Sitting of 15 June 1948

Preamble
The House met at Half-past Two o'Clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  EGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  (King's Consent signified); Bill read the Third time, and passed.
  WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
  Read the Third time, and passed.
  SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
  WEST RIDING COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]
  Read a Second time, and committed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NATIONAL INSURANCE

    Welsh Family Guide
    Mr. Goronwy Robertsasked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he proposes to take to disseminate copies of the Welsh handbook on the National Insurance Acts prepared by his Department.
    The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. James Griffiths): Copies of the Welsh Family Guide have been sent to all post offices, to the local offices of my Department in Wales and also to the offices of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, the Assistance Board and citizens advice bureaux. Copies are also available at meetings held throughout Wales to explain the new scheme. If my hon. Friend knows of any difficulty in obtaining copies perhaps he would let me have the details.
    Mr. Roberts: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his reply, may I ask
    220
    whether he is prepared to consider supplying copies of this handbook to the education authorities in Wales for distribution to the primary and secondary schools?
    Mr. Griffiths: I shall be quite prepared to consider that suggestion.
    Mr. Peter Freeman: Can the Minister say how many of these copies have been printed in Welsh?
    Mr. Griffiths: Not without notice.

    Tuberculosis Patients
    Dr. Santo Jegerasked the Minister of National Insurance whether he is aware that it is proposed after 5th July to require tuberculosis patients to draw their allowances from post offices; and whether, in view of the recognised necessity for maintaining close contact between these people and their local tuberculosis care committees and the undesirability of asking tuberculosis patients to stand in queues with the general public, he will make it possible for them to receive their payments through the care committees.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: Assistance under the National Assistance Act to persons undergoing treatment for tuberculosis will in the great majority of cases be paid in supplementation of sickness benefit under the National Insurance Act which is normally payable by orders cashable at a post office. It is not essential for the patient to attend personally at the post office. If he signs the order he can authorise someone else to cash it on his behalf.
    Dr. Jeger: Has the right hon. Gentleman given adequate consideration to the other points in my Question, particularly the point about maintaining contact between the patients and the care committees?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir, but this matter falls to be considered by the Assistance Board as one of administration. They have received a very representative deputation with whom these problems were discussed. If the hon. Member would like to discuss the matter further with me, I should be happy to do so.
    Commander Noble: Can the Minister give an assurance that his first answer will be widely circulated, because some people do not know about this?
    Mr. Griffiths: Yes, Sir.

    Retirement and Widows' Pensions
    Mr. Tiffanyasked the Minister of National Insurance what will be the position, after 5th July, of widows aged 55–60 years of age who at present are in receipt of a 10s. pension.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As my hon. Friend explained in reply to a Question by the hon. Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) on 8th June, such widow pensioners, if they do not qualify for increased widows' pensions from 5th July, 1948, by reason of having children or being incapable of self-support, will be liable to contribute under the new National Insurance scheme in their appropriate class. For retirement pension purposes they will be given an initial credit of contributions from their 55th birthday to 5th July, 1948, and the ordinary contribution conditions will be modified in their favour so that they can qualify from age 60 for the full rate of retirement pension by paying contributions for the balance of the period from 5th July, 1948, to their 60th birthday. I am arranging for an explanatory letter to be issued shortly to each widow pensioner affected by these special arrangements.
    Mr. Tiffany: While recognising that the credits give some concession, is it not true nevertheless that there is some inequality between the widow who is 60 before 5th July and the widow who becomes 60 after 5th July; and in view of this fact, cannot the right hon. Gentleman, in his customary humane manner, go a little further in this matter?
    Mr. Griffiths: We have provided pensions for widows who were 60 in October, 1946, and for those who reach 60 before 5th July. By the terms of the Act, women of 60 and over on 5th July cannot come into the scheme. There will probably be some inequality, but every effort is being made to reduce it to the lowest possible quota.
    Miss Bacon: Is the Minister aware that many of these widows are in receipt of only 10s. a week and are living with sons and daughters, and does he not realise that it will be an added hardship to the sons and daughters to pay 3s. 8d. a week? Will he not consider, in cases of non-employed widows aged 50 to 60, waiving the contributions?
    Mr. Griffiths: We have provided that if these widows are incapable of self-support, their pension is immediately raised to 26s. The others will have to contribute for about six months only, and they will then get the full pension. I wish that it had been possible to do more within the limits of the insurance scheme, but that is not possible.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In cases where hardship does arise, can the widow apply to the Assistance Board for a supplementary pension to meet the contribution?
    Mr. Griffiths: As from 5th July, they will be able to apply for national assistance. If the hon. Member will look at the scale, he will see that we have made provision for that.
    Mr. George Thomas: Will those widows who are incapable of working have to submit to a medical examination by officers of the Minister's Department?
    Mr. Griffiths: No. We have invited all those widows to submit their applications, and at the same time to submit a report by their own doctor that will satisfy us and enable us to pay the pension.
    Miss Baconasked the Minister of National Insurance how far under the new scheme of National Insurance the local offices of his Department will have responsibility for claims to retirement and widows' pensions; and to what extent pensioners and persons desiring to claim these pensions will still deal with the Assistance Board.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: As from 5th July next claims for retirement and widows' contributory pensions should be addressed to the local office of the Ministry of National Insurance, which will handle all the local work in connection with them. The Assistance Board, whose help has been invaluable in the previous administration of the scheme, have undertaken to clear up belated claims from existing retirement pensioners with wives under age 60 who may be entitled, from 5th July, to increase of their pensions on that account. A large number of such claims are still outstanding and I would urge the pensioners concerned to make them without further delay. Claims for noncontributory old age pensions should be addressed to the Assistance Board as hitherto.

    International Reciprocal Agreements
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of National Insurance the extent to which he has secured reciprocal arrangements with European countries in respect of social insurance; and whether he intends to seek similar arrangements with other European and non-European countries.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: I have great pleasure in informing the House that I signed a reciprocal agreement with the French Minister of Labour and Social Security on Friday last, 11th June. Negotiations are now proceeding with Eire, and there have been discussions with Canada, Australia and New Zealand. I hope to be in a position to conclude reciprocal agreements covering certain parts of the social security field with some of these countries at a fairly early date, and also to approach the Governments of some other countries with whom a basis for reciprocity in social insurance may be found.
    Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware of the great appreciation felt in all parts of the House at this excellent extension of this principle, but could he say when we shall be able to have some particulars regarding this scheme; and will it be discussed in the House, or otherwise?
    Mr. Griffiths: I will see that a statement on the agreement with France, covering the points upon which we have arrived at reciprocal arrangements, is made as soon as possible.

  EMPLOYMENT

    Sir Godfrey Ince (Statement)
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Labour if the statement in Kansas City on 6th June by Sir Godfrey Ince, Permanent Under-Secretary of the Ministry of Labour, that unless America continued to send aid to Britain we should go bankrupt and there would be a crash, was made on his behalf.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Ness Edwards): I presume that the hon. Member is referring to a report in "Kansas City Star" of 3rd June of a statement made by Sir Godfrey Ince. I am informed that this statement, which was made in reply to
    224
    questions, was to the effect that at present we cannot close the dollar gap and if we do not receive Marshall Aid we shall be in "a serious economic plight." This is a statement of fact that has been made many times, and to which I can see no possible objection.
    Mr. Osborne: Is not the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the report appeared in "The Times"; and would it not have been better to have given this report at Scarborough and to the T.U.C., instead of sending a man to Kansas City to make a statement in that way?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I should have thought that even the hon. Member would have recognised the statement quoted in "The Times" or the other paper as not being quite Civil Service standard. It is really a very vigorous American interpretation of what was said.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Could the Parliamentary Secretary say what this officer was doing in Kansas City?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly. He was on his way to the I.L.O. Conference, which began yesterday.

    West Indians and Africans
    Mr. W. Griffithsasked the Minister of Labour how many men of East and West African and West Indian origin are registered as unemployed in the City of Manchester at the nearest convenient date; and what were the comparable figures for 1945, 1946 and 1947.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I regret that statistics giving the information desired are not available.
    Mr. Griffiths: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are a considerable number of unemployed coloured men in the City of Manchester; and, in view of the difficulty they are facing in securing employment, will he do everything possible to dissuade these irresponsible people who are sending shiploads of West Indians to this country without there being any jobs here waiting for them?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The latter part of the supplementary question will be dealt with in answer to the next Question on the Order Paper. On the first part, our difficulty is not in finding these men jobs but in finding them private billets.

    225
    Private billeting raises a matter of very great social consequence, and embarrasses us very greatly indeed in placing these men.
    Mr. McCorquodaleasked the Minister of Labour if he has any further statement to make on the circumstances surrounding the journey of 400 West Indians to this country to seek employment.
    Mr. Dribergasked the Minister of Labour if he has been able to ascertain how many of the 400 West Indians, who are on their way to this country in search of work, are skilled workers and in what trades; on what date their ship is due to arrive; and what provision is being made for their accommodation on arrival.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that these men are coming to Great Britain at their own expense and of their own initiative. I cannot say how many of them are skilled workers until they have registered at an employment exchange, where their qualifications and experience can be assessed. I understand that the ship is due on 22nd June. Provision of accommodation for persons who arrive in Great Britain in these circumstances is not a matter for my Department.
    Mr. McCorquodale: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that it would be very much better if these men were interviewed before they left, and proper arrangements made for them by the time they arrived?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman has had great experience at the Ministry of Labour and he will know how extremely difficult it is if even our own people are transferred about this country, and it now falls upon the Ministry of Labour to find them accommodation. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the Ministry has accepted that responsibility only for any worker it drafts, directs, or finds work for in any part of the country. If we are now to be asked to do this for these men, we are being asked to do something for them which we have refused to do for our own people.
    Mr. McCorquodale: When these men do arrive, does the Parliamentary Secretary expect full co-operation from the trade unions, employers and others in
    226
    assembling them into mines, transport and other occupations where they might be of use?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That raises a difficulty. I hope the House will excuse these lengthy answers to supplementary questions. Only last week we had to stop a trainload of voluntary workers coming to work in the mines of this country because we had not the accommodation, which makes the position still worse. No matter what co-operation we may have from the employers and trade unions, our great problem will be accommodation.
    Mr. Driberg: Does my right hon. Friend realise that the reference to accommodation was only included in the Question because last week his right hon. Friend, answering a Question on this subject, did say that accommodation would have to be found for these men; and, although obviously it is impossible to prevent British subjects who choose to pay their own way from moving from one part of the British Empire to another, does the Parliamentary Secretary not recognise that a very serious problem does arise here, and will he do his utmost, in conjunction with the Colonial Office Welfare Department, for these men?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: We are prepared to do all we possibly can, but I should make it quite clear that we can do no more for these men than we do for our own men in this matter. We will do no more and no less. That is the position.
    Mr. Gammans: As these people are British subjects, will not the Parliamentary Secretary arrange to have this ship met, and some arrangement made other than just decanting them into London; and can he assure the House that there is no colour prejudice in any of the trade unions for the trades in which these people might seek employment?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I can assure the House that there is no colour prejudice at all with regard to their employment. The great difficulty is in getting these people into private billets. If our people will not take them, we are up against a real difficulty.
    Mr. Gammans: Will not the right hon. Gentleman answer the question?

    Dining-Car Staff, British Railways
    Mr. Keelingasked the Minister of Labour whether he will make a statement about the strike of dining-car staff on the Southern Division of British Railways on 7th June.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: According to my information, there was no such strike.
    Mr. Keeling: But is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that in one of the principal trains to Waterloo on this day, the dining-car had no cooks, no waiters and no food?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that this train was run in two parts, and, as happens very often on other systems, the second part of the train had no dining-car staff; but there was no strike at all.
    Mr. Keeling: Can the Parliamentary Secretary say whether in the old days of private ownership these ghost dining-cars ran?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Certainly, it happened regularly.

    Railway Workers (Women)
    Colonel Clarkeasked the Minister of Labour how many women are at present engaged in manual work on the railway track systems; and how many were similarly engaged in 1938.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The precise information requested is not available, but according to the figures published by the British Transport Commission there were, at 21st March, 162 women employed in the conciliation grades of the Civil Engineering Department.
    Colonel Clarke: Is the Minister aware that many people are shocked at women undertaking this hard and dangerous work, and is it the policy of the Transport Commission to continue employing women on work of this sort?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The women who have voluntarily accepted this employment are entitled to the greatest approbation by Members of this House. However, they are not compelled, and I find that the number who are employed on hard manual work is extremely small, and that women are being transferred to lighter forms of work if they so wish.

    Agricultural Workers
    Mr. G. Thomasasked the Minister of Labour how many agricultural workers were signing on for benefit at the Employment Exchanges on a regional basis at the latest convenient date.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following is the reply:
    Figures are not at present available for any date later than 15th March, when the numbers of unemployed men aged 18 years and over registered at Employment Exchanges in each region for employment as agricultural workers were as follows:

    London and South-Eastern Region

    130

    Eastern Region

    614

    Southern Region

    103

    South-Western Region

    109

    Midlands Region

    35

    North Midlands Region

    112

    East and West Ridings Region

    117

    North-Western Region

    116

    Northern Region

    133

    Scotland

    278

    Wales

    96

    1,843

    Public House Managers (Wages and Holidays)
    Mr. John McKayasked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that there is much unrest and dissatisfaction among the members, managers Section, of the Northern District Licensed Victuallers' Association, over the serious delay in the publishing of the decision of the Catering Wages Board for licensed non-residential establishment managers; and will he explain the present position and make the decision public as soon as possible.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that the Licensed Non-Residential Establishment Wages Board is today sending to all employers concerned its proposals for remuneration and holidays-with-pay for public house managers and club stewards. The Board will consider any representations received regarding these proposals within the next 28 days before it submits its final proposals for the making of a Wages Regulation Order.

    European Volunteer Workers
    Mr. J. L. Williamsasked the Minister of Labour the number of

    229
    European volunteer workers now in Scotland; the numbers of them employed as land workers and in other occupations, respectively; the average weekly number of days or hours during which they are so employed; and the average weekly payment received by them.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Up to 12th June, 5,495 European volunteer workers had been placed in work in Scotland. 3,858 of these were placed in agriculture, and the remainder in other occupations. Hours of work and wages are the same as for British workers.
    Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong feeling existing in certain districts against these Europeans on account of the small amount of work supposed to be done by them, and will he examine the position?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am afraid that this is one of the consequences of the variable weather in Scotland as against the weather in England. It is difficult to plan intakes into an industry which depends so much on the weather.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Does the right hon. Member realise that he has not answered the Question. The Question asks the number of European voluntary workers now in Scotland, and the figure he gave was the number who were placed in work? Can he say how many there are in Scotland?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have given the number who are placed in agriculture in Scotland, and in that sense I think I have answered the Question completely.
    Mr. Scollan: Does the figure also include those Polish soldiers who were stationed in Scotland and volunteered for this class of work?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. It refers to the European voluntary workers.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: Is the right hon. Member aware that the weather in Scotland this year has been just as good on the average as in England, and why does he mention that particularly?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Because it seems that in Scotland they have had a very good season so far, and that the labour has been used much more effectively, with the result that not quite so much labour as was first thought has been wanted.
    Mr. Gallacher: Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider employing these men on other work while they are waiting for employment on the land?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Those arrangements are in hand.
    Mr. Vane: When the Parliamentary Secretary uses the word "agriculture," does it include horticulture and forestry?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One usually uses the word in that sense.

    European Recovery Programme
    Mr. Prittasked the Minister of Labour what is his estimate of the amount of unemployment there would be in this country in the absence of the aid to be given by the European Recovery Programme; in what trades it would mainly prevail; what employment he estimates will actually be created by that programme; and in what trades.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: It is not possible to make any such statistical estimates, but, as pointed out in the foreword, and in paragraphs 50, 193 and 245 of the Economic Survey for 1948, there is no doubt that in the absence of Marshall Aid, widespread unemployment would develop.
    Mr. Pritt: While accepting the impossibility of making any assessment, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to persuade the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to give up blandly asserting in this House that the figure is two million?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am sure that my hon. Friend will note what has been said by the hon. and learned Member.

    Appointments Department
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Labour the number of Government posts filled through the Appointments Department of the Ministry of Labour in 1946 and 1947 and to latest available date in 1948, respectively.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The number of Government posts filled by the Technical and Scientific Register of Appointments Department in 1946 was 1,748; in 1947, 941; and in 1948 to 10th May, 301. The records at appointment offices are not kept in such a way as to show separately the

    231
    number of persons placed in Government posts, but it is estimated that over 1,000 persons have so far been placed this year.
    Mr. Davies: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is some dissatisfaction among the applicants to the Appointments Department in view of the fact that a large number of Government Departments do not make use of this Department when they desire to fill vacancies?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Other Government Departments are now using the Appointments Department to the fullest degree.
    Squadron-Leader Fleming: Can the Parliamentary Secretary tell us what percentage of applicants have been placed?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Those figures were given by the Minister last week.

  NATIONAL SERVICE

    Vocational Training
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Labour whether conscripts who volunteer under the Bounty Scheme for a further three or four years' service are to be treated as eligible for the Further Education and Training Scheme.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Men who volunteered under the Bounty Scheme for a further period of service not exceeding four years will not be debarred on that account from applying for awards under the Further Education and Training Scheme, provided the extended service commenced before 1st January, 1948. Applications from such men will, of course, be subject to the normal conditions of eligibility under the Scheme.

    Steeplejacks
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Labour if he will give consideration to the desirability of exempting steeplejacks from military service, in view of the continuous training and experience required by young steeplejacks in order to become proficient and reliable in their specialised calling.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have no power to exempt anyone from his obligations under the National Service Acts, but a young man learning to become a steeplejack may
    232
    have his call-up deferred until the completion of his training if the necessary conditions are satisfied.
    Mr. Sorensen: If the men express a preference for naval training rather than for military training, will they be accepted into the Navy?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. A man may express a preference, but it is for the Service Department to decide whether they accept him.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can my hon. Friend not take into account the fact that men who are training for this sort of work find a certain amount of advantage by going into the Navy rather than into the Army?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter has been discussed in the House on many occasions.

    University Students
    Mr. Kenneth Lindsayasked the Minister of Labour whether he will revise Administrative Memorandum No. 282, to ensure that boys who wish to enter the university before service with His Majesty's Forces may hear the decision of the University Joint Recruiting Board regarding deferment and that those who fail to obtain deferment may complete the essential pre-university services training to enter the university in October, 1949.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Administrative Memorandum No. 282 deals with the arrangements for the call-up before the end of July, 1948, of boys who have definitely decided to do their military service before going to a university. It would clearly be impracticable to apply these arrangements in the case of boys who seek deferment, since it is not possible to reach decisions about deferment in time to permit of call-up before the end of July. Most universities do not finally decide their acceptances until the results of the Higher School Certificate examination are known at the end of August.
    Mr. Lindsay: That is the whole point, that these students are in rather a predicament because they are being asked to make their decision without knowing the essential facts. Is there no way for them to make a decision so that they either go to the university in the autumn, or do their service and have a chance

    233
    of getting into the university in 1949? Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This memorandum is the result of the request made in this House to give these boys a speedy call-up so that they can be released by October, 1949. I thought we had substantially met the wishes of the House in the matter, but I will certainly look into the other point raised. Unless these boys are called up by July, they cannot hope to start their university careers in October, 1949.

  SCOTLAND

    Education (Annual Report, 1947)
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Annual Report on Education in Scotland for the year 1947 will be published.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): I hope that this Report will be published not later than the beginning of September.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the report for 1946 was published so long ago as 16th April, 1947, and that it will be very inconvenient if no more up-to-date information is made available to Scottish Members before we reach the Scottish Estimates?

    Highlands and Islands (Advisory Panel)
    Mr. Niall Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when the Highland Panel is to submit its report.
    Mr. Woodburn: The Advisory Panel on the Highlands and Islands was not set up as a reporting committee, but as a body which would keep in constant touch with the Departments concerned with administration in the Highlands and Islands and advise me from time to time on specific questions and on the carrying out of concerted plans.
    Mr. Macpherson: Does that mean that the right hon. Gentleman is not going to make a report on the progress of the
    234
    Panel, and are we not to have a report laid before the House?
    Mr. Woodburn: The purpose of the Committee is to advise me on action to be taken. The action speaks for itself when it is taken.
    Mr. N. Macphersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many committees or groups in addition or subsidiary to the Highland Panel have been set up by him to investigate different aspects of affairs in the Highlands; on what dates they were appointed; what matters they are investigating and when each of them is to conclude its inquiries.
    Mr. Woodburn: The Panel is free to set up its own working machinery. At its second meeting on 14th February, 1947, it appointed four working groups to deal with the problems of agriculture and forestry, fisheries, textiles and transport. At its ninth meeting, on 5th March last, a fifth group was appointed to consider the problems of industries and planning in the Highlands. These groups report to the Panel at each of its meetings, and their recommendations, if agreed, are thereupon submitted to me.
    Mr. Macpherson: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the appointments to the Advisory Panel are made by himself, or whether the members are co-opted by the sub-committees? Would he assure the House that there is no undue and unnecessary overlapping?
    Mr. Woodburn: The Panel sets up its own committees, and frames their composition. They can depend on my office for every possible assistance. I am satisfied that they will do the work efficiently, and that there will not be any unnecessary overlapping.
    Sir William Darling: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the work which he has outlined has been done by the Scottish Council (Development and Industry)?
    Mr. Woodburn: The Scottish Council (Development and Industry) covers the whole of Scotland. The two work together, but the Panel is dealing specially with the Highlands and Islands, whose problems are entirely separate.
    Commander Galbraith: Has any action Peen taken on the recommendations which have been received from this Panel?
    Mr. Woodburn: Quite a number of things have been going on regularly. They have been able to stimulate developments in the Highlands, which are now in process of execution.
    Mr. Scollan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the popular impression in Scotland is that the Panel is responsible for investigating all developments in the Highlands, and that many people are looking forward to a report from the Panel? If it is only an advisory body, I think its name might well be changed to "Advisory Committee." Will my right hon. Friend consider that?

    Shop Premises (Tenure)
    Mrs. Jean Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether there has been a committee set up for Scotland to report on the feasibility of extending the protection of the Rent Restrictions Acts to shopkeepers; or if the Lord Chancellor's Committee who are to report on this matter contains any Scottish members.
    Mr. Woodburn: The general question of the tenure of shop premises in Scotland was examined recently by a Committee of Inquiry, whose report was published in December, 1947. The terms of reference of the Leasehold Committee appointed by the Lord Chancellor do not extend to Scotland, and there is, accordingly, no Scottish representation.
    Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the committee to which he has referred, the Taylor Committee, did not deal with the Rent Restrictions Acts in its terms of reference? Although the Leasehold Committee is applicable to England, they at least have had the perspicacity to inquire into the extension of protection to shopkeepers by the Rent Restrictions Acts. Can my right hon. Friend explain why they do things so much better in England than in Scotland?
    Mr. Woodburn: I cannot accept my hon. Friend's last assertion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it would require some proof before it was admitted in Scotland. Any recommendations which the Leasehold Committee makes will be watched with interest by us in Scotland.
    Lieut.-Colonel Sir Thomas Moore: What has really happened in this matter? Two
    236
    months ago the right hon. Gentleman gave a typically soporific answer, and since then nothing has been done to protect people under the terms of the Taylor Committee.
    Mr. Woodburn: Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman has not been in Scotland lately.
    Sir T. Moore: I have.
    Mr. Woodburn: Quite a number of shops have been requisitioned, and a large number of cases investigated. A great deal has been done which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has evidently not noticed.
    Mr. Hector Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the report of the Taylor Committee was unsatisfactory, that no solution of the problem was found, and that the matter is urgent? Will he set up another committee to deal with it, or seek to extend the terms of reference of the Lord Chancellor's Committee so that they can deal with it? Could I have an answer?

    Housing
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he can give any estimate of the number of houses required in Scotland for the category classed as homeless; and how far he expects to have reached such a target by the end of 1948 and 1949.
    Mr. Woodburn: Of the 500,000 new houses estimated at the end of the war to be needed in Scotland about 200,000 were for persons without a home of their own. A total of 51,628 temporary and permanent houses have already been provided under postwar schemes. In present circumstances it is not possible to estimate what additional number will be completed by the end of 1948 and 1949, but the Government's aim is to complete the largest number that the available resources will permit.
    Mrs. Mann: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his reply is very unsatisfactory? Does he know that his counterpart in England announced that the target of 750,000 houses, stated to be required for the homeless, would be reached by October? Not within years do we appear to be able to reach the target for Scotland.
    Mr. Woodburn: There is a simple explanation. Scotland started off with ten times worse housing conditions than England. It is easier to solve the English problem than the Scottish problem.
    Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his answer is not only very unsatisfactory, but also incomplete, since he has not said how many houses are required for the homeless?
    Mr. Woodburn: About 200,000 of the houses were for persons without a home of their own. I am not quite clear what the term "homeless" means.
    Mrs. Mann: Is Scotland to remain always and forever in a ten times worse position than England?
    Mr. Woodburn: I am pleased to say that some leeway is being made up, but it is entirely a question of materials. If they are not there, we cannot build any quicker.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: As there is some doubt about the interpretation of "homeless," should it not be referred to the courts?
    Mr. Gallacher: In view of the fact that in years gone by the right hon. Gentleman advised the Scottish people that they could never get their affairs in order until they had more power, will he see that they get more power when he has more power to give them more power?

    Government Employees (The Kilt)
    Colonel Gomme-Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what instructions are in force regarding the wearing of the kilt by Government employees in St. Andrew's House and elsewhere.
    Mr. Woodburn: There are no instructions regarding the wearing of the kilt by Government employees in St. Andrew's House.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: And elsewhere?
    Mr. Woodburn: "Elsewhere" is a wide term. They wear the kilt in the Army and in the streets, and in some parts of the Highlands. I am not quite clear what the hon. and gallant Gentleman means by "elsewhere."
    Hon. Members: The courts.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I do not wish to refer to the courts. I mean all Government offices.
    Mr. Woodburn: So far as my information goes, there is no prohibition against wearing the kilt in Government offices, although it is appropriate that people should wear the dress which is suitable for the place they are in and I am not sure that kilts are the best dress for office work.
    Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that under no circumstances will effeminate, knock-kneed men be allowed to wear the kilt?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: As I do not come in that category, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will be sure that people do not wear more than one kilt each?
    Mr. Woodburn: I cannot guarantee that; I understand that ladies are sometimes accused of wearing more than one kilt.

  MINISTRY OF PENSIONS

    Disabled Ex-Service Men (Clothing Allowance)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Minister of Pensions what is the present extra allowance given to disabled ex-Service men who are receiving a disability pension for clothing; when the allocation was altered; and how many are now receiving the extra allowance.
    The Minister of Pensions (Mr. Buchanan): The present allowances to cover abnormal wear and tear of clothing as a result of the pensioned disablement are £5 a year where one artificial limb, other than a tilting-table limb, is worn and £8 a year where the pensioner wears a tilting-table limb or more than one artificial limb. Up to £ a year is also payable in certain other cases where exceptional wear and tear results from the pensioned disablement. The allowances, originally £3 and £5 a year respectively, were raised to the present rates with effect from 1st February, 1948. Approximately 33,000 pensioners are now receiving a clothing allowance.
    Mr. Freeman: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these allowances are given automatically; whether each one has

    239
    to apply for it on his own merits, and what percentage of disability is allowed to get a full allowance?
    Mr. Buchanan: I dealt with this on 1st February when the increases were announced. If a person now has the allowance, there is no need for a new application at all, but obviously if a person wants it for the first time he must make an application for it.
    Mr. Freeman: Could my right hon. Friend say what percentage is not receiving it?
    Mr. Buchanan: Obviously, I could not say without notice.

    Cancer Cases (Pension Applications)
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions how many applications for a pension have been refused in respect of ex-Service men suffering from cancer; and will he arrange for all these to be automatically reviewed in the light of the recent judicial decision.
    Mr. Buchanan: The number of applications in respect of cancer which have been rejected is estimated to be about 5,500. With regard to the second part of the Question, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) on 8th June, to which I would add that pensions have been granted in respect of cancer in about 1,000 cases.
    Mr. Lipson: Is my right hon. Friend referring to the cases that were granted before the recent judicial decision?
    Mr. Buchanan: I answered a Question on this last week and I made it plain to the House that, although the learned judge had arrived at that decision, we were operating that plan before he came to that decision. In the judge's case there was a conflict of facts, but we have been operating it for some time. Where-ever a person suffering from cancer could link that disability up with another disease and it could be proved that that was as a result of war service, my instructions were to exercise the new proposals to the greatest possible extent.
    Sir T. Moore: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that at one critical moment this disease ceases to be
    240
    innocent and becomes malignant, and that that is the time the Ministry's medical officials do not seem able to define? Will the right hon. Gentleman also take the opportunity of having these cases reviewed?
    Mr. Buchanan: We may not be doing as much as some hon. Members would like, but compared with anything done in the past we are miles ahead. In the past it used not to be possible to allow cancer applications in any way, and now we are doing it to the extent I have outlined. If my hon. Friends want me to grant pensions without a doctor's certificate, I will soon do it, but none must grumble at the money that has to be found if that is done. As long as I am bound by medical evidence and learned judge's decisions in court, then I must rule out cancer in most cases, but whenever we can link it up to any other circumstance it can be taken that both my officials and myself try to do it in the most kindly and humane way possible.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Already 45 minutes have gone and we have not yet reached Question No. 30. We must get on.

    Stump Socks
    Mr. Lipsonasked the Minister of Pensions if he will take steps to improve the quality of stump socks required by disabled persons.
    Mr. Buchanan: The stump stock supplied by my Department to the war disabled are made of the best quality materials. If the hon. Member has received any complaint about their quality, perhaps he will be good enough to let me have particulars.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Detention Barracks
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Secretary of State for War whether the same regulations regarding work before breakfast, drills at the double and time of reveille now operate in all military detention barracks in this country.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Shinwell): Yes. The two military prisons and detention barracks in this country are governed by the same rules.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that drill at the double as a form of punishment is now forbidden?
    Mr. Shinwell: Drill at the double is not a form of punishment under these instructions.

    Eritrea (Administration)
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Secretary of State for War whether he is aware that on 30th November last at Teramni, the President General of the Pro-Reunion to Ethiopia Party was prevented from appearing before the Four Power Foreign Ministers' Deputies' Inquiry Commission to present his protest to the Commission, on account of police violence to members of his party, including the Venerable Abbot of Enda Abuna Ebranios, the Abbot of Enda Abuna Ionas, the Reverend Father Twelde Mehin and the Reverend Father Fessahaie, who had assembled to give their evidence to the Commission; and whether he will arrange for an impartial tribunal to investigate this and other charges concerning the administration during the Four Power Foreign Ministers' Deputies' Inquiry in Eritrea.
    Mr. Shinwell: I was not aware of the facts alleged in the Question, but I have called for a report from the military authorities overseas and I will write to my hon. Friend when it has been received.

    Palestine (Convicted Persons)
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Secretary of State for War how many Jews and Arabs, respectively, who had been convicted in Palestine of murder, attempted murder and assault on any member of His Majesty's Forces and any person in the employment of the Government of Palestine, and for carrying arms or explosives, were taken into custody by the G.O.C. British troops in Palestine on or before 15th May; how many are still in custody under his control; how many it is intended shall be released before their sentence has expired; and if he will issue a written statement showing the offences committed by these persons.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am obtaining this information and when it has been received I will write to the hon. Member.

    Explosives Depots (Scotland)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking to guard or dispose of explosive clumps in the West of Scotland.
    Mr. Shinwell: Civilian watchmen, military guards and motor cycle patrols are on duty at the depot to which my hon. Friend is referring. Guards are augmented at weekends. The ammunition is being disposed of as fast as possible.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that at a recent trial in Scotland statements were made that grenades, bombs and land mines were being freely stolen from dumps all over Scotland, and will he take precautions in the future to prevent that happening?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am aware of what occurred recently. I regret it, but the fact is that unless we are able to provide manpower and transport to remove these dumps, many of them must remain. However, we are proceeding with the work as expeditiously as possible.

    Flat, Kensington (War Office Use)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War for what purposes the War Office used the flat at 19, Rugby Mansions, Bishop Kings Road, Kensington; what were the nature of the duties of Mrs. Wiggins there; and if she is still in the employment of the War Office.
    Mr. Shinwell: I understand that this fiat was used recently for the temporary accommodation of Colonel Tasoev while he was here as a refugee. Mrs. Wiggins was employed as a housekeeper. She is still employed.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: Can the Minister say whether the statements in the Press on 7th June are accurate? They were to the effect that this six-roomed flat was let to the Military Intelligence Department of the War Office by a judge, and that the rent was paid to the judge. Can the right hon. Gentleman say why these premises were vacated so suddenly?
    Mr. Shinwell: I am afraid I have not got any further information on this matter, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied to a question on this point.
    Mr. Bramall: As my right hon. Friend said that Mrs. Wiggins is still employed as a housekeeper, can he say whose house she is keeping at the moment?
    Mr. Shinwell: I have just replied to that question—that Mrs. Wiggins was employed as housekeeper and she is still employed.
    Mr. Pritt: Can my right hon. Friend say how many other foreign political or similar refugees were accommodated in that flat?
    Mr. Shinwell: If my hon. and learned Friend puts a question down, I will try to furnish the answer.
    Mr. Gallacher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say where Mrs. Wiggins is now?

  TERRITORIAL ARMY (DRILL HALLS)
  Mr. Dribergasked the Secretary of State for War what steps he is taking, in co-operation with the Ministry of Works and the local authorities, to implement the recent announcement by the C.I.G.S. that each Territorial drill hall is to be the best social club in its district.
  Mr. Shinwell: It is the responsibility of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations to provide furniture and amenities for the Territorial Army; they are given an annual grant for this purpose. Associations include representatives of local authorities. Commanding Officers are paying close attention to the social side of the Territorial Army. My Department keeps in constant touch with the Ministry of Works, who are giving help where they can.
  Brigadier Head: Is the Secretary of State aware that furniture without accommodation is not much use, that the accommodation situation at the present time is very serious indeed, and that all that the Army has had so far from the Secretary of State for War appears to be a lot of non-military pronouncements which have proved to be political boomerangs.
  Mr. Shinwell: The hon. and gallant Member is probably not aware that we are in the closest possible touch with the T.A. Associations, and that we are trying to comply with all the requests they make
  244
  to us. The accommodation problem is very difficult indeed, but it is not an original problem; it has been there for many years.
  Mr. Driberg: Is it, in fact, possible to fulfil these hopes at all within the next few years without a considerable diversion of labour and materials?
  Mr. Shinwell: We think we are making progress, and I think we will make more progress.

  PRISONERS OF WAR (ROUMANIAN VOLKSDEUTSCHE)
  Mr. Dumpletonasked the Secretary of State for War how many Roumanian Volksdeutsche remain in this country as prisoners of war; and whether, as these men have no homes in Germany and cannot return to Roumania, he will arrange for them to be offered civilian status for work in this country.
  Mr. Shinwell: Fifty-five remain in this country as prisoners of war. They have all applied to stay here as civilians. Thirty-eight have been accepted and the applications of the rest are still under consideration.

  HOME AFFAIRS SURVEY
  Mr. Gammansasked the Lord President of the Council if he is aware that in the Home Affairs Survey issued by the Central Office of Information, of 25th May, 1948, 17½ pages are devoted to the Labour Party Conference and the Conference is advertised on the contents page in heavy black type, whilst in the issue of the survey of 7th October, 1947, only 1¼ pages are devoted to the Conservative Party Conference and the Conference is not mentioned at all on the contents page; and what is the explanation of this apparent political bias.
  The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): Yes, Sir. The explanation is simple and I am glad to give it. If the hon. Member will compare the material, including the Industrial Charter, relating to the two Party Conferences in 1947, and bear in mind that one lasts twice as long as the other, he

  245
  will find they were fairly evenly treated. This year it was decided to give more extensive reports of British political events, and in consequence the 1948 Labour Party Conference, as the first to be affected by the decision, has been described in greater detail than last year's. When the time comes the hon. Member will find that this year's Conservative Party Conference will similarly be more extensively reported. I should perhaps add for the information of the House that this Survey, prepared in my view with notable objectivity, is produced solely for reference use by United Kingdom information officers abroad, though copies have always been placed in the Library and are readily supplied on request to any hon. Member.
  Mr. Gammans: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that any fair and un-biassed person will accept that explanation? Is he seriously trying to defend that 17 times as much space was given to one party compared with another, and does he still say that there is no political bias in that organisation?
  Mr. Morrison: It is not true to say that 17 times as much space was given, because the Industrial Charter, which was the main business of the Conservative Party Conference, had been dealt with in a previous issue. If the two things are brought together, which is quite legitimate, it will be found that the treatment was comparable. However, I may say that the newspapers reflected a somewhat similar contrast, and we have no control over them. "The Times" gave 313¼ inches to the Conservative Party Conference of two and a half days in 1947 and 518½ inches to the Labour Party Conference of four and a half days in1948. Similarly, the "Manchester Guardian" gave respectively 203¾ and 599¾ inches.
  Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend congratulate his officers on managing to fill up a page and a quarter with the extremely thin material provided by the Conservative Party Conference?
  Mr. Frank Byers: May I ask the Lord President of the Council the date on which this decision was made this year?
  Mr. Morrison: I could not say the date, but it was this year.
  Mr. Maclay: In the light of his first reply, will the right hon. Gentleman at least make certain that full and proper treatment is given to the conference of the Liberal National Party which will be held in Harrogate on 24th and 25th June?
  Mr. Morrison: I am afraid I did not know that such a conference was proposed, but if the hon. Gentleman will let me have particulars I will do the best I can for him.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Economic Situation
    Mr. Osborneasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he estimates Britain will become economically independent of foreign aid; if he is satisfied that the Government's plans to achieve this so far have produced adequate results; and if he will make a statement.
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Sir Stafford Cripps): I regret that the questions raised by the hon. Member are not suitable to be dealt with by Question and answer.
    Mr. Osborne: Even if they are not suitable to be dealt with by Question and answer, does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that they are quite important? If the Marshall Aid were to fall, which trade would be most affected? Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House that, please?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is another question.
    Mr. Osborne: It is a very important question.

    Balance of Trade
    Mrs. Mannasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state the amounts of the adverse balance of trade for 1937, 1938 and 1939; and the balances in terms of present value.
    Sir S. Cripps: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mrs. Mann: Will my right hon. and learned Friend at lease how these deficits compare with what has been happening lately?
    Sir S. Cripps: One can say, I think, that if our pre-war trade were revalued at 1947 prices, the adverse visible balance would have been twice as big as it was in 1947.
    Following is the answer:

    PRE-WAR VISIBLE BALANCE OF UNITED KINGDOM TRADE.

    (c.i.f./f.o.b.).

    £ million.

    1937.

    1938.

    1939 1st half year (annual rate).

    1947.

    Adverse visible balance of trade:

    1. Actual

    431·3

    387·2

    366·7

    591·2

    2. At 1947 average values

    1,160

    1,190

    1,200

    591·2

    1. Imports have been included c.i.f. and exports and re-exports f.o.b.

    2. Imports, exports and re-exports have each been revalued by the use of average value indices.

    Income Tax Arrears (Ex-Service Men)
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaiteasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether claims made by the Inland Revenue Department for under-payment of Income Tax against ex-Service men in respect of their wives' earnings in wartime employment may be settled by surrender of Post-war Credit certificates.
    Sir S. Cripps: Under a special arrangement authorised by my predecessor and announced in the House on the 29th October, 1946, these arrears, like P.A.Y.E. arrears due at the end of 1945–46, may be set-off against Post-war Credit for 1945–46, but I cannot authorise any general settlement of arrears of tax by set-off against credits.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is it, then, the case that if one is in debt to the Government, Post-war Credits can be released before the statutory age, whereas if one pays one's dues punctually, one has to wait till the age of 65?
    Sir S. Cripps: Yes; in these very limited cases of indebtedness where, as a matter of convenience, the set-off was allowed.

    War Damage Claims
    Mr. Skinnardasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will consider giving a direction to the War Damage Commission that, in the cases of claims which fall to be dealt with on a cost-of-works basis, they should not seek to exclude from such claims the costs incurred by reason of conditions imposed by local authorities which require the execution of works which did not originally exist.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The War Damage Act specifically provides that the amount of a cost-of-works payment shall not exceed the cost of making good the war damage by reinstating the property in the form in which it existed immediately before the occurrence of the damage.
    Mr. Skinnard: But is it not a hardship to some of those who have had their property destroyed when local authorities make it a condition of the licence that extra work shall be put in?
    Sir S. Cripps: That is an extra capital expenditure no doubt, but one cannot vary the terms of an Act of Parliament for that reason.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the hardship caused in a large number of cases by the refusal of the War Damage Commissioners to consider late claims, he will set up a small independent body to review the decisions of the Commission on this point.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Glenvil Hall): No, Sir. Discretion to extend time limits in particular cases of notification of war damage has been deliberately entrusted by Parliament to the independent decision of the War Damage Commission. The lines on which they are proceeding and will continue to proceed were discussed in somewhat difficult circumstances in the House last Friday and are accurately set out in a letter dated 28th May, which I addressed to the hon. Member for the Sutton Division of Plymouth (Mrs. Middleton), a copy of which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT. As hon. Members will see, the policy is endorsed by my right hon. Friend and myself.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is the Financial Secretary aware that the cause of discontent is the manner in which the Commission have exercised this discretion? Is he aware that they have, by their very legalistic interpretation of the relevant provisions, inflicted a great deal of hardship on a number of very small people?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Of course, the Commission would not accept that as true, and I must repeat that they are an independent body.
    Later—
    Mrs. Middleton: I tried to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on Question 53, but failed to do so. May I draw your attention to the fact that there seemed to be a discrepancy—
    Mr. Speaker: I do not quite understand. We have got to Question 58, I did not call the hon. Lady for a supplementary question on No. 53, and therefore she cannot raise it now.
    Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker; the right hon. Gentleman referred in his reply to a letter which he had sent to me, and also to the Debate which took place in this House on the Adjournment last Friday. There seemed to be some conflict between the reference to the letter and the reference to the statement made in that Debate.
    Mr. Speaker: I am sorry, but we are beyond that Question.
    Following is the letter:
    "H.M. Treasury,
    Treasury Chambers,
    Great George Street,
    S.W.1.
    28th May, 1948
    MY DEAR MRS. MIDDLETON,
    When I saw the members of the Blitzed Areas Group recently on the subject of the late notification of war damage, I explained that in the War Damage Act Parliament had imposed on the War Damage Commission the responsibility for deciding whether or not a late notification of war damage should be admitted in any particular case. I promised, however, to discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with the Chairman of the Commission the various points raised by the Group and to let you know the outcome. I have now done this.
    I gather that the Group are mainly concerned with two classes of case—(i) cases where the local authority have repaired some, but not all of the war damage, and the house-owner, in the expectation that the Authority
    250
    would sooner or later complete the job, has not troubled to notify the damage to the Commission; (ii) cases where the owner, having informed the local authority of the damage, considered it unnecessary also to advise the Commission.
    The Chairman of the Commission does not contest the suggestion that there may be some cases where house-owners were genuinely in ignorance of their obligation to notify the Commission if they wished the Commission to meet the cost of repairs. He has explained, however, that the Commission have felt themselves unable to disregard the fact that over 3,400,000 notifications have been sent to the Commission's offices and that of this number nearly 3,200,000 relate to houses. The great proportion of these houses have been repaired in whole or in part by local authorities. These figures demonstrate not only that the notification procedure was well known to the public, but that the public were also generally aware that notification to the Commission was necessary even in cases where the local authority were carrying out repairs.
    The Commission take the view that it is not unreasonable to expect property-owners to take some interest in a scheme devised for their financial benefit, and they do not consider that a plea of ignorance of the procedure, advanced some years after the occurrence of war damage, is in itself a sufficient ground for admitting a notification given long out of time.
    In applying their late notification procedure the Commission have paid full regard to the point that as long as local authorities were carrying out war damage repairs, house-owners in the areas concerned might reasonably have assumed that their houses would be repaired by the local authorities, and in cases where a late notification has been submitted while the local authority were still ordering repairs, and for a reasonable time afterwards, it has been the Commission's practice normally to admit the notification if the outstanding damage was clearly war damage. Apart from a few special areas, however, local authorities have ceased to carry out war damage repairs for a long period, and the Commission, who have a duty, not only to the war damage claimant, but to the taxpayer at large, would have exposed themselves to serious criticisms if they had taken no steps to limit the acceptance of notifications given some years after the occurrence of the damage, and in complete disregard of the Regulations.
    It is the Commission's experience that it would not be in the public interest to accept the records of local authorities as evidence of outstanding war damage. These records were often prepared at high speed tinder conditions of extreme pressure, without inspection of the damage by qualified persons, and often on the unsupported statements of owners and tenants, and the conditions under which repairs had subsequently to be carried out, with inadequate technical supervision, made it impossible until well after the end of the war to maintain adequate records of the work done or the work remaining to be done.
    There is no doubt, however, that local authority repairs included a large amount of repair of ordinary dilapidations as well as war

    251
    damage, and one of the Commission's main difficulties in dealing with late notifications has been the tendency of property owners, sometimes acting in good faith and sometimes not to regard as war damage any defects in their properties not apparent at the outbreak of war, and to ignore the fact that over a long period of years little or no maintenance work has been carried out. The difficulty of distinguishing between war damage and dilapidations due to ordinary wear and tear, particularly where the damage is of a minor character, increases with the passage of time, and the Chairman of the Commission has advised me that he and his colleagues on the Commission can see no practical alternative to the policy they have adopted after the fullest consideration, if the Exchequer is to be adequately protected. Indeed, although the Commission are still accepting notifications in exceptional cases within the limits of their policy, that is to say, in general only cases of substantial structural damage which has not been repaired and is beyond doubt war damage, they consider that the time will shortly arrive when they must refuse in the public interest to accept any belated notifications whatever.
    The Commission will for the time being continue to consider each case on its merits, and the Chancellor and I have agreed that in view of the difficulties inherent in the problem, and of the long lapse of time since the last damage occurred, it would be wrong to expect the Commission to modify their policy.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Sgd.) W. GLENVIL HALL."
    Mrs. Lucy Middleton, M.P.,
    House of Commons.

    Foreign Travel Allowances
    Sir John Mellorasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why the additional allowance, equivalent to £10 in foreign currency, is no longer available to cover running expenses of motor cars taken by residents in the United Kingdom for use on continental holidays; and if he will reconsider this.
    Sir S. Cripps: No, Sir. The car allowance was withdrawn last Autumn at the same time as the basic travel ration because we could no longer afford it, and there has been no improvement in our foreign exchange position such as would justify an extra currency concession at the present time.
    Sir J. Mellor: Would the Chancellor of the Exchequer agree that such an allowance would not ultimately cost any more in foreign currency than the purchase of a foreign railway ticket to the value of £10 in the United Kingdom in sterling
    252
    which would then have to be converted into foreign currency to pay for it?
    Sir S. Cripps: If a payment of £10 is made, of course it does not matter what it is made for if it is in foreign currency, I agree, but it is not necessary to spend as much as that on a travel ticket abroad.
    Mr. Gammans: If people take a railway ticket from here to Italy and pay in sterling, a proportion of that has to go to the French and Italian railways. What is the difference between that and allowing people to spend an equivalent sum on petrol so that they can take their cars?
    Sir S. Cripps: A great many people do not travel as far as Italy They go to Boulogne or Ostend.

    Customs Seizures (Sale Proceeds)
    Captain John Crowderasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what are the total proceeds of sales by auction of goods seized by the Customs for the six months to the latest available date, giving the figures for articles of clothing and jewellery separately.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Such goods are now sold by tender. Sales in the six months ended 31st March, 1948, fetched £72,240. This sum includes £28,123 for jewellery, including watches, and £5,268 for clothing and other textile goods.
    Captain Crowder: As regards clothing, could the Financial Secretary say whether the buyers have to surrender coupons?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Normally, I gather, they are tendered for by wholesalers, but of course the eventual purchaser would have to hand in coupons for what he buys.
    Mr. Scollan: Could the right hon. Gentleman tell us what proportion of that came out of Germany?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I am sorry, but I cannot do so without notice.
    Mr. Orbach: Can my right hon. Friend say whether "clothing" includes coats made of fur?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: No, Sir, I could not say.

    Post-war Credits
    Mr. John E. Haireasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what would be the cost of releasing to 100 per cent. disabled pensioners their Post-war Credits.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I regret that this information is not available.

    Statutory Rules and Orders
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the increasing number of complaints from the public that they are unable to obtain a large number of the many thousand statutory rules and regulations issued by the Government throughout 1947 which are now out of print, he will now give further consideration to making an adequate supply available.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have nothing to add to the several answers I have given the hon. Member on this subject.
    Mr. De la Bère: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that on the last occasion when I asked this he asked me to supply the information which I myself was asking? Is he not further aware that there were in the course of 1947 an average of eight rules and regulations day in and day out? How can the public obey these rules and regulations when many of them are out of print? Will he really give this his attention, because it is a matter of importance, and will he give up the unfinished thought in which he has been indulging?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I have answered several times Questions put by the hon. Gentleman and I have written him a very long letter. I have asked him to give me details of the orders he has in mind and I will do my best to see that he gets them.
    Mr. De la Bère: On a point of Order. May I have a list of those which are out of print, and may I give notice that I will raise this on every possible opportunity? It is really a very bad case.

    Interest-free Loans
    Mr. Keelingasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury what is the total number of loans made to the Treasury free of interest during the war which are still in hand; and whether he has reconsidered the suggestion that as the lenders
    254
    hold certificates only entitling them to repayment three months after the conclusion of a treaty of peace they should now be informed that they can get their money back at once on application.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: About 6,000. The position is generally known, but I have decided to remove all doubt by sending a notice to individual holders. The notice will be issued in a few weeks' time, and I will then circulate a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Keeling: For this reply, for which this is the fourth time of asking, may I say thanks?

    Government Publications (Distribution)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that publications of the Central Office of Information, such as "Target," advocating increased production in every industry throughout the country, are sent out indiscriminately to all industries, including a substantial number which have recently been warned to reduce their output owing to lack of outlet for their products; and if he will give an assurance that greater care and discrimination will be exercised in future and that the circulation of this publication will be curtailed.
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: Increased efficiency and productivity are just as important in contracting as in expanding industries. The answer to the second part of the Question is therefore, "No, Sir."
    Mr. De la Bère: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me, in view of the shortage of newsprint, what is the use of wasting newsprint, sending it round to people whose production is being curtailed, exhorting them to increase their production? Surely it is the most appalling waste of newsprint, and I hope that my friend Lord Beaverbrook will record it in his paper.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Is it not a tact that this appeal for increased production was sent also to the national association which represents the undertaking profession?
    Mr. Glenvil Hall: I doubt it. It was sent only to firms employing no or more employees, and I doubt whether most undertakers employ as many as that.

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)."—[Mr. H. Morrison.]
The House divided: Ayes, 280; Noes, 98.

Division No. 224]

AYES.

[3.30 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

McGhee, H. G.

Adams, Richard (Balham)

Ewart, R.

Mack, J. D.

Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

Fairhurst, F.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

Farthing, W. J.

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

Alpass, J. H.

Fernyhough, E.

McKinlay, A. S.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Field, Capt. W. J.

Maclean, N. (Govan)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Follick, M.

McLeavy, F.

Attewell, H. C.

Foot, M. M.

Macpherson, T. (Romford)

Awbery, S. S.

Forman, J. C.

Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

Ayles, W. H.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Mann, Mrs. J.

Bacon, Miss A.

Freeman, Peter (Newport)

Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

Balfour, A.

Gallacher, W.

Marquand, H. A.

Barstow, P. G.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Marshall, F. (Brightside)

Barton, C.

George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

Battley, J. R.

Gibbins, J.

Mellish, R. J.

Bechervaise, A. E.

Gilzean, A.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Mikardo, Ian

Benson, G.

Goodrich, H. E.

Monslow, W.

Beswick, F.

Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

Moody, A. S.

Bing, G. H. C.

Grenfell, D. R.

Morgan, Dr. H. B.

Binns, J.

Grey, C. F.

Morley, R.

Blackburn, A. R.

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

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

Blenkinsop, A.

Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Blyton, W. R.

Gunter, R. J.

Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Boardman, H.

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

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

Bottomley, A. G.

Hale, Leslie

Mort, D. L.

Bowen, R.

Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

Moyle, A.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

Murray, J. D.

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

Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

Nally, W.

Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

Hardy, E. A.

Neal, H. (Claycross)

Bramall, E. A.

Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

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

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

Noel-Buxton, Lady

Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

Herbison, Miss M.

Oldfield, W. H.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Hicks, G.

Oliver, G. H.

Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Orbach, M.

Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

Hoy, J.

Paget, R. T.

Burden, T. W.

Hubbard, T.

Parker, J.

Burke, W. A.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Parkin, B. T.

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

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

Byers, Frank

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

Paton, J. (Norwich)

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

Pearson, A.

Chamberlain, R. A.

Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

Peart, T. F.

Champion, A. J.

Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

Perrins, W.

Chater, D.

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

Piratin, P.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Janner, B.

Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

Cluse, W. S.

Jay, D. P. T.

Popplewell, E.

Coldrick, W.

Jeger, G. (Winchester)

Porter, E. (Warrington)

Collindridge, F.

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

Porter, G. (Leeds)

Collins, V. J.

Jenkins, R. H.

Pritt, D. N.

Colman, Miss G. M.

Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

Proctor, W. T.

Comyns, Dr. L.

Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

Pryde, D. J.

Crawley, A.

Keenan, W.

Pursey, Cmdr. H.

Daggar, G.

Kendall, W. D.

Randall, H. E.

Daines, P.

King, E. M.

Ranger, J.

Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

Kinley, J.

Rankin, J.

Davies, Edward (Burslem)

Kirby, B. V.

Rhodes, H.

Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Richards, R.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Lang, G.

Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

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

Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

Lee, F. (Hulme)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Deer, G.

Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

Rogers, G. H. R.

Delargy, H. J.

Leonard, W.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Dobbie, W.

Leslie, J. R.

Royle, C.

Dodds, N. N.

Lever, N. H.

Scollan, T.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Levy, B. W.

Segal, Dr. S.

Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

Lewis, T. (Southampton)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Dumpleton, C. W.

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

Sharp, Granville

Durbin, E. F. M.

Lipson D. L.

Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

Dye, S.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Logan, D. G.

Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

Longden, F.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

Lyne, A. W.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

McAdam, W.

Skinnard, F. W.

Evans, John (Ogmore)

McAllister, G.

Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

Titterington, M. F.

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Snow, J. W.

Tolley, L.

Wilkins, W. A.

Solley, L. J.

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

Sorensen, R. W.

Usborne, Henry

Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

Soskice, Sir Frank

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Williams, D. J. (Neath)

Sparks, J. A.

Viant, S. P.

Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

Stross, Dr. B.

Wadsworth, G.

Williams, W. R. (Heston)

Stubbs, A. E.

Walker, G. H.

Wills, Mrs. E. A.

Sylvester, G. O.

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

Wise, Major F. J.

Symonds, A. L.

Warbey, W. N.

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Watkins, T. E.

Woods, G. S.

Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

Watson, W. M.

Wyatt, W.

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Weitzman, D.

Yates, V. F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Young, Sir R. (Newton)

Thomas, George (Cardiff)

Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

Thurtle, Ernest

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

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Tiffany, S.

White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

Mr. Simmons and

Timmons, J.

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

Mr. George Wallace.

NOES.

Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

Amory, D. Heathcoat

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

Baldwin, A. E.

Hogg, Hon. Q.

Ramsay, Maj. S.

Barlow, Sir J.

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

Reed, Sir S. (Aylesbury)

Baxter, A. B.

Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

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

Beechman, N. A.

Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

Renton, D.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

Roberts, N. (Handsworth)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Keeling, E. H.

Robinson, Roland

Bullock, Capt. M.

Kerr, Sir J. Graham

Ropner, Col. L.

Clarke, Col. R. S.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Crowder, Capt. John E.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Scott, Lord W.

Cuthbert, W. N.

Low, A. R. W.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Darling, Sir W. Y.

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Snadden, W. M.

De la Bère, R.

MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

Dodds-Parker, A. D.

McCallum, Maj. D.

Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

Studholme, H. G.

Drayson, G. B.

Macdonald, Sir P. (I. of Wight)

Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

Drewe, C.

McFarlane, C. S.

Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Teeling, William

Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lend.)

Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Duthie, W. S.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Touche, G. C.

Eccles, D. M.

Medlicott, Brigadier F.

Turton, R. H.

Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

Mellor, Sir J.

Vane, W. M. F.

Elliot, Rt. Hon. Walter

Molson, A. H. E.

Wakefield, Sir W. W.

Fleming, Sqn.-Ldr. E. L.

Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

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

Gammans, L. D.

Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Glyn, Sir R.

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

Odey, G. W.

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

Grant, Lady

Osborne, C.

Grimston, R. V.

Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Major Conant and

Head, Brig. A. H.

Pickthorn, K.

Brigadier Mackeson.

ORDERS OF THE DAY
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL
  As amended (in Committee and on re-committal), further considered.
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE BILL

    CLAUSE 1.—(Constituencies and electors.)
    3.42 p.m.
    Sir Andrew Duncan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, after "in," to insert:

    "(a) the City of London constituency shall be those resident there or who possess, in accordance with Part II of this Act, a nonresident qualification there; and

    (b)."

    In moving this Amendment I will not delay the House for long, but I make no apology for asking the Home Secretary and the House to reconsider the position of the City of London. It has been represented as a separate constituency from the birth of Parliament, and I think it is common ground in the House that throughout its long record the City has consistently championed the causes of Parliamentary freedom and municipal development. Nor do I think there will be any dispute that the City has played a part of supreme importance in the history of Britain and the Commonwealth, and that it has held, and still holds, a unique place as our Empire capital, and the centre of world trade. It is neither unimportant nor irrelevant that I should remind the House of the rôle played by the ancient Guildhall and Mansion House as an appropriate setting for great national and international occasions and purposes.
    In view of all these facts and circumstances I imagine most hon. Members will view with regret the breaking of a continuity of Parliamentary status so prolonged as that which the City has enjoyed, even if that break did not have the effect of doing injury to the prestige and the position of the City or did not reflect upon the part which the City must still play in the rebuilding of our economic life. I suggest that the proposals in the Bill do injury in both these respects.
    The constituency method is, I think, rightly regarded in this country as the best means of eliciting public opinion from time to time as to the Government to
    260
    whom responsibility of office is to be entrusted. For the proper functioning of that democratic principle it may well be argued that there should be constituencies as equal in size as is practicable and that no person should have more than one vote. In the process of redistribution and reform, however, we cannot wipe the slate entirely clean. We cannot proceed as if we were starting afresh with a new set of people and no historic background whatever.
    So far as the City of London is concerned the fact remains that the place is really more important than numbers. That fact was recognised in 1931 and again in 1944. The respective Home Secretaries—first, the Right Hon. J. R. Clynes, and, secondly, the right hon. Gentleman the Lord President of the Council, both maintained the view that, in the light of all the circumstances surrounding the City, it should not lose either its political identity or its political entity. London is exceptional among our cities by reason of the fact that the working population is overwhelmingly large and the resident population is triflingly small. In order, therefore, to enable the City of London to be represented, it is still necessary, as it was in 1931, when Mr. Clynes was dealing with the matter, to preserve the business qualification. When the more battered parts of the City are restored and the very numerous business premises now under Government requisition are derequisitioned, there would be a great increase in the numbers of persons qualified to vote.
    3.45 p.m.
    By this Amendment we are not asking for more than one Member—I have no personal interest in that—nor are we asking that anyone should have more than one vote. We are asking that the City of London, exceptionally, should have retained to it the business qualification, on the basis that a voter may elect to use his non-residential vote in the City instead of using his residential qualification elsewhere. The City of London has such historic associations with Parliament that its claim for this special consideration is fully justified. The views of the Lord President of the Council are on record as recently as 1944 and, although I think there was a slight recantation in the House recently, I hope he will still

    261
    feel animated by the same respect for the historic and sentimental circumstances to which he confessed in 1944. When we add also the economic considerations, the case becomes overwhelming.
    On the economic side the City of London is the largest exporting centre in this country. With its raw material markets, banking and finance, ship owning and chartering, insurance and underwriting, and all the other services that swell the invisible exports, the contribution which the City of London makes to the country's economy is enormous. I suggest, therefore, that its separate Parliamentary status should be retained as a symbol of our faith in the recovery of our commercial as well as our industrial life, and of our belief that the City of London, in spite of the changes involved by the war, will retain its prestige as a main centre in world trade.
    The City has a background and a concentration of experience which will be found nowhere else in the world, an experience which gives it a clear claim for consideration irrespective of numbers. We must think of the City not only as it is regarded by ourselves, but as it is regarded and esteemed by people abroad. We cannot over-estimate what it means to the Commonwealth or to those many countries who, in the past, have been aided in their development by the activities of the City, or, indeed, in the eyes of the world generally. I was interested recently in an article in an important American journal which referred to the City of London as something that continues to live and to function—and, indeed, to exercise leadership—in spite of the difficulties through which we have passed or are still passing.
    The prestige of our capital City will still be held in the world, but there are in certain quarters of the world today envious eyes being cast upon it, particularly in the present monetary conditions, envious eyes on its institutions and its influence. It would be wrong to give the impression, or to run the risk of giving the impression, that this House no longer regards the City as possessing that unique importance which has been hitherto recognised by the peculiar position it has held in our Parliamentary, political and economic life. Parliament should positively sustain and confirm the City's great
    262
    traditions and its world prestige by preserving its Parliamentary independence free from merger, either with this neighbour or that.
    Mr. Bramall: I think I am speaking for hon. Members on this side of the House when I say how much we appreciate the very moderate manner in which the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) has moved the Amendment, which is in striking contrast to many other speeches made from the other side of the House during this Debate. But we should not allow that fact to blind us to the falsity of the grounds on which the Amendment is based. We all agree with the right hon. Member in venerating the part which the City of London has played in the history of this country, and in particular of Parliamentary institutions, but we must recognise that we are looking at the matter with the eyes of 1948, and that the City of London which played that part has nothing in common with the London of today, except for the bricks and mortar of some of its remaining buildings.
    The City of London which played that great part in the story of Wilkes and the many conflicts concerned with Parliamentary institutions was the greatest residential centre in this country, the largest conglomeration of population in this country, and the largest city in which people lived. In that capacity it played its great part. It was also a great business centre, because it was the place where the greatest number of people lived together in this country. That has all gone. Today we have a City of London in which only 4,000 people live.
    There are many other great centres and towns which have played an historic and noble part in our history. Their populations have declined and, as a result, their Parliamentary representations have been lost. Instances have been given of other constituencies in London which have a very long history and which are losing their position as separate constituencies. Other instances can be given outside London and I can think of some small towns in Kent and Cornwall which were important ports in their day, but whose day has gone and who have had to cede their place as separate entities for Parliamentary representation.
    Another argument adduced by the right hon. Gentleman was that this House

    263
    should demonstrate its confidence in the City of London as the leader of our economic life. I do not want to go into the totally irrelevant question whether or not we consider the part played by the City of London in our economic life as having been beneficial. That would be quite irrelevant to the Amendment, although I am sure my hon. Friends and I could say something on that point. The way in which this House, or this Government, or the people can demonstrate their confidence in the business leaders of their country and the leaders of their economic life, is not by saying that this or that particular area of the country should have a vote in Parliament. Is there anyone who can say what are the voting arrangements in the business centre of Paris, or New York? I cannot, and I am sure very few hon. Members could do so.
    Is there any of us who, when considering whether the economy of this or that country is on a sound foundation, and whether this or that country will revive or decline, brings into calculation whether or not the business centre of a particular city is accorded separate representation in the Parliament of that country? Surely that is totally irrelevant. The manner in which we can demonstrate our faith in economic institutions, if we consider it necessary to demonstrate our faith in the City of London as a leading economic institution, will be entirely different. The granting of separate political representation has no relevance whatever to the problem. It is not going to have any effect on people outside this country, who, I am quite sure, are unaware, as to the great majority, of what are our arrangements in this regard, and they will not notice any change once this Measure has been passed.
    It is clear that there is no ground of logic which can overcome the point put in a previous Debate by the Home Secretary, that here is a concentration of population of only 4,000 electors, yet we have had to deprive many historical constituencies with electorates of 14,000, 15,000, 20,000, or 25,000. They have had to lose separate representation in spite of the long history behind them, many of them because it is inequitable that small areas should continue to return a Member when larger areas have their votes pooled to
    264
    return a Member for a larger constituency. The 500,000 or so who work in the City of London will not have a vote there, either under this Amendment or any other, although they have an interest in the workings of the City. The only people who will have a vote will be the 4,000 who live there, and even if the right hon. Gentleman's proposal of an alternative business premises vote should be allowed as an alternative to residential qualification, only 11,000 or 12,000 would qualify. I cannot see any ground of justice whatever on which we could possibly accept an arrangement by which that purely accidental collection of people should enjoy that advantage when many other constituencies throughout the country are having their separate representation removed, merely because their population has sunk below a certain level.
    Mr. Beverley Baxter: Some foreign observer, studying the character of the English people, said:
    "When the English think, they are always wrong. When they feel, they are always right."
    We have had a speech by the hon. Member for Bexley (Mr. Bramall) which is typical of so much of the thought which is coming from the party opposite these days. It is a speech which exemplifies the sort of creeping common sense which is paralysing and making dull this country. This creeping common sense, this grey averageness which the party opposite is creating, is typical of those whom my noble Friend the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) described the other day as "dim clerkly people." This grey tog grows thicker and thicker under the manipulation of the party opposite.
    4.0 p.m.
    What is my right hon. Friend asking in this Amendment? That a tradition which has existed for hundreds of years shall have nothing more than a symbolic survival of one Member. Unlike the university seats, which represent a solid bloc at the present time against the Government, this is only one vote. I should have thought that even the Lord President might have considered taking the risk of one vote. Logic and the common sense of the panty opposite are both on their side, but there is something in this greater than logic; there is tradition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Privilege."]

    265
    No. Let the party opposite only keep their common sense under control for a moment longer and try to feel what those in the outer Empire feel about this country, a feeling in regard to which the party opposite have become vandals and destroyers.
    Who is the Lord Mayor of London? Why not say that he is merely the head of a local council? That is not true, or if it is true it is not the whole truth. He is a symbolic figure throughout the world. It was from the City of London that there went out an expression which was quoted everywhere, a phrase which one never hears now unfortunately, "Safe as the Bank of England." That was an expression in other languages because of the dealings in the City of London. Foreigners would accept contracts on the word of an Englishman. I do not hear these phrases now when I travel abroad, but they once existed.
    There is another aspect of the matter. The City of London, with its guilds and its city companies, once supplied a refuge for five Members of this House who had had the courage to vote against the King. What a splendid thing it was that there should be that refuge. I look upon the progress of politics in this country and I think there may come a time when some of us will also have to go down the river and hide from the wrath to come. All these things are happening, and to say that this miserable two and two makes four—[Laughter.] would ask the hon. Member for Bexley what do two moons and two lemons make? Four what? That is the cheap elementary arithmetical mind of hon. Members opposite—to destroy a cathedral and build a factory. There is the real spirit of the Socialist Party, to destroy anything which has roots in the past, to build a world upon our little second-rate selves. That is what the Socialist Party is doing in this country.
    I say to the Home Secretary, a man whom I admire and very much like, that I believe that he does not take any pleasure in rejecting this Amendment. I believe if it were left to him, he would realise how reasonable this is, because it goes so deep in our history as a people. I ask, Must the Home Secretary listen to the crack of the whip, must the Lord President give him his orders? There are many signs that the Lord President gives many orders. I
    266
    say, following the acts of vandalism towards the university seats, the stupidity of yesterday's Debate, the deliberate attempt of the party opposite to stop people from voting, a thing I never thought I should see in the British Commons—that is what they are doing—and because of his completely reasonable and friendly approach to this subject, I hope that the Home Secretary will accept this Amendment.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Ede): I begin to feel very uncomfortable in the Debate on this Bill, I have received so many eulogies from the party opposite. I am bound to tell them that I do not deserve any of them with regard to this matter. I am quite sure that the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan), with his Scottish ancestry, shares my respect for common sense, and its denunciation by the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) must have been a pain to him. I never reject any Amendment with pleasure; but in order that it may not be thought that the Lord President has exercised any undue influence over me I would point out that I voted against the retention of the City of London on the special franchise in the Parliament of 1929–31. This is no new position for me to adopt.
    I suggest to the hon. Member for Wood Green that we really must have some basis upon which we can justify the representation of constituencies in this House. I know of no justification, at a time when the average size of a constituency is about 55,000 to 56,000, for enfranchising a constituency which at the best under this Amendment would have just under 13,000 voters. I cannot conceive any ground upon which that can be supported, and I do not share the hon. Member's view that this is an act of vandalism. The 5,000 resident electors should, we proposed, vote in a certain constituency. I understand that although these 5,000 resident electors have not been consulted, some of the people who might be included in the 13,000 and some who will never have votes in the City under any business or residential qualification, have decided they would prefer to vote elsewhere. We shall come to that point later.
    We do not despise the great part which the City of London has played in the

    267
    history of this House and of Parliamentary Government, but there are other constituencies the names of which are just as much entitled to be held in honour. What of the people who returned Eliot and Hampden? Would any one suggest that because these great names were connected with such boroughs as St. Germans in Cornwall and Wendover those two boroughs should continue to be represented in this House? After all, we have to deal, as each generation of Parliamentarians has to deal, with the facts of our time. I hope that the time will come when there will be a substantial increase in the residential vote in the City of London. The provisions of this Bill ensure that when that time comes that shall be taken into account at the periodical review and the boundaries of the constituencies shall be altered.
    I cannot see any reason for treating the City of London differently from any other constituency in this matter, but I am bound to say that I think there has been some wisdom—again we shall come to the point later—in the selection which the City has made in a way which will ensure that at probably the earliest date of all, its claims will come up for reconsideration. I cannot get over the fact that there are fewer than 5,000 resident electors in the City, and I can see no ground for providing a special arrangement for business premises votes for Parliamentary Elections confined to the City of London. Therefore, with regret—I say with regret because I think that the right hon. Gentleman put his case today with a moderation and cogency which was sadly lacking from the presentation of the case when we dealt with this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill—I cannot accept the Amendment, because of the inexorable facts of the numbers concerned.
    Mr. Osbert Peake: I cannot let the Home Secretary get away with all that he has just stated on this Amendment. My right hon. Friend the senior Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) addressed himself, in his very moderate and well reasoned speech, purely to the question of the merits of the continued representation of the City. But that Question was examined much more fully and much more exhaustively than this House is able to do, either in
    268
    Committee or on Report, by the Speaker's Conference, which sat under your chairmanship, Mr. Speaker, in 1944. No change has taken place, so far as the City is concerned, since 1944 which would justify a departure from the agreed recommendations of that conference. We all knew in 1944 that the City had been heavily injured by war damage. The great fire had taken place and the City had been heavily blitzed. Representatives of all parties at that Conference knew well that for many years to come the population in the City, both residential and business, must continue to be small. Yet that Conference agreed, without dissent, without even a vote being taken—
    Mr. Parker rose—
    Mr. Peake: May I be allowed to finish my sentence—that the City of London should continue to be represented in this House. The only matter upon which a division was taken in the Conference was the question of whether the City should continue to be represented by one Member or by two. I think the hon. Gentleman wished to interrupt me.
    Mr. Parker: That was the point I wished to make, regarding representation.
    Mr. Peake: There was unanimous agreement in the Conference that the City of London should continue to be represented, at any rate, by one Member. That agreement was defended in this House by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was defended also by the Lord President of the Council. It was defended by the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) who has just interrupted me, and by several other Socialist representatives in the House of Commons. There was no change of status which would justify Ministers, who were a party to that agreement, in recommending any other course to the House of Commons except the continued representation of the City by one Member.
    The only change that has taken place is that the Socialist Party was returned with a majority at the General Election. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite should have implemented the agreed recommendation of the Conference of 1944. Of course, they might well have been voted down in a Division in the House by their own supporters, but, at any rate, had they taken that course, they would have fulfilled the

    269
    honourable obligation into which they entered in 1944. It is, therefore, more in sorrow than in anger that once more we feel that we must record our protest against a departure from what we consider to be an honourable obligation.
    4.15 p.m.
    Mr. Charles Williams: I should like to point out one curious thing. I do not believe that in the list of constituencies the name "London" appears at all. In other words, the greatest bond in the Empire is not mentioned so far as I can see. Leeds, Birmingham and other places, are extensively mentioned, but all the London constituencies seem to become absorbed under various other names, and what we are doing is to take away the name of London. I am open to correction but I can see nothing that conveys to the ordinary person the name of London in the same way that other places are represented.
    Mr. Pritt: Would the hon. Member look at page 97, line 35?
    Mr. Bramall: And page 98.
    Mr. Williams: Yes, but it does not say "London." As I read it we shall not mention the representative as "the hon. Member for Battersea, North, Borough of London." We shall say, "Battersea, North," or "Battersea." As regards Leeds, for example, there is a heading—
    Mr. Ede: May I help the hon. Member? If he will look at page 98, line 11, he will see that the "City of London" is there mentioned.
    Mr. Williams: Yes, I see that. I am sorry. At any rate, it took a considerable while for the right hon. Gentleman
    to discover that, and he should know his own Bill better than I do. I saw a lot of running about before that came to him. I am still capable of noticing that. The fact remains that we are not keeping it in the same position as it had before. I was not in the least surprised at what the right hon. Gentleman said today. For a long time I had not taken a tremendously dissimilar position to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite who spoke earlier about the City of London. I was not interested one way or the other, but I became completely converted by one of the greatest and most interesting speeches I have ever heard in this House in favour of keeping the City of London. It was made in 1944 by the Lord President. He made out a case that we in this House should not be ruled entirely by figures, or by the sort of argument that the Home Secretary brought forward, of little minute things, or the counting of heads but that we should try to preserve in this great institution of Parliament some of the bigger things representing the past.
    It is no use the Home Secretary referring to St. Germans, because it happens to have had a particularly eminent and very valuable Member of Parliament. "St. Germans" would convey nothing abroad. That speech by the Lord President is complete and absolute evidence that the Government today are doing a wanton thing. They are incapable of being severed in any way from the extremely small-minded attitude which the Home Secretary has adopted.
    Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 111; Noes, 269.

    Division No. 225.]

    AYES.

    [4.20 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Grant, Lady

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Head, Brig. A. H.

    Baxter, A. B.

    Dower, E. L. G. (Caithness)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Beechman, N. A.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Birch, Nigel

    Drewe, C.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Boothby, R.

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Hollis, M. C.

    Bowen, R.

    Duncan, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (City of Lord)

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Eden, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Bullock, Capt. M.

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

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Butcher, H. W.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Keeling, E. H.

    Challen, C.

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Clarke, Col. R. S.

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Gammans, L. D.

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Glyn, Sir R.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Osborne, C.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Peaks, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Pickthorn, K.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

    Pitman, I. J.

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

    Taylor, Vine-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n. S.)

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Price-White, Lt-. Col. D.

    Teeling, William

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Raikes, H. V.

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Ramsay, Maj. S.

    Touche, G. C.

    Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

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

    Turton, R. H.

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Roberts, P. G. (Ecclesall)

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Molson, A. H. E.

    Ropner, Col. L.

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

    Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir T.

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Morris, Hopkin (Carmarthen)

    Savory, Prof. D. L.

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Scott, Lord W.

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

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Noble, Comdr A. H. P.

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Odey, G. W.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Major Conant and

    Brigadier Mackeson.

    NOES.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Dobbie, W.

    King, E. M.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kinley, J.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Alpass, J. H.

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Lang, G.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Attewell, H. C.

    Dye, S.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Awbery, S. S.

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Leonard, W.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Edelman, M.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

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

    Lever, N. H.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Levy, B. W.

    Balfour, A.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Barstow, P. G.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Lipson D. L.

    Barton, C.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Battley, J. R.

    Ewart, R.

    Logan, D. G.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Fairhurst, F.

    Longden, F.

    Benson, G.

    Farthing, W. J.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Beswick, F.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McAdam, W.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Field, Capt. W. J.

    McAllister, G.

    Binns, J.

    Fellick, M.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Blackburn, A. R.

    Foot, M. M.

    McGovern, J.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mack, J. D.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Boardman, H.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

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

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Gallacher, W.

    McKinlay, A. S.

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

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    George, Lady M. Lloyd (Anglesey)

    McLeavy, F.

    Bramall, E. A.

    Gibbins J.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Gilzean, A.

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Grenfell, D. R.

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Grey, C. F.

    Marquand, H. A.

    Burden, T. W.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Burke, W. A.

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

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

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Byers, Frank

    Gunter, R. J.

    Middleton, Mrs. L.

    Callaghan, James

    Hale, Leslie

    Monslow, W.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Moody, A. S.

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Champion, A. J.

    Hannan, W. (Maryhill)

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

    Chater, D.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Haworth, J.

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

    Cluse, W. S.

    Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Kingswinford)

    Mort, D. L.

    Coldrick, W.

    Henderson, Joseph (Ardwick)

    Moyle, A.

    Collindridge, F.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Murray, J. D.

    Collins, V. J.

    Hicks, G.

    Nally, W.

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Horabin, T. L.

    Naylor, T. E.

    Cooper, Wing-Comdr. G.

    Hoy, J.

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Crawley, A.

    Hubbard, T.

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

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Daggar, G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Daines, P.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Orbach, M.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield)

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Paget, R. T.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Janner, B.

    Palmer, A. M. F.

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

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Parker, J.

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

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

    Parkin, B. T.

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Jenkins, R. H.

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Delargy, H. J.

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Pearson, A.

    Diamond, J.

    Kenyon, C.

    Peart, T. F.

    272

    273

    Perrins, W.

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

    Warbey, W. N.

    Piratin, P.

    Snow, J. W.

    Watkins, T. E.

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Solley, L. J.

    Watson, W. M.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Welts, P. L. (Faversham)

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Pritt, D. N.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Stross, Dr. B.

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

    Pryde, D. J.

    Stubbs, A. E.

    White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

    Randall, H. E.

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Ranger, J.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Reeves, J.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Richards, R.

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

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

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Royle, C.

    Tiffany, S.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Scollan, T.

    Timmons, J.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Segal, Dr. S.

    Titterington, M. F.

    Woods, G. S.

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Tolley, L.

    Wyatt, W.

    Sharp, Granville

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Yates, V. F.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Usborne, Henry

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Viant, S. P.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Simmons, C. J.

    Walker, G. H.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Mr. Popplewell and

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

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

    Mr. Richard Adams.

    CLAUSE 3.—(Adaptation of 7 & 8 Geo. 6 c. 41.)
    4.30 p.m.
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 4, line 4, to leave out "613,"and to insert, "618."
    This Amendment although very important is, in a sense, consequential. It is consequential upon the Government Amendment, at the same place in the Bill, which we discussed in Committee. That increased the figure in the Bill as orginally drafted from 591 to 613. My Amendment is necessitated in order to remove some of the most glaring anomalies resulting from the Government's action in adding 17 seats to the English representation. The Final Report of the Boundary Commission embodying their proposals was published on 24th October, and their proposals were included in full in the Bill when it was printed just before Christmas. The Boundary Commissioners recommended for England 489 seats, instead of the 485 or thereabouts laid down in the Act of 1944.
    It was not until 19th March, two days after we had concluded the Committee discussions on the universities and the City of London, that the Government announced that they proposed to add 17 additional seats to the English representation. That announcement was made ex parte, without any previous consultation with the Opposition, and it was made entirely upon the responsibility of the Government. We still do not know and
    274
    have never been told at what date the Government referred to the Boundary Commisioners, acting in an unofficial capacity, their suggestion that one seat should be added to each of the nine large cities. These were the Government's proposals to add 17 seats to the English representation. They told us that they had consulted the Commission upon them, and they published a White Paper embodying the Commission's recommendations as to how these extra 17 seats, which the Government had decided should be granted, should be demarcated in detail.
    The Government's action, admittedly, was dictated by pressure put upon them by their own supporters behind them, because nobody on this side of the House at any time asked for additional representation, and it cannot be too often emphasised that we on this side have at all times been ready to accept in full the verdict of the impartial body established by Parliament to complete this scheme of redistribution. The decision of the Government, of course, invalidated the whole of the Commissioner's proposals, because who can doubt that the Commissioners would have produced a totally different scheme if their terms of reference had been to redistribute the English constituencies upon the footing that there were going to be not 489 seats for England, but the larger figure of 506? From this decision to augment the English representation by 17 seats has flowed naturally a whole crop of anomalies.

    275
    The first anomaly is that, by dividing the eight large boroughs, we have 16 borough constituencies which rank among the smallest in the country, and, of course, the whole scheme of the Act of 1944 was that the constituencies with the smallest numbers of electors should be the wide and sparsely populated country areas and not the densely populated municipalities. In the second place, by adding nine seats to each of the big cities, the average representation of these cities is being reduced below the average quota. The right hon. Gentleman has adopted the principle which he set out, I think, on 24th April in this House—that he was going to add a seat to each of these cities so long as, by doing so, he did not bring the average representation of the city down below 50,000.
    In the third place, the addition of 17 new seats lowered the average electoral quota, which had stood at 58,700 to 56,700. The centre of gravity of the redistribution scheme has moved in a downward direction, with the effect, of course, that constituencies which are still to contain 78,000 or 79,000 electors are more out of gear with the new quota than constituencies of over 80,000 were with the quota as it originally stood.
    Mr. Frederick Lee: Is the right hon. Gentleman really telling the House, on this question of the large cities, that the Conservative associations in those cities had not asked for more representation? Is he aware that, in Manchester, there was complete agreement between the Conservatives and the Socialists, and that his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Withington (Squadron Leader Fleming) put his name to an agreement made between the parties?
    Mr. Peake: I really was not dealing with that sort of point. The question whether there was some local demand by the parties in the constituencies for an extra seat really has very little to do with the argument which I am now putting forward. I am pointing out that, if we have 17 extra seats, we must lower the quota, and, if we lower the quota, we immediately invalidate the whole of the scheme of redistribution produced by the
    276
    Commission on the basis that the number of seats would be fixed at a certain figure.
    We were faced with a difficulty when we knew that the Government proposed 17 additional seats. Obviously, at that stage, with 506 seats to be allocated to England, in place of 489, the whole matter ought to have gone back to the Boundary Commission for the preparation of a new scheme on the new basis of a new number of seats, but, of course, it was equally impossible for that to be done at that stage. It would have involved probably another year's delay in the scheme of redistribution. Nor was it possible for the official Opposition, with their limited resources of time and manpower, to produce a complete scheme of redistribution for the whole of England upon the basis of 506 seats.
    We were, therefore, left with the only alternative that, if we were to do anything to remedy some of the anomalies resulting from the Government's action, we must look for those areas which would become under-represented if the Government's proposals were adopted, and try to secure some extra representation in parts of the country which obviously would deserve it in the light of the Government's decision and the lowering of the quota. We put forward certain proposals which were sent to Mr. Speaker by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill) on 9th April. On the same day, or a day later, a copy was sent to the Home Secretary, as we wanted him to be fully aware from the outset what our proposals were. We did not wish that there should be any suggestion that we were acting in a hole-and-corner manner.
    In selecting as we did eight areas where we thought an additional nine Members ought to be provided, we were governed by one consideration only, and that was the question of the figures. We did not select those areas because we thought they might turn out to provide extra seats for Conservative candidates. Actually, I am informed, in the constituencies affected by our proposals, there are 16 Labour seats involved and something like 11 Conservative. It cannot be said, therefore, that we have put forward our proposals with any view to party advantage.

    277
    I want to deal, if I may, quite briefly, with each of the areas which we suggest should have additional representation. They are as follows, and it will be noted that the Amendment I am moving provides for only five additional seats and that is for the reason that our proposals, so far as they concern South-East Essex and the Twickenham-Staines area of Middlesex, have been considerably criticised by the Boundary Commission because in those areas the local government boundaries would suffer considerable interference. The case on numerical grounds in those areas was exceptionally strong. In South-East Essex there were five seats averaging no fewer than 69,500 electors, and on numerical grounds alone the case for an extra seat was unanswerable. An extra seat would have reduced the average representation there to 58,000—still in excess of the electoral quota—but we have to pay regard to considerations of local patriotism and local government convenience, and for that reason we do not intend to proceed with our proposal regarding South-East Essex.
    When we come to the scheme in Middlesex, which embodied the Twickenham-Spelthorne-Staines area, there we find that there were three seats averaging no fewer than 75,600, and an additional seat there would have given an average figure still in excess of the quota. In this area, again, there are, in the view of the Commission and their report, insuperable difficulties arising from local government boundary considerations and, therefore, again, in that area we shall not press our original proposal for an additional seat.
    That leaves only five areas in which an additional seat is being proposed. The first is in Cheshire, in the area Birkenhead-Wallasey-Bebington-Wirral. This area has had four seats allowed to it with an average of over 66,000—that is 10,000 in excess of the electoral quota—and we have suggested that for this area one additional seat should be granted, reducing the average size of these constituencies to 53,100, which is a higher figure, of course, than the representation which the Home Secretary now proposes for the great cities of Bristol, Leicester, Nottingham, Bradford and Leeds, where the average constituencies will be something less than 53,000.
    278
    4.45 p.m.
    So far as Kent is concerned, we have suggested one extra seat in the Crayford and Erith areas. In that case there were four seats averaging 67,200, and an extra seat there would give five seats averaging just under 54,000, very nearly the new electoral quota. Moreover, the scheme we have proposed has an advantage over the original scheme proposed by the Commission themselves in that it keeps intact the rural district of Dartford which, in the original scheme, would have been split. In the Middlesex area, we have Hornsey, Tottenham and Wood Green areas, the claims of which were advanced from the benches opposite during the Committee stage of the Bill. These boroughs have three Members and they average 69,500. An extra seat there would give four constituencies averaging 52,174, which will be a higher number of electors per constituency than there will be in the great cities of Nottingham and Leeds, as proposed by the Home Secretary.
    In the Kingston-upon-Thames area of Surrey, we pointed out to the Commission that there were eight seats with a high average of 67,000 electors. One additional seat there, which is all we now suggest—we originally put forward on a numerical basis a claim for two seats, but we are now asking for only one on account of difficulties which the Commission have encountered in drawing up a scheme for 10 seats instead of eight—one extra seat will leave the Surrey constituencies with an average electorate of between 59,000 and 60,000, that is to say 3,000 to 4,000 in excess of the average electoral quota. Further, our scheme is supported by the Commission, who say that on the numbers Surrey is entitled to an additional seat.
    The only other area with which we are concerned is East Sussex. Here, we have a county area with four seats averaging 65,800 and that, of course, is about 9,000 in excess of the electoral quota. An additional seat in East Sussex would reduce the average size of those constituencies to 52,000, a figure for a county area—and a county area which is fairly widespread—of more electors per constituency than there will be in the future in the great cities of Leeds, Nottingham and, I think, also Bristol.
    Considered from a statistical or numerical aspect, we think our claims in all these

    279
    five areas are unanswerable and, moreover, exception cannot be taken to them on geographical grounds. They all fall within the conditions which the Home Secretary has himself adopted for the addition of seats in other parts of the country. I am only sorry that we cannot, without breaking across the right hon. Gentleman's own principle, support the claim of the hon. Member for one of the Plymouth Divisions for an extra seat in Plymouth. The right hon. Gentleman has constantly refused this demand upon the ground that if he added an extra seat to Plymouth the average size of the constituencies there would fall below 50,000.
    None of the proposals which we put forward comes anything like as low as 50,000 electors per constituency. I would give this argument to the hon. Members for Plymouth, which I do not think they have thought of previously, and that is that the Commission regarded as a normal size for a constituency in their Report anything between 70,000, on the high side, and 50,000, on the low side. That was when the quota stood at 58,700. Now that the Government proposals have reduced the average size of the quota to something just over 56,000, it would surely be reasonable to regard as normal for a constituency some figure lower than the 50,000 which the Commissioners adopted for the purpose of their first report. I do not think it is possible for the case we have put forward to be rejected upon any other grounds than those of prejudice against any suggestion made from this side of the House, or a purely partisan suspicion, which is quite unfounded, that these proposals are intended to and might result in the election of one or two Conservatives to the House.
    Mr. Ede: I did not rise at once because I was expecting that some other Member would speak before it was thought necessary for me to reply. Of course, there is the difficulty on Report stage that did not hamper us on the Committee stage that, having once spoken, it is not possible for a Minister or anyone else to speak again, without the leave of the House. The right hon. Gentleman alluded to what happened in the House on 26th April. That was when the right hon. Gentleman himself spoke on this matter. I am quite willing to listen to the case that can be put forward for those constituencies, but
    280
    I am bound to point out that we were endeavouring to achieve in our proposals something nearer the one vote one value principle than was given by the Boundary Commissioners' original Report. We held that the disparity between borough and county constituencies was too wide to be justified. It was a point that had been raised by the Opposition themselves during the Second Reading of the Bill, and it was a matter which we felt called for some ratification. Therefore, we proposed that the eight large boroughs should be divided on the ground that they represented too large a constituency for a single Member to look after. I think I am correct in saying that that is a view which is very generally shared—that 80,000 is too large a number for any single Member to look after.
    When we received the Report from the Boundary Commissioners it seemed that they themselves had obviously felt some misgiving on that score, for, quite unsolicited by us, they sent with their Report a statement showing the way in which those eight large boroughs could be divided if the Government thought that 80,000 was, in fact, too large a constituency for a single Member to represent. The Amendments we proposed there were, in consequence, those which had been in the mind of the Boundary Commissioners before the matter had been raised in the House at all. The Government, on their consideration of the matter, thought that it was appropriate that that division should take place. We were then faced with the fact that the difference between the average of a county and a borough division was still too wide, and we took steps to see in what way, without conflicting with any of the rules that had been laid down for the division of constituencies, something could be done to rectify that matter.
    We thought that the best way to deal with it was to take the case of the nine large seats where the giving of an additional seat would still leave them within the limits of tolerance that the Boundary Commissioners had set for themselves of 50,000 as a minimum and 70,000 as a maximum. In none of these cases did we conflict with any of the Rules that were laid down by the House for the guidance of the Boundary Commissioners. The House accepted those Amendments,

    281
    but the localities had not had an opportunity of expressing their views with regard to the exact boundaries between constituencies, and so arrangements were made whereby representations could be made to the Boundary Commissioners by persons interested in each of the areas concerned. As a result certain altered suggestions were made by the Boundary Commissioners, which are embodied in Amendments now down to the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) said, wrote to Mr. Speaker suggesting that in certain other areas an examination should take place. Except in the case of East Sussex those are not related to the whole of a county or a city. They have regard to the corners of counties. It has been pointed out by the Boundary Commissioners that the effect in some of these cases of selecting the former, having regard to the county as a whole, involved special representation of the areas concerned. In a letter of 22nd April they say:
    "We feel bound to point out, however, that in certain of the areas proposed for increased representation, notably in Essex and Middlesex, the formation of additional constituencies is only possible by cutting local government boundaries, and that in two instances, namely, in Surrey and Middlesex, the allocation of two additional seats would result in those counties as a whole being over-represented."
    Mr. Peake: I must point out to the right hon. Gentleman that what the Commissioners are saying is that the allocation of two additional seats in Surrey and Middlesex would lead to over-representation. That is why we are asking only for one additional seat in each of those areas.
    Mr. Ede: I was coming to that point. I thought it was as well to deal with this thing methodically. I understand—and the right hon. Gentleman has said so—that that is the reason why in those two counties they have reduced their demand from two to one. Let me take the county of Surrey first. As a result of this change they propose to give Wimbledon and Surbiton quite separate representation in the House, with an electorate of 43,812 in the case of Wimbledon and 43,245 in the case of Surbiton, but Epsom with an electorate, larger than either of them, of 45,776, will remain a part of a larger constituency including the urban district of Leatherhead, which gives it a total
    282
    number of electors of 64,819. Therefore, the borough which has the largest electorate of the three is not dealt with, while the other two are dealt with.
    5.0 p.m.
    With regard to Middlesex county, the proposals which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward still involve the division of local government areas. The new constituency of Harringay consists of parts of Tottenham and parts of Hornsey. Again, in Kent, one corner of the county is tackled. The county stretches for many miles, yet apart from that one corner it is not tackled by the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman. In East Sussex, each of the proposed new seats involves a considerable splitting of local government boundaries. Each of them involves the division of rural district council areas. In fact, the provisions here involve very considerable division of local government units. In Cheshire, one corner of the county, namely, the Wirral Peninsula, is the only part which is tackled in the proposals made by the right hon. Gentleman.
    I am not giving a final answer on this matter at the moment. I am willing to listen to anything that may be said by any hon. Member with regard to these Amendments, but I am not inclined to accept them.
    Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I ask for your guidance? We have before us proposals for the extension of a number of constituencies. They will come up again later for discussion in connection with the First Schedule. I take it that if the Amendment is accepted by the House we shall not be confined in our discussion of the Amendments to the First Schedule, which have been mentioned by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake). May we take it that all Amendments which seek to bring into existence, or to prevent from going out of existence, any constituency will have equal consideration by the House when the discussion reaches the First Schedule?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): If the hon. Member desires to speak, and catches the eye of the Chair, she can then discuss those matters.
    Mr. Parker: The Opposition have been very wise in dropping the proposal with regard to Essex, because it cuts completely across local government boundaries in the area. The proposal has aroused the opposition of all the important political parties and all local authorities in the district. I am surprised at the Opposition, for when the proposal for redistribution came forward last year, they took a very strong line that we should not cut across local government boundaries but should create natural units of representation as far as possible. Yet now they have just put forward Amendments which cut across local government boundaries in almost every case, and create artificial units of representation.
    I take the view, which I think most hon. Members on this side of the House would support, that it is desirable that representation in this House should correspond as far as possible with local government units and not with artificially created units. It is true that my constituency would have been given two Members and we in Dagenham should no doubt have been very gratified to get them; but in fact the proposal looked very much like a piece of political log-rolling. Everybody in Essex took it for that. The proposals would have meant the transference of the strongest Labour wards from Horn-church and Ilford into Dagenham, with the likely result of creating two strong Labour seats in the area and three strong Conservative seats. At the moment the whole area has four Labour representatives. Therefore the proposals did appear to be a very obvious piece of logrolling.
    I am pleased that the Opposition have been wise enough to drop the proposal which certainly would have made the name of the Conservative Party stink very much in the area. From the point of view of the decencies of political life it is desirable that such proposals should not be brought forward when they attempt to pull local government boundaries about with the object of creating particular seats to return candidates to this House of particular political views.
    I do not know what the result of all these proposals will be in detail, but it is highly undesirable to bring forward suggestions deliberately designed to cut across local government boundaries in the way that was suggested in this proposal. I
    284
    hope that when the proposals are considered in detail we shall resist those which cut across local government boundaries, even if they do not do so in so unpleasant a way as in the Essex proposal.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The Home Secretary has said, quite properly, that he will consider individual Amendments when they are discussed. Therefore, in regard to the Amendment which affects my own constituency—
    Mr. Ede: I would not like anyone to be misled on this point. I said that I would have preferred to hear the case for the Amendments before I made my speech just now. If the Amendment is rejected I should doubt whether specific Amendments would be called.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: That is precisely the difficulty in which not only the right hon. Gentleman but the whole House is placed. It would therefore be appropriate for you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I suggest, to give some guidance to us whether it would be in Order for us to advance the full arguments upon the Amendment which is now before the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The general discussion can take place now. Hon. Members should advance general arguments at this stage but not go into minute details.
    Mr. Peake: Do I understand from what has fallen from the Home Secretary that if the Amendment is not carried and if the figure remains at 613, it would not be your intention to call any of the Amendments, from whichever side of the House they may come, proposing additional representatives for any part of the country?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the Amendment is not carried; the new constituencies proposed in it may not be discussed subsequently.
    Mr. Peake: Simply because this Amendment, which does not relate specifically to any Amendment to the First Schedule, is defeated, it would seem very strange that Amendments standing in the name of myself and my hon. Friends should later not be selected,

    285
    while Amendments standing in the names of other hon. Members are, for some reason or other, to be selected.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It might be of interest to the House to know that none of those Amendments is likely to be called.
    Mrs. Middleton: On a point of Order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Did I understand you to say that no Amendments will be called on the First Schedule if this Amendment is defeated?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is exactly what I said.
    Mr. Pritt: Since there are definite matters to be considered and discussed, and the Home Secretary has said that he is willing to discuss them, cannot we have some more definite way of discussing them? For example, would it not be possible to reject this Amendment on the understanding that other specific matters should subsequently be discussed, and if the right hon. Gentleman thinks it right to invite his supporters to give way on any other particular constituency the matter could be put right in another place? I do not want any particular party to have any particular seat, but I would like a fair discussion.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Obviously it is not possible for the House to alter Mr. Speaker's selection.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I apprehend from that Ruling that it would be in Order on this Amendment to deploy at moderate length, arguments which would otherwise be deployed in favour of one particular Amendment.
    The Home Secretary referred to a part of the country with which I am concerned, and perhaps, therefore, I might direct certain arguments to him on this subject. I start with the advantage that I know that the right hon. Gentleman has a deeper personal knowledge of this part of the country than probably other parts of the country with which we are immediately concerned, and it was for that reason, no doubt, that in the course of his speech he made what, on the face of it, seems to be the perfectly fair argument that the Opposition proposals, while seeking to confer separate representation on the borough of Surbiton, do not make a similar proposal in the case of the borough
    286
    of Epsom. The right hon. Gentleman's knowledge of the area, no doubt, caused him to make that remark. Therefore, perhaps I may explain why that has been done. The difficulty with which we are faced and with which the Boundary Commission were equally faced is to get relatively fair mathematical representation without going across local Government boundaries, and I can reassure the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that so far as the Surrey proposals are concerned, no local government boundaries are crossed.
    The reason why we have elected to put forward a proposal for separate representation for Surbiton and not for Epsom is this: Epsom when combined with the urban district of Leatherhead involves a constituency of some 64,000, which is a constituency of reasonable size. When Surbiton is combined, as the Boundary Commission proposed originally to combine it, with the borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, that will result in a constituency of 74,000 electors. Not only will it do that; it will produce a constituency of 74,000 electors immediately adjoined by other disproportionately large constituencies which immediately adjoin the proposed Wimbledon constituency of 75,933, Richmond with 63,205, the Esher Division of Surrey with 62,956, and, separated only by the River Thames, the constituencies of Twickenham and Spelthorne, with 79,000 and 69,000 electors, respectively.
    The reason why we have put forward these proposals is that the immediate area appears to be under-represented, and that the only method of curing that without violating the rule as to local government boundaries is the proposal which the Boundary Commission, in response to our representations, put forward as being the best method of solving this difficulty, namely to confer separate representation on the boroughs of Surbiton and Wimbledon. It seems that what the Boundary Commission recommended as the best method—it was, of course, our proposal as to the numbers—is, in fact, the best method, and that is the reason for the apparent disparity of treatment between Surbiton and Epsom.
    5.15 p.m.
    The case is first put forward on the mathematical basis that by reason of the

    287
    figures which I have already quoted to the House, as the proposals in the Bill stand, the area of North-eastern Surrey concerned is very much under-represented with a number of large constituencies immediately adjoining each other. We submit this proposal to the House as a means of curing that state of affairs. It is perfectly true that if our proposal is accepted the borough of Surbiton will be left with an electorate of 43,245, and that electorate will actually be larger than those of 11 of the constituencies created as a result of the Government's own proposals. I have a list of those constituencies here, but I do not propose to trouble the House with them unless the Home Secretary so desires. A glance at the figures shows that the Surbiton electorate will be larger than no fewer than 11 of the new constituencies to which I have just referred, and will be close to three more. Even in the case of Surbiton alone—the Wimbledon figure is slightly larger—that would seem to be a reasonable case on numbers.
    Further, there is the fact which has to be taken into account that the borough of Surbiton contains an area in which development is taking place and will take place. It is, in point of fact, an expanding area. Therefore, if a figure on the low side has to be taken, it can perhaps be appropriately taken in such an area rather than in an area where further expansion and development is not possible. There is the fact—and it is one of some importance—that local opinion has very strongly expressed itself on this matter. A most remarkable town's meeting was held in the borough of Surbiton recently, on which occasion—and it is the only occasion within my recollection—the local Conservative, Communist, Labour and Liberal Parties not only were present, but agreed. This remarkable unanimity of political opinion was supported by no fewer than some 30 outside organisations, including all the churches, various professional and industrial bodies, and bodies, many of which I must confess would seem to have remarkably little connection with the question of Parliamentary representation, but including such responsible national bodies as the National Union of Teachers.
    That town's meeting put forward a resolution which went to the Boundary
    288
    Commission, and I believe it has also been sent to the Home Secretary. They put forward the merits of the proposals as well as the unanimity of opinion so effectively that I do not think that I need trouble the House with the resolution, since I know the Home Secretary has had it furnished to him. It makes the point that not only is this an expanding area but that it is an area of substantial geographical extent—some 4,709 acres. It has definite geographical markings and limitations, and would appear to be not unreasonably qualified for separate Parliamentary representation. I know the Home Secretary well enough to know that he has studied that resolution conscientiously.
    That is the case so far as the Surrey proposals are concerned. We submit that as the Bill stands, a considerable mass of population in North-eastern Surrey is enormously under-represented, that these large constituencies adjoining each other involve the value of the vote in that part of the country being appreciably less than the value of the vote in other parts of the country. That disparity has been increased by the lower average which has resulted from the Government's own proposals on the Committee stage. We submit that our proposal would do something to rectify that position, and that it would still leave North-eastern Surrey under-represented from a mathematical point of view, but we feel that that is an inevitable evil if we are not to ignore the very important consideration to which the hon. Member for Dagenham referred of not crossing local government boundaries.
    The proposal, as has been pointed out, so far as method is concerned has the approval of the Boundary Commission. So far as merit is concerned, it has overwhelming mathematical evidence in support of it. So far as local opinion is concerned, it has also very considerable local support. I may perhaps remind the House of one other factor, and that is that the Royal and ancient borough of Kingston-upon-Thames, although they regard our proposal as a great deal better than that of the Royal Commission, have taken the view that it does not go far enough, and that there is a case for even greater representation. All these factors seem to make it quite clear that if this question of Parliamentary representation is to be considered on its merits, dispassionately

    289
    and without prejudice, an overwhelming case has been made out for adding one seat to the county of Surrey, along the lines recommended by the Boundary Commission.
    Sir Richard Acland: Since you have given your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I have looked at the Act which this part of the Bill seeks to amend, and I would like to make a submission. We are considering an Amendment to substitute for 613 the figure 618. The proposal of 613 is itself a proposal to make a substitution in the Third Schedule of 7 & 8 Geo. 6. c. 41. The words there are:
    "RULES FOR THE DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS.
    The number of constituencies in the several parts of the United Kingdom set out in the first column of the following table shall be as stated respectively in the second column of that table"—
    the table as to Great Britain
    "Not substantially greater or less than 591."
    As the Bill stands unamended, this rule in the previous Act will then read:
    "Not substantially greater or less than 613."
    The Amendment which we are discussing would alter that to read:
    "Not substantially greater or less than 618."
    It seems to me that it is a little hard, when we have the words, "Not substantially greater or less," to rule that there is such merit in 613 or 618 that we are now deciding in this Amendment all the cases brought up in the whole series of Amendments proposed at a later stage. It may be that the discussions of the House could be eased if the Home Secretary would indicate that he can accept 618, and if, at the end, we only increase it by two to make it 615, it would not be all that wrong. I am speaking against my own interests, because I do not want any increase, but for the convenience of the House.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It is a little hard to have such a technical point brought up without notice. At the moment I find it impossible to give a Ruling on it, but I will consider it, and the Debate had better proceed.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: Is it not the case that if the Government were to accept the Amendment, we should be able to discuss and debate
    290
    each particular proposal in full detail, whereas on your Ruling, Mr. Beaumont, we are debarred from going into detail on each of these proposals; and might it not be a convenient course if this Amendment were accepted on the understanding that we should then be able to discuss each case later on?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that that would affect it. The Ruling simply means that so far as there is any amendment for alteration of boundaries which differs from what the Boundary Commission have set out, and the Government have accepted, it will not be called. Any proposal for alteration of boundaries that differs from what the Boundary Commission have set up and from what the Government have accepted, will not be up for further consideration.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Does that mean, Mr. Beaumont, that if this Amendment were carried, none of the consequential Amendments on the Schedule would be called?
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Only those Amendments which have relationship to the five new constituencies which have been proposed.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: I gathered from your previous Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, which followed the statement made by the Home Secretary, that you would permit arguments to be adduced either for or against the subsequent Amendments which are appearing on the Order Paper irrespective of the effect upon them of the passing or rejection of this Amendment.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that this is becoming a somewhat hypothetical discussion. We are having an extremely wide debate on this subject, and, so far, no one has been called to Order.
    Earl Winterton: The point which I wish to raise is in support of that made by the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir R. Acland). I think you will find, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that when there have been previous discussions on re-distribution, the occupants of both the higher and lower Chair have been extremely lenient in interpreting the rules from the point of view that individual cases should be considered. I ask you to take that into consideration when you give your further considered Ruling.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I thought that I had intimated to the House that there would be allowed a very wide and extended debate on this Amendment.
    Mrs. Middleton: I gathered from what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that even if this Amendment were carried only the five Amendments on the Schedule that have been put down by the right hon. Gentleman opposite would be called when the Schedule is discussed. That would put other hon. Members, including my hon. Friends and myself, who also have down an Amendment which seeks to add one constituency, in a very invidious position. I suggest that if this Amendment is carried, then all the proposals on the Amendment paper for increasing the number of constituencies ought to be considered on their merits.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am asked to give a Ruling on a hypothetical matter. If this Amendment is carried then a further Ruling can be given.
    Mr. Quintin Hogg: It seems to me that on this Amendment there are two questions of principle being considered. So far, my hon. Friends have been dealing with one, and I wish to deal with the other. We are considering an Amendment whereby the figures in the Schedule should be altered from 613 to 618. In order to arrive at a conclusion on that proposal, it is, I think necessary to consider the matter from two aspects. The first is the general aspect as to the kind of numbers which we ought to consider desirable for this House, without any reference to any particular proposed scheme. The second involves the detailed consideration of the scheme put forward by my hon. Friends. I wish to say a word about the general question of our numbers, irrespective of the particular scheme which my hon. Friends have put forward.
    5.30 p.m.
    The history of this matter, in my recollection, was as follows: When the discussions were going on in the last Parliament which ultimately led to the Speaker's Conference, members on both sides were concerned lest the interim proposals which we generally recognised to be necessary, and which led in the present Parliament to the increase of our numbers
    292
    from 615 to 640, should prove a permanent addition to our ranks. The idea, therefore, was that we should go back to our former number, in substance, as soon as the present Parliament was over, in order that an attempt to increase the total number of Members of this House should not be made. It was thought, so far as I remember, that any attempt permanently to raise our numbers might lead to a dangerous process whereby at each redistribution the numbers of this House would be allowed to creep up and creep up, as the line of least resistance, and so gradually to arrive at a number which would prove unwieldy an undesirable. That, so far as I remember it, was the understanding which subsisted between all parties until the Committee stage of this Bill.
    When the Committee stage of this Bill was reached, the Government, in response to pressure, succeeded in carrying proposals which substantially increased the total numbers in this House. I myself, and certain of my hon. Friends, resisted those proposals at the time they were made, precisely on the ground that they gave an opportunity to do the very thing which it had been generally understood, at the time of the discussions which led to the Speaker's Conference, was not to be done. But, despite our opposition, those proposals have been carried. The point I wish to put to the Home Secretary arises out of the situation which was created by the carrying of those proposals, and is this. Now that he has, by his own proposals, once again thrown into the arena of discussion the desirable total of membership for this House of Commons, let him now examine the question afresh.
    I should agree with any argument which was put forward suggesting that it was undesirable to increase the membership of this House from time to time by small degrees; but by a like token I think that, now it has been decided to increase it this time, we ought to consider the matter de novo and not simply deal with the question piecemeal, because only in that way can we arrive, at any stage, at some kind of finality. The view which I put forward to the Home Secretary for consideration is that the figure of 613 is, in fact, too small, not only by reference to the particular proposals of my hon. and right hon. Friends, but because on any view the membership of this House ought

    293
    to be, at any rate to some extent, larger than 613.
    That a House of Commons with a membership figure larger than 613 is not unmanageable can, I think be shown by reference to history. At any rate, from the time of the Irish Union until the Irish Treaty the membership of this House was substantially greater than it is now. I think I am right in saying that the membership now is 640, and the membership then was 658. If I gave those figures I should not be substantially in error.
    Mr. Ede: It was 658 from 1801 to 1885; 670 from then until 1918; 707 immediately after 1918; but on the departure of the Irish Members under the Treaty it dropped to 615.
    Mr. Hogg: I am obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for that exact figure, which entirely bears out the general point I was making, that in its classical days the House of Commons was substantially larger than it is at present. Therefore, we can, I think, afford to be a little more generous with numbers than we have been hitherto from the time when the discussions leading to the Speaker's Conference were first begun; and now that the matter is again in the melting pot, those of us who hold that opinion—which, I may say, I have always held—must regard themselves as free to ask the Home Secretary to consider it.
    What are the arguments in favour of a slightly larger representation in this House? In the first place, we have to face the fact that the duties of a Member of Parliament have become increasingly onerous as time has gone on, particularly from the point of view of constituency business. In the old days, constituents were fewer in number, and worried their Members mainly with arguments on questions of principle, as to the attitude Members should take upon the major questions of the day. I think I shall be speaking with general agreement when I say that much of the routine relationship between the Member and his constituents nowadays consists in a detailed examination of the way in which the operation of the administrative machine impinges upon the life of the individual, so that there is a direct relationship between the number of constituents in a constituency and the amount of work which the Member has to do.
    294
    Indeed, there is a relationship between the number of constituents in a constituency and the degree of efficiency which a Member can show in the discharge of his duties. That, I think, has been generally recognised. Therefore, my first point in favour of slightly increased numbers for the House of Commons lies in the fact that an increase in numbers is necessary from the point of view of the due discharge of our duties, having regard to the increased quantity of individual cases in constituency business. I might also add that the population has materially increased in the period under review.
    My second argument is this. There are a number of constituencies all over the country—my own, I think, is one, but there must be many others—where it is extremely difficult to give adequate Parliamentary representation to local communities—an admittedly desirable object—without creating one or more constituencies which are rather smaller than the present quota lays down as the minimum. So much has that been recognised to be the case that in the Government's recent proposals cities like Norwich are given two constituencies very much under the accepted norm—somewhere, I think, about 40,000 constituents each. There are many other constituencies of round about that figure, in favour of the increased representation of which on a purely numerical basis it would be very difficult to establish a case, but in favour of the increased representation of which on the basis of local community there is a substantial case to be made. The only reason why that case has not been made so far, and has not been able to be argued, either before the Boundary Commission or before this House, has been the overall limitation of numbers which the understanding imposed whereby we accepted this self-denying ordinance in the discussions leading up to the Speaker's Conference.
    Perhaps I may give a short illustration from the position in my own constituency, which, although it is in many ways an individual case, will, I think, find a parallel in other parts of the country. My own constituency is in essence a very ancient city with a long tradition and with a university at its centre, which now no longer is to have separate representation. Side by side with that ancient city, the local communications centre, the

    295
    shopping centre for the county, the railway centre and the centre for agricultural marketing, a modern industrial town has grown up on the eastern outskirts with interests which diverge both from the old town and from the university, which in many ways are difficult to harmonise both in local government and from the point of view of one who seeks to be their Parliamentary representative.
    There is, as a matter of fact, a fairly substantial natural boundary dividing the old from the new. The River Cherwell makes that division fairly accurately, with necessary allowance for people who live over the boundary on one side or the other. Apart from the overall limitations of the number of seats in the House of Commons, it would be possible to press the point of view, which I think I am right in saying has been accepted by the local government authority—namely, that there should be two constituencies of East and West Oxford. That would slightly reduce my present constituency of 48,000, but it would be very much less inconvenient than the proposed new constituency, which on any showing will be something like 74,000 or 75,000 and will include the whole of both communities, and which, with the increase in population of which there may be some danger, may be even greater still.
    It is only an example, and I give it only as an example, of the general principle, which is this. We have heard a great deal in these Debates of the principle of one vote one value, a phrase which was first used in this connection by the Leader of the Opposition, which has since been accepted by the Government Front Bench. My view has always been that that is not the only principle upon which Parliamentary representation should be based. I have always urged both from the point of view of the geographical constituency and from other points of view as well, that the representation of subordinate communities in an adequate fashion is also a desirable object.
    The point I am putting before the Home Secretary, when he considers the merits of this Amendment and before he definitely makes up his mind, is, now that we are free by reason of his own proposals to consider the overall limitations on our numbers afresh, would it
    296
    not be wise to take the matter and consider it generally, and try to establish what size the House of Commons ought to be for the next period of time from the point of view of principle? I have an uneasy feeling that at the present time the number that has been fixed is the result of piece-meal alterations; first of all the arbitrary figure of 615 which resulted from the deduction of the Irish Members at the time of the Irish Treaty, then the self-denying ordinance in 1934 whereby, faced with the necessity to increase our numbers temporarily, we were anxious not to give way to logrolling Amendments which would greatly increase the size, and finally the pragmatic sanction of the right hon. Gentleman's own proposals, introduced after the Second Reading, based on the demand of individual constituencies, which add up to no overall figure based on any principle whatever. I submit that a case has been made out for the right hon. Gentleman to justify anew the overall figure he proposes, and I ask him to state, before the Debate on this Amendment comes to a conclusion, the view of the Government on that matter.
    5.45 p.m.
    Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) has raised the very difficult matter of the ideal size of the House of Commons. It can be a very awkward problem to try to discover what should be the size of the House of Commons without relation to the number of constituencies we want added, which is the only way to find out the figure we require. It is quite wrong for the hon. Member to say that the figure has been arrived at haphazardly, because the figure arrived at was precisely for the purpose of dealing with the most glaring anomalies. Many of us feel that we are in considerable difficulty in discussing this proposal, because we should prefer, particularly the representatives of Plymouth, to discuss our Amendments separately. We should prefer to discuss our matter separately because we think we have a stronger case than that presented by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), and because, if the Home Secretary were to accept what has been proposed, it would enormously strengthen the argument which we wish to present. Therefore, it would have been much fairer and better if we could have discussed this proposal separately. It was

    297
    ruled earlier that it would be right for us to discuss now the case we wished to present on the Schedule, and that if we did not discuss it now we should probably not have the possibility of doing so later. I hope, therefore, it is in Order to discuss our case on this Amendment.
    We are grateful to the right hon. Member for North Leeds for the argument he presented, which strengthens the argument for having three constituencies in Plymouth rather than two. We wish that instead of breaking his heart over our trials he had come into the Division Lobby with us a few days ago when he could have put his feelings into practice. We are glad that he has seen the error of his ways, and we hope that the Home Secretary will also see the error of his ways. If the Home Secretary does accept this Amendment, and even if he does not, I hope he will consider the case of Plymouth as being at least on all fours with any other case he may accept.
    The right hon. Member for North Leeds drew attention to the fact that the introduction of the 17 constituencies alters the case of every constituency in the country, and in the case of Plymouth it means that under the proposed redistribution scheme we shall have two constituencies with 17,000 or 18,000 votes above the quota, whereas if we had three constituencies, as we previously had and for which we are now asking, we should be only 7,000 under quota. That seems to me to strengthen the case we have put on a previous occasion. Moreover, in the case of the constituencies to which the right hon. Gentleman and others have drawn attention, I think that the highest figure represents an electorate of 69,000.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I referred to two examples—one 74,000 and the other 79,000.
    Mr. Foot: I think the right hon. Gentleman's figure was 69,000. We in Plymouth are above that figure. If any of these Amendments were accepted it would enormously strengthen our argument. If we were to have three constituencies in Plymouth no such difficulty as the Home Secretary suggested, of interfering with local government boundaries, would arise. It would make the situation very much easier from the point of view of local boundaries if we had three constituencies instead of two. That is emphasised by the fact that it is certain that although
    298
    under the Government's proposals if they go through, Plymouth will have two constituencies for the next election, it will have three for the subsequent election. Therefore, we should have great difficulty with our local government boundaries if we have to make this double change. On the ground of local boundaries we have a stronger case than that which has been presented by Members opposite.
    On the Committee stage we presented a series of arguments in favour of three constituencies for Plymouth, and I will not repeat them now. Some of those arguments were rejected by the Home Secretary on the ground that he could not depart from the datum line of 1946. Some of the arguments we presented were based on the fact that the population in Plymouth was increasing, and that the city was as heavily blitzed as any other area in the country. Even if we disregard all those arguments about the datum line, which apply with more severity to Plymouth than anywhere else, because our population decreased so quickly and is now increasing so quickly, we are still left with the argument that if Plymouth retains three constituencies we shall have three constituencies of 47,000 each. We shall stay in the category which still applies to about 18 per cent. of all the constituencies in the country, whereas what the Government are proposing to do is to take Plymouth out of that category and put us in the over 70,000 category. That seems to me to add further argument to what was said on the Committee stage, and we believe that if the Government are to make any further concessions or new arrangements following discussion of this Amendment, it would be desirable that the whole case which has been put forward on behalf of Plymouth, not only today but previously, should be reviewed.
    I should like to ask my right hon. Friend if he can answer a question which he did not answer in Committee. Can he tell us of any other city which has such a unique combination of factors all working together in support of a case for retaining three constituencies instead of two? I hope he will try to answer that now he has had full time to reconsider the whole matter, and will recognise that the case which has been supported from all sides of the House will not involve him in any further difficulties.
    Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I am of the opinion that there is no general principle involved in this matter, and that it is very difficult to have a general discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) endeavoured to make the discussion more general, but in view of the Government's own Amendments, which deal with particular cases, it is difficult to see how any general principle is involved. In accordance with the Ruling of the Chair we now have to put in detail the argument for each change that is suggested. I follow the hon. Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) in putting the case of a particular area—the Wirral Peninsula of Cheshire. Last time I discussed this matter the Home Secretary was extremely reasonable, and I hope that this time, too, he will accede to my arguments.
    The Peninsula is fairly self-contained. It contains two county boroughs, one municipal borough and four urban districts—the county boroughs of Wallasey and Birkenhead, the municipal borough of Bebington, and the four urban districts of Ellesmere Port, Heswell, Wirral and Hoylake. There is in the Peninsula a considerable variety of industries, for instance, Cammell Lairds, Lever Brothers, and the great new developments at Ellesmere Port in connection with oil refining. In addition, very many business people from Liverpool live there, and Wallasey and Hoylake are substantial holiday resorts. So we have a wide diversity of interests and industry to be represented.
    The number of voters in the Peninsula is 265,000. At the moment, I have the privilege of trying to represent 116,000, so I shall be grateful to some extent for whatever redistribution takes place. Under the Government's proposals there are to be four Members. We want five Members. This would mean constituencies with an average electorate of 53,000. The reasons which can be adduced in favour of the change are, I think, practical. I have mentioned the diversity of interests and industry; there is also the question of local government boundaries. Under the Government's proposals the present division of the county borough of Wallasey will cease. It will became one constituency, with an electorate of just over 70,000. But the county borough of Birkenhead will be split. There will be
    300
    one Birkenhead Division, and the rest of Birkenhead will go into the new Bebington Division, which will contain some wards of Birkenhead and the whole of the municipal borough of Bebington. The four urban districts will remain in the fourth constituency.
    Our Amendment is to leave the borough of Wallasey very nearly as it is at present, to leave the county borough of Birkenhead with two seats, to put the municipal borough of Bebington with the urban district of Ellesmere Port, and leave the other three urban districts together. Anyone who has any knowledge of the neighbourhood would, I am sure, admit that that is a much tidier arrangement from the local government point of view. In Birkenhead, there are 98,500 electors. At the last election they returned two Socialist Members to Parliament, both of whom promptly received office—the Solicitor-General and the hon. Member for West Birkenhead (Mr. Collick), who became Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture. What has Birkenhead done to be treated so ill at the hands of the Government?
    Let us look at other county boroughs which are to be dealt with by the Government. The county borough of Reading, with 84,000 electors, is to have two Members. Why should not Birkenhead, with its 98,000 electors, have two Members instead of only one and one-third, which is the present proposal? At Gateshead there are to be 41,000 electors per constituency; East Ham, with 86,000 voters, is to have two constituencies averaging 43,000 each; Blackburn, with 84,000 voters, is to have two Members with seats averaging 42,000 electors. Battersea, Hammersmith, Paddington, Norwich—all these small county boroughs in the 80,000 region are to have two Members.
    6.0 p.m.
    Why is Birkenhead not to have two Members? What has it done to disentitle itself to come into this category? It has certainly suffered very severe damage during the war and it did a great deal of good service to the country. There are substantial housing schemes there and it is a place where the population will increase again in the very near future. It is an insult to the people of Birkenhead that they should not be put in this category. I am not expressing any opinion as to whether it is right or wrong that

    301
    Reading, Gateshead, East Ham and other places with 80,000 electors or more should have two Members each, but if they are to have two Members why should Birkenhead not have two Members?
    I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the matter again and to consider whether we have not made out a good case. No doubt he knows, as he will have familiarised himself with the Boundary Commission Report, that no representations have been made against our proposed change and that the great bulk of people in all parties in the district are strongly of opinion that they are justly entitled with 265,000 electors to five Members of Parliament, and that in particular Birkenhead should have two Members.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I should have preferred to make a submission on a specific Amendment, the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Woodford (Mr. Churchill), to the First Schedule, page 101, line 9, column 2, to leave out "Borough of Heston and Isleworth" and to insert:
    "following wards of the Borough of Heston and Isleworth, namely Heston, Hounslow Central, Hounslow South, Hounslow West, Isleworth North and Spring Grove."
    I would rather have spoken on that Amendment than on the general principle contained in the present Amendment, but I must take this opportunity of expressing the very strong views held by the borough council of Heston and Isleworth, by the divisional Labour Party of that borough, and a number of residents in the borough who have asked me to speak strongly against the Amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. That Amendment appears to me and to those who have been in communication with me to have been put forward without any reference whatever to any responsible body of opinion in Heston and Isleworth.
    Mr. Peake: I do not think the hon. Member could have been in the House at the time, but at an earlier stage I made it perfectly clear that, in view of the observations of the Boundary Commission on these proposals relating to the area of Middlesex, I did not propose to move that Amendment, even if it had been selected by the Chair.
    Mr. Williams: I was in the House at the time, but there seemed to be a good deal of confusion and no one seemed to be quite sure of what anyone else said. I wanted to be quite sure of what I was going to say and do on behalf of Heston and Isleworth. If the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) is not going to press that Amendment, and if the Home Secretary will say that it is not his intention to act upon it, irrespective of the view of the official Opposition, I shall be happy to save the time of the House. If I get an assurance that nothing on the lines of that Amendment is to happen, I will save the time of the House.
    Mr. Ede: It all depends on whether the right hon. Gentleman has a chance to move the Amendment. I understand that he is not going to move it.
    Mr. Williams: I am taking no chances then, and in the interests of my constituency—
    Mr. Peake: I have made it perfectly clear more than once that I had no intention of moving the Amendment, even if it were selected, and in those circumstances it is clear that the Home Secretary would have no chance of accepting it. Therefore, I do not think the hon. Member need worry himself further.
    Mr. Williams: I am very glad to get such a specific assurance. I hope that next time the Opposition put a serious Amendment on the Order Paper, they will get an expression of local opinion in support of such an Amendment.
    Mr. Gammans: I represent one of the constituencies which would be affected by this Amendment, and it is therefore proper that I should accept the invitation of the Home Secretary to say something about it. I am in a somewhat difficult situation because, if the Amendment is accepted, it means that I lose some of my constituents. No Member of any party likes to face the loss of constituents with whom he has worked for many years. From a purely personal point of view, I should be glad if the Home Secretary did not accept the Amendment at all, because it would mean losing people whom I have known for many years.
    However, I do not think that the issue is only a matter of personal feelings. The issue is that I represent some 75,800 constituents, a number which, incidentally, I

    303
    am told is growing. Is it right that a constituency should be made so large when the average is something like 20,000 less, and when we have constituencies with only just over 40,000 voters? If we are adopting the maximum of one vote, one value, it is obvious that if an hon. Member tries to represent nearly twice as many people as another hon. Member he cannot be giving them the same service. That is the issue on which this should be decided.
    I do not think the right hon. Gentleman denies that Middlesex is entitled to one other seat. The objection he raises is, I think, valid is one sense. He does not deny that this constituency is much larger than the average, or that Middlesex should have another seat, but that if another seat is given it means cutting across existing local authority boundaries. That is true, but I wonder how many constituencies in the country cut across one, two, and in some cases three, local authority boundaries. The difficulty which faces us in this part of Middlesex is that whatever one does one must always cut across existing local authority boundaries. We cannot hope to give greater representation unless that is done. Are we to accept the admittedly unsatisfactory factor of under-representation, or are we to give greater representation at the cost of cutting across local authority boundaries? That is the dilemma that confronts the House.
    On purely personal grounds I do not want to lose any constituents, but if it is decided that there must be a splitting of the constituency, I know that the Boundary Commission have considered the matter very carefully and the recommendations they make in their latest draft represent the least possible disturbance of what I would call existing civic entities. The House itself must decide whether or not those recommendations will give greater representation, or whether they will cut across existing civic boundaries.
    Mr. Ronald Mackay: I intervene for a very little time to raise one point which follows somewhat on what the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) said. The Home Secretary was good enough at the beginning of the Debate to say that he had in a sense an open mind and would not make up his mind until he had heard the different cases put forward. The hon. Member for
    304
    Oxford raised the whole matter in a rather open way. After all, it is common ground—it was common ground on Second Reading and during the Committee stage, and, quite clearly, all the way through—that there is no special number of Members of the House of Commons as such and that the numbers have to be determined by the conditions; that there is nothing magical about 613, 618 or 614 or even a greater number, 650 If that is so, the position is completely free so far as numbers are concerned. There is no reason why the Home Secretary should not accept the Amendment on that ground. No one can suggest that there is a particular number which the House should have except in relation to population and in relation to the quota for individual constituencies.
    Two of the recommendations of the Speaker's Conference—far be it from me to say that I am bound in any way by anything the Speaker's Conference did; I was not in the House at the time, and I wrote against it and said that many of the recommendations were very bad—dealt with the redistribution of the seats in Scotland and Wales. They suggested that in redistributing the seats in Scotland and Wales they should not lose any seats even though the population was smaller, and they should therefore get the same number of seats as before, although the population might be less. I am not arguing the rights and wrongs of that—I do not think that has been argued during the passage of the Bill—but it means that the quota for the seats of the English constituencies is greater in all cases than that for Scotland and Wales. On a previous occasion the Home Secretary was good enough to say that that argument was one of the reasons he was willing to consider an additional 17 seats. The fact remains that even with the 17 additional seats, the English constituencies are in a less favourable situation than Scotland or Wales in their representation in this House. I urge on the Home Secretary that that is still a reason why he should give the five seats asked for, or even six seats. It was a reason when he gave us the additional 17.
    What is the problem? We are trying to get as fair a representation as we can. The representation for the English constituencies so far, must inevitably be less than that for the people north of the

    305
    Border and in the west. Looking at some of the constituencies which are the subject of Amendments, we must realise that there is a very good reason for giving consideration to the redistribution now suggested. I have listened to the whole of the Debate, and I was impressed by the arguments of the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) I found it exceedingly difficult to see why the Amendment to which he referred should not be accepted. It would not interfere with local government boundaries if the additional seat were granted. Plymouth will be some 17,000 or 18,000 above the quota left as it is but if divided, the constituencies will be 7,000 below it. Every seat in Scotland is below that figure, and probably every seat in Wales. I have not worked out the figures since the additional 17 seats were granted but hon. Members will agree that that is probably right.
    Why should we argue this problem? The number of Members of the House of Commons is not sacrosanct. It is a question of adjusting the number to the conditions of the population. We have already increased the number to a certain extent because the constituencies in England are in a less favourable position than those in other parts of the country. Looking at the individual cases put in the Debate, if the Home Secretary grants the additional seat requested in each case, he is not giving the electors in the English constituencies more than has already been granted to the people in Scotland and Wales. If there were some reason why the number should be limited to 615, the whole of my argument would go by the board, but there is no reason at all. We know that in many cases the quota has been exceeded. We know that in many cases there are seats where we could get much better representation by adding a few more constituencies to this House. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would withdraw his Amendment so that the individual cases could be further considered and the Home Secretary could say that he will grant three, five or seven seats. He has suggested that he will consider these cases on their merits. I am afraid, from the way the Debate is going that it will be either one or the other—either five or nothing—whereas it is quite
    306
    obvious from the evidence we have heard, that in two or three cases there is every reason why these additional seats should be granted.
    6.15 p.m.
    I ask the Home Secretary to consider the points put by the hon. Member for Oxford, to realise that the thing is in the melting pot, to realise that there is nothing sacrosanct about the number of Members of the House. By granting the additional seats requested, he would be righting what is already a very grave wrong and not righting it to the fullest extent because the representation of England in this House would still be less than that of Scotland and Wales. For those reasons, quite apart from the specific reasons urged in respect of individual constituencies—especially Plymouth, where we have the special circumstances that a seat is being lost and the remaining constituencies are far over the quota, whereas if the seat were not lost they would be above the quota but still not as small as Scottish constituencies—I ask the Home Secretary to act as he said he would act, and to ensure that it will not be a question of turning down or accepting the whole five but of dealing with them on their merits, realising that there is a reason for increasing the number of representatives from those constituencies.
    Mr. Cuthbert: I rise to put forward an individual case from East Sussex which is dealt with in the Amendment to the First Schedule, in page 110, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "1. Bexhill:

    (i) The borough of Bexhill;

    (ii) The following parishes in the rural district of Hailsham, namely, Chiddingly, East Hoathley, Heath-field, Hellingly, Herstmonceux, Hooe, Laughton, Ninfield, Waldron, Warble-ton and Wartling, and the rural district of Battle except those parishes included in the Hastings constituency."

    I understand that this is the only opportunity I may have of putting it forward. Various Members have put forward the cases of their own constituencies and I feel that we have a case here in relation to the borough of Bexhill. There is an alteration to the East Sussex county constituencies and under the Bill the Rye Division, which I represent, is disappearing. I am one of the displaced persons.

    307
    It is to be put under Eastbourne. I rise to say that this is not right and that the Amendment shows the course which should be adopted.
    My reasons for saying this are that the figures show quite clearly that the Bexhill and Rye areas would be very much less represented under the new Eastbourne Division than if the Amendment were accepted, and that Bexhill, Battle and the other boroughs of the Rye Division are against being joined up with any larger town to the right or left of them as it cuts across a very important point of local government. The Amendment to which I have referred would make a very much tidier job, and would conform to the figures required by the Home Secretary. I hope that the Home Secretary will accept the Amendment for the reasons that the proposal would not cut across any local government areas, it is backed up by all the local government authorities of the district, and the figures fall in with what he wants.
    Mrs. Middleton: I do not want to repeat at this stage either the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Mr. Foot) or the arguments I put when our Amendment was moved in the Committee stage of this Bill, but there are one or two points I should like the House to take note of in considering the matter which is before us in relation to the City of Plymouth. I want in the first place to say that the proposal contained in our Amendment to Schedule I is not a proposal which has been authorised by the Boundary Commissioners. After the Debate on the Committee stage on 26th April, when the Home Secretary told my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) that, as far as he knew,
    "Any person is entitled to consult the Boundary Commissioners. They are not a Government Department, they are an independent body which was set up by Parliament to advise Parliament on the way in which the constituencies should be arranged and rearranged from time to time."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th April, 1948, Vol. 450, c. 48.]
    My hon. Friends and I wrote to Mr. Speaker asking him if the Commission would take into consideration the situation in Plymouth and advise us as to whether the division which was suggested in our
    308
    Amendment was the wisest division of the City. Unfortunately, though Mr. Speaker put our case to the Boundary Commissioners, they were not able to help us in the way they have been able to help the Government and the official Opposition. I would say, however, that despite this fact, the proposals contained in our Amendment are not some that have been devised by my hon. Friends and myself. They have been suggested to us by local government officials working on the spot, who know the City and the difficulties contained therein probably as well as if not better than the Boundary Commissioners. So that in that sense it is a non-party proposal, which we are submitting to the House.
    My second point is that there is no political difference whatever in the City of Plymouth with regard either to the retention of the Drake Division in general, or to the particular proposal which is before the House in our Amendment. Indeed, only last weekend the chairman of the Conservative Party in my own constituency was attacking the Government for having deprived Plymouth of the Drake Division—a quite unfair charge for him to make of course since the proposal to deprive Plymouth of the Drake Division was not the Government's proposal; it was the Boundary Commission's. Nevertheless, it is an indication to the House of the strength of feeling that there is on this matter, not only among those people whose views are the same as my own as a member of the Labour Party, but also among those who take the point of view politically of hon. Members opposite.
    Thirdly, I would draw the attention of the House to the fact, which was emphasised by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that what really matters today in representation is the number of electors whom a Member of Parliament has to serve. If that is the criterion which should be taken, the hon. Members for Plymouth in the two new constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission would have to serve a larger number of electors than any of the Members in the majority of those constituencies which the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) would like to have considered here today.
    I was interested in what the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn

    309
    Lloyd) said about the situation in Cheshire. He quoted the fact that there are 265,000 electors approximately in four constituencies, giving an average of 66,392 to each of those constituencies under the proposals of the Boundary Commission. Yet under their proposals for Plymouth, the Devonport Division would consist of 72,115 electors and the Sutton Division of 70,348 electors. If we take the whole of the five areas which are under discussion as a result of the Amendments tabled by the Opposition, we shall find the same to be the case, that the number of electors served in almost the whole, if not the whole of those constituencies is a lesser number than the number which will have to be served in the two Divisions recommended for the City of Plymouth. So on that criterion, namely the number of electors to be served by a Member of Parliament, I submit to the House that the City of Plymouth has a strong claim for reconsideration in regard to the retention of the Drake Division.
    My last point refers to the datum line. I have no doubt that it was a reasonable datum line from the point of view of the generality of constituencies, but from the point of view of constituencies like the Plymouth constituencies, it was a datum line that operated most unfairly. Indeed, by the time the General Election comes, the figures for the electorates of the two constituencies proposed by the Boundary Commission in regard to Plymouth will, if the increase of population continues at the present rate, be well over the 80,000 which the Home Secretary himself has taken as being too large for any single constituency. That, of course, is because of the fact that owing to the ravages of war, our population was scattered throughout the surrounding districts. The people who are coming back to Plymouth now and increasing our electorates are not newcomers to the City; they are people who belong to the City, who have felt all along that they belonged to it, who regard Plymouth as their home, and who are only too anxious to get back as soon as they can in order to take part in the life of the city once again.
    For those reasons I ask the Home Secretary to give this matter consideration once more, and to see whether there is not, even yet, some way by which he can restore to the City of Plymouth the constituency that it would never have lost
    310
    had it not been for the ravages wrought upon the city during the war.
    Mr. Grimston: I rise, not for the purpose of winding up the discussion for the Opposition—that will be done by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid)—but to put a specific case to the Home Secretary relating to the Amendment we have down in respect of the county of Kent. As the Schedule now stands, there are four seats in Kent—Chislehurst, Dartford, Bexley, Gravesend—which have an average quota of over 67,000, which is more than 10,000 above the new electoral quota after the 17 seats have been added. We propose, to rectify this situation, a new seat in this area to be called Erith and Crayford. There would then be five seats instead of four, and that would reduce the electoral quota to 53,800-odd, which is practically the same as the electoral quota over the whole country.
    The Boundary Commission have reported that these proposals were received favourably in the area. There was only one small adjustment proposed, in respect of which they considered a local inquiry to be necessary but for which there was no time, and therefore they have accepted, so to speak, our proposals in the White Paper. The result of that is that the quota relation is good; it is almost exactly what the quota will be. There are no local objections but, what is the strongest point of all, under our proposals the local government boundaries are preserved, whereas under the proposal for four seats in the Schedule the rural district of Dartford is split. I think the Home Secretary will agree that under all these headings—the quota relation, the absence of local objection, and the fact that we preserve the local government boundaries—there is a particularly strong case for the acceptance of the Amendment in regard to Kent.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. Irving: I hope that the Amendment will be either withdrawn or accepted because, obviously, some of the very desirable Amendments proposed to the Schedule cannot be agreed upon if this Amendment is rejected. I have in mind especially the case of Tottenham. That case was so strongly put during the Committee stage that the Home Secretary

    311
    made no attempt to answer it, except to ask the various speakers how they would treat in a Parliamentary sense the borough of Wood Green. Tottenham has an electorate of 94,500. In London and Greater London there is a number of constituencies with considerably less than 90,000 electors which retain two Members. Under the proposals half of Tottenham is merged into. Wood Green and Tottenham becomes a one-Member borough. I do not want to argue again the case which I put during the Committee stage, but I emphasise that the Home Secretary did ask for proposals for Wood Green. I think this Amendment contains the complete answer and I hope that it will be accepted later when we discuss the Schedule.
    Mr. Raikes: I hope the Home Secretary will be impressed by the wide feeling on all sides of the House that there is a case for an increase in the number of Members. Speaking as one who is in no way affected by this particular proposal, I would remind the House that the original disagreement between the Opposition and the Government over the 17 seats was not on the basis that we on this side thought there should be no alterations, but because we took very strong exception to the methods adopted by the Government in making them.
    Earlier in our discussions, the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) referred to log-rolling on the part of the Opposition, regarding Amendments which the Opposition, in point of fact, are not moving. The hon. Member could usefully have devoted a little more time to reading the Order Paper more closely.
    There are two points I wish to make. In referring to the seats which we are bringing forward at a later stage on the Schedule, the Home Secretary said we had taken what might be called only a corner interest in counties instead of treating them on the wider basis, and that in some way we were treating them unfairly. The Home Secretary knows as well as I do, that if we could have provided a much larger number of cases we would do so. We are not anxious at this stage of the redistribution to create more constituencies; we have endeavoured to pinpoint
    312
    those which we regard as being the worst cases.
    I must add an observation regarding the Wirral seats in Cheshire, the case for which has been made quite clearly by the hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd). I should like to call the attention of the Home Secretary to what I think is an important matter for the Wirral peninsula. As has been said, the average number of electors for the existing Wirral seats is 66,000. The Wirral, although a piece of Cheshire by itself, is closely connected with the great city of Liverpool. The interests of the two places are quite clear. I do not think Liverpool has been unreasonably treated but, whilst the average in the Wirral is 66,000 electors per seat, the great city of Liverpool, next door, has approximately only 63,000 under the redistribution for its larger seats; for the whole of Liverpool the average is very much less. The fact that the average numbers per seat in the Wirral should be higher than those of any single seat in the city of Liverpool, and far above the average for Liverpool as a whole, presents a strong case for reconsideration.
    I would like also to make a passing reference to East Sussex, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Rye (Mr. Cuthbert). I think the average electorate for the four county seats is just under 66,000. It will be agreed that county seats are much more of a headache than borough seats. There are the difficulties of travelling from one place to another and of having small communities in many separated villages. For that reason county seats have always been allowed a certain amount of latitude. In East Sussex, however, the reverse applies, with an average electorate of nearly 66,000 per seat. In London, for example, we find that Paddington has been cut into two divisions of just over 40,000 electors each. I am not complaining, but I do say that county seats with an average of over 60,000—or even of 50,000 to 55,000—are very hard cases. This is a case, if ever there was one, which could be met without difficulty by the Government. The solution would be to give that one extra seat which would bring down the average from 65,800 to between 52,000 and 53,000. This is not only a reasonable but an obvious case which should be met.

    313
    If the Home Secretary were to say—as perhaps he will—that the case we have put up may cut across certain local boundaries, I do not think that would raise any great difficulties with us. In certain cases the cutting across of local boundaries cannot be avoided. The Commission themselves have been unable to avoid doing so. Where there is a drastic case of a seat or a series of seats bearing too heavy an electorate in proportion to the rest, a very strong case for adjustment exists, even if extra difficulties are entailed in ironing out local problems in the interests of the plan as a whole.
    The general feeling in the House, as was said earlier by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg), is that there is nothing sacrosanct about the actual numbers of, say, 614 or 615. If we are to do a good job, let us iron out as many of the remaining anomalies as we can. I wish that we could have rather more elasticity than a mere four or five seats. I should like to see about a dozen, which would enable us to meet most of the awkward cases which affect both sides of the House. I hope the Government will not harden their hearts against the Amendment which, at any rate, moves in the right direction for the interests of the country as a whole.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: It was agreed on all sides of the House at one time that it was proper to remit a problem of redistribution to the Boundary Commission. Even when that was done we never got a solution which satisfied everybody. Though the solution to be got in that way did not satisfy everybody there were only two proper things to do. The first was to take the rough with the smooth and accept the Boundary Commission's proposals although we did not like them. That was what we were prepared to do after the last Boundary Commission's Report. The other was to make a remit to the Boundary Commission, the remit being, of course, of a width sufficient to deal with the objection.
    What happened in this case? There was a first examination by the Boundary Commission which was found to be unsatisfactory because it was thought that the rules were too tight. The rules were relaxed, and obviously when rules are relaxed there is a great likelihood that the result will be to give more representation
    314
    to the scattered county areas and rather less to the borough areas. That was implicit in the change of instructions which we made at the instance of the Government nearly two years ago. Last October the Boundary Commission produced their report. That report did not please us, but apparently it pleased the Government, or at any rate sufficiently so for them to state that they were willing to take the rough with the smooth from their point of view, just as we were willing to take the rough with the smooth from our point of view. That attitude persisted through the time of the drafting of the Bill and the Second Reading, and it was only on 19th March that we were made aware that the Government had discovered an objection. It is true that they had apparently discovered it in private a little earlier and had taken steps accordingly, but there is a long time from October to March.
    What was the precise objection which the Government discovered? If it was a general objection that the Boundary Commission Report was wrong because the average county quota was too far below the average borough quota, then the proper course was to make a remit appropriate to that objection. That meant a very extensive if not complete re-examination of the whole position. That was not what the right hon. Gentleman did. He picked out 17 particular instances. The only reason for picking out 17 particular instances is because there is some more limited principle which affects that 17. We were a little sceptical, but we thought that if this were really genuine, though the Government had taken rather a long time to discover the so-called new principle, we would accept it. However, the objection was not a general one obviously at that stage. Their objection appeared to be a particular one, and we were very loath to come to the conclusion that the real reason that induced the Government to act was not one of principle at all but one of party advantage.
    Therefore, we took the Government at their word and we said, "Very well, if you have chosen these 17 constituencies because there is a principle of limited application which you want to introduce, that principle, if it is a principle at all, cannot be limited in its application to 17 constituencies." We said, for reasons which my right hon. Friend the Member

    315
    for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) has already given, which others have expanded and which I will not repeat, "Let us take the Government at their word. Let us assume this is a principle discovered at a late stage, and that it is intended to apply the principle fairly now that it is apparently Government policy." On those grounds we added by way of argument, "We have not too much time—had we had longer time we should have discovered more—but we have discovered seven instances which apparently are covered by this new principle and we put them forward with this new proposal in view."
    6.45 p.m.
    We went to the Boundary Commission and the Commission were not enthusiastic with regard to two of them. We said then, "Very well, we are practical people, practical considerations must prevail over theoretical ideas. We will drop these two." In regard to the other five, however, the Boundary Commission were entirely on our side. If the details, which have been put to this House during the last hour or two, are looked at, it will be found that there is no more splitting of local government areas or no more geographical difficulties than there are in the 100 other constituencies which the Boundary Commission have passed. The Boundary Commission applied their ordinary criteria to these seven cases and five passed while two did not. It is no good the Home Secretary saying that there are certain practical objections to these five constituencies. These objections did not prevail with the Boundary Commission and if, indeed, objections of a like character were taken they would upset zoo of the new constituencies. Therefore, I am entitled to say that if the right hon. Gentleman's principle justifies nine new seats in the cities it justifies even more the five cases which we are now discussing, that is, of course, if it is a principle at all.
    I go even further. If we look at the figures—I will not weary the House with them—in the nine cities, there are averages of 52,000 and 53,000; in these five constituencies the average is the same. It is true that in one or two of the cities, the average is higher, but there are a number of the cities where the average is almost identical with the average of the five
    316
    constituencies which have passed the Boundary Commission.
    That having been demonstrated, the right hon. Gentleman has not, apart from these detailed objections of which the Boundary Commission have already disposed, met the case. I am not sure what he meant to tell us a little time ago, but I understood that he did tell us that the so-called principle which he enunciated when he was justifying the nine new city constituencies was not the teal point at all. The point was quite a different one. The point was, "I am determined to get more representation for the boroughs and I do not care how I do it." I have said that the right hon. Gentleman did not care how he did it, because if he did care he would have had a general remit to the Boundary Commission after consultation with this., House, away back last November to deal with this new point of principle. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is constantly shifting his ground.
    First of all, in October he agreed to take the rough with the smooth. We were at one with him then. He then came forward in March and April with proposals based upon the new principle. In effect, what the right hon. Gentleman said was that where there were large adjacent constituencies which could be divided into one more to get the average of something over 50,000, and where that could be done with the practical compliance of geographical and local government considerations, then it should be done. That is what we were told a couple of months ago. We took him at his word and he shifts his ground again. Now he comes to the decision that we must have greater equality between the borough and the county quotas. Is that an afterthought or is it his real ground of principle? Has he had two afterthoughts? Did that principle of bringing the quotas nearer together occur to him before these Amendments were on the paper? If it is a genuine point it was equally as obvious last November as it is today and there were ways then of dealing with it in a proper way.
    I am bound to say that I have the greatest difficulty, little as I like the alternative, in reconciling my mind to the view that there is any principle whatever behind the right hon. Gentleman's action. What has happened is perfectly plain, and

    317
    it is as well that it should be made plain to the country. The right hon. Gentleman quite properly took the view, "I will take the rough with the smooth." He was overruled by his back benchers. Against his better judgment he agreed to bring in these additional seats. It must be against his better judgment because he is an expert in these matters, and if he had intended to do it he would have done it in the original Bill, or he would have sent the matter back to the Boundary Commissioners at a much earlier stage. Against his better judgment he surrenders to his back benchers. I have less hesitation in saying that as it is not the first time he has had to do that.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: And will not be the last.
    Mr. Reid: I am very sorry for the right hon. Gentleman. He is trying, so far as I can see, to conduct with justice and equity the affairs for which he is responsible, but he is not allowed to do so.
    Mr. Birch: He does not resign.
    Mr. Reid: I am not dealing with what is the proper course for the right hon. Gentleman to follow. What I am doing at the moment is to expose what is really behind the right hon. Gentleman's attitude today. Against his better judgment he was compelled to give a number of extra seats to his back benchers. I suppose that they thought that there was a party advantage in it; otherwise it is difficult to see why they did it. At least that is how it happened.
    Having been compelled, against his better judgment, it is not surprising that the right hon. Gentleman has found considerable difficulty in finding a plausible reason for the change, and having found one reason, and that reason being applied by our Amendment, he then has to turn to another one. If that were the true reason he would have had to act quite differently throughout last autumn and winter from the way he has done. Every one of these five cases has been justified on its merits, because, after all, the Boundary Commission are the people who decide these matters, and these five cases comply with the two essentials of the right hon. Gentleman's principle, if it was a principle, which he stated in the spring of this year. They comply with the requirements
    318
    that the Boundary Commissioners shall accept the proposal as practicable and they comply with exactly the same requirements with which the right hon. Gentleman has complied in the case of his 17 new constituencies. There is no difference between them.
    I do not think it is open to the right hon. Gentleman now to say, "I do not like the details of these new constituencies." That, I think, has been decided for him by the Boundary Commission. Whether it has or not, he has really not put forward any substantial objection. The only objections which he has put forward are objections which, as I say, would have been equally applicable to a great many other of the Boundary Commission's representations. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is faced with this choice: either he has to accept the principle which he himself formulated in connection with the nine city seats and accept these Amendments, or he has to say what is really the reason. I agree that the eight divisions of boroughs are in a slightly different position, and I do not think they are so relevant in the present connection. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the reason was the general reason that it is desired to bring the quotas nearer together he is usurping the functions of the Boundary Commission because it was their job to carry out that instruction, if that was a genuine instruction.
    What has really happened is that these principles are invented to justify the surrender to a political move by the right hon. Gentleman's supporters behind him. I do not think that it makes it any better for the right hon. Gentleman to say, "Of course, this is not the sort of thing I would have done if I had been left to my own devices, but I had to do it, and please do not be too hard on me," because that is the only defence if he does not accept these Amendments. Therefore, I trust that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to assure us that at least one of the principles which he has put forward in the course of these Debates is to be regarded as a real principle.
    Mr. Ede: I can speak again only by leave of the House because I spoke immediately after the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake), although I should have preferred,

    319
    as I said at the time, to reserve my remarks for the present stage of the Debate when I had heard the whole discussion justifying the five constituencies which the right hon. Member for North Leeds now asks the House to place upon the statute book. The right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) suggested that what I said this afternoon about bringing about a lesser disparity between the borough and county constituencies was something I had not previously mentioned. I am very loath to quote my own speeches. They are dreary enough to utter, and I have never yet had the pluck to read them through consecutively, but on 24th March, 1948, that was exactly the point I placed before the House when I justified the creation of 17 new borough constituencies.
    Mr. J. S. C. Reid: Had not the right hon. Gentleman thought of that before the Bill was introduced?
    Mr. Ede: I am bound to say that from the first, when I looked at the figures in regard to this Measure, I came to the conclusion that the disparity between the the boroughs and the counties needed a great deal of explanation. I came to the conclusion, after full consideration, before the Committee stage of the Bill, that it was desirable to take steps to reduce the disparity between boroughs and counties, and I so stated on 24th March. Therefore, there is nothing new in that contention today.
    I share to some extent the views of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Hogg) that part of the difficulty which confronted the Boundary Commissioners and which has since confronted everybody has been the fact that there are too few Members allowed to England and Wales in this Bill. I have no doubt that in some future re-distribution something will have to be done to bring about a lessening of the disproportionate representation of the three parts of Great Britain in this House. I am quite certain of that. That, however, is not a matter which can be dealt with at the present time in the Bill, but for what it is worth I place it on record.
    In my earlier speech I had to deal with the five counties in connection with which action was proposed by the right hon.
    320
    Member for North Leeds. I should have preferred to wait until I heard the cases, such as they could be, developed in support of each of them. I have now had the advantage of having listened to them, and I am bound to say that nothing I have heard alters in my mind the view I took of them when I spoke earlier. I therefore cannot commend this Amendment to the House. I think that, merely by taking corners of counties to deal with, the Opposition have not, in fact, followed the same procedure as did the Government, where we took the whole of large units. For this reason, in addition to those which I gave in detail when I spoke previously, I am not prepared to accept the Amendment.
    7.0 p.m.
    Mr. Nigel Birch: I think that my hon. Friends, though disappointed by the answer of the Home Secretary, will not be very much surprised by it, because what we have known throughout about this proposal was that it was a racket, in order to get 17 extra seats for the Government. It had no other reason of any sort whatever behind it. The right hon. Gentleman said just now, in answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. J. S. C. Reid) that he stated his views on 24th March. But, of course, that was after he had been forced to take that position by his own back benchers. There is no great merit in confessing his failure to preserve his honour by saying that he only did it when he had capitulated.
    There is a very clear principle involved in all this, which is that the boundaries of constituencies should be laid down by an impartial Boundary Commission, acting in accordance with legislation, if possible agreed by this House, but in any case acting impartially according to Acts passed by this House. That is what has always happened hitherto. What happened in this case was, as the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Parker) said, simply a piece of log rolling. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), saw a chance of getting the rabble together. He got them together, and the right hon. Gentleman was forced to do something which he knows is wholly dishonourable.
    We had an interesting instance last night of how hon. Members opposite look upon these matters. When the hon. Member

    321
    for East Coventry (Mr. Crossman) was speaking on the subject of university representation he said that the honour of Ministers is a side issue. That is how he thinks of them. Surely, the simple answer to these things is that if Ministers are pledged to do things, and if they think it is dishonourable to break those pledges, they should resign. What the right hon. Gentleman has said was, "They have voted me down." Many Ministers have been voted down in the past on a question
    of principle, but those who have some regard to what is right, and to their own honour, have said, "If I am voted down I will go." The lesson here is that no Socialist Minister ever resigns unless he is thrown out of the window, however much dirt he has to swallow.
    Question put "That '613' stand part of the Bill."
    The House divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 127.

    Division No. 226.]

    AYES.

    [7.5 p.m.

    Acland, Sir Richard

    Durbin, E. F. M.

    Lee, Miss J. (Cannock)

    Adams, Richard (Balham)

    Dye, S.

    Leslie, J. R.

    Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South)

    Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

    Lever, N. H.

    Allen, A. C. (Bosworth)

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

    Levy, B. W.

    Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

    Edwards, John (Blackburn)

    Lewis, T. (Southampton)

    Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

    Edwards, N. (Caerphilly)

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Attewell, H. C.

    Edwards, W. J. (Whitechapel)

    Lipson, D. L.

    Austin, H. Lewis

    Evans, Albert (Islington, W.)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Evans, John (Ogmore)

    Logan, D. G.

    Ayles, W. H.

    Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

    Longden, F.

    Ayrton Gould, Mrs. B.

    Ewart, R.

    Lyne, A. W.

    Bacon, Miss A.

    Fairhurst, F.

    McAdam, W.

    Balfour, A.

    Fernyhough, E.

    McEntee, V. La T.

    Barstow, P. G.

    Follick, M.

    McGhee, H. G.

    Barton, C.

    Forman, J. C.

    McKay, J. (Wallsend)

    Battley, J. R.

    Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

    McKinlay, A. S.

    Bechervaise, A. E.

    Freeman, Peter (Newport)

    Maclean, N. (Govan)

    Benson, G.

    Gallacher, W.

    McLeavy, F.

    Beswick, F.

    Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

    Macpherson, T. (Romford)

    Bevan, Rt. Hon. A (Ebbw Vale)

    Gilzean, A.

    Mainwaring, W. H.

    Bing, G. H. C.

    Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

    Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)

    Binns, J.

    Gordon-Walker, P. C.

    Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield)

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood)

    Mann, Mrs. J.

    Blyton, W. R.

    Grey, C. F.

    Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.)

    Bottomley, A. G.

    Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

    Manning, Mrs. L. (Epping)

    Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

    Marquand, H. A.

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

    Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side)

    Marshall, F. (Brightside)

    Braddock, T. (Mitcham)

    Guest, Dr. L. Haden

    Mathers, Rt. Hon. George

    Bramall, E. A.

    Gunter, R. J.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Brook, D. (Halifax)

    Guy, W. H.

    Mikardo, Ian

    Brooks, T. J. (Rothwell)

    Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil

    Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R.

    Brown, T. J. (Ince)

    Hamilton, Lieut.-Col. R.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Bruce, Maj. D. W. T.

    Hardy, E. A.

    Monslow, W.

    Buchanan, Rt. Hon. G.

    Hastings, Dr. Somerville

    Moody, A. S.

    Burden, T. W.

    Haworth, J.

    Morgan, Dr. H. B.

    Burke, W. A.

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Morley, R.

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

    Hicks, G.

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

    Callaghan, James

    Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

    Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

    Chamberlain, R. A.

    Horabin, T. L.

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

    Champion, A. J.

    House, G.

    Mort, D. L.

    Chater, D.

    Hoy, J.

    Moyle, A.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

    Mulvey, A.

    Cluse, W. S.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Murray, J. D.

    Coldrick, W.

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

    Nally, W.

    Collindridge, F.

    Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)

    Naylor, T. E.

    Colman, Miss G. M.

    Hynd, H. (Hackney, C.)

    Neal, H. (Claycross)

    Comyns, Dr. L.

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Irvine, A. J. (Liverpool, Edge Hill)

    Noel-Buxton, Lady

    Crawley, A.

    Janner, B.

    Oldfield, W. H.

    Daggar, G.

    Jeger, G. (Winchester)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Daines, P.

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

    Orbach, M.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Jones, D. T. (Hartlepool)

    Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth)

    Davies, Edward (Burslem)

    Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)

    Parkin, B. T.

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

    Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)

    Paton, Mrs. F. (Rushcliffe)

    Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)

    Keenan, W.

    Paton, J. (Norwich)

    Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

    Delargy, H. J.

    King, E. M.

    Peart, T. F.

    Diamond, J.

    Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.

    Perrins, W.

    Dobbie, W.

    Kinley, J.

    Poole, Cecil (Lichfield)

    Dodds, N. N.

    Kirby, B. V.

    Popplewell, E.

    Donovan, T.

    Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

    Porter, E. (Warrington)

    Driberg, T. E. N.

    Lang, G.

    Porter, G. (Leeds)

    Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich)

    Lawson, Rt. Hon. J. J.

    Price, M. Philips

    Dumpleton, C. W.

    Lee, F. (Hulme)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Pryde, D. J.

    Snow, J. W.

    Watson, W. M.

    Pursey, Cmdr, H.

    Solley, L. J.

    Weitzman, D.

    Randall, H. E.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

    Ranger, J.

    Soskice, Sir Frank

    Wells, W. T. (Walsall)

    Rankin, J.

    Steele, T.

    Westwood, Rt. Hon. J.

    Reeves, J.

    Stross, Dr. B.

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

    Reid, T. (Swindon)

    Stubbs, A. E.

    White, C. F. (Derbyshire, W.)

    Rhodes, H.

    Sylvester, G. O.

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

    Richards, R.

    Symonds, A. L.

    Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

    Ridealgh, Mrs. M.

    Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

    Wigg, George

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

    Taylor, Dr. S. (Barnet)

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

    Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

    Willey, F. T. (Sunderland)

    Rogers, G. H. R.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)

    Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

    Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

    Williams, D. J. (Neath)

    Royle, C.

    Thomas, John R. (Dover)

    Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)

    Sargood, R.

    Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

    Williams, R. W. (Wigan)

    Scollan, T.

    Thurtle, Ernest

    Williams, W. R. (Heston)

    Shackleton, E. A. A.

    Tiffany, S.

    Wills, Mrs. E. A.

    Sharp, Granville

    Timmons, J.

    Wise, Major F. J.

    Shawcross, C. N. (Widnes)

    Titterington, M. F.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens)

    Tolley, L.

    Woods, G. S.

    Shurmer, P.

    Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

    Wyatt, W.

    Silverman, J. (Erdington)

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Yates, V. F.

    Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

    Vernon, Maj. W. F.

    Young, Sir R. (Newton)

    Simmons, C. J.

    Viant, S. P.

    Younger, Hon. Kenneth

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Walker, G. H.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Skinnard, F. W.

    Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)

    Smith, C. (Colchester)

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

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Mr. Joseph Henderson and

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

    Watkins, T. E.

    Mr. Hannon.

    NOES.

    Amory, D. Heathcoat

    Harris, H. Wilson (Cambridge Univ.)

    O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

    Assheton, Rt. Hon. R.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Orr-Ewing, I. L.

    Astor, Hon. M.

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Osborne, C.

    Baldwin, A. E.

    Hogg, Hon. Q.

    Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

    Barlow, Sir J.

    Hollis, M. C.

    Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

    Beamish, Maj. T. V. H.

    Holmes, Sir J. Stanley (Harwich)

    Pickthorn, K.

    Bennett, Sir P.

    Howard, Hon. A.

    Ponsonby, Col. C. E.

    Birch, Nigel

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

    Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry)

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

    Hulbert, Wing-Cdr. N. J.

    Price-White, Lt.-Col. D.

    Bowen, R.

    Hurd, A.

    Raikes, H. V.

    Bower, N.

    Hutchison, Lt.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)

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

    Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

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

    Renton, D.

    Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

    Jeffreys, General Sir G.

    Roberts, Emrys (Merioneth)

    Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

    Keeling, E. H.

    Roberts, H. (Handsworth)

    Bullock, Capt. M.

    Kerr, Sir J. Graham

    Robinson, Roland

    Byers, Frank

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Ropner, Col. L.

    Carson, E.

    Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

    Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

    Challen, C.

    Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

    Scott, Lord W.

    Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G.

    Lindsay, M. (Solihull)

    Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)

    Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

    Linstead, H. N.

    Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral)

    Smith, E. P. (Ashford)

    Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

    Low, A. R. W.

    Snadden, W. M.

    Crowder, Capt. John E.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

    Spearman, A. C. M.

    Cuthbert, W. N.

    Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. O.

    Stanley, Rt. Hon. O.

    Darling, Sir W. Y.

    MacAndrew, Col. Sir C.

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)

    McCallum, Maj. D.

    Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.

    Studholme, H. G.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Macdonald, Sir P. (I of Wight)

    Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)

    Drewe, C.

    McFarlane, C. S.

    Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (P'dd't'n, S.)

    Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Mackeson, Brig, H. R.

    Teeling, William

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

    McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Duthie, W. S.

    Maclay, Hon. J. S.

    Touche, G. C.

    Eccles, D. M.

    Maclean, F. H. R. (Lancaster)

    Vane, W. M. F.

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

    Macmillan, Rt. Hon. Harold (Bromley)

    Wadsworth, G.

    Fletcher, W. (Bury)

    Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

    Wakefield, Sir W. W.

    Foster, J. G. (Northwich)

    Manningham-Buller, R. E.

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

    Fraser, H. C. P. (Stone)

    Harpies, A. E.

    White, J. B. (Canterbury)

    Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D.

    Mellor, Sir J.

    Williams, C. (Torquay)

    Gammons, L. D.

    Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cirencester)

    Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.

    Neven-Spence, Sir B.

    York, C.

    Grimston, R. V.

    Nicholson, G.

    Gruffydd, Prof. W. J.

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Hare, Hon. J. H. (Woodbridge)

    Odey, G. W.

    Commander Agnew and

    Major Ramsay.

    Question put, and agreed to.

    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 4, line 30, to leave out "include the words," and to insert "refer to the."
    324
    This is the first of the Amendments on the Paper which deal with the proposed new arrangements for the City of London

    325
    and adjoining constituencies. The House will know that in the Bill as it stands there is a constituency called the City of London which includes, in addition to the City, the Metropolitan Boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch. The arrangement by which the City, Finsbury and Shoreditch were joined in one constituency apparently found favour with none of the three participants in the partnership. Conversations have taken place, as I expressed a hope that they would, between the representatives of the City of London and certain adjoining Metropolitan Boroughs with a view to finding a solution more acceptable to all concerned.
    7.15 p.m.
    I had the privilege of meeting the representatives of the boroughs concerned and I want to pay a tribute to the way in which, when they were faced with the practical issue of what was to be done, they gave their minds to the various propositions with an absence of rancour and an effort to be constructive which was most helpful. I do not want it to be thought that they gladly accepted the arrangement which was finally adopted. In fact, I undertook to say to the House that they regarded it as the least objectionable of all the schemes placed in front of them. As I undertook to put it in that way, perhaps it will be understood that my tribute to the way in which they faced the issue is quite sincere.
    The proposals, which will flow steadily through the Bill from this Amendment in a series of consequential Amendments, will result in the following final arrangement if all the Amendments are adopted. There will be a constituency to be known as the Cities of London and Westminster which will comprise the City of London and, the whole of the City of Westminster. It will have a total residential electorate, on the 1946 figures, of 78,516. There will be another constituency, Shoreditch and Finsbury, comprising those two Metropolitan Boroughs with an electorate of 56,764. In addition, there was the problem of what was to be done with Chelsea after the arrangement now in the Bill whereby Chelsea and Westminster were to be united and then divided into two, one constituency consisting of a part of the City of Westminster and the other consisting of the Borough of Chelsea and the remainder of the City of Westminster.
    326
    The whole of the City of Westminster now being with London, we should have been left with Chelsea with rather fewer than 40,000 electors. The representatives of the Royal Borough of Kensington took part in the discussions. They agreed that from the South Division of the Royal Borough of Kensington there should be taken the Brompton ward which should be added to Chelsea. The new Chelsea constituency, which will consist of the Borough of Chelsea and the Brompton ward of the Royal Borough of Kensington, will have a total electorate of 48,576. The deduction of the Brompton ward from South Kensington will leave that constituency with 58,618 electors. The Parliamentary constituency of North Kensington, with an electorate of 51,547, will remain unchanged.
    This arrangement was reached at a conference in which the Members of Parliament concerned and the representatives of the City and the various Metropolitan boroughs were also present. The decision to accept this arrangement on the basis that I have stated as being the least objectionable of all the proposals that have been considered, was adopted at that conference without a dissentient. I commend this arrangement to the House and, once again, I thank those who participated in the discussions for the good temper which prevailed throughout.
    Mr. E. P. Smith: Can the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that there will be a geographical nexus between the City of London and the City of Westminster?
    Mr. Ede: The existing constituencies of the City of London and the City of Westminster adjoin one another.
    Mr. Assheton: I should like to say, on behalf of the senior Member for the City of London and myself, that we are grateful to the Home Secretary for having stated so clearly and precisely the arrangements which have now been made. I wish to make it clear once again, as my right hon. Friend has already made it clear, that the City of London still maintains the point of view that it should have separate representation in this House, and looks forward to the day when that separate representation will be restored to it. As it has been made quite clear that this Government do not intend to do that, we acquiesce in the

    327
    suggestion now put forward by the Home Secretary that the Cities of London and Westminster should be united to form one constituency and that the City of London and the City of Westminster should both be completely within that constituency. It is quite clear to everyone that this arrangement is not agreeable either to London or to Westminster except as a pis aller, and it is as a pis aller that we accept it, looking forward to the day when what we think is an injustice will be redressed.
    Commander Noble: I rise to ask the Home Secretary to reconsider for a moment the position of Chelsea, in particular with regard to the two Amendments concerning Chelsea which appear on the Order Paper. In the Bill, it was proposed to add three wards of St. George's, Westminster, to Chelsea, but, as a result of this Amendment, that proposal has gone by the board. It is now proposed to add one ward to Chelsea from the Royal Borough of Kensington.
    In Committee, when we were debating an Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling), the Home Secretary said that he could not contemplate—that was the word he used—a borough constituency of 39,000, but what has happened since then? He has not only contemplated a borough constituency of 40,000—that is North Battersea, a very near neighbour of Chelsea—but has also contemplated 15 others between 40,000 and 44,000, seven of which, in addition to North Battersea, are in London. I ask the Home Secretary if he will recall for a moment what the Boundary Commission said about these new boroughs, notably Battersea, Hammersmith and Paddington. I quote what they said in Paragraph 19 of their report:
    "In our view, however, the position of these boroughs does not justify special treatment which we felt unable to accord to the others."
    A few lines above that, they referred to Chelsea and Westminster, and they said:
    "We felt unable, however, consistently with the course we had adopted elsewhere, to recommend the retention of either borough as a separate Parliamentary borough."
    I am not quite sure whether the metaphor "what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander" is perhaps the right one
    328
    to use here, but I do ask, in that connection, whether the Home Secretary will not give the position of Chelsea another thought. I feel that further evidence is given in Appendix A to the Boundary Commission's Report, in paragraph 5 of which it is stated:
    "(1) So far as is practicable having regard to the foregoing rules:—
    (iii) no Metropolitan borough or any part thereof shall be included in a constituency which includes the whole or part of any other Metropolitan borough."
    That is exactly what is going to happen here. A small part of South Kensington is to be added to the borough of Chelsea. I ask the Home Secretary whether it is really worth while taking away about 10,000 voters from South Kensington to give to Chelsea the necessary few hundreds to bring it to the total of North Battersea, and, perhaps, into the realm of "contemplation," especially when, in fact, those few hundreds under the 1947 register actually now exist?
    The right hon. Gentleman should not think for one moment that I am objecting to this proposal. Chelsea did not object in any way to the original proposals in the Bill when it was proposed to add some of the St. George's division, nor does it object to this addition of part of South Kensington. I do, however, ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) will agree with what I have said.
    Mr. Richard Law: I should like to reinforce the plea made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) that the Home Secretary should reconsider that part of the Amendment which deals with the respective electorates of South Kensington and Chelsea. I accept, of course, what the Home Secretary said about the agreement which we came to at that meeting at the Home Office. He is quite right in saying that neither I, as the Member for South Kensington, nor any of the municipal representatives there with me, dissented from the proposal that is now put forward, but the right hon. Gentleman did say just now that we all agreed to that proposal as being the least objectionable of any alternative put before us. It was certainly on that basis that we agreed to it, but it seems to me

    329
    on reflection that there is another alternative which was less objectionable and which was not, in fact, open to discussion at that meeting, but which it is now within the power of the Home Secretary to put forward of his own volition, if he should think it wise to do so.
    That alternative is that the borough of Chelsea should remain as a municipal and Parliamentary borough with its boundaries co-terminous, and that the Royal Borough of Kensington should also remain as a municipal and Parliamentary borough also with its boundaries coterminous. I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on what this proposal means for 10,000 voters in the Brompton Ward of South Kensington. Naturally, local feeling and local patriotism is involved, and, having had an association with the royal borough all their lives, my constituents in the Brompton Ward are not anxious to be transferred to the borough of Chelsea for Parliamentary and London County Council purposes. Quite apart from any feelings they may have, they are, in fact, going to be put to a great deal of inconvenience, and there is going to be a very great deal of confusion. The obvious difficulty, as I am sure the Home Secretary appreciates, is that while for Parliamentary elections and London County Council elections they will be part of Chelsea, for municipal elections they will remain part of the Royal Borough of Kensington, and that will put them in a situation which, I am sure, will prove to be extremely confusing for them.
    7.30 p.m.
    I hope the Home Secretary will consider this point again, if he possibly can, because there is no question, of course, of any party advantage, one side or the other, arising from it. It is true that the 10,000 voters of my constituency in the Brompton Ward have voted Conservative in the past, but if the Home Secretary wants to punish them for that he will not do it by this method, because they will continue to vote Conservative in the future under the new arrangements. Like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea, I have been rather baffled by the phrase which the Home Secretary used when we debated this general issue on a previous occasion. He said he could not contemplate an electorate of 39,000. He did not explain to the House—or to the Committee, as it then was—why he could
    330
    not contemplate it, and I think he should now give the House the reasons which put this proposal altogether outside the bounds of contemplation.
    It is extremely difficult to see why he cannot contemplate an electorate of 39,000 when he not only contemplated, but created an electorate of 40,000. I should have thought it would have been possible for him to stretch the odd few hundreds to meet a situation of this kind inside the metropolitan area of London. I suppose the Home Secretary bases his action upon the report of the Boundary Commission. It is perfectly true that the Boundary Commission considered the question of giving Chelsea separate representation and then turned it down, but in the same paragraph as that in which they turned down the question of separate representation for Chelsea, they also turned down the proposal that these seven or eight other boroughs should have their Parliamentary representation doubled. I suggest that it is unreasonable for the Home Secretary to take his stand on one part of the paragraph when he is flouting the recommendations of the Boundary Commission in the other part of the paragraph, and that seems to me to be a reason why he might reasonably consider the proposal which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea has put to him.
    I want to add this further point: when the Boundary Commission had its new terms of reference, when the Act of 1944 was superseded by the Act of 1947, I think the main difference was that under the new Act and their new terms of reference they were very specifically instructed to consider municipal local boundaries and they were given a freedom to do so which they did not have in their original terms of reference. I think the Home Secretary will agree that that was the main difference between the two terms of reference. That being so, surely a very strong case indeed is created when we have two historically important boroughs like the Royal Borough of Kensington and the borough of Chelsea, observing as far as possibly can be observed, the main recommendation not of the Boundary Commission, but of Parliament to the Boundary Commission, that these local boundaries should be observed. It seems to me extremely rigid on the part of the

    331
    Home Secretary if he really says that, because of a matter of only a few hundred votes on a register which is out of date, he has to take this action in these two boroughs.
    I quite see that if there were a very considerable number of votes involved it would be impossible and impracticable for the Home Secretary to go back on the attitude he has taken up, but if he compares the position of Chelsea with the position of the other five London boroughs which are dealt with in the report of the Boundary Commission he will see that, in fact, the position of Chelsea is entirely different. Chelsea had an electorate of 39,177 when the rough working quota of the Boundary Commission was 40,000—only a few hundreds out. Holborn has 19,000, Shoreditch 31,000, Stoke Newington 32,000, and Finsbury 25,000. In cases of that kind, where the gap is a very wide one, I can see the Home Secretary's point, but in the case of Chelsea, where the gap is only a very narrow one indeed, amounting to a few hundreds, I suggest to him that he might reconsider this matter and see whether he could not, in fact, allow it to continue with its Parliamentary boundaries unaltered.
    Mr. Keeling: Although the last Amendment, rejected just now, for increasing the total number of Members by five had nothing whatever to do with London, I understand you have decided, Sir, not to call any further Amendments which would increase the number of Members. Of course I am bound by that Ruling but I must say I regret it very much because it had been the intention of the Members for the City of London and the City of Westminster and myself to move an Amendment to give two Members to the Cities of London and Westminster instead of one.
    The announcement which the Home Secretary has just made reduces the representation of the new constituency, the combined Cities of London and Westminster, from four, as it is at the present moment, to one. The total number of electors on the 1946 Register—excluding, of course, the business vote—was 78,516, which means that the new constituency will be one of the largest in the country. In view of the immense importance of the two Cities it seems utterly wrong that their representation should be based
    332
    purely on a numerical basis. The City of London, the commercial and financial centre of this country, and the City of Westminster, the seat of Government of this country and of the Empire, deserve better treatment than to have only one Member between them. I deeply deplore the decision of the Government.
    Mr. Howard: May I support the plea which has been made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chelsea (Commander Noble) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law)? It seems to me that in this case all that is between the Home Secretary and complete agreement with the hon. Members for those two boroughs is a hypothetical 820 electors, in that today the present electorate, under the 1946 Register, is 820 below the Home Secretary's figure—and that is a hypothetical figure. Actually, the number of electors today is more than 2,000 over the 40,000 which the Home Secretary has in view.
    I agree that he cannot work all of his constituencies on entirely different bases, but here is one case where there seems to be strong grounds for stretching a point in order to preserve the local authorities' boundaries and to preserve a very ancient and honourable metropolitan borough.
    I want to say a word or two about the position as it affects my own city, the City of Westminster. I want to thank the Home Secretary for the way he has put to the House the decisions to which he has come following the conference, and for making it perfectly clear that those decisions were not suggested to him by representatives of the various boroughs and constituencies concerned, but were only rather grudgingly accepted after he had made it perfectly clear that, in his judgment, there was no hope of their getting what they considered a reasonable representation. In my judgment these suggestions of the Home Secretary do not give reasonable representation.
    Here was a meeting of these four central municipalities, the Cities of London and Westminster, the Royal Borough of Kensington and of Chelsea. They came together to try to see if they could not get over this difficulty. They put certain proposals to the Home Secretary which would have meant having five constituencies with an average electorate of something over 47,000, excluding the business vote. If the

    333
    business vote had been included—and it was included in all the other cases—the average electorate would have been 49,000. Even excluding the business vote, the average electorate for the five constituencies, two in Kensington, one in Chelsea, and two in the Cities of London and Westminster—would have been over 47,000. What do we find are the figures in the immediately adjoining constituencies, Battersea, Hammersmith and Paddington, South, West and North of them? The highest electorate of any of the neighbouring ones is 43,700, and the average of the immediately adjoining constituencies, which the Home Secretary is recommending, is well under 43,00.
    While he puts forward his recommendation, he is not prepared to recommend this House to agree to representation for these five central constituencies which would give them an average electorate of something over 47,000. It really is an astonishing decision, and while I am grateful to the Home Secretary for having put as fairly as he has the nature of the discussions which took place at the conference, I think that it is only fair to the House that they should know that there were proposals put before him which would have been infinitely more reasonable.
    Mr. Ede: By the leave of the House, I would say that this conference was held a month ago. As far as I know, only one person present in the House now who was present at the conference has not spoken. I do not know whether I should have had a little support from him, if he had spoken, for the scheme I put in front of the House. However, we were faced with very great difficulties. I regret that the point made so emphatically by the right hon. Member for South Kensington (Mr. Law) was not put with anything like that force at the conference.
    Commander Noble: I did put that point.
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Gentleman put the point with regard to Chelsea. I do not recollect that he said anything about South Kensington. The alternative to this is to go back to what is in the Bill. I understood that what was in the Bill was thoroughly objectionable to all concerned, and that they desired to get away from it. I said—and I reiterate the
    334
    statement—I could not contemplate a constituency in England with an electorate in 1946 of less than 40,000, because—and let us be certain of this—if one were to give way once on a point like that, there would surely be other places discovered which would come within the same rule. I should have thought that that would have been made clear by the discussions of the last three months.
    Mr. Law: Does the Home Secretary know of any other cases? In the London boroughs no question of that kind arises, because they are so far below 40,000.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: No, I do not know of them; but I am quite certain, from the facts that have been brought to my notice with regard to every alteration that has been made in the Bill, that if this alteration were made, by the end of this week I should know of more than one case. The right hon. Gentleman made his point. I regret, as I did at the conference, that I cannot meet the various points put forward. I accepted the arrangement that was reached there. I do not think that anyone who was there can say that I have unfaithfully reported the spirit that prevailed. I am bound to say that, although I said that I could not prevent hon. Gentlemen from raising the matter in the House, if I had thought that every one of them was going to raise it, I am very doubtful whether I should have thought it worth while to come away from the meeting feeling I ought to put the arrangement in front of the House. I want to thank them and their municipalities for the way they met me, and I very much regret I cannot meet the point that has been made with regard to the future of the borough of Chelsea.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 4.—(Registration officers and areas.)
    Amendment made: In page 4, leave out lines 38 and 39.—[Mr. Ede.]

    CLAUSE 5.—(Registers of electors.)
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 6, line 20, to leave out from "who," to "shall," in line 21, and to insert "has a service qualification."
    This Amendment and a number of others that follow deal with the question that has been raised several times in the

    335
    House by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling). We had a discussion on it during the Committee stage, and when we had seen all that would be involved in accepting the principle, I was able to say that between then and the Report stage I would, in consultation with the hon. Gentleman, see if it were possible to do something to meet the situation which he had been bringing before the House for a considerable length of time.
    Mr. Speaker: It might be convenient if we took in a general discussion with this Amendment, the consequential Amendments. I suggest that course, if the House agrees.
    Mr. Ede: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This group of Amendments is intended to replace Clause 70, extending the franchise to Crown servants abroad and their wives, and to give full effect to its intention. They will also extend the franchise to the wives of Service voters who reside outside, the United Kingdom to be with their husbands. That last is a point which, I know, has been troubling Servicemen and their wives, and I am very glad to be able to meet them.
    The Amendment which immediately follows this one in Clause 6, page 7, line r, provides that the classes of Crown servants who are to be given the Service qualification are to be prescribed by regulation. My intention is to include all the classes covered by the words "service in respect of which payment is made out of moneys provided by Parliament," now found in Clause 70. It seems best to prescribe them by regulation, so as to make sure that all the appropriate classes are covered, and are clearly set out without ambiguity, and so also as to provide a measure of flexibility for the future. It may be necessary at some time in the future to delete some of the descriptions or to add others. I hope that the hon. Member for Twickenham will feel that the Amendments that we have managed to put on the Paper carry out in the spirit as well as in the letter the undertaking that I gave. I am pleased to be able to ensure that the group of people concerned, those who are temporarily abroad on their country's service, should be able to retain active citizenship of this country.
    Mr. Keeling: I agree with the Home Secretary that the Amendments give effect
    336
    to what we desire. I feel bound to point out, however, that during the long period he mentioned, during which this extension of the franchise has been pressed upon his attention, it was not only received unsympathetically by him but was very strongly opposed by the Labour Members of the Committee on Electoral Registration which he appointed. The Amendments will not only restore to the staffs of the Control Commission in Germany and Austria the vote which they had at the last General Election—the Bill proposed to take it away from them—but it will give a vote for the first time to other civil servants abroad and to their wives. It also gives a vote, as the Home Secretary has said, and again for the first time, to the wives of members of the Fighting Forces abroad.
    There was no reason for refusing a vote to any of these people once it was given to the Fighting Forces. But the thousands of British men and women who will be enfranchised by these Amendments will owe their enfranchisement to the insistent pressure of the Tory Party who, in this as in so many other matters, have proved themselves much more democratic than the Labour Party.
    Mr. Donovan: I did not intend to intervene in this Debate, but as the other Labour Member of the Electoral Committee is not here, I wish to dissent from what has been said by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) that Labour Members of that committee strongly opposed this proposal. I did not. What happened was that the hon. Member for Twickenham put forward this proposal on the basis that because the people concerned paid Income Tax they should get the vote. He wanted the test of the suffrage to be the liability to pay Income Tax. He will remember that I pointed out to him in rather a long letter that that principle would be unworkable and—
    Mr. Keeling: Has the hon. and learned Member read the minority report of the committee? He will find that that report was not based in the very least upon Income Tax. The words "Income Tax" were never mentioned at all.
    Mr. Donovan: Because the hon. Member for Twickenham withdrew his first draft Minority Report after receiving my letter.
    Mr. Keeling: Did the hon. and learned Member oppose the Tory Members' recommendation that these civil servants should have the vote, or did he support it? I leave the House to judge the answer from the committee's report.
    Mr. McKinlay: From what the Home Secretary said, I understood that he proposes to deal with this matter by regulation, and that therefore the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Keeling) is dealing with something which does not arise. Can we have an assurance from the Home Secretary that servant girls and male servants who are serving with civil servants abroad, and who are natives of this country, will have their votes safeguarded in the same way as their masters and mistresses? If civil servants take servants abroad with them from this country it is only right that the voting rights of those servants should be safeguarded. I should like that information from the Home Secretary. We know the pressure that is brought to bear by masters and mistresses at election times. The servants know full well that they are threatened with the loss of their employment if the wicked Socialists get in, but many of them are willing to take the risk. I want an assurance from the Home Secretary that, in framing the regulations—no doubt the right hon. Gentleman is having a very interesting conversation on the Front Bench but I am asking him a question—he will safeguard the voting rights of the people I have mentioned equally with the voting rights of their masters and mistresses.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: Amendment pro posed, in page—
    Mr. McKinlay: On a point of Order. Am I not entitled to have at least an acknowledgment from the Home Secretary that a request has been made from this side of the House for his consideration?
    Mr. Ede: I can only speak again by leave of the House. I do not think it will be possible for me to include in the regulations the class of person to whom my hon. Friend has alluded. I will, however, consider whether it is possible to do so. If not, the point should be considered during the passage of the Bill elsewhere.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 6.—(Service declarations.)
    Amendments made: In page 7, line 1, leave out from the beginning, to "may," in line 3, and insert:
    "(1) The following persons shall have a service qualification for the purpose of this Act, namely,—

    (a)any person who on the qualifying date is a member of the forces;

    (b)any person who on that date is employed in the service of the Crown in a post outside the United Kingdom of any prescribed class or description;

    (c)any woman who on that date is the wife of a person having a service qualification and is residing outside the United Kingdom to be with her husband;

    so, however, that where a person leaves the United Kingdom to take up employment or residence as aforesaid or returns to the United Kingdom at the end of such employment or residence, the employment or residence shall be deemed to begin from the time of leaving or to continue until the time of returning, as the case may be
    (2) A service declaration shall be made only by a person who has a service qualification or, subject to any prescribed conditions, by a person about to leave the United Kingdom in such circumstances as to acquire a service qualification.
    (3) A service declaration"
    In line 13, leave out from "for," to "would," and insert:
    "the circumstances entitling him to make the declaration."
    Leave out lines 16 and 17, and insert:
    "(d) such particulars (if any) as may be prescribed of the declarant's identity and service qualification."
    In line 19, leave out "member of the forces," and insert:
    "person having a service qualification."
    Leave out lines 33 and 34, and insert:
    "had from the date of the declaration or such later date if any as appears therefrom, and as continuing to have, a service qualification."
    In page 8, line 2, leave out "remains a member of the forces," and insert:
    "has a service qualification, except in so far as regulations provide that it shall cease to be in force on a change in the circumstances giving the service qualification."
    In line 5, leave out "a member of the forces," and insert:
    "authorised so to do by subsection (2) of this Section."
    In line 13, leave out from "to," to end of line 4, and insert:
    "any particulars required by regulations under this Section."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 7.—(Polling districts and polling Places.)
    8.0 p.m.
    Mr. Heathcoat Amory: I beg to move, in page 8, line 36, to leave out:
    "in the absence of special circumstances."
    I think I can deal with this Amendment very quickly because we have already had some discussion on the subject.
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): I think it would be useful if at the same time we dealt with the next two Amendments: In line 38, at end, insert:
    "unless it appears to the local authority that the combination of two or more parishes or parts of parishes in one electoral division will not materially affect the convenience of the electors or any body of them."
    And in line 38, at end, insert:
    "unless it appears to the local authority or the returning officer, as the case may be, that such an arrangement is unnecessary in order to meet the reasonable requirements of the electors or any body of them."
    Mr. Amory: I am obliged. I was about to make the same suggestion, as all three Amendments deal with the same proposal. We do not think the words "in the absence of special circumstances" are very satisfactory. They do not seem to us to be very clear in indicating the kind of circumstances which would make necessary an exception from the provisions of this part of the Clause. The primary consideration must be the convenience of the electors, and the more polling stations there can be the better. However, we must also take into consideration what is practically possible, and I think it will be agreed that some exceptions from the provisions that there should be a polling station in every parish will be necessary.
    If there were no exceptions, in the case of a very rural county there would be an enormous increase in the number of polling stations. For instance, I believe that in Warwickshire it would mean an increase of in polling stations, and I believe in the case of the North Riding of Yorkshire 372 additional polling stations. There are in Warwickshire 28 parishes with under 50 electors and six parishes with under 10 electors, and in the North Riding there are 115 parishes with under 50 and eight parishes with under 10 electors.
    340
    Of course, there will arise the problem whether it will be possible to provide sufficient presiding officers, polling clerks, all the other people who are necessary, and buildings; but, in any case, I think the Home Secretary will agree that there will be cases where it will be more convenient not to have a polling station in a particular parish, and that it will be more convenient to the electors there to register their votes in a neighbouring parish. We want to provide as much flexibility as possible here, so that it shall be possible for the best and most convenient arrangement to be made in the interests of the electors. We suggest that if this Amendment were adopted, and if one of the next two Amendments, which are really alternatives, were also adopted, the result would be more satisfactory than it would be with the inclusion of the words which we seek to omit.
    Mr. Grimston: I beg to second the Amendment.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Younger): I do not think there is very much between us on this point. I recognise that the words "special circumstances," which crop up in a good many Sections of different Statutes and so cause argument, are rather vague. On the other hand, I feel that the alternatives suggested tend to give rather more latitude to county councils not to have a separate polling district in each rural parish than the words "in the absence of special circumstances" would give them.
    I am not sure that I entirely agree with the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Amory) when he said that we should have as much flexibility as possible. I think it has been the experience that some county councils, which already have a duty to give to all electors in their constituencies such reasonable facilities for voting as are practicable in the circumstances, have hitherto taken a rather narrow view of that, and it was agreed at the Speaker's Conference that adequate facilities had not been provided in very many areas. We therefore attach a good deal of importance to this Clause, and we want to ensure that the onus is very much upon the county council to be satisfied that there are special circumstances which would justify the failure to comply with what we intend to be the general rule.

    341
    It is really very little more than a matter of emphasis, but I submit that either of the two alternatives in the second and third of the Amendments which we are discussing rather tend to put the onus the other way. They suggest that unless there is some special reason for having a separate polling district in each parish it will be quite in order to leave things as they are. It is only a question of emphasis, but I prefer the words which are in the Bill.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 8.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 10, line 41, to leave out "or," and to insert:
    "(vi) at a general election."
    This is a drafting Amendment. The drafting of the Clause as it exists was criticised in Committee, and this is simply a splitting up of the paragraph to meet those criticisms.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 10.—(Proxies.)
    Amendment made: In page 14, line 6, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
    "for whom proxies have been appointed.—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 11.—(Place and manner of voting as proxy.)
    Amendment made: In page 14, leave out lines 29 to 31.—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 12.—(Timetable and procedure.)
    Amendment made: In page 15, line 44, leave out from "that," to end of line 46, and insert:
    "the election was so conducted as to be substantially in accordance with the law as to elections and that the act or omission did not affect its result."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. William Ross: I beg to move, in page 15, line 46, at the end, to insert:
    "Provided that where it is found, on scrutiny, that the number of ballot papers not bearing the official mark would be sufficient to entitle an otherwise unsuccessful candidate to be declared elected the election should be declared invalid."
    I hope this Amendment will commend itself to all quarters of the House. There is no suggestion of any favour being done by this Amendment to either the Conservative
    342
    or the Socialist Party. I think every party on occasion has been faced at the end of an election with some very close results—majorities of five, four and even as low as one. Candidates declared unsuccessful have left the counting place with the knowledge that there was a batch of votes which, if they had been allowed, would have changed the result of the election, and would have meant that the candidate declared unsuccessful was actually successful. One batch of votes it may be, is spoiled simply because the polling clerk has failed, through accident at a rush time, or because of inexperience, or of neglect or carelessness, to stamp the polling card, with the result that, although it has been perfectly marked by the elector, it has been discounted in the original count. We feel that it contravenes all our claims that we seek to give full weight to the will of the majority, if, because of the error of an official, the result is changed.
    Although one may say that the elector has an opportunity to draw the attention of the official to the fact that the card is not stamped, and although the fact that the official has failed to stamp the card may not have been noticed by the elector—
    8.15 p.m.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Some of them do not know.
    Mr. Ross: I think that if we examine some of the other Clauses, we shall find that notices have to be put up in the polling stations in regard to this, but in the rush hour, or it may be from age or infirmity, electors may not have noticed it. From that point of view, I think it is unfair, because the discounting of that vote really means the discounting of several thousand votes.
    Then there is the case of the absent voter and the Service voter. I know that this has happened because I experienced it at the General Election. These absent voters have no opportunity to draw to anyone's attention to the fact that the official mark is not on the card. It may be that if there was a re-scrutiny of the papers discounted because of the lack of the official mark, the result would be changed altogether. In our submission, we feel that it is only right in a case where there is a close contest, that there should be a re-scrutiny of voting papers discounted because of the lack of the official

    343
    mark, and that if it is found that that would vitally change the result, the election should be declared invalid. We, therefore, suggest to the Home Secretary and to the Secretary of State for Scotland that it would be much more democratic if instead of allowing these anomalies and this unsatisfactory condition to continue, he considered the change which we have suggested.
    Mr. McKinlay: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I want to impress on the Secretary of State for Scotland the absolute necessity of some safeguard. There is one right hon. Member of this House at the moment who would have arrived at his destination in 1935, had it not been for the fact that so many papers were spoiled because they were unstamped. I do not want to be ungenerous, but I have had much electioneering experience of things which happen—not accidentally, because unstamped papers always seem to emerge from the same type of polling station in the same district. To my mind it is the most scientific way of voting for your own personal inclination if one is a polling clerk and using other people's votes for that purpose.
    The worst thing of which one can accuse a polling clerk is stupidity in marking papers ahead in anticipation of a rush, forgetting when the last stamped paper was issued, and to continue doing so. I have watched them from the gallery of a polling booth doing that. My right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Scottish Universities (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) will remember the 1935 contest in Kelvingrove, where the shadow hung over both candidates for a long time, and my submission is that if it had not been for the number of unstamped papers which emerged from Finniston Street School, no recount would have been necessary. I hope that the Secretary of State, from a wide experience of electioneering in Scotland, will not blow a stepmother's breath on this proposal, but will give it the consideration which it merits, because we are satisfied that it is fair to all sides, and that where an election result has been determined by papers which had been unstamped, any reasonable person would agree that such an election should be declared invalid.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Woodburn): We have a great deal of sympathy with the difficulty outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumbartonshire (Mr. McKinlay). As he says, I have had personal experience during the period he mentioned of what was certainly one of the most disgraceful elections I have ever come across in my life. It was very unfortunate for all the people involved that such an election should take place. Part of it was due to the fallibility of human beings, and there is no way in which we can safeguard elections against culpability or fallibility somewhere in the species from which presiding officers are drawn.
    One of the difficulties in dealing with this matter is the reason for stamped papers. The reason is to ensure secrecy of the poll, and to prevent, if possible, any corruption or misuse of ballot papers. Therefore, in examining this matter, we have had to look into the question of whether we can do anything without opening the door to the misuse of ballot papers. If it is admitted that any kind of unstamped ballot paper can be counted, that does away with the whole prevention of corruption by making it possible on some occasion, for unstamped papers—not unstamped by mistake but left unstamped on purpose—to be inserted in the boxes, as was often suspected to be the case. Of course, the cure may be worse than the disease.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and I have looked carefully into this matter, and we have examined the question of whether in such a case a petition would be possible. We have come up against the problem of the law relating to petitions, which is not yet embodied in statute law, and which would require a great deal of research and investigation to make sure that it was sound. There has not been sufficient time in the interval since this matter was considered to make a very intricate investigation. So far as we can see, the law at the moment provides for a completely unsatisfactory election to be challenged by petition, although we recognise that under the present system, a petition can be extremely expensive, and in some cases almost prohibitive.
    Nevertheless, we shall investigate this. I cannot say that it will be done

    345
    promptly, because of the complex nature of the necessary investigations; but if anything can be done which does not open the door to even worse complications, then the matter will be given sympathetic consideration, and we hope that eventually the law will be such as to satisfy the desires of my hon. Friends. The only certain way of avoiding unstamped papers is to have competent presiding officers. I know it is the ambition of every returning officer to have competent presiding officers, and I hope that with competent presiding officers, intelligent voters, and polling agents who are supervising what happens in the polling booths, a great deal of this can be minimised. I remember that the late George Hardy was defeated by unstamped ballot papers in Springburn. In future these offices will be filled by competent people, but I am sorry to have to ask the House to reject the Amendment at the moment.
    Miss Herbison: The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that there could be ever so many mistakes, or that things might be worse than they are, if we were to ask that unstamped papers should be counted. Those sponsoring this Amendment make no such suggestion. All we ask is that if there are sufficient unstamped papers to make it possible that an unsuccessful candidate could have been successful, then that election should be declared invalid. The Secretary of State has given examples where this system has worked very unfairly against certain people in Scotland. I do not think his suggestion to have more competent officers will solve the problem. I do not want to cast aspersions, because I have no knowledge of these matters; but it is possible that these unstamped papers are left unstamped by very competent people, and for very obvious reasons. If this is to be considered in another place, then we who put down this Amendment feel very strongly that the Bill should not become an Act and go on to the Statute Book until we are absolutely certain that all elections are to be fair elections to every candidate.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 13.—(Effect of register, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 16, line 20, leave out from "ground "to "otherwise" in line 22, and insert:
    "that he is not a British subject or is not of full age or is otherwise subject to any legal incapacity to vote, or that on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, he was not a British subject or was not of full age or was."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 16.—(Returning officers.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 17, to leave out lines 35 and 36.
    This and the following Amendment Pare consequential on the new arrangements for the City of London constituencies, which have already been discussed.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In line 41, leave out "(other than the City of London)."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 18.—(Payments by and to returning officer.)
    Amendment made: In page 21, line 21, leave out from "in" to second "in" in line 25, and insert "a constituency in England."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 21.—(Electors.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 24, line 9, after "any" to insert "rateable."
    The explanation for this Amendment should be coupled with that of the Amendment in Clause 22, page 24, line 39, after "landlord" insert:
    "the expression 'rateable' means liable for the time being to be rated to the general rate or to any rate expressed by the Act creating it to be in the nature of a general rate, except that in relation to the City of London it means liable for the time being to be rated to the poor rate."
    These Amendments are to ensure that where a person has a non-resident local government vote, on the broad grounds that a person who contributes to the rates is entitled to a vote, he shall only get it where, in fact, he is liable to pay rates. It was pointed out in Committee that the Bill as drafted might give this qualification to persons who were not, in fact, liable for rates. These two Amendments together will have the effect of altering that.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page24, line 14, to leave out from "area" to the end of line 15, and to insert:
    "which are of the yearly value of not less than ten pounds and in respect of which rates are payable."
    This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just agreed to, and makes an alteration in the same sense in the Scottish Subsection.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE: 22.—(Residence, occupation, etc.)
    Amendment made: In page 24, line 39, after "landlord" insert:
    "the expression 'rateable' means liable for the time being to be rated to the general rate or to any rate expressed by the Act creating it to be in the nature of a general rate, except that in relation to the City of London it means liable for the time being to be rated to the poor rate."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page line 23, at the end to insert:

    "(i) of a dwelling house let to him furnished for a term of less than nine weeks; or

    (ii)."

    This is very largely drafting, to bring Subsection (6), the Scottish Subsection, into line with Subsection (3).
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 23.—(Registration.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 26, line 8, after "that" to insert:

    "(a) a person shall not be entitled to be registered more than once in any local government area; and

    (b)"

    Perhaps I might also discuss two later Amendments: In line 10, to leave out "electoral" and to insert "local government," and in line 25, to leave out "electoral" and to insert "local government." These Amendments again relate to the non-resident local government vote. It was pointed out in Committee that, although a person who has two qualifications in the same local government area will be prohibited from voting in respect of more than one of them at an ordinary election, he will not be prohibited from voting, in respect of different qualifications at successive casual elections in the same area. These Amendments are designed to meet this point by providing that a person shall not be entitled to be registered more than once in the same local government area. The Amendment in line 25 has the effect
    348
    that where a person has both a resident and a non-resident qualification in the same local government area he shall be registered in respect of the resident qualification only.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 8, leave out from "who," to "shall," in line 9, and insert "has a service qualification."
    In line 10, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."
    In line 13, leave out "member of the forces," and insert "person having a service qualification."
    In line 25, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."—Mr. Younger.

    CLAUSE 25.—(Place and manner of voting as elector.)
    8.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page line 43, to leave out "or as nonresidents."
    This Amendment can be taken together with the Amendment in line 36 and the Amendment to leave out lines 42 to 47. These Amendments have the effect of leaving out of the Clause the provisions enabling a person to vote by post at a local government election in respect of a non-resident qualification which is in a different area from the home address. The non-resident voter will be entitled to vote by post on any of the other grounds set out. This was subject to some discussion in Committee, and it was felt, on balance of reasonableness, that while it was right that this vote should continue in this form, if a non-resident voter had a close connection with the area in which he was not a resident, it would be no hardship for him to be without the right of a postal vote.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page27 line 34, at the end, to insert:
    (3) Where—

    (a)a person is registered at the same qualifying address both as a parliamentary and as a local government elector, and is not so registered as a service voter; and

    (b) there is in force an appointment of a proxy to vote for him at parliamentary elections in respect of that registration, being an appointment based on the general nature of his occupation, service or employment;

    349
    then, in respect of that registration, at local government elections at which postal voting is allowed he shall be treated as an absent voter and may vote by proxy and not otherwise.
    (4) Subject to the last foregoing Subsection"
    As the Bill now stands, Clause 8 (3) will enable a civilian elector to apply to vote by proxy at Parliamