I was at the Bar for almost twenty-six years. I have, in one way or another, taken part in a good many criminal cases. I will say nothing about the cases when I was at the Bar, because I was not in a position to form an impartial estimate, but certainly as Recorder and judge, I have known only one or two cases—I think, actually, only one—where I have disagreed with the verdict of the jury in a criminal case. Nobody can be a Judge in this country, whether he goes north or south, west or east, without being tremendously impressed by the essential wisdom of the men on the jury. I do not care from what class you take them. I have seen humble persons on the jury; I have seen small farmers and farm labourers, small tradesmen, wealthy men, educated men, ill-educated men—all anxious to do justice, and almost always succeeding, it seemed to me, in doing it. I do not think it is such a difficult task to say how a jury's mind would be likely to be affected.
  But let us consider what is asked for here. First, it is a fundamental change. That has been stated by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I need not go further. It is a fundamental change, as the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, said. What shall we gain by it? I assume that the power to order a new trial on counts on which a man is acquitted now goes altogether. That is knocked out. What is left? We are told that the power will be used sparingly; that there would be very few cases. A fundamental change, therefore, for the sake of very few cases! What do you mean by "using it sparingly"? I speak with the greatest respect to all His Majesty's Judges—I have been one myself and I have known them well—but I am always a little afraid when there arises any question of importance to the Constitution and we are told, "This is a big change in itself, but do not worry, because it will be used very sparingly." That is not the way our forefathers preserved our liberties. My noble and learned friend, the Lord Chief Justice, can answer for himself. He cannot answer for his successors in twenty or thirty years time. Nor can arty of us. We are told fiat it

  207
  will be used sparingly, but then we are given instances of the kind of cases in which it would be used. I am bound to say that those instances frighten me. There was the case of the detectives, convicted on a count for conspiracy, acquitted on charges of doing the acts which it was alleged they conspired to do.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: That could not arise with the Amendment.
  LORD DU PARCQ: No, it could not arise with the Amendment. But my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice put that in the forefront of his argument in Committee as the sort of case where the court would like to be able to use the power. The Judge to whom he has referred so often was anxious that they should be able to use the power in such a case.
  Then there was the case of the summing up, and the wretched man who had set up an alibi. I know perfectly well that alibis are often fraudulent. I think perhaps it has been rather a disservice to some innocent people that Charles Dickens (who did much for the oppressed) wrote what he did about Mr. Weller's views on alibis. It has become a sort of stock joke, and a jury are apt to think, as soon as an alibi is mentioned, that there can be nothing in it. As I have sometimes pointed out to juries, we can all visualise cases where, if we were suddenly charged with an offence on a particular day, much the best way of being able to get off, and perhaps the only way of getting off, would be to prove an alibi. I am bound to say that I do not think a case in which a man puts forward an alibi and where the chairman, in an unfortunate blunder, says: "This alibi must be nonsense, because the billiards rooms were closed on Sunday," is a strong case for saying: "Well, how unfortunate it is that that man"—who had put forward a defence which may have been a good defence, and had it "torpedoed" by an entirely wrong argument—"cannot be tried again." It does not make me regret it a bit. I know nothing about the man. All I know is that I am bound to presume him innocent until he is proved guilty, and that he has not had a fair trial.
  It has been said that the man who is tried for a criminal offence is a lucky fellow nowadays, because eventually he is likely to get all his money provided. I
  208
  am not at all sure, if he is a person of moderate means, that he will not be very much out of pocket in the end. No man, even in civil actions, gets all his costs. He gets an order for some of them, but he does not get them all. Are the Court of Criminal Appeal to distinguish between a man who gets it all done for him, because he is poor, and the man who does not get all his money back, because he is wealthier? Are they going to say to the poor man: "You need not trouble; you will not need to pay anything out of your own pocket"? We are assuming that the man undergoes a trial. He has the terrible wrong inflicted on him—not purposely, but still inflicted on him—of some unfairness in the trial. And possibly, because of that unfairness, the Court of Criminal Appeal say: "You have been wrongly convicted." But he has suffered it. For anyone who is innocent to stand in a dock and hear the word "Guilty" pronounced must be one of the most terrible experiences to be imagined. He has gone through that; he has been done an injustice. We are told that the Court of Criminal Appeal ought to be able to say—in a very few cases, so that we are not talking about any great evil, if it is an evil—"You must go back and go through all this again, and perhaps next time you will be lucky." That does not appeal to me at all.
  Then it is said: "Why worry? There are new trials already." I would like to say a few words about that. I have not statistics, as my noble and learned friend has, but I can quote my own experience. First of all, every lawyer, and everybody who has anything to do with these things, detests new trials. I think everyone who has been at the Bar, or on the Bench, knows that a new trial is a great nuisance to everybody, and that in a new trial it is not easy to secure that justice is done. Obviously, the evidence is stale. The witnesses do not remember what took place. They have to be cross-examined: "Did you not say something else on the previous occasion?" Some witnesses may have left the country, and may be unavailable; and others may be dead. They are all necessary for a fair new trial. We have to pay for all things, and this is the price we pay, because we have what I believe to be (I will not argue it now) a thoroughly sound rule in this country, that there must be a unanimous

  209
  verdict. Having that rule, you must occasionally have a disagreement, and you must occasionally have a new trial. But the man who is tried a second time under such circumstances has never gone through the agony of having an unfair and unjust conviction, and of having to go to the Court of Criminal Appeal to have it set aside.
  I can give some slight statistics from my own experience—three years a Recorder, and six years a Judge. I think my memory is accurate when I say that in that time in criminal cases I had only one disagreement. That was at Dorset. I remember it well. The case had taken rather a long time, and it had to be retried, Lord Finlay, who was then a Judge, went down to Dorset and tried it again, and there was another disagreement. Then, of course, the case was not pursued. But that sort of occurrence is very unusual So far as I was concerned it was as unusual as the kind of case which was cited to us last as an example of a case crying out for a new trial—that of the woman whose counsel did not arrive. In 99 cases out of 100, I think the presiding Judge would have found some way of seeing that that woman was represented by counsel. Anybody who has experience of the courts will know that it is the rarest thing in the world for a court to proceed to try the case when the prisoner can honestly say: "I have briefed counsel, and for some reason he is not here." It is strange to me. I have no doubt that there was a perfectly good reason for it, but is so rare an occurrence that for us to legislate on an occurrence of that kind would be entirely wrong.
  I have taken too much of your Lordships' time, and I will say only one final word. All Courts of Appeal, my noble and learned friend said, have this power. I have dealt with our Court of Appeal already, but may I just for one moment consider other cases? What about Scotland? Parts of this Bill refer to Scotland. This clause does not. To be on the safe side, and to be sure that I was right, I asked my noble and learned friend Lord Normand, who has been Lord President of the Court of Session: "Have you any power to order a new trial in Scotland?" The answer was "No." Not a murmur has come from Scotland saying that they would like power to order a new trial.
  210
  On the contrary, I understand that they are shocked at the suggestion. I was going to quote the technical term in Scotland, but as my noble and learned friend Lord Macmillan is here, I am afraid to say it. But there is a phrase which means that a man has borne his trial——
  LORD MACMILLAN: Tholed his assize.
  LORD DU PARCQ: Tholed his Assize. Ask any Scot, if he knows, anything about it: "Do you have new trials in Scotland?" and he will tell you that a man has "Tholed his assize"—that he can never be tried again. In Northern Ireland there are no new trials. There I took advantage of the knowledge and learning of my noble and learned friend Lord MacDermott, who has been a Judge in Northern Ireland. They do not have new trials; but not a whisper of complaint has come from Northern Ireland. I do not know why it is. Is it that the Scottish Judges do not make mistakes, or that the Scottish juries do not make mistakes? They are perfectly content. Must vie in this country, where we have been proud to think that our system of criminal law—although it may sometimes allow a guilty person to escape—leads the world, now resign to Scotia ad and to Northern Ireland the task of holding to these old principles which have endured so well and worked so well for so long?
  6.0 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, as I have an Amendment down on this clause, perhaps your Lordships will allow me to say a few words. I assure you that I shall not be long. When I first saw this clause dealing with new trials, I thought that it made a fundamental alteration in our law, because it allowed the Court of Criminal Appeal to order a new trial in the case of a man who had been acquitted. That would have been a fundamental change in our law I put down an Amendment, and I am glad to see that a better one has been put down by the Lord Chancellor which exactly covers my point.
  What we have to consider now is the clause with the Lord Chancellor's Amendment added to it, because we hear from the noble and learned Lord, cord Goddard, that he does not propose to press his Amendment. Therefore, I should think there would be no division of feeling

  211
  in this House that the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor—and, of course, if that is accepted I shall not move mine—will be added to this clause. That will have the effect that no man who has been adjudged innocent on a count can be ordered to be retried on that count. That was the position about which I was concerned when we discussed this matter on the Committee stage. In regard to the rest, I do not see that we are making, in principle, any fundamental alteration. What happens in the case of a man who has been convicted, whether of a minor misdemeanour or, indeed, of an indictable offence before a court of summary jurisdiction? He appeals, and his appeal goes to the Appeal Committee in Quarter Sessions, or to the Recorder if he is convicted in a borough. That is a new trial, a new trial with all the evidence heard again. It happens on an indictable offence just as often as it does on a summary offence.
  LORD DU PARCQ: Not an offence that has been tried on indictment.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: One which has been tried summarily.
  LORD DU PARCQ: It is a little ambiguous.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: At any rate, the man has been tried on an offence which is an indictable offence, although he has been tried summarily. Why does he have this new trial before the Recorder or the Appeal Committee? He has it because he has asked for it, and nobody under this new clause could be sentenced to a new trial unless, in effect, it was adjudged that he asked for it. He has been convicted, and asks that something shall be done about his conviction. At the present moment, the Court of Criminal Appeal can only either uphold it or quash it. It is suggested now that, in appropriate cases, the court should also have the power to order a new trial. There are at the present time a number of cases where new trials have to be ordered. I heard of a case the other day where, very stupidly, a chairman of a court mentioned to the jury in his summing-up—when the whole of the evidence had been called on both sides—that the court was to disregard the accused person's previous conviction, about which nobody had said a word until
  212
  that moment. As a result, counsel for the prosecution rose immediately to his feet and asked that there should be a new trial before another jury. A new trial was granted. That was before the jury had given a verdict, and the man had not been convicted. All the difficulties about a new trial occurred. Why on earth we should be more tender-hearted about a man who has been convicted, rather than a man who has not yet been convicted, I cannot for the life of me understand. If that error had not been noticed by counsel for the prosecution at that moment, why, later on, should not exactly the same course have been taken by the Court of Criminal Appeal?
  I do not see that there is any really fundamental change proposed. I was horrified to think that we were to allow any court to have the power to order a man to be re-tried upon a count on which he had been acquitted. If the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor is not accepted, I shall vote against the clause, because that, to me, is absolutely fundamental. But if we exclude that kind of case, by adopting the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor, I can see no harm in this clause. As I would have supported it had my own Amendment been moved, so now I shall certainly support it if the Amendment of the Lord Chancellor is inserted. There is only one thing I would like to comment upon—because I think it is rather an occasion—and that is that the whole of the five speeches so far made on this Amendment have, oddly enough, been made by those who obtained their experience of the law on the Western Circuit.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I do not rise to take any part in this debate, because I have no qualifications for doing so. I rise merely to put a question which perhaps may be answered by some subsequent speaker. My question is this. It is the practice of the courts that, if a man on trial has a criminal record that record should not be made public until after the jury have decided upon their verdict. That is universally approved. If there is power to have a man re-tried after such a record has been made public on the first occasion, would that not be a departure from one of the main principles of our criminal jurisprudence? If it is wrong in the first case that his criminal record should be made public

  213
  before the jury come to their verdict, would it not be equally wrong that he should be liable to be tried by a jury who are already familiar, or might be familiar, with his criminal record because it had been made public at the first trial? It may be said that in such a case, for that very reason, the Court of Criminal Appeal would not order a re-trial. But that would mean that in two exactly similar cases, if a man had a criminal record and was a bad man he would not be liable to be re-tried, while if he had no criminal record he would be liable to re-trial, which would seem to be an undesirable inconsistency.
  6.9 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I should not have intervened in this great battle of lawyers, if it were not for the fact that for once in my life I find myself in some disagreement with my noble friend Lord Llewellin. I am against this Amendment for the reason that I am against the whole clause. So far as I am concerned, I feel it necessary to vote against the Amendment, or at any rate to abstain, and then to vote for the omission of the clause when it is moved later. I do so for two reasons, which I can put in almost two sentences. In the first place, I cannot see the justification for the inclusion in this Bill of this Clause. It was never in the original Bill. So far as I know, nobody ever mentioned it in another place. It has nothing to do with the main object of the Bill, which is the reform of our administrative methods for dealing with crime and delinquency. It has no more justification for being in this Bill than had Clause r, upon which we had a long discussion some weeks ago, and on which many noble Lords asked the question, "Why have you put this clause, which really has nothing to do with the object of the Bill, into the Bill?" On that account I think it is unfortunate that, since the debate in another place on the Second Reading, a clause of this kind has been inserted in this Bill. I say that, whatever may be the merits of it, if we are to make a change, let us make it in a separate Bill. Let us look into it from every angle.
  My only other observation is this. I am not sure whether the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, was called to the Bar or not——
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL: No.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: He and I are the only two members of your Lord -ships' House who have ventured into this debate who are not lawyers. As a layman, I ask myself: Is it worth making any change at all, when obviously there is no demand from the public for it? Nobody during these discussions has said a word in favour of it from this point of view, so far as I know. Nobody in SCOT-land seems to think it necessary; nobody in Northern Ireland stems to think it necessary. For these very short reasons, I think the wise course for your Lordships' House to take would be to omit the clause and not trouble about any minor Amendments.
  6.13 p.m.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: My Lords, I think it is as well, after so much Common Law has been resounding through the House, that your Lordships should hear a little of the quiet reasonableness of Equity. I am unable to understand—and I am sorry that I am unable—why this clause should not be inserted in the Bill. This is a Bill which relates to the administration of justice, and I cannot see why this power, which is an important feature in our system of justice, should not be put in here. However, that is for the House to decide. If the House do not like it, of course it can be removed.
  I am unable also to understand why the noble and learned Lord who addressed your Lordships against the clause is so indignant with it. I was very much impressed by something which was said when this Bill was first introduced. One would have thought from the way in which my noble friend Lord du Parcq addressed himself to this clause, that nothing of this sort had ever been known before. That is an utter and complete mistake. In moving the Amendment to the Bill, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor told us that it was the fact that in Australia, in Canada, and in New Zealand, the corresponding court has, and has had for many years, the power to order new trials. Those countries may be remote, but they are not small, unknown, uncivilised countries; and I cannot for the life of me see how it can be open to anyone to talk of this clause as if it were utterly unreasonable, with those facts staring them in the face.

  215
  And the matter does not stop there. After all, the United States of America is a very big and important country, with a large population and a tremendous idea of civilisation. The courts there have this power, and it does not shock people on the other side of the Atlantic that there should be power to direct a new trial if a case goes before the Court of Criminal Appeal.
  Speaking as a lawyer with, I am sorry to say, more experience than any other lawyer in your Lordships' House, I feel bound to say that I see nothing unreasonable in this clause and nothing unjust in it. If it is a matter of personal experience of Courts of Criminal Appeal, I would remind your Lordships that there is an extraordinary weight of authority in favour of the clause being inserted. Take the case of Mr. Justice Travers Humphreys. There has not been in our day any other Judge who has anything like the experience that that Judge has had; and I would add that nobody has ever had a higher reputation as a Judge of criminal cases, and nobody is better fitted to sit in the Court of Criminal Appeal than that learned Judge. We have had read to us, in strong and forcible language, the Court's view that this clause is badly needed in the administration of justice. I could say a number of other things, but I do not want to keep your Lordships. It is a complete mistake, however, to think that there should never be a new trial. Your Lordships have heard from the Lord Chief Justice about cases where there has to be a new trial because the jury disagree, but you may also bear in mind—
  VISCOUNT SIMON: With great respect, I do not think the noble and learned Viscount could have understood the proposition I ventured to advance, and which nobody will dispute. What I said was that if a prisoner has once been convicted of an offence by a competent court, there is no case in this country in which he can be put on trial a second time. That is all.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I am afraid I was not thinking of my noble and learned friend at all. I was thinking of another speech that had been made. But if he says that, and challenges me, I must say with great respect that I do not think he is accurate. Up to a comparatively recent time it was not at all uncommon to have
  216
  new trials in cases of misdemeanour—which, as we know, are just as serious, in many instances, as cases of felony. I venture to think that there are other errors in my noble friend's speech. Perhaps I may mention, for instance, the case where one member of the jury has been ill, or is unable at the time of the delivery of the verdict to give his verdict. In those cases there has to be a new trial.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: But there has been no conviction.
  LORD DU PARCQ: And there has been no trial.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: If my noble friend likes to chop logic in that manner—
  LORD DU PARCQ: Unless there is a summing up from the Judge and a verdict from the jury, of course there has not been a trial—only a partial trial.
  VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: It depends, if it is a case of a death. The man may die after or in the course of the summing up. But that is not a point which is very worthy of consideration. As an ordinary common-sense person I think that the man is tried if he goes into the dock, hears all the speeches made and sits there before the jury, and the jury are sworn. That is being tried in the ordinary sense and I shall continue to maintain that, even in the face of the disagreement of my noble and learned friend opposite. I do not want to take up your Lordships' time further on this topic. I venture to say that the notion that there is to be a re-trial is not a very serious one, because we constantly have re-trials in other cases. I would add that the notion that this is a new clause, open to all sorts of risks and chances, is one that will not stand, in face of the fact that some of the most eminent English-speaking countries in the whole world have had this clause for many years, without any of the risks with which we have been threatened.
  6.20 p.m.
  LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, in a few sentences I want to support the speech of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. My noble and learned friend Lord du Parcq said that this was not a question of counting legal heads. I quite agree with him. But I think that it is a question of counting legal experience. When the House hears that the Lord

  217
  Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Humphreys, who sit continuously in the Court of Criminal Appeal, as the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has said, say that they feel urgently the need of this power, I think that that is a matter which your Lordships' House ought to take most seriously into consideration. When I speak of the experience of the Judges, I should like to confess that, although I sat as a Judge of the King's Bench probably longer than anyone else in your Lordships' House, I have had little experience in the Court of Criminal Appeal, simply because I happened generally to be on circuit. Unless one is constantly a member of the Court of Criminal Appeal, one does not see the need for this provision. It is only experience in the Court of Criminal Appeal which, as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said, enables one properly to advise the House on a matter of this sort. Therefore, I feel that the view of the Lord Chief justice and of Mr. Justice Humphreys is entitled to the greatest weight.
  Then are only two other points upon which I wish to speak. I should like to reiterate the argument which was put forward by my noble friend Lord Llewellin. It seems to me an extraordinary thing that you should feel so tender-hearted towards a man who has been convicted as not to allow him to be re-tried, when you allow every man in whose case a jury have disagreed to be re-tried. It seems to me to be a complete confusion to put forward that argument. There is only one other point with which I wish to deal. That is a matter which was raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. It is perfectly true, as he said, that a man's convictions will be brought out after the verdict of the jury. It is conceivable that someone may have read them in the papers, although they are not as a rule reported in the papers, or that someone may have been in court and heard them. In such cases, the Court of Criminal Appeal, if they had the power, would order that such a trial should be held at some other Assize in some other part of the country where it was almost incredible that any member of the jury would have heard of the previous convictions of the person re-tried. For these reasons and the other reasons that have been given, I support the view of the Lord Chief Justice.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I do not propose to enter into a discussion where so many eminent legal luminaries have already expressed their views, but I want to explain the course that I propose to adopt, for it may be of some assistance to others if they find themselves in the position that I am in. After listening to an extremely weighty and interesting debate, I personally have come to the conclusion that I agree with the views which were expressed by the noble Lord, Lord du Parcq. I think that very powerful arguments can be put forward on the other side but, to my mind, the speech which the noble and learned Lord made represented what I regard as the general spirit of British justice as we have known it in the past, and with which I personally am completely satisfied. I therefore propose to vote for the omission of the clause. But others who are in the position that I am in may find themselves in a certain difficulty over the Lord Chancellor's Amendment. It may seem somewhat illogical to vote for an Amendment to clause which we are subsequently proposing to delete. But I have been thinking this matter over and I have come to the conclusion that, in spite of all that illogicality, I shall vote for the Lord Chancellor's Amendment, because that is in any case an improvement upon the existing wording of the clause. In the unhappy event of tie Lord Chancellor's Amendment being accepted and the deletion of the clause not being accepted by the House, we shall at any rate be rather better off thin we are at present. For that simple reason, that is the course which I propose to take. I thought that I world explain it to your Lordships because we are all in a situation this evening in which we may have to take action which may seem somewhat illogical.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Goddard, went so far as to drop his Amendment to my Amendment.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My noble friend, Lord Goddard, for reasons which he gave your Lordships' House has been obliged to leave at this time of the evening. He expressed his willingness to accept the Lord Chancellor's Amendment and not to move his own.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to
  VISCOUNT SIMON VISCOUNT SIMON moved to delete Clause 36. The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move to leave out Clause 36, as amended.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 36.—(Viscount Simon.)
  Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it might be to your Lordships' convenience if I were to inform your Lordships that I think the best thing we can do, in view of the fact that we have spent a good deal of time on this matter, is to sit on until half past seven, and to adjourn then until nine o'clock.
  6.39 p.m.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, after Clause 40, to insert the following new clause:
  Person convicted of personal violence to pay compensation.
  " . Where any person is convicted by a Court of summary jurisdiction or a Court of Quarter Sessions or Assize of an unprovoked assault or an offence in which personal violence was used without just cause upon any person whereby that person suffers personal injury or material loss such court may order the convicted person in addition to any other sentence or penalty imposed upon him to pay such compensation to the victim of such assault or violence as appears to the court to be appropriate having regard to the extent of the injury or loss suffered and of the means of the person convicted."
  On Question, Whether Clause 36, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 38; Not-Contents, 21.

  CONTENTS

  Jowitt, V. (L. Chancellor.)

  Braintree, L.

  Macmillan, L.

  Carrington, L.

  Morrison, L.

  De La Warr, E.

  Cherwell, L.

  Newall, L.

  Iddesleigh, E.

  Chorley, L.

  Oaksey, L.

  Lucan, E.

  Crook, L.

  Pakenham, L.

  Fairlie, E. (E. Glasgow.)

  Quibell, L.

  Elibank, V.

  Greville, L.

  Rochdale, L.

  Maugham, V.

  Hare, L. (E. Listowel.)

  Rockley, L.

  St. Davids, V. [Teller.]

  Hatherton, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Henderson, L.

  Schuster, L.

  Hutchison of Montrose, L.

  Shepherd, L. [Teller.]

  Ailwyn, L.

  Kershaw, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Ammon, L.

  Llewellin, L.

  Walkden, L.

  Amwell, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Salisbury, M.

  Swinton, V.

  du Parcq, L.

  Templewood, V.

  Gifford, L.

  Fortescue, E.

  Holden, L.

  Munster, E. [Teller.]

  Balfour of Burleigh, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Blackford, L.

  Rennell, L.

  Monsell, V.

  Broadbridge, L.

  Rochester, L.

  Samuel, V.

  Broughshane, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Simon, V. [Teller.]

  Darwen, L.

  Wolverton, L.

  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a clause that I move not only on my own behalf but also on behalf of the Magistrates' Association. They and I take the view that more should be done by way of compensation for the victim of a personal attack. We think that particularly now, when under this Bill we are considering a number of new methods for dealing with crime and delinquency, and when, for instance, we are making it less likely that young offenders should be imprisoned. Changes of that type make it all the more necessary to tighten up our other methods, provided that they fall in with the general principles of the Bill. We think that much more might be done in regard to compensation. At present I understand that the law on the matter is somewhat complicated. Restrictions are put upon sentences of compensation of this kind. We wish to make it easier for a court to insist, where an offender has the means of making a payment to his victim, that more extended compensation should be demanded from him than can be demanded at present. It is a simple issue.
  Obviously, compensation could not be got out of an offender who had no money. But we believe that amongst the many offenders who now crowd the courts, there are quite a number who could afford a great deal more compensation than it is at present possible to extract from them. That being so, I think that a clause of this kind would be a useful addition to the Bill. Courts will impose sentences of this kind only in suitable cases, but I think that this further extension of their powers is undoubtedly needed. The time may come, as I hope it will, when the whole question of earnings in prison will be reconsidered, and when prisoners will be able to earn more from their work in prisons. I should certainly regard it as very necessary, when that time comes, that out of their earnings, where it is possible, a suitable sum should be taken to compensate the victim of the crime. But that relates to the future. For the present, I move this clause as giving a further power to courts that I believe would be useful to complete the general provisions of the Bill. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 40, insert the said new clause.—(Viscount Templewood.)
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I have an Amendment down for consideration at a later stage and there is also one standing in the names of my noble friend Lord Schuster and myself. Both relate to this very point. I would rather deal with my own Amendment on its own merits, because it is quite independent. But I should like to support Lord Templewood's Amendment, which I think is a very proper one.
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I also would like to support the noble Viscount's Amendment. I think it would greatly improve the Bill. As the noble Viscount said,—and rightly, I think—there are certain people who come before the criminal courts who could pay compensation to those on whom they have inflicted personal violence. I should certainly like to see this Amendment made to the Bill.
  6.43 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, the Government cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Viscount said, in the course of his speech, that it was in accordance with the general principles of the Bill.
  222
  I am sure your Lord ships will agree that it is even more important that it should be in accordance with the law of the land; and that it is not. It is a general principle of our law that questions of compensation and damages to individuals fall within the province of the civil courts and are dealt with by those courts; not by the criminal courts. In every case of the kind which the noble Viscount is aiming at in this Amendment, right of action will lie in the civil courts, and I think your Lordships will agree that those are the proper places where such claims should be dealt with. There are, of course, two or three small instances in which a court which has tried a criminal case can award a limited sum by way of compensation. In a case, for example, of malicious damage, a court may award compensation to a person up to £20 That is to say, an individual convicted of committing malicious damage may be ordered to pay compensation within that sum. Again, in cases of assault, where the accused is put on probation, instead of punishing him in another way the court may make an order for him to pay a sum of money the limit of which, by a provision in Clause 11 (2) of this Bill, has been increased from the old limit, which was £25, to £100. But these are small and exceptional cases.
  The effect of the noble Viscount's Amendment would really be to make an alteration in the law—I am not quite sure how far it would go—which I think would be of a very unfortunate character. The noble Viscount envisages that a court which has been primarily concerned with dealing with a criminal case, a case in which the whole of the evidence has mainly been directed to the question of whether the prisoner is guilty or not, should then become involved in a problem which, as many of your Lordships know, may be an exceedingly difficult one—the problem of how much injury the victim of the crime has suffered. The consideration of that matter might well call for evidence of quite a different kind from that which has been given—the evidence for example of doctors. Such evidence has to be given on an entirely different basis and, normally speaking, it is dealt with by a Judge in completely different surroundings. Under the Amendment, a decision might well be given at a time when it was quite impossible to discover low much injure the victim had suffered. A criminal case ought to be

  223
  brought quickly, but a man who is injured as the result of assault may well be suffering from complications which will persist beyond the time of the trial, and that is a matter which, clearly, ought to be gone into and considered in a different atmosphere. This new clause, in effect, asks that a Judge who has been trying a case which, on the face of it, may be a heavy case, should, at the end of a long trial, during which his mind has been directed to different matters, proceed to access a sum by way of compensation. I think your Lordships will agree that that is not a responsibility which ought to be put upon him. It would be exceedingly difficult for him to deal with a problem of that kind at that stage in the trial.
  The noble Viscount's Amendment, moreover, introduces a number of new concepts, such as "unprovoked assault," which is a term quite unknown to the law, and it is not at all clear what alteration in the Common Law of the land is introduced by an Amendment of this kind. It seems to us to be quite misplaced. Any man injured in this way has a right to bring a claim and to get compensation in a proper action which is developed for that purpose, an action in which the evidence can be effectively and properly gone into and a sensible result arrived at in accordance with the ordinary methods of the law.
  LORD SALTOUN: Will the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? Do I understand him to say that a man who has been convicted of the crime of assault can also be sued by the victim for damages?
  LORD CHORLEY: Certainly he may, and very frequently such men are so sued. The noble Viscount's proposal is to give a sort of alternative remedy. It does not make it at all clear whether after compensation has been granted under this clause the injured man might not be able to bring proceedings in the civil court. Therefore I say it is unfortunate, and that this Amendment would cut across the general principles of English law. I hope that the noble Viscount, in view of what I have said, will feel that the Amendment is not appropriate and will not press it.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I can only speak again with the leave of
  224
  the House. I must make this comment upon the speech to which we have just listened, which is the kind of unsympathetic legalistic answer which gets nobody anywhere. I know perfectly well that you can go to a civil court, but a large number of magistrates tell me that that is totally inadequate. There are many of these cases in which young men, with a heap of notes in their pockets, may well be called upon summarily to make a payment. It is clear to me that the noble Lord does not realise the human side of this problem at all, and he has fallen back on the purely legalistic argument that neither convinces me nor seems to meet the broad issue of the proposition I have urged upon him. But if that is the mood of the noble Lord and the Government and the Home Office, I am not prepared to press the matter further. But I would say it is symptomatic of what I have noticed over and over again during these discussions, that there are a certain number of people who are anxious not to make experiments. I want to see quantities of experiments made in our penal methods. This might have been one of them, but the noble Lord has shown that he is unsympathetic to this attitude. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 41 [Order of Speeches]:
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (2), to insert at the commencement:
  "Notwithstanding anything in section two of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898,"
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. Under the Criminal Evidence Act of 1898 a prisoner was given an opportunity of being called as a witness. If he adopts that course, he must go into the box at once. In this Bill that is varied and his counsel may address the court before calling him as a witness. Obviously, there is a discrepancy between the two and it is necessary to insert these words to make it clear that, notwithstanding the earlier Act, this new procedure is to be effective. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 44, line 1, at beginning insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On question, Amendment agreed to.
  6.54 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 43 to insert the following new clause:
  "—. If any person has sustained physical injury through unprovoked assault or personal violence by any other person, in consequence of which the victim of such assault or violence has incurred some extraordinary expense or suffered some permanent disablement, he shall be entitled to obtain compensation in the like manner and by the like procedure as is laid down in the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the first Amendment standing in my name.
  I would like to say, first, that this Bill, which is going through Parliament with the assent of all, is in itself a very big experiment. To a great extent it diminishes the sanctions which are given to the courts in respect of crime. I know that it has been argued on the part of the Government that these decreased sanctions will not lead to an increase in crime, but that opinion seems to me to be at variance with the Motor Spirit Regulations, which impose very severe sanctions on persons who might conceivably be innocent, the idea being that the public at least will hold them guilty and that severe sanctions will lead to a diminution of crime. I do not think the Government can sit on the fence. They must come down on one side or the other. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has just criticised the use by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, of the word "unprovoked" in a clause of a Bill of this nature. I have relied on the Riot (Damages) Act to give me the procedure I want. The Riot (Damages) Act was enacted because it was held that the local police authority are responsible for preventing riots and for damage caused by riots. I submit to your Lordships that a local police authority are equally responsible for preventing crimes of assault, for preventing injury to the bodies of His Majesty's subjects.
  The Riot (Damages) Act says—I read only the words important to me, but I am not altering the sense:
  "Where…property…has been injured…or destroyed, by any persons riotously "——
  and I would remind your Lordships that three persons entering a shop together are regarded as committing a riot,
  "…compensation…shall be paid…to any person who has sustained loss…but in fixing the amount of such compensation regard shall be had to the conduct of the
  226
  said person, whether as respects the precautions taken by him…or as regards any provocation offered…"
  I submit to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, that this is a distinct support of the words "unprovoked" in the clause of the Statute and that the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was perfectly right in putting it in. And I am very glad that I also have included the word. I have had it suggested to me that you cannot have a civil action proceeding on a matter winch is a criminal matter. We have had the noble Lord's assurance that you can have a civil action for damages out of an assault that has been tried as a crime. But the Riot: (Damages) Act, in Clauses 3, 4 and 5, lays down a very simple procedure whereby such damage can be proved and assessed, I submit to your Lordships, therefore, that so far as that goes there is no lack in my Amendment of proper formality, and I have kept it in order.
  I have a further point: which I think is worth making. Most of us live in fortunate neighbourhoods. We do not live, as the noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, said in the districts of the revolver and the "cosh"; but assaults for robbery—and others, to my mind, of an even graver nature—are daily occurrences, and are increasing. I submit that my Amendment will assist the local police authorities. It will draw their attention to the fact that it is much more important to use the police for checking and punishing crimes of this nature than to arrest people for comparatively simple matters like driving across traffic lights. It appears to me that if matters develop much further in the direction in which they are going at the present moment, you might very well have associations of citizens uniting together defend themselves. I think that would be a proper thing. If citizens cannot obtain from the Government of their country the protection which is due to them, it will be forced upon them, but when such a thing does occur, it always occurs with grave danger to the ordinary people of the country. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 43, insert the said new clause.—(Lord saltoun.)
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, as my name stands in support of the next Amendment down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, perhaps it would save time if I were to say a word

  227
  now. The House will realise that there is this difference between the clause of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and that of my noble friend Lord Saltoun and myself, in that Lord Templewood's Amendment contemplates the recovery of compensation from the person who has done the damage, and Lord Saltoun's and my Amendment contemplates the recovery of compensation from the local authority. There is a further difference between Lord Saltoun's two Amendments—the one where he is alone, and that where I am with him—in that in the first he does not require a conviction as a condition precedent to the recovery, whereas in the Amendment in which I am supporting him the conviction is a condition precedent. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, whatever else he says, and however unkind he may be to us in regard to these Amendments, cannot say that they are intended to effect a revolution. They propose nothing but a development of what the Riot (Damages) Act has already laid down. That Act, of course, operates only when there is a riotous assembly. As my noble friend Lord Saltoun has already pointed out, three persons form a riotous assembly. There is no reason in logic why you should stop at three persons, two persons or any other particular number. If the goods or the person of His Majesty's subjects are put in peril, and the police authority are unable to protect them, it is no revolution to say that the police should pay, because it follows on the precedent of the Act. I do not think it is necessary for me to talk at length about this. I merely make the distinction, and suggest that, in logic, there is no answer to the proposal which my noble friend Lord Saltoun has made.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I regret to say that we cannot accept this Amendment, or the one which follows it. It is, of course, very much like the Amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, moved on the Committee stage. I confess that, personally, I have more sympathy with this than the other Amendment, because this is aimed at a case where probably there will not be any possibility of obtaining compensation from the actual perpetrator of the crime. I should say perhaps that the Amendment could not be accepted from the drafting point of
  228
  view. The noble Lord would probably say that this is a purely legalistic argument. Of course, it it. It would be quite impossible to determine what is meant by "some extraordinary expense," which is quite a new phrase, although no doubt it would be possible to get over that by adopting some other form of words. The difference between the present Amendment and the one which the noble Lord moved in Committee is that he now links the matter up with the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886. That is a very exceptional Act. It was passed, of course, in order to put on the police authority the obligation of making good damage which had been sustained in cases where they had failed to prevent persons from riotously and tumultuously assembling together, and where, as a result, indiscriminate damage to property was done. As a rule, in a riot of that kind, if it once gets going and the police do not stop it at the crucial moment, then a great deal of damage is done, and nobody quite knows who did it, because the crowd disperses and you are left with the damage.
  The sort of case at which the noble Lord's Amendment aims is not that case at all. It is the case where in nine cases out of ten the police could not possibly do anything to prevent the injury from taking place. It would cover the case of a row in the house over the breakfast table, where the husband loses his temper, hits his wife over the head with a teapot and causes her serious injury. The police obviously could do nothing to prevent that.
  LORD SALTOUN: I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Nobody could say that his wife was not provoking!
  LORD CHORLEY: Nobody could possibly say that that was a case in which the policeman would be able to get there in time to prevent it happening. So it would be with practically every one of the cases which the noble Lord's Amendment would cover. In other words, he is, in effect, asking that the community should provide compensation in cases where people are unfortunate enough to suffer injury. I myself cannot draw any distinction between the type of case covered by this Amendment, and the type of case where a man trips over the kerb, falls down and breaks his leg. In both cases it is most unfortunate, and it may

  229
  be that eventually the community will say that that is a kind of injury for which the community will provide compensation. It is impossible to see any distinction between the two types of case.
  LORD SALTOUN: The noble Lord will not mind my interrupting, because I am sure he wants to answer me completely. I should like to point out that where a person trips over, falls down and breaks his leg by reason of the fault of somebody else, he has the right of action against that somebody else. The community has taken over the defence of His Majesty's lieges, and if they are not defended the community is at fault.
  LORD CHORLEY: He has exactly the same action where he is knocked over by anybody, if it is the other person's fault. But the noble Lord is asking that anybody who sustains an untoward accident of life——
  LORD SALTOUN: It is not an accident.
  LORD CHORLEY: Of course it is. I am sure the noble Lord does not suggest that it is not an untoward accident of life. He suggests that wherever there is an untoward accident of life the community should compensate the man. It may be that eventually we shall reach that stage, but I suggest it would be quite wrong to lay it down in a small class of cases of this kind, and not carry it into the other affairs of life. Therefore I hope the noble Lord will see that it is quite a revolutionary proposal that he is putting forward, and that he will not press the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has instanced certain cases of difficulty. There are other cases of difficulty upon which I myself feel that some action is needed. I have particularly in mind the cases of young men who escape from Borstals and from open prisons, who break into people's houses, who steal perhaps quite a lot of things, and who place the neighbourhood in a state of terror, with constant robberies taking place. During the course of these debates it has been suggested that that ought to be met by making certain Borstals enclosed rather than open institutions.
  LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord is aware that there is an Amendment down
  230
  later to that effect in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Exactly I am not going to argue that question now. What I want to say is that I think that is the wrong way to deal with it. I think the whole basis of Borstal treatment is putting responsibility upon the offenders and taking the risk of their sometimes escaping. At the same time, that is no consolation to the people in the neighbourhood who get assaulted and have their goods stolen. In cases of that kind I think the State has a direct responsibility. It is the result of our policy, of what is called "open prisons" and "open Borstals." The State has a responsibility, and I understand there ate certain cases in which the State pays compensation.
  LORD CHORLEYIn practically all cases.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: Is that so? Can the noble Lord assure me OF that? The information which I have, from people living in the neighbourhood of these Borstal institutions, is that they have not received full compensation in all cases. If the noble Lord can tell me that in cases of this kind, where a prisoner escapes and commits an attack upon someone, or a theft, the State pays full compensation, then I am perfectly satisfied with the present position; but without that assurance I think something urgently needs to be done.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords I can only speak again with the leave of the House, but I thought I was saving time when I alluded to the second Amendment as well as to the first. The second Amendment may be open to all kinds of criticism, but it is not open, to the criticism which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, made. It lays down that the 'tight to compensation occurs only when there has been a conviction for robbery with violence, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, or any assault occasioning actual bodily harm—a conviction in each case. These stories about the wife and the teapot are really irrelevant. The Amendment is directed to what I tried to say before: that where a crime has been committed and, as a consequence of it, damage has been suffered by a victim, that victim should be compensated out of the local rates. I do

  231
  not want at the moment to argue the point about Borstal, because I shall be moving an Amendment later on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranworth and there is a good deal to be said about it on both sides. But I do want to protect my second Amendment from the criticisms which have been made upon it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, it may perhaps help if I say a word on this matter. I have ascertained that, so far as escaped prisoners are concerned, in all cases where the Prison Commissioners are satisfied that the claim is well founded, they meet it. But there have been no cases of personal injury. It is usually stealing clothes, or what you will, when the man gets out, which is generally his first step. My feeling about that is this. I confess that I have considerable sympathy with the point which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, put, but I have no sympathy with either of these Amendments, which are the relevant things, for the very reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, gave. After all, the principle of law is that the police are supposed to keep law and order and, therefore, if a riot breaks out, you have some claim against the police, because the hypothesis is that they have fallen down on their duty. It is reasonable enough, in those circumstances, to make a claim against the police. But what on earth is the justification for making a claim against the police for every single assault that takes place? How on earth can any police force in the world prevent it? As the noble Lord said, if it occurs in the privacy of the house, what has it to do with the police?
  I see no sense whatever in imposing upon the police the obligation to pay damages, for ultimately it falls upon the taxpayer. Suppose somebody without any money at all commits an assault. Why should the police pay, or why should the taxpayer pay? I see no justification for that at all. I can quite understand the point of the earlier Amendment of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that it might be desirable, as part of the punishment, to impose that compensation should be paid to the victim; but if the offender has no money, then you cannot impose it. Here is the noble Lord, Lord Schuster—and I always like to catch him out in these revolutionary proposals
  232
  which he puts forward from time to time—making the wholly revolutionary proposal which has, if I may say so with great respect to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, no logical basis at all. In the circumstances, whatever may be said about the naughty deeds of escaped prisoners, I am bound to tell your Lordships that we must reject both this Amendment and the next which the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, share. I am bound to say that I think they are quite illogical.
  LORD SALTOUN: I should like to say a word on the second Amendment, so with your Lordships' leave I will withdraw the first.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, after Clause 43, to insert the following new clause:
  ". Where any person has been convicted of any robbery with violence, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, or of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, the court by whom such person is convicted may order that the person so robbed, wounded or assaulted shall receive compensation in respect of any personal injury thereby caused to him, and the compensation shall be assessed, recovered and paid in the same manner as compensation under the Riot (Damages) Act, 1886, and that Act shall apply accordingly."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would like to say a word upon this Amendment. In the first place, I must say that I am astonished to learn that assault can be an accident. I am delighted, because if I should so far forget myself as to "sock" someone on the jaw, it never occurred to me that I could produce the defence that it was an accident.
  I would like to say, in regard to this Amendment, that it is perfectly true that the duty of the police is to keep law and order—that was the point made by the noble and learned Viscount. In this case there is a conviction for an offence which it was the duty of the police, so far as possible, to prevent. The point is that the Amendment is not directed against the police—it is against the local police authority. If the local police authority use their police force for detecting offences which, in the judgment of ordinary men and women, are not regarded as serious crimes, and thereby weaken the defence of the general public against crime; or if not having a large enough police force for

  233
  the purposes for which the police are required, they omit to strengthen that force or to take the proper measures for recruiting that force, then I submit that there is an obligation which they have failed to carry out. I humbly submit to a much greater master of logic than myself, the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, that there is a logical case there. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 43, insert the said new clause.— (Lord Saltoun.)
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I have already indicated that we cannot accept this Amendment, and I do not think your Lordships will expect me to add anything more to what I have already said.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not propose to press this Amendment, and I beg leave to withdraw it.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 45:
  Approved probation hostels and homes.
  (2) The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation, management and inspection of approved probation hostels and of approved probation homes; and such rules may in particular provide that no person shall be appointed to be in charge of an approved probation hostel or home unless the Secretary of State has consented to his appointment.
  VISCOUNT SAMUEL VISCOUNT SAMUEL moved to add to subsection (2):
  "Provided that the Rules shall not prohibit the making of such an appointment in case of emergency without the previous consent of the Secretary of State, but may in that case require notice of the appointment to be given immediately to the Secretary of State and enable him, if he thinks fit, to require the appointment to be terminated."
  The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I desire to move this Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Reading, although in a slightly different form from that which appears in the Marshalled List. This point was raised by me on behalf of my noble friend on the Committee stage. It deals with a small question of administration with regard to appointment of managers. I explained the point on the Committee stage, and I do not propose to detain your Lordships now, because I understand that this Amendment is accepted by the Government. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said very kindly on the Committee stage that the Government would
  234
  give the matter consideration. It has been discussed by the parties concerned, and an Amendment agreed in principle. That Amendment is now on the Order Paper. It has been suggested that some slight Amendment might be made with advantage, and at the suggestion of the Government I move the Amendment in the form in which it stands on the typewritten sheet.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 14, at end insert the said proviso.—(Viscount Samuel.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, on behalf of the Government I am quite prepared to accept this Amendment. I think the wording we have now makes it satisfactory.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 47:
  Remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions.
  47.—(1) The Secretary of State may provide remand centres detention centres and Borstal institutions for the detention of persons required to be detained therein under this or any other Act.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, in subsection (1) to omit all words after "provide" and insert:

  "(a) remand centres, that is to say places for the detention of persons not less than fourteen but under twenty-one years of age who are remanded or committed in custody for trial or sentence;

  (b) detention centres, that is to say places in which persons not less than fourteen but under twenty-one years of age who are ordered to be detained in such centres under this Act may be kept for short periods under discipline suitable to persons of their age and description; and

  (c) Borstal institutions, that is to say, places in which offenders not less than sixteen but under twenty-one years of age may be detained and given such training and instruction as will conduce to their reformation and the prevention of crime."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, during the Committee stage of the Bill a number of noble Lords pointed out that there was no definition of one or two of the expressions used in the Bill. I think the noble Lords, Lord Templewood and Lord Llewellin, were amongst them. My noble and learned friend on the Woolsack said we would see if anything could be done to repair those omissions. The two phrases in particular were "remand centres" and "detention centres" and

  235
  we have put the definitions which your Lordships see on the Order Paper. We thought it might be useful at the same time if a definition of "Borstal institutions" were given, so we have added a definition of them as well. The clause which I am asking your Lordships to accept will therefore include definitions of these three different types of penal institutions. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 31, leave out from ("provide") to end of line 34 and insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am very glad that the Government have acceded to our request to have some definition in the Bill of remand centres and detention centres. I confess that I think the definition of a remand centre is rather a feeble skeleton, compared with that given in the Amendment in my name at the bottom of page 5 of the Marshalled List. Be that as it may, we do not want to pursue this matter at any great length. But I would say, especially in regard to the detention centres, that I think it is all-important that those who have the duty from time to time of sending persons to these different places should be informed by a Home Office circular what kind of treatment will be given when the persons get there. It is fatal if the courts are not kept closely informed as to what kind of treatment will be given. Of course I realise that in the case of detention centres the whole scheme has not yet been worked out, but I hope that when the Prison Commissioners have to apply their minds to what kind of treatment it is intended to give at these places, all courts will be circularised on the matter.
  LORD CHORLEY: I am glad to give the noble Lord the assurance he asks for on that point.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Then we can be quite happy about this skeleton definition. I thank the Government for having met us in this way. I shall not move the Amendment standing in my name at the bottom of page 5.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential
  236
  upon the series of Amendments concerning attendance centres upon which the House came to a decision the other day. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 47, line 34, at end insert—
  ("(2) The Secretary of State may provide attendance centres, that is to say places at which offenders of not less than twelve but under twenty-one years of age may be required to attend, in pursuance of orders made under section (Attendance at an attendance centre) of this Act, on such occasions and at such times as will avoid interference so far as is practicable with their school hours or working hours, and be given under supervision appropriate occupation or instruction; and for the purpose aforesaid the Secretary of State may make arrangements with any local authority or police authority for the use of premises of that authority.")—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 51:
  Rules for the management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions.
  (3) Rules made under this section may provide for the training of particular classes of persons and their allocation for that purpose to any prison or other institution in which they may lawfully be detained.
  VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, this is a similar Amendment. It is intended to complete the provisions that will be necessary for the setting up of attendance centres, and is therefore consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 50, line 20, after ("centres") insert ("attendance centres").—(Viscount Templewood.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SALTOUN LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (3), after "persons" to insert
  "or for their earning by their labour support for their dependants."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, the whole object of this Bill is to make prisons more effective in reforming people who have gone wrong; and obviously the people who are most susceptible of reform in that way are those who are really decent people. One of the things that decent prisoners have told me affects them most when they first go to prison is the thought of what will happen to their wife and family. The answer, I know, is that the Assistance Board will

  237
  help. We learned in this debate on the last occasion of the very low earnings of prisoners. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, said the reason for that was the high overheads entailed by the maintenance of the prison. I submit that those high overheads are really a charge on the community for having criminals, and that the first and most important step you can take in the reclamation of the really decent prisoner is to give him a chance to earn money for his wife and family, and if possible to keep them off the Assistance Board. If you deprive a man of that chance when you put him in prison you will demoralise him. I submit that it should be within the power of the Prison Commissioners to make rules to take that into account and to be able to arrange that prisoners should be enabled at the earliest possible moment to take that step towards the rehabilitation of their character. I beg to move—
  Amendment moved—
  Page 50, line 28, after ("persons") insert ("or for their earning by their labour support for their dependants").—(Lord Saltoun.)
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I cannot deal with this Amendment between now and seven-thirty. I suggest that we now adjourn until nine o'clock.
  [The sitting was suspended at half past seven and resumed at nine o'clock.]
  LORD WOLVERTON: My Lords, I am sorry to take an opposite point of view to that of my noble friend Lord Saltoun on this matter. I agree with what has been said before, that prisons cost a good deal of money to keep up and that this is a matter of economics. If the prisoner—as we hope is the case—is able to earn some money and keep a little for himself in prison, and the rest is set against the cost of maintaining the prison, I cannot see where there is any difference from what is proposed here. In any case, the prisoner's wife would have to be kept by the Public Assistance Board and as the cost of maintenance in both cases would come out of State assistance, I cannot see any difference between what is proposed here and the present position. For those reasons, I do not agree with the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, since I have to take sides in this matter between the two noble Lords, I am
  238
  bound to say that I agree with the latter. I have expressed before, and I express again, my belief in the importance of work for prisoners. By "work," I mean useful and constructive work, not merely the rather degrading form of work of digging a hole and filling it up again. I think that we would all agree that you cannot differentiate between different classes of prisoners and give them different wages. Take two cases, where you have a man sentenced for a short time and a man sentenced for a long time. Consider the class of work which those two men will do. Yon may put the long-term man on to a form of work which requires a good deal of training, in the hope that in due course he will be able to acquit himself adequately; but, with the short-term man, that is impossible. By the time that he has begun to learn all about his work, he will be gone from prison. It would be unfair to have different rates of earnings for prisoners in that way. In short, you cannot apply outside standards to prison labour. That is the first difficulty I see.
  On the other hand, of course, by the form of these words
  "or for their earning by their labour support for their dependants"
  it is quite obvious that you cannot differentiate between the man who has a lot of dependants and the man who has very few. Therefore, I cannot accept this Amendment. But my refusal to accept this Amendment, as I have said before, does not mean that I am not in favour of prisoners having responsible work to do and earning some money for doing it. If you are going to compare outside labour with inside labour, however, and if you are going to deduct overheads and that sort of thing, the overheads are so heavy that the man who earns the largest sum of money will, in fact, receive nothing at all. Therefore, this seems to me to be quite an impracticable proposition. However, I appreciate what the noble Lord has in mind. He wants to stress the importance of prisoners having work to do in which they can take a pride and which will help them when they come out to earn their living. If the noble Lord does not mean that—if I may so with the greatest respect—he ought to mean that. In so far as he either does or ought to mean that, I am on his side altogether; but, if he means anything else than that,

  239
  it is quite impracticable. The rates for various classes of labour must obviously alter; and they do. He will know that outside the prison one class of work is more highly remunerative than another. It would never do to introduce that sort of situation in prisons, and for prisoners employed to earn quite differing rates of pay. I cannot accept this Amendment, though in rejecting it I want to assure the noble Lord that I am on his side on the question of prisoners doing work, and responsible work at that.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, if I may say one word in withdrawing this Amendment—because I do not want to press it—I do mean more than the noble and learned Viscount has mentioned. Although I mean what he has mentioned, I mean more in this way—and if I am wrong perhaps he will tell me afterwards. The first preoccupation of a decent man when he gets into prison is as to what is to happen to the wife and children he has been forced to abandon. If the answer is: "You are a prisoner; that is nothing to you. There is Public Assistance for them," you are pushing that man down hill. If he has any sort of work, whatever be the pay, as long as it is something that is materially helpful to him (say two or three pounds a week, or whatever it may be that he can by diligence earn for them) then you have that moral factor in his life to help him forward instead of pushing him down the hill. When he first gets into prison you are helping to keep him up. I mean that, just as much as I appreciate the helpful effect on the moral system of steady work in prison. The real thought of most men is as to their family. With regard to what my noble friend Lord Wolverton said, I think his observations are all on my side. Why not give these men a moral peastick? I do not wish to press my Amendment, but I have ventured those remarks because I know that my noble and learned friend is just as interested in this matter as I am, and I do not think he will tell me, when I go outside, that I am wrong.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 58 [Transfers from prison to Borstal institutions and vice versa]:
  9.8 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there are three Amendments to Clause 58 which
  240
  all go together. The first two are merely preparatory drafting Amendments to the third, which is in itself really in the nature of a drafting Amendment. It seeks to deal with the position which might arise where a Judge or Chairman could not be consulted by reason of the fact that perhaps he had gone abroad, or was ill, or something of that sort. Therefore, we insert the words "where practicable," which I am sure your Lordships will think are necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 1, at beginning insert ("if")—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I think it was a great improvement to have this clause inserted, and so long as the words "where practicable" mean only "where they are available" (which is more or less what the noble Lord has said), that is perfectly all right. I quite see why those new words should be put in. It is important that in all cases where it is at all practicable the Judge or Chairman should be consulted.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line 1, leave out ("may if he"). (Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 54, line .4, leave out ("and after consultation") and insert ("he may, after consultation where practicable").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Interpretation]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 24, at end insert—
  "'Detention centre' has the meaning assigned to it by section forty-seven of this Act."—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is in the nature of a drafting Amendment. The Lord Chief Justice, during the Committee stage, raised the question of the meaning of this term, so we thought it might be useful to put these words in by way of definition. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 68, line 42, at end insert—
  "'Offence the sentence for which is fixed by law' means an offence for which the court is required to sentence the offender to death or imprisonment for life or to detention during His Majesty's pleasure."—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 69, line 7, at end insert—
  "'Remand centre' has the meaning assigned to it by section forty-seven of this Act."—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  First Schedule [Discharge and Amendment of Probation. Orders):
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 73, line 28, leave out ("appears to the court to be") and insert ("is").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Second Schedule:
  Borstal Training.
  1. A person sentenced to Borstal training shall be detained in a Borstal institution for such period, not extending beyond three years after the date of his sentence, as the Prison Commissioners may determine, and shall then be released:
  Provided that the Prison Commissioners shall not release any such person from a Borstal institution before the expiration of twelve months from the date of his sentence unless required to do so by directions of the Secretary of State under this Schedule.
  9.13 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in the proviso to paragraph 1, to substitute "nine" for "twelve" The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some slight controversy about a similar Amendment to this during the Committee stage, when I moved that we should maintain the six months and not increase to twelve months the minimum time at which a boy at Borstal could be released without the Secretary of State, under the special provision, having to go into the matter. As the noble Lord who replied to me on that occasion did so in terms which I did not entirely appreciate, I put down a question to the Home Office, because the figures which I gave during Committee stage and
  242
  which Lord Chorley said were inaccurate were figures I had obtained from the Borstal Assocation, who, after all, know more about what happens to Borstal boys than most other organisations in this country and they supported my case. Having put that question down and received an answer, I am now proposing that we should substitute nine months for twelve months. Frankly, the period between six months and nine months does not matter very much, but the period from nine months to twelve months does. A very large number of people are automatically released during that time. There may be people who are released after the six months.
  I know of one case which occurred at an institution at which my brother was governor. A boy was sent to Borstal for a term of three years because he had told the police that he had been robbed, when in fact he had not been robbed at all. He certainly led the police up the garden, and under the somewhat new offence that was created (or was it merely that an old one was revived?), the offence of committing a public mischief, he was sent to Borstal for a period of three years. That boy ought never to have been sent to Borstal at all, and at the earliest possible moment my brother recommended that he should be released. The visiting committee agreed, the Home Office agreed, and out he went. If that kind of case could easily be dealt with by the Secretary of State, obviously it would be. For the vast majority of cases which are released between nine and twelve months, however (and from the answer the noble Lord gave me, they amount to quite an appreciable number) the extra term is all important. We ought not to flood the Secretary of State's desk with some 500 to 600 applications. I understand that the Home Office do not want to keep any of these boys in Borstal longer than the time it takes to make them good citizens, and in the confidence that this Amendment will be accepted, I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 74, line 12, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("nine").—(Lord Llewellin.)
  THE LORD CIIANCELLOR: My Lords, on the last occasion the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, got rather at cross purposes, and, knowing both as I do, I feel sure

  243
  there must have been some misapprehension about the matter. I think there will be no misapprehension between the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, and myself now. I think he will say that my answer is wholly admirable. My answer is as follows: I will accept this Amendment.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, may I say before the question is put, that when we checked afterwards the figures which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, gave last time, we found they were correct—they related to the Borstal at Usk.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord and thank him very much for what he has just said.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, after paragraph 4 to insert:
  "5. If any person while detained in a Borstal institution shall escape therefrom and while so escaped shall commit a crime for which he is convicted at Quarter Sessions or Assizes, he shall be detained in a Borstal institution constructed and regulated with a view to the prevention of persons escaping therefrom."
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Cranworth, I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in his name. If this is one of the revolutionary Amendments which the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor accuses me of moving, I must put its revolutionary character down to my noble friend. But I must say that I heartily agree with the principle embodied in it.
  I do not know that the facts require much elaboration. My noble friend, Lord Cranworth, would have spoken about Hollesley Bay. I will speak for the most part about Portland. It is notorious as regards both these institutions that the inmates do break out. There is nothing to stop them breaking out and, having broken out, they commit all kinds, of offences against the inoffensive population round the places where the institutions are. To that the reply is given that it is necessary for the reformation of these people that they should have an opportunity of breaking out. Knowing our own infirmities, I know quite well that we find the prodigal son and the sinner who is supposed to have repented more congenial than the ninety-and-nine just persons who need no forgiveness; but my
  244
  sympathies are the other way. They are entirely with the small shopkeepers in Portland and Weymouth whose premises are continually broken into and who live under—in the language of hyperbole, which is the language used to me—a reign of terror. I know that to enlightened and romantic souls like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, this sort of argument does not appeal; but to the plain common man who keeps a shop in Portland, it is a very serious matter.
  It is said also that that state of affairs is amply dealt with by compensation. But compensation is no kind of recompense to the person who suffers in this way. In the first place, it is extremely difficult to assess compensation. In the second place, unless it is assessed on principles quite different from those which apply to most compensation, it will not amount to an indemnity. Apart from all that, is it not preposterous that His Majesty's Government should collect, in a thickly populated area such as Portland, or in an area such as Hollesley Bay, large groups of young men, criminals who are accustomed to committing petty crimes, and leave them there to get out whenever they like and commit more crimes, petty or otherwise? This is not an academic question. Not a Quarter Sessions that I can remember has passed at Dorchester at which some of these boys, at least, have not been charged—and, on some occasions, charged after having twice escaped. Furthermore, it appears to be the habit of the Prison Commissioners, when Borstal boys have broken out and committed these crimes, and have been tried and sentenced to imprisonment, to send them back to Borstal. It is rather late, and I believe that the House is fully seized of the question. Revolutionary as I may be, I venture to press this Amendment so far as I possibly can. I shall not be satisfied—and I think I can say this also for my noble friend Lord Cranworth—until something more appropriate to the situation is obtained than a promise that compensation will be assessed by the Governor of Portland, or the Governor of Hollesley Bay, as some recompense to the people who suffer in this way. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 75, line 9, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Schuster.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I would like to say a word or two on this Amendment. I am one of the great believers in the open Borstal. I believe that for the young man sentenced for the first time to Borstal training the open Borstal is the right form of cure. But when that form of cure has failed, I believe you have to take further steps. In the case of a boy who has broken out of the reformatory school, who has gone to Borstal and broken out from there, and broken into a number of houses, and then gets sent back, further steps should be taken. I am not sure, however, that this is a provision that we should insert in this Bill. I think that by administrative action the Home Office should have one of these Borstals (we now have a number of them; I have been to about eight or nine myself, but I forget how many there are altogether) in which, although they have a considerable amount of freedom inside the bounds of the Borstal, they will not have the opportunities of escaping.
  I know only too well, as does the noble Lord who moved the Amendment, that in the Assize Court and Quarter Sessions—certainly at the Court of Quarter Sessions, at which the noble Lord and I both sit—there are nearly always three or four cases of boys who have broken out of the Borstal institution at Portland, and who have broken into three, four or five places and taken goods or money. It is almost getting to the stage where the people of that very stalwart island (I know they are stalwart people, because I commanded their Territorial battery for some sixteen years) will take the law into their own hands. That is the kind of thing one does not want to happen. These boys break out from the Portland institution; and they do it equally from Hollesley Bay, where they do not get the best type of boys. I am not talking about the Usk or Hewell Grange boys, who ought in every case to be kept in an open Borstal. It is for the fellows who have proved themselves not capable of staying in these open Borstals that I believe the Home Office will soon have to engineer a Borstal where, althought the inmates can have the full amount of training, they cannot have that full freedom of being completely outside prison walls.
  I am not sure that this is an appropriate provision to put into the Bill, but
  246
  I am quite certain that, from the point of view of keeping the people of the country as a whole in favour of Borstal treatment—which I hope they always will be—we should try to restrict as much as possible the number of these outbreaks which take place. Where a boy has shown himself to be an escaper and a boy who breaks into houses, I think we should have Borstals to which he could be sent—places in which the good training could go on but where he would not have an opportunity of breaking out and breaking into people's houses, thus causing discontent with the whole basis of the Borstal training system. Although this is perhaps not the right place for these words, I think that by administrative action the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners will soon have to take a similar step to that envisaged in this Amendment.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I would like to support this Amendment. I would put the case of one of these shopkeepers who, in a fit of pardonable exasperation, might knock one of these lads on the head. If he did, he would be arrested and he would come under all the laudable provisions of this Bill. Every precaution would be taken that he would be treated fairly, and that no improper advantage would be taken of him because he was accused of a crime and because he came under the criminal law. But the shopkeeper may well say: "Before this I was paying rates for the police; I was paying for my protection, and I did not get it." Do you not think it is more important to treat one who is a law-abiding peaceful citizen with fairness than one who quite obviously is not? I have much pleasure in supporting my noble friend's Amendment.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment. The noble Lord who moved it made—among a number of statements with which I did not agree—two, at least, which I can accept wholeheartedly. One was that it was getting late, and another was that it is a great hardship to householders and shopkeepers in the neighbourhood of these Borstal institutions where this sort of thing happens. I must say that I thought it a little unfair to say that this sort of consideration did not appeal to a romantic sort of person.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I did not mean that.
  LORD CHORLEY: I did not think the noble Lord meant it altogether seriously, but there is a bit of sting in that, and I am sure your Lordships will sympathise with me in rebutting it a little.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I withdraw the statement.
  LORD CHORLEY: This is an argument substantially against the Borstal system, because it is a proposal to establish what is in effect a prison for these lads. As the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, pointed out, the openness of the Borstal system is essential to it. My information is that the great majority of these lads who go off in this way, go off in the early stages, while they are still restless and have not begun to feel the good effects of this training. The great majority of them, after they have been returned to Borstal, settle down reasonably well, and the number of second cases is not as substantial as the noble Lord, Lord Schuster, suggested. I think the noble Lord rather over-painted the picture, suggesting that on these occasions the great majority of the lads go off in this way, and that they do it not only once, but twice and thrice. My information is that it is not really quite so bad as that, although we certainly would not minimise the fact that it is a serious thing.
  I do not want to go over the ground again, because this Amendment, as your Lordships appreciate, is substantially the same as that which the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, moved on the previous occasion. I mentioned then that lads who do give this trouble are put into a special wing at Wands-worth, where, as a matter of punishment, they are kept under rigid conditions for some time, before they go back to training—because Borstal is essentially a training system. On the whole, the effect has been found to be good. If we were to adopt this Amendment, I think your Lordships would agree that the great value would go out of the Borstal training, which is a disciplined training. As the noble Lord, Lord Cranworth, pointed out on the Committee stage, a large number of these lads have made good. Many of them received commissions in the Army in the last war, and made a valuable
  248
  contribution to the war effort, which they probably would not have done had they been sent to prison.
  I hope your Lordships will agree that the Government are right in resisting this Amendment—although there is a great deal in what the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin said. I shall have great pleasure in putting his suggestion before my right honourable friend, who will no doubt give it full consideration.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I am, I think, entitled to speak again——
  LORD CHORLEY: I do not think you are.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, on a point of order, surely the noble Lord is entitled to reply.
  LORD SCHUSTER: I hope I may still call the noble Lord who sits on the Benches opposite my noble friend in spite of the chasm that divides us, for our friendship is a long-standing one. I did not think, when I said he was of a romantic disposition, that I was planting a deep sting; but if so, I withdraw the sting.
  LORD CHORLEY: It was his suggestion that I had no sympathy with the unfortunate householders and shopkeepers that I did not like.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My noble friend's sympathies are with the boys in Borstal; mine are with the shopkeepers in Portland. I did not suggest that he does not sympathise with the shopkeepers—and I am prepared to sympathise with the Borstal boys. But I do not think that the noble Lord actually met the weight of the complaint. I have never suggested, by the way, that the majority of Borstal boys break out. I do not know how many break out; all I know is that when I was sitting at Dorchester at the last Sessions but one, we had before us eight boys, I think, who had broken out; and of these certainly some, I think the majority, had broken out more than once. Those are facts, and not mere statistics. It is surely curious if it were just an exception. But in fact it is not an exception. I therefore still think that to collect boys of this kind and put them down there so that they can wander out, and when they wander out send them back to wander out again, is not a proper method of administration. I should, if it were

  249
  possible, press this Amendment. It is not my fault that it is late. But I shall not divide the House, nor perhaps would there be any great point in my doing so. I do not want the noble Lord to think that this is an Amendment to which we do not attach great importance and to which people outside this House also do not attach great importance. In all the circumstances, however, seeing that the hour is now so late, I am bound, with your Lordships' permission, to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Fifth Schedule [Administrative Provisions as to Probation]:
  9.36 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there are two Amendments here which go together. They are concerned with the arrangements for superannuation allowances and gratuities to probation officers which were, until last year, dealt with by the Criminal justice Act, 1925. Last year Parliament passed a special Act, the Probation Officers (Superannuation) Act, which takes up these provisions, so that the provisions in the earlier Act are no longer necessary. This is an Amendment to repeal them. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 80, line 31, leave out from ("Schedule") to ("and") in line 35.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: I have already dealt with this Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 81, line 11, leave out from ("under") to ("an") in line 13.—(Lord Chaney.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Ninth Schedule [Consequential and Minor Amendments]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, there are two Amendments here which go together. For the most part, they are consequential upon an Amendment which was moved to Clause 13 and was explained then by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I do not think that I need go over that again. However, I point out also that this proposed Amendment does bring in the Central Criminal Court, which was already included in the Ninth Schedule, but the Amendment there was not correctly drafted. That has been put
  250
  right in this rather long Amendment, which takes up two points. Therefore, it is really consequential upon the earlier Amendment, and is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 22, leave out from ("thirty-two") to end of line 25 and insert ("for the words from the beginning to 'recognizances as aforesaid' there shall be substituted the words' within fourteen days after any fines, issues, amerciaments, penalties or recognizances are set, lost, imposed or forfeited by or before a court of assize, the clerk of assize or the clerk of the Central Criminal Court, as the case may be, shall'")—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: Could the noble Lord tell me the difference between a fine and an amerciament?
  LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid I shall have to take advice on that question.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this Amendment is on the same point. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 88, line 26, leave out from ("words") to end of line 35 and insert ("'and clerk of the Crown respectively' there shall be substituted the words 'or clerk of the Central Criminal Court.'
  In section thirty-eight, for the words 'which if this Act had not been passed would have been certified or estreated into the Exchequer' there shall be substituted the words 'sea lost, imposed or forfeited by or before a court of assize.'; and for the words clerk of the Crown,' in both places where these words occur, there should be substituted the words 'clerk of the Central Criminal Court'").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to insert in the Acts to be amended:

  "The Prison Act, 1877. 40 & 41 Vict. C. 21.

  In section eleven, the words 'and as to the commercial value of the labour on' shall cease to have effect."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a proposal to take away an obligation, which has been put upon the Prison Commissioners since as long ago as 1877 in the Prison Act of that year, to state the various manufacturing processes carried on in each of the prison within their jurisdiction and, among other information, to provide a statement as to the commercial value of the labour expended on these manufactures. For, quite a long time now, it has been realised that this is a completely artificial and impossible piece of
  +
  251
  information to provide on any sort of realistic basis which would be of use to anybody. The Salmond Commission which sat on problems of this sort before the war reported that it was only a question of making a guess at it, and that whatever basis one took in order to try and get at some sort of figure it would not amount to more than a guess. During the war this computation was given up, and it is felt now to be altogether a waste of time to continue this obligation when clerks are not easy to obtain and when nobody should be put on work which is quite useless. The object of this Amendment, therefore, is to remove it. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 89, line 6, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Chorley.)
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, I am quite certain that all of your Lordships would wish to remove any source of further embarrassment between the present Government and the trade union movement, and I gather that this will help towards that end.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, the noble Lord will realise that, though the results of the present system have been rather complained of by me, this is a step backwards, because what I was anxious to get for prisoners was something adequate for the labour they could actually perform.
  On Question Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is really a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 96, line 8, column 2, leave out lines 8 to 10.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, to include in the list of Acts to be amended:

  ("11 Will. 3. c.

  An Act to Punish Governors of Plantations in this Kingdom for Crimes by them committed in the Plantations.

  The words 'in his Majesties Court of Kings Bench' and the words from 'or before such commissioners' to 'same county'

  42 Geo. 3. C. 85.

  The Criminal Jurisdiction Act, 1802.

  In section one, the words 'in his Majesty's Court of King's Bench'; the words from 'found, in which information' to 'Middlesex'; and the words 'at the discretion of his Majesty's Court of King's Bench'") —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  "The Dogs Amendment Act, 1938. 1 & 2 Geo. 6. C. 21.

  In section one, in subsection (2) after the word 'after' there shall be inserted the words 'the expiration of fourteen days from the date of the order, or, if within that period the appellant has given notice of appeal, until after' and the words from 'or until the appeal can no longer be prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, as the case may be' shall cease to have effect."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is substantially a drafting Amendment, but perhaps I ought to say a word about it. Shortly before the war, in 1938, there was passed the Dogs Amendment Act, which was intended to protect a dog which was found by a Bench of magistrates to be vicious against its immediate destruction and to give the owner the right of appeal to Quarter Sessions. This is a right which is quite frequently used, as many of your Lordships will know, and its purpose is to prevent the dog being destroyed in the interval between the decision of the court of summary jurisdiction and the court of Quarter Sessions. Under Clause 34 of this Bill, discretion is given to Quarter Sessions to extend the time for appealing against such a conviction and the result is that the phrase which obtains in the original Act, "until the appeal can no longer be prosecuted," would now connote an indefinite period. The object of the Amendment is to restore the position as under the 1938 Act. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 97, line 12, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Tenth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 7, at beginning insert—
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this also is consequential. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 99, line 23, at end insert—

  ("11 Geo. 4 and 1 Will. 4. c. 70.

  The Law Terms Act, 1830.

  Section thirty-three.

  3 & 4 Will. 4. c. 99

  The Fines Act, 1833.

  Section twenty-nine.")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 39, line 51, at end insert—

  ("19 & 20 Vict. c. 54.

  The Grand Juries Act, 1856.

  The whole Act")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 36, column 3, at beginning insert—
  ("In section five, the words 'or to pay' to the end of the section").—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, this Amendment is purely consequential. I beg to move.

  ("35 & 36 Vict. C. 52.

  The Middlesex Grand Juries Act, 1872.

  The whole Act")

  —(Lord Chorely.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 101, line 7, column 2, at end insert ("In section eleven, the words and as to

  ("1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 28.

  The Official Secrets Act, 1911.

  In section ten, in subsection (2) the words 'in the High Court' and the words 'or the Central Criminal Court'")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD SCHUSTER: My Lords, both these Amendments are purely consequential on the Amendment to Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendments moved—
  Page 102, leave out from beginning of line 6 to end of line 8.
  Page 102, leave out from beginning of line 35 to end of line 38.—(Lord Schuster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, leave out lines 47 and 48.—(Lord Schuster.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this, is one of a group of Amendments which are concerned with the abolition of the Grand jury. There are about five of them. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 100, line 58, at end insert—
  the commercial value of the labour on'";.—).—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendments agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is one of the Grand Jury Amendments. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page no 102, line 5, at end insert—
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 3, column 3, leave out lines 3 to 7 and insert "Sections one to ten".—(Lord Chorley.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this again is drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 103, line 55, at end insert—

  ("23 & 24 Geo. 5. c.36.

  The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1933.

  In section one, in subsection (1) the words 'Subject to the provisions of this section'; and subsection (4).

  In the Second Schedule, in paragraph 4, the words 'in the case of any bill of indictment preferred under this Act'.")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is another of the Amendments relating to abolition of the Grand Jury. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 22, at end insert—

  ("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 63.

  The Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1938.

  In section eleven, in subsection (1) the words from 'and (b) any indictment' to the end of the subsection; and in subsection (2) the words from 'and with respect' to the end of the subsection")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, this is yet another drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 104, line 33, at end insert—

  ("1 & 2 Geo. 6. c. 21.

  The Dogs Amendment Act, 1938.

  In section one, the words 'or until the appeal can no longer be prosecuted under the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, as the case may be'")

  —(Lord Chorley.)

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  PUBLIC REGISTERS AND RECORDS (SCOTLAND) BILL. [H.L.]
  9.48 p.m.
  Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Amendment moved by Lord Saltoun to the Motion for the House to be put into Committee—namely, That the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, as a considerable time has elapsed since this Bill was last before your Lordships' House perhaps I may be permitted briefly to recall the reasons for its slow progress. A Second Reading was given to the Bill in your Lordships' House on January 22, and during the debate Lord Saltoun objected to Clause 2, and, to some extent, to Clause 3. The Bill passed its Second Reading and the Committee stage was put down for February 5 when, if I may say so, a somewhat one-sided debate took place on an Amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, that the Bill should
  256
  be referred to a Select Committee. I say that it was a one-sided debate because eight of your Lordships supported Lord Saltoun and only one took a contrary view—that was myself. In those circumstances, there appeared to me to be no alternative but to move the adjournment of the debate. Perhaps I may be allowed to quote one sentence of what I said, to recall to your Lordships' memory what happened. I said:
  "In the light of the debate it seems to me, from the point of view of common sense, that the wisest thing this House can do is to allow me to move that the debate be adjourned."
  Your Lordships will remember that a month later, on February 26, I announced the Government's intention to appoint a Committee under the Chairmanship of Lord Macmillan to review further the processes of registration of writs in the Sasines Office, and, thereafter, to consider the case for introducing registration of title to land in Scotland.

  257
  The Committee have now reported on the first term of the remit, and have come to the conclusion that the proposal in Clause 2 of the Bill—namely, the future replacement of the minute book by the search sheet as guide to the record—should not be proceeded with. The Committee propose, however, some minor improvement in the procedure for registration. I need not remind your Lordships that the proposals in Clause 2 are of a highly technical nature, and they had been the subject of investigations on three occasions previously—twice by strong legal committees—and when they were included in the Bill there was good reason to think they were generally agreed. This expectation was not fulfilled, and as the result of the debate in this House the Government agreed that the matter was one for further expert inquiry. This inquiry has been undertaken with remarkable expedition by Lord Macmillan's Committee, and I should like on behalf of the Government to express our debt to Lord Macmillan for his valuable help on this abstruse subject. The matter is essentially one for the experts.
  The findings of Lord Macmillan's Committee are in disagreement with those of the Fleming Committee of 1928 and 1932. After further consideration, the Government are prepared to accept wholly the recommendations of the Macmillan Committee and have put down Amendments accordingly. In the Report of the Committee two matters are dealt with which are not within the scope of the Bill, but I should like to say a few words on them. They relate to the shortage of staff in the Register House and to the discontinuance, owing to the war, of the annual accounts showing the revenue and expenditure of the Sasines Office.
  On the first point, the amount of work of the Sasines Office measured by the intake of writs has risen steeply in the last two or three years, after a marked decline during the war; and the number of staff is below the requirements, notwithstanding that, as in the Civil Service generally, hours of work have been increased and longer periods of annual leave curtailed. As your Lordships are aware, on the one hand there is often pressure to increase the staffs of particular branches of the Civil Service to enable them more effectively to carry out their duties and, on the other hand, the size of the Civil
  258
  Service as a whole, and the calls made by it on the limited man-power resources of the country, are a frequent subject of attack. We are, however, all agreed that the delay in the registration of writs should be reduced as soon as possible, and it is hoped that it will be possible substantially to strengthen the staff of the Sasines Office in the immediate future.
  On the second point, the Government readily agree that the issue of annual accounts showing the balance of revenue and expenditure in the Sasines Office should be resumed, and steps are being taken accordingly. Having made this statement, I have only to add that I trust that it will meet with your Lordships' approval, and that the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, may agree to withdraw his Amendment and let the Bill now proceed. The Amendments which I shall then proceed to move are all designed to bring the Bill into line with. Lord Macmillan's Report.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morrison for what he has said. Indeed, I have reason for a great deal of gratitude. I want once more to express my thanks to my noble Leader, the Marquess of Salisbury, for the support he gave me on that occasion and to those noble Lords who also supported me, one of whom is here to-night—Viscount Simon. I am very grateful to him. Then is one noble Lord to whom I must give thanks but whom my thanks cannot reach. I refer to Lord Thankerton, and I could wish si quidquam mutis gratum acceptumque sepulchris accidere e nostro Calve dolore potest. If only one's gratitude could reach beyond the tomb, I would like to feel, for my own satisfaction, that that noble Lord, the death of whom so many of us deeply deplore and whose presence we shall abidingly miss, could hear the gratitude I would like to pay him on this occasion.
  The whole of Scotland will be grateful to these noble Lords, and to one noble Lord in addition—Lord Macmillan—for the work he has put in and for the extremely illuminating and clear Report, which will stand for all time as an account of the system of registration of writs in Scotland. Any noble Lord who cares to read it (I am sorry it has only been produceable in this House since half-past

  259
  three this afternoon) will get a grasp of the subject which will stand him in good stead. It is a very illuminating Report, and most beautifully written. As I say, the whole of Scotland will be indebted to that noble and learned Lord for the work he has done. It is a work which shows us the depth of the precipice over which we were nearly precipitated on February 5 last, because he has explained quite clearly—it must be clear to everybody who reads the Report—that had the Bill been passed in its then form, it might have thrown the whole of the records of Scotland into inextricable confusion. That is a matter which affects more nearly the general run of the population of Scotland than it would in England—we are all aware of our excellent system of registration. It would have gone home to every one of us.
  There are two further matters to which my noble friend Lord Morrison referred, upon which I would like to touch. One is the question of economy. The noble Lord said on Second Reading that the idea of the Bill was to effect saving in time and man-power—that is, of course, in money. If your Lordships turn to page 13 of the Report, you will find that the Register of Sasines
  "is a revenue earning department and that section 25 of the Act of 1868 requires that the fees to be drawn should not be 'greater than may reasonably be held sufficient for defraying the expenses of the said department or the improvement of the system of registration'.…"
  That means that this is not a revenue earning department. The income of the department is to be used either for cheapening the registration or for improving the service. On page 12 of the Report Lord Macmillan reports, what we all know and what is acknowledged:
  "At present the staff of the Register House is quite inadequate in number for the proper performance of its duties. The work of registration has fallen into unprecedented arrears extending to as much as seven or eight months and the public are suffering accordingly."
  Then at the bottom of page 13 the Report says:
  "From this it appears that in the years 1937–38 and 1938–39 there were surpluses of £16,127 and £14,358 respectively."
  Then it goes on to say:
  "The gross revenue for 1946–47 shows a very large increase over the figures for 1937–38
  260
  and 1938–39, indicative of a great increase in the business of the department."
  As my noble friend Lord Morrison stated, no accounts have been kept, but Lord Macmillan suggests:
  "It is improbable that they"—
  that is the expenses to be set against the income—
  "can have risen from £14,135 in 1938–39 to £62,712 in 1946–47."
  So there must still be a considerable surplus in this department. We were asked to pass this Bill for the sake of economy, because it was impossible to pay what the Government were supposed to pay for the cost of the registration of our writs in Scotland, when all the time this department is self-supporting, is making a large income to the tune of at least £16,000, and is perfectly able to pay the additional salaries for further staff to prevent the arrears extending to seven or eight months and the public suffering accordingly. I really think this is a matter to which attention should be drawn in Parliament, and I hope my noble friend Lord Morrison will ask to have it looked into.
  There is one other point I should like to make on this question. I am moved to do so because the danger from which we have escaped is so great. In his speech on the Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, stated to your Lordships that the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland had been consulted and had raised no objections to the proposal. That sounds very well, but I would like to state who are the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland. They are a body appointed by Statute of 1933, and although 1933 is the date when the second proposal of the Fleming Report was finally resisted by the profession, I draw no sinister deduction from that. But the General Council of Solicitors was appointed then, and it was given by Statute duties entirely connected with the discipline in the profession—purely disciplinary matters.
  I have the Statute here, and I have a great deal of information about it. However, I want to be as brief as I possibly can be. From time to time efforts have been made to increase the scope of this body, and all branches of the profession have steadily resisted it. They do not look upon it as really representing the profession. Efforts have been made all the time. Sometimes the Council have passed

  261
  resolutions granting themselves more powers, and sometimes other things have been proposed. They have always been resisted and defeated. When it is said to your Lordships that the General Council of Solicitors for Scotland have been consulted and have raised no objections, the impression given to your Lordships may be fallacious. It does not necessarily mean that this Council represents the opinion of the profession in Scotland.
  Futhermore, I have been told that the General Council of Solicitors themselves have said that they did not support the proposals in any way; that the only comment they made when the proposals were laid before them was that it was a highly controversial matter, and that they would prefer not to express any opinion on it at all. What I have said on that subject bears out what I said on the Second Reading. The constitution of councils and committees of this kind, unless they really represent the people they are suppose to represent, is merely a method of gratifying the very natural instinct for the increase of their own power by administrative departments. The most efficient departments are those which, naturally, wish to extend their power. That is a most important thing to control and check. To control and check it, I think there is no instrument in the Constitution more suitable and effective than the vigilance of your Lordships' House as it is at present constituted. That vigilance has shown itself in the past, as it has shown itself to-day, and I am grateful for the support your Lordships have given me, without which I should have been able to do nothing. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
  10.4. p.m.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, may I say just one word about this, as I intervened on the occasion when this was last before the House?—although, of course, I have no qualifications whatever to speak upon this highly technical subject of Scottish procedure. It seems to me that the person who really deserves to be congratulated upon this matter is the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It was he who challenged the assertion that this Bill, in the form in which it was presented, would be generally approved. As a result of his argument—assisted perhaps by the argument of others—the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, very sensibly, accepted the idea
  262
  that there should be an expert inquiry. Now we have had that expert inquiry, and from Lord Macmillan, who was the Chairman, and his four or five colleagues we have had a unanimous Report.
  This is really a very strange story, about which the best thing to be said is that it is going to end quite happily; therefore, we do net want to go back to unnecessary matters and previous complaints. I ventured to say, on an earlier occasion, that I doubted whether the noble Lord in charge of the Bill could put his hand on his heart and say that he understood all its contents. With his usual candour and fairness, the noble Lord replied by saying that he was unable to put his hand on his heart and say anything of the bind. It is not a good plan to carry through Bills without understanding what they mean, and the result in this instance has been that the whole of the Bill is now to be turned completely inside out.
  I am glad that Clause 2 of the Bill is to be struck out on the Motion of the Government. That was the whole point of the controversy. If Clause 2 had stood, these things which are called minute books and printed abridgements and indexes would be discontinued—and the Macmillan Report shows that that would be a most foolish thing to do. Similarly, it would have provided that there was instead to be a separate series of search sheets according to forms to be prescribed by an-Act of Sederunt. This again is quite an impracticable proposal which could only produce confusion. The Government, however, under the guidance of the noble Lord, Lord Morrison, have behaved very wisely in saying that they had better find out from an independent Committee how the matter stands. Most sensibly the Government now say, "Let us strike out Clause 2." Indeed, they do something more. They say, "Let us take this Macmillan Committee's Report, which made a few suggestions as to how matters might be improved, and substitute those suggestions for the original proposals." Least said, soonest mended!
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  House in Committee accordingly.
  [The LORD SCHUSTER in the Chair]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, after Clause 1, to insert the following two new clauses:
  Provisions as to recording in Register of Sasines.
  "2. The following provisions shall have effect with regard to the recording of writs in the General Register of Sasines—

  (a) the names and designations of the presenters of writs shall not be entered in the minute book;

  (b) each page of the minute book shall be signed by the Keeper of the Registers of Scotland or by a deputy duly authorised by him in that behalf, and no further signature shall be necessary for the authentication of the minute book; and in particular it shall not be necessary that the minute book be signed by the presenter of a writ or in the case of a writ transmitted to the Register by post by a clerk in the office of the said Keeper;

  (c) the transmission in accordance with section ten of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act, 1868, of copies of printed abridgements or minutes and indexes to sheriff clerks shall be discontinued and that section shall cease to have effect.

  Amendment of 31 & 32 Vict. c. 64. s. 6.
  3. Section six of the Land Registers (Scotland) Act, 1868, shall be amended by the substitution for the words from 'attach to his signature' to 'and thereafter' of the words 'stamp the words "by post" in the presentment book and thereafter enter.'"
  The noble Lord said: May I thank the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun, for their comments? I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount has said, that the main credit for this is due to Lord Saltoun for the action he has taken. The new Clause 2, which has already been referred to, is designed to give effect to a recommendation of Lord Macmillan's Committee, and the new Clause 3 is consequential on Clause 2 (b). I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  After Clause 1, insert the said new clauses.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I beg to move the next Amendment, which is in accordance with the recommendation of Lord Macmillan's Committee.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out. Clause 2.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Power to make Acts of Sederunt regarding the Register of Sasines]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to delete paragraph (a). The noble Lord said: My Lords, paragraph (a) is unnecessary, since the requirements, so far as practicable, can be met by agreement. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 36, leave out paragraph (a).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  10.10 p.m.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved, in paragraph (b), to omit "register volumes." The noble Lord said: This Amendment and the next two Amendments are drafting. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 42, leave out ("register volumes").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 43, leave out ("search sheets") and insert ("minute books").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 3, line 43, at end insert ("of rubrics and preambles in the register volumes").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON had given Notice to move to leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) requiring that subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, where reference is made in a writ presented for recording in the Register to a writ previously recorded therein, the reference shall specify, as well as the date of such previous recording, the register volume and folio in which the writ is so recorded."
  The noble Lord said: With the permission of the House I should like to make a small alteration in the wording of this Amendment. I wish to insert the words "in such cases and" after the opening words "requiring that." The Amendment that I am now moving therefore will read:
  "(c) requiring that in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed…",

  265
  and so on, as printed on the Marshalled List. This Amendment is of a drafting nature, but it also meets a point of doubt that arose in the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I hope that the Amendment in the form in which I have moved it will meet with his acceptance. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 3, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  ("(c) requiring that in such cases and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed, where reference is made in a writ presented for recording in the Register to a writ previously recorded therein, the reference shall specify, as well as the date of such previous recording, the register volume and folio in which the writ is so recorded".)—(Lord Morrison.)
  LORD SALTOUN: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for meeting me on this matter. It is absolutely right now.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 8, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 4, line 17, leave out paragraph (g).—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4 agreed to.
  Clause 5 [Consequential amendments]:
  LORD MORRISON LORD MORRISON moved to omit Clause 5. The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out Clause 5.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 6 and 7 agreed to.
  First Schedule [Consequential and Minor Amendments]:
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Leave out First Schedule.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Remaining Schedule [Enactments Repealed]:
  LORD MORRISON: This also is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, leave out Lines 13 to 17.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential upon paragraphs (a) and (b) of the new Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 18, column 3, at beginning insert ("The words 'and the names and designations of the persons by whom' and the words 'immediately signed by the presenter of the writ and also by the Keeper, and'").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, Line 20, leave out from beginning to end of line 21.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 26, column 3, leave out from beginning to end of line 31, and insert ("sections ten, twenty and").—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is consequential upon leaving out Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 33, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  LORD MORRISON: This Amendment is also consequential upon the leaving out of Clause 2. I beg to move.
  Amendment moved—
  Page 6, line 38, leave out from beginning to end of line 39.—(Lord Morrison.)
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  House resumed.

  SECURITY POSITION IN MALAYA.
  10.18 p.m.
  LORD AILWYN LORD AILWYN rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether they are in a position to make a statement on the present security position in Malaya. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in rising to ask the question standing in my name on the Order Paper—notice of which I have given to the noble Earl who is to reply—I am asking information on a number of points relating to the security of life and property in Malaya. A fortnight ago—on June 16 to be exact—your Lordships were informed, in answer to a question which I put to His Majesty's Government, that a state of emergency had already been proclaimed in three areas of Malaya, and that the High Commissioner was exercising the special powers which he is entitled to use in that state of emergency. Since that time your Lordships will be aware that those powers have been considerably enlarged and, if Press reports are to be believed, the area in which they are being used has now been extended to cover practically the whole of Malaya.
  I am sure I speak for the majority of your Lordships when I say that we greatly welcome the energy with which the matter is now being pursued, but what I am unable to do is to share the complacency displayed by the noble Earl a fortnight ago when he expressed, to use his own words, his complete satisfaction that the necessary steps were taken in time. I think that your Lordships are entitled to know whether in fact the proclamation of the state of emergency was not somewhat belated. I ask the noble Earl to observe that I am trying to be studiously moderate in the language which I am using. The wave of crime began, I understand, in the middle of May this year. As long ago as February, when I happened to be in the country, the police were faced with a difficult and dangerous situation in attempting to round up marauding bands of what were described to me, on the highest authority, as Chinese killers who shot at sight.
  At that time, the Governor-General as he was then called, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, was out of the country, and it may well be that the High Commissioner did not possess authority to proclaim a state of emergency without
  268
  reference to Whitehall. Perhaps the noble Earl will tell the House what powers were, in fact, vested in the High Commissioner during that period and what powers the Governor-General himself, or the Commissioner-General, as he is now called, possesses in the matter of proclaiming a state of emergency without the necessity, and therefore the delay, of referring to London. The crux of the matter is this: Were emergency powers sought in time and if not, why not? If, as I gathered from the noble Earl's reply the other day, they were sought in time, what was the reason for delay in putting them into execution? I must press the noble Earl on this point, as all my information is to the effect that very considerable dissatisfaction exists, and has existed for months past, up and down the Federation of Malaya at the dilatoriness of the Malayan Government, at the tardiness with which they recognised the gravity of the situation and at their failure to take in time the firm and resolute measures required to combat it.
  I pass to the police. I had the privilege of meeting the Police Commissioner and of attending a police tattoo at their depôt in Kuala Lumpur and I was greatly impressed with their appearance, their drill and their alertness. Their rifle drill was quite outstanding. I should like to ask the noble Earl what is the strength to-day of the Malayan police; how much they are below their recognised numbers; and what steps were taken before this wave of crime started to make good that shortage. What is the position to-day regarding recruiting and training of the police? Above all, what is the situation regarding their equipment, which, I understand, has always been the chief difficulty with which they have had to contend? Is every possible step being taken to put this matter of equipment right and is it being treated as a matter of extreme urgency? Lastly, what casualties have that gallant force suffered in their extremely difficult and hazardous task of hunting down these murderers?
  With regard to troops, has it been possible to meet all demands made for their assistance, and are His Majesty's Government satisfied that a sufficient force remains in reserve to meet or to cope with all emergency calls? The murders that have been committed in the course of this campaign of crime and

  269
  violence appear to have been largely those of European managers of rubber plantations and of officials of the Kuomintang, the National Government—that is, Chinese in positions of authority. Can the noble Earl give the numbers of casualties under both these headings during these last few months? Can the noble Earl also say whether the Malays themselves have been molested at all? Can he say, further, whether there have been any of these crimes in the tin mine areas and, if so, what were the victims there? Will he say whether these murdering bandits are all believed to be foreign-born Chinese? Are they all supposed to be Straits-born Chinese, or are there believed to be among them certain numbers of foreign-born Chinese? Further, may there possibly be aborigines and others from the Siamese borders, and the vicinity and beyond?
  I should like to hear whether the noble Earl and His Majesty's Government accept the theory that these crimes are all Communist-inspired, or whether some of this violence may not be due to the dissatisfaction, and resentment felt by the indigent Chinese at what they regard as their unfair treatment—or, rather, their unequal treatment and unfair representation on the Councils of the new Federation of Malaya. I should like to ask, too, whether the report called for by the Secretary of State on the murder of Mr. John Ramsden in his house on June 8 has yet been received. Are His Majesty's Government satisfied that every possible step has been taken and is being taken for the protection of the planters and others in isolated areas, and that no stone is being left unturned to round up, track down and bring to justice the men who are responsible for all these dastardly crimes? My last word is this. We learn from the Press that the High Commissioner is being recalled for consultations. His Majesty's Government will, of course, give careful consideration, in the light of recent evidence and of existing conditions, to the desirability of any change in administration which may serve to restore some of that confidence which has been lost among those who have to live and work in the disturbed conditions in Malaya to-day.
  10.28 p.m.
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I should like to ask one or two questions
  270
  which arise directly out of the question asked by my noble friend, Lord Ailwyn. The first question is in conection with the defence forces. Is the noble Earl satisfied that there are sufficient Indian and British troops—that is, Gurkha troops—available to the authorities in Malaya? Have there been any requests for further troops and has it been possible to meet those requests? Further, is he satisfied that the British troops available are sufficiently experienced for this particularly arduous task? I ask that question in particular because earlier this week in a report in the Daily Express from their correspondent in Malaya, it was suggested that the British troops were not fully trained and not really capable of carrying out their task. Can the noble Earl give us any information about that matter? If reinforcements are needed, are they available? Would it not be possible to make available some troops and police who have gained experience in this type of work in Palestine and are now available?
  My next question is in connection with Ceylon troops of the Sinhalese Picneer Corps who are stationed in Malaya. Can the noble Lord say what they are doing? During the last two months there have been reports on two occasions of a state of affairs amongst the troops of the Sinhalese Pioneer Corps which very nearly amounted to mutiny and necessitated Gurkha troops being assigned to guard their lines. It seems a pity to waste Gurkha troops to carry out these duties of guarding recalcitrant troops from the Ceylon Pioneer Corps when they could be used in more important tasks in Malaya. The last question I want to ask concerns the actual command of the troops of Malaya. It has also been reported in the Press that the General Officer Commanding is coming home at the expiration of his term of service. Is the noble Earl satisfied that this is the right moment for a change in the appointment of the senior officer commanding in Malaya? And, if it is necessary, has his successor been given adequate time fully to appreciate the situation and to make all necessary contacts on taking over from his predecessor?
  10.31 p.m.
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend in a very few words. As he has said, there

  271
  have been dastardly crimes committed in Malaya; more than forty murders have taken place during May and June. It is almost impossible to believe that the administration had no inkling of what was going on. There is, I presume, a C.I.D. in Malaya, just as there is in this country. I should like to supplement the question the noble Lord has asked by asking the noble Earl who is to reply whether the police warned the Administration months ago that trouble was likely to occur, and whether the fact that active repressive measures were not taken was due to a difference of opinion between the police, the military and the civil Administration. One realises that the civil Administration is responsible, but if they refused to take the counsel of those who should advise them on such matters, they have, to put it mildly, made a regrettable mistake, and one which has cost invaluable lives.
  10.33 p.m.
  LORD WALERAN: My Lords, I would like to support my noble friend Lord Ailwyn in the question he has asked. I would like to ask the noble Earl who is going to reply just one question. Are His Majesty's Government satisfied that the air bases, both R.A.F. and civil, are fully protected? Your Lordships know how the lack of air cover, and the fall of the air bases, greatly contributed to the fall of Malaya and the loss which we sustained there. It must be realised that Malaya is our air gateway to the Dominions of Australia and New Zealand. I hope the Government are fully satisfied as to the protection of our air route to those Dominions.
  10.34 p.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, we are very much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, for raising this question, but I deplore the fact that this issue should be debated at this time of night. It is an issue not only of tremendous importance to Malaya itself, but to this country and to the world. However, I am sure my noble friend in asking his question at this time did so in the belief that it was in the best interest of the matter with which he is concerned. I am sure the House will accept it from that point of view. My noble friend Lord Ailwyn has raised many questions.
  272
  My noble friends Lord Glasgow and Lord Mancroft, and the noble Lord who has just sat down, raised other questions. I hope the noble Earl who is to reply will be able to give satisfactory answers to them, although I hardly believe that that is possible. I think we have to go back to the early stages of this problem. The French have a very good saying, C'est le premier pas qui coûte—it is the first step that counts. When one thinks back, one realises that the whole story of Malaya since 1945 has been a very unhappy one, and full of vicissitudes.
  The first step when this Government came into power was to attempt to set up what they then called a Malayan Union with a Malayan citizenship. The unfortunate Malays, and the other races in that Peninsula, were more than dazed—they had hardly woken up from the Japanese occupation. That created tremendous difficulties, heartburnings and troubles in the Peninsula, both amongst Malays and amongst the other races. At this time of night I do not want to go into a detailed story of what happened, but finally, after representations which were urgently made in your Lordships' House and in another place, the Government agreed to alter their policy, and sent out Mr. Malcolm MacDonald with almost a free hand to see what could be done to alleviate the tragic situation which had by that time arisen in the country. The Malays themselves, who had been our most wholehearted supporters and loyal subjects, had adopted the attitude of marching in big columns through the towns and the cities, holding up flags objecting to the British occupation. Mr. MacDonald went out there and succeeded, through the free hand that he was given, in suggesting a Constitution which to a certain extent alleviated that position.
  That was the beginning of our troubles. Towards the end of 1946, the planters and European miners had realised that they were in great danger on their plantations and in their mines. They urged the High Commissioner to appoint a special constabulary. The High Commissioner paid no heed to their warnings and, so far as I can learn, has paid little heed since then, otherwise we should not find the position in Malaya today as has been described by my noble friend Lord Ailwyn. I consider that that was very blameworthy, and I do not believe that there is a single planter or miner

  273
  in Malaya to-day but who blames the High Commissioner for not listening to their warnings.
  Time went on, and the Chinese were not satisfied with the Constitution which was granted. The Chinese comprise nearly 50 per cent. of the population of Malaya and Singapore. They considered that they had not had a fair deal. That may or may not be true—personally, I do not believe it is. Nevertheless, that was their view, and, consequently, they were easily led into the Communistic atmosphere which the Communists from China attempted to impose, and did impose, upon them. To-day, as a result of that, and as a result of the strong feelings that were aroused between the Malayans and the Chinese, we have the conditions which now exist in Malaya. As my noble friend remarked in the course of his speech, there are many Chinese who are Communists but who have been born in Malaya. I want to ask the noble Earl what he is going to do with those people. Under the Constitution which has been granted, they become Malayan citizens. Many of them are the people who are causing all these troubles to-day, who are murdering and looting and so on. What are the Government going to do with them? I think we require an answer on that point. Are the Government going to deport them, to send them back to China to assemble with their Communistic fellows? Or are they going to keep them there and put them in concentration camps? It is quite certain that so long as the Chinese Communists, whether they are born in Malaya or not, are left in Malaya, there will be this trouble. I think we have arrived at a position when the Government must tell us what they intend to do.
  I should like to ask another question. What are the Government going to do with regard to Singapore? Singapore is a vital strategic point in connection with our Far Eastern policy. Is Singapore to remain as a defended port, or is it, as has been said, to be grouped with the mainland, with the object of making it part of the Malayan Federal Union? About three-quarters of the population of Singapore are Chinese, and if that is done it will mean handing over this strategic point to the Chinese, and probably to the Chinese Communists in co-operation with the Communists in China. That is a vital question, so far as the Empire
  274
  and our interests in the Far East are concerned. I want to ask the noble Earl what the Government are going to do in regard to that. If he is not able to answer that question to-night, I hope that the Government will give the problem their earnest consideration, and will not relinquish a hold on Singapore or hand it over to the Malayan Federal Union.
  As I have said, I am sorry that my noble friend did not delay this question until two or three days hence, when we might have had a really good debate on it. But I think it is very important, not only from the point of view of our situation in the Far East, but also from the point of view of the lives of our planters and our miners in Malaya. I hate even to mention the economic aspect in the same breath as the lives of our planters and miners, but it is important, also, from the point of view of dollars that, if possible, we maintain this Peninsula in the same state of prosperity and peace as that in which it was before the Second World War.
  10.45 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am sure that the Government in both Houses of Parliament and people outside, will appreciate the deep concern that has been shown by those noble Lords who have spoken this evening about recent events in Malaya. It was on June 16, in reply to a question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, that I gave your Lordships a brief account of the wave of violence and lawlessness which was then sweeping across the Federation of Malaya. On that day, three European planters had been murdered by a band of armed Chinese at Sungei Siput in Perak, and two Chinese, one on an estate in Perak and one on an estate in Johore, where strikes had lately ended, were also murdered. That was on June 16. The state of emergency which was declared by the High Commissioner in that area of Perak and in two areas of Johore on June 16 was extended two days later, on June 18, to the whole of the Federation, and—this was referred to in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn—as a precautionary measure, the Governor of Singapore proclaimed a state of emergency there on June 24.
  The bands of gangsters which perpetrated the crimes which I have

  275
  mentioned have continued their outrages. Between June 16 and June 29, nineteen persons, all Asiatics, have been killed and there have been sixteen attempted murders. However, the measures which have been taken under the state of emergency have had some degree of success. More than 1,000 people have been arrested either for possessing arms or because they were suspected of menacing public order. Forty-one people have been arrested in connection with the various murders and attempts at murder. The strike situation is also improving. On June 4 there were twenty-seven strikes involving 6,900 people. On June 29 there were but eight strikes in progress—on rubber estates—involving no more than 817 workers. The emergency measures which have been taken are very far-reaching. For example, the death penalty has been reimposed for the simple offence of unlawfully carrying arms—carrying arms without a licence, not using them. The police and Army may arrest without warrant, detention may be ordered, and searches of persons and premises may be carried out without warrant. Wherever necessary, a curfew may be imposed and restrictions placed on the movement of vehicles and persons. These restrictions and the deployment of Army units in support of the police should curtail the operations of these gangsters and bring many of them into the net spread by the police and the Army.
  Consideration has also been given to the best method of ridding the country of, those who abuse its hospitality. This was referred to at some length by the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank. The law in force at the moment in the Malay States permits the deportation of any person in a State from Federation territory. The law in force in the British Settlements of Penang and Malacca, which are now part of the Federation, permits deportation of aliens only—that is to say, there is no deportation of British subjects. The practice throughout the Federation since the Settlements were joined constitutionally with the States has been to take action against aliens only. That has been the practice.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I interrupt the noble Earl to ask where they are deported? Or is that an indiscreet question?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Not in the least. Deportation is to any country which consents to take the persons who are deported, and in fact the country which has taken most of the individuals who have been deported has been China. Experience has shown that this policy of deportation has enabled some persons of British nationality who have been concerned in fomenting and perpetrating acts of violence to evade their just deserts. It has, therefore, been decided that, as a matter of policy, proceedings under the banishment law in force in the States may be taken against British subjects who do not belong to Malaya—that is to say, the penalty of banishment has been ex-tended from aliens to British subjects. In this way, persons who are not citizens of the Federation of Malaya will be liable to deportation, and legislation will be introduced, in the case of the Settlements, to permit the same policy to be followed there—that is, in the case of Penang and Malacca.
  On June 16 I informed your Lordships that other legislation which was being drafted to deal with the situation which has developed in Malaya was well on the way to completion, and I can inform your Lordships that this legislation will be introduced into the Legislative Council of the Federation of Malaya when it assembles on July 5. Your Lordships will therefore realise that at this moment the Executive, under the Essential Regulations which have been proclaimed and which can be made in a state of emergency, is armed with very wide powers for the maintenance of law and order and for the safeguarding of the life and property of the community. There is no question, therefore, that the Executive is being hampered in its task. Careful thought has also been given to supplementing the forces at its disposal. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that, for security reasons, I am not in a position to give the precise strength and locations of the Army in Malaya and Singapore. These armed forces include British, Gurkha and Malay units of some considerable strength, and we have no reason to suppose that these forces will be unable to give the support which the civil power requires to back it up in the present situation, and at this moment the Army is giving the utmost co-operation to the civil authorities. Troops are operating both in an active rôle, by patrolling and acting

  277
  offensively against bands of gangsters, and also by relieving the police of certain static duties, such as guarding prisons and key points. So, too, the Navy and the R.A.F. are co-operating in this campaign against lawlessness.
  Reference has been made to the police. A force of special constabulary is being organised to strengthen the police and enrolment is going forward. The Federal Government has decided to increase the police force in the following ways: by further recruitment and training of local personnel, which has already been in train for the past two weeks; and by the formation of a Frontier Force or Gendarmerie for the Northern Frontier, which is subject to the Executive Council's approval when details have been worked out. Furthermore, some civil officers have been diverted from ordinary duties to assist in the administration work of the police force and for organising and directing the special constabulary. A great deal of progress has been made in getting additional equipment for the police forces and for local assistance which may be given to the police. This strengthening of the police has also taken place in Singapore. In Singapore recruitment for the regular police force has been continued up to the complete establishment of 3,000 persons. Three hundred extra recruits have been enrolled, and special and volunteer constabulary in addition to the police are being successfully recruited.
  LORD AILWYN: Would these be Malays?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes. The special constabulary are laymen; they are not trained policemen. Now both these Governments, the Government of Singapore and the Government of the Federation——
  LORD AILWYN: I think the noble Earl misunderstood me. I asked him whether the men being enrolled were Malays.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, but I must: qualify that by saying that it is open to Malays, Chinese or Europeans to enroll.
  LORD AILWYN: I was referring to the special constabulary.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: It is open to Europeans, Chinese or Malays to enroll in the constabulary. Malays are just
  278
  as welcome as anyone else. Both Governments are giving urgent consideration to the desirability of recruiting men for the police force from any source from which recruits can be obtained.
  Now may I give your Lordships some evidence of the sort of work that is being carried out by the police and the Army? Very active searches have been made for arms and ammunition. In the first five months of the year, 528 weapons of various kinds, including a number of rifles, automatics, revolvers and pistols, were seized from perons who were carrying them. A total of 951 grenades and over 100,000 rounds of ammunition have also been recovered since the beginning of the year. So this sweep for the recovery of arms which were possessed by people without any legal title to them has had considerable success. The local Governments have been empowered at all times to take proper measures for good order and government without reference to the Secretary of State for the Colonies. In the case of the Federation of Malaya, the matter is one for the High Commissioner, and in the case of Singapore for the Governor. The Commissioner-General in South East Asia, Mr. Malcolm MacDonald, has a general co-ordinating function, and is not directly responsible for the administration of the territories in his area of authority. I think that possibly there was some confusion of thought on the part of Lord Ailwyn concerning the functions of the Commissioner-General. Once the situation became so grave that these sectional powers had to be entrusted to the Executive, a decision was taken without delay and the state of emergency declared.
  Your Lordships may ask—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, has asked—what lies behind this outbreak of violence.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: May I ask at what date the state of emergency was declared?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will reply to that a little later. Some incidents that have taken place are cases of plain banditry, where the motive is robbery. There have also been cases of extortion by duress or ill-treatment, and of killings for revenge, which are unconnected with any political campaign—they are just ordinary criminal cases. On the other

  279
  hand, there are many armed men, accustomed to guerrilla warfare, who mouth Communist slogans and spread Communist propaganda. There is a Communist Party in Malaya. Its rank-and-file are Chinese, though its overt leaders are often Indian. There are many organisations, including trade unions, permeated with Communist influences and subverted by their revolutionary doctrines. The authorities have done their utmost to encourage the growth of political awareness among the people, and extreme opinions couched in immoderate language are the first stirrings of political consciousness. But there is evidence that an armed attack is being made on the authority of the Government. These outrages are directed against the main fabric of the country's economy—against the tin mines and rubber plantations. Managers and their staffs are killed, and their workpeople intimidated into withholding their labour. In spite of this outbreak of violence, managers and labour alike—and I should like to pay tribute to their fortitude—stay at their work on the plantations and in the mines. In spite of this constant danger from the lurking forces of violence in the jungle, and the actual crimes that have taken place, these managers and their men, on remote estates and mines, and also their womenfolk, have carried on undismayed.
  I would not like the House to think that these outbreaks of violence are due to the conditions of life of the working men in Malaya. Their conditions are steadily improving. Wages have risen considerably since the war, with the rapidly rising cost of living. The ration of rice is small and the purchase of rice in the black market, which we cannot prevent, adds greatly to the expense of everyday life. There is in Malaya full employment, a state of affairs which did not prevail for many years before the war. Machinery for negotiation and conciliation has been devised and has already shown that, given a reasonable chance, it can work extremely well. Schemes for social welfare are in operation and more schemes are planned. Finally, Malaya is now working with a domiciled labour force and is no longer dependent on the flow of immigrant labour from India and China which before the war maintained the country's industries at their full level of employment. I think it can be said
  280
  without exaggeration that prospects for the working people in Malaya have never been brighter than they are to-day.
  Besides the attacks on those who direct or work in the principal industries of Malaya, there have been attacks on the political opponents of these gangsters, on those who have given evidence in cases of intimidation, on the police, who have been acting according to their various duties in different parts of the country, and particularly on police stations. There is evidence that the gangs are organised with camps and training centres in the jungle. Since the end of the war, Malaya has been an island of comparative peace in the disturbed world of South-East Asia. I believe the great mass of people in Malaya repudiate most energetically the outrages which have been committed and call on those in authority for the elimination of those responsible for these dastardly crimes. We, and those who are acting in positions of responsibility in Malaya, are making every effort to destroy these violent men and to restore at the earliest possible moment to every part of the country the peace and security which has been enjoyed under British rule in the past.
  The noble Lord, Lord Ailwyn, asked me a number of questions, some of which I lave answered and some of which I have not referred to. I hope that the noble Lord and the House will not consider it trespassing upon their time at this late hour if I reply to some of the questions which I have not yet answered. The noble Lord asked whether I had anything further to say about the murder of Mr. John Ramsden on June 8. Yes, a Malay by the name of Mahomed Zain has been arrested and charged with this murder. The noble Lord also asked what powers were vested in the Commissioner-General in South-East Asia to proclaim a state of emergency without reference to London. The Commissioner has no executive function. That ought to be made absolutely clear. The responsibility for declaring a state of emergency rests with the High Commissioner in the Federation of Malaya and with the Governor, in the case of Singapore. Neither of these authorities is required to refer to London and, in point of fact, a state of emergency was proclaimed in Malaya without reference to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
  LORD AILWYN: By the High Commissioner?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Yes, by the High Commissioner.
  LORD AILWYN: On what date?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I cannot give the noble Lord the date offhand, but I will see that he gets it. It was a date at the beginning of last month.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: Are the High Commissioner and the Governor synonymous?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: No. Sir Edward Gent is the High Commissioner for Malaya and Sir Franklin Gimson is the Governor of Singapore. The noble Lord also asked whether emergency powers were sought in time. So far as the evidence which we have at our disposal in my Department is an indication of whether or not timely action was taken, I can assure the noble Lord that we have no reason whatever to think that the authorities on the spot were tardy in declaring a state of emergency. The noble Lord went on to ask, if these powers were taken in time, why there was any delay in putting them into operation. There was, in fact, no delay at all. The first decision to proclaim a state of emergency (I think I can give the noble Lord the date for which he asked) was taken on June 16, and the Emergency Regulations which the Governor was empowered to make once a state of emergency was proclaimed were promulgated on the very same day. There was no hiatus between the two.
  LORD AILWYN: These Chinese killers were going about in February, and, I understand, long before that. I know they were in February, because I was in the country. These things did not happen until June.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: Strong measures were being taken against individuals who had been guilty of violence at a very much earlier date. The noble Lord asked what is the strength of the Malayan police, and whether the figure at the moment is below the normal figure. An approximate figure for the strength of the Malayan police is 10,000 persons, of whom 9,500 are constables. This is the normal establishment of the Malayan police so there is no deficiency there. The noble Lord also
  282
  asked whether the police are adequately equipped, and whether they are getting the equipment they want. I can assure him that we are providing all the additional equipment for which the police have asked. Transport, for example, is being lent by the Army and the R.A.F. Some further equipment has been obtained from this country, and radio equipment is being flown out. The noble Lord asked about the number of casualties sustained by the Malayan police since these disorders began. We have no report of fatal casualties specifically referring to the police in Malaya.
  The noble Lord asked—I think this was also a question asked by Lord Mancroft—whether we have sufficient troops in the country to reinforce the police. I think I replied in the course of my opening remarks that in our view there is adequate and ample military support for the police in Malaya. That also applies to the reserves on which the a Armed Forces have to rely in case of formidable opposition. We have reserves which are sufficient to meet any contingency we can foresee. The noble Lord asked about the number of Kuomintang Chinese who have been killed since the beginning of this outbreak of violence. I cannot give the noble Lord figures for the Kuomintang Chinese, but I can tell him that in all thirty-seven Asiatics have been killed, a figure which includes Chinese and Malays, and Chinese of different political persuasions. He may legitimately infer from this statement that Malays also have been the victims of these attacks.
  LORD AILWYN: Can the noble Earl say anything about the European lives?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not think the noble Lord asked me specifically for the figure of Europeans.
  LORD AILWYN: Yes—the number of European lives, and then of Kuomintang Chinese.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry I have not that figure, but I will obtain it at the earliest possible moment and give it to the noble Lord. The noble Lord asked about outrages in the tin mines. One European manager has been killed. He also asked whether the murderers are believed to be Straits-born Chinese or foreign-born Chinese. Of course, until the murderers are rounded up, tried and

  283
  convicted, it is impossible for us to tell what their origin is, but we have good reason to suppose that most of the murderers are foreign-born Chinese, which I imagine was the view the noble Lord himself held. I will only say that we have naturally been following with great anxiety and the closest interest the whole trend of events in Malaya. We are satisfied that the authorities on the spot are taking the most energetic measures to deal with these outbreaks of violence, and I can assure noble Lords that the authorities there are receiving the utmost possible support that we can give, not only in the Colonial Office but in the other Departments of the Government in Whitehall.
  11.12 p.m.
  LORD LLEWELLIN: My Lords, before we depart from this subject, I would remark that it is obviously one which this House ought to keep under very careful review. I think many of us rather suspect that, although adequate action may now be being taken, it was not taken early enough. I hope the Government will inquire whether those responsible really took action in time, having been warned, as I understand, in very good time. If they had taken action earlier, one suspects that a lot of these incidents might well have been prevented. I am very glad to hear that everybody on the spot will have the full support of His Majesty's Government in taking effective action to wipe out this wave of violence which seems to have temporarily overcome that once very happy country, as it was when I was there. For myself, I would only say that I have complete confidence in Mr. Malcolm MacDonald in all that he does, having worked with him when he was in Canada. I should think that since he has taken a guiding hand in this matter, things may well be better than they were before. I hope the Government will inquire whether steps were actively taken before, or whether anybody was not active enough when we had sufficient warning. I hope some steps will be taken about that.
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, before the debate closes, may I ask the noble Earl whether there have been any differences between the police and the military and civil Administration, and
  284
  whether those differences may possibly have caused a rather late decision on the whole question of security?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: So far as I am aware, there has been the most harmonious and intimate co-operation between the civil authorities and the military in Malaya.
  THE EARL OF GLASGOW: I am very glad to hear that.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I would like to ask one question. Will the noble Earl bear in mind what I said about Singapore and keeping it independent, having regard to its vital position in the Far Eastern route? And will he bring to the notice of the Colonial Secretary the few words that I ventured to utter about this matter? I said that I would not expect an answer to-night, but he did not refer to it in his reply so I wish to return to it again.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I will gladly do that. As the noble Viscount said, he did not expect a reply to-night.

  AGRICULTURE (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  11.14 p.m.
  Returned from the Commons with certain of the Amendments agreed to and one other Amendment disagreed to, with a Reason for such disagreement: the said Reason to be printed.

  CROMER URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. [H.L.]
    WARWICK CORPORATION BILL. [H.L.]
    Commons Amendments considered and agreed to.
  LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL.
  The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn: The Order made on May. 27 last discharged, and Bill committed.
  IPSWICH CORPORATION BILL.
  Reported, with amendments.

  PRIVATE LEGISLATION PROCE- DURE (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1936.
  Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House as Members of the panel of Lords to act as Commissioners under the Act during the present Session,—namely:

  L. SALTOUN,

  L. STRATIECONA AND MOUNT ROYAL:

  agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly.

  AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS BILL. [H.L.]
  Reported from the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills with Amendments, and recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House.

  CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
  Fourth Report form the Joint Committee, being the Report on the Agricultural Holdings Bill [H.L.] made, and to be printed. The Minutes of Evidence (together with the Proceedings of the Joint Committee) laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out.
  House adjourned at a quarter past eleven o'clock.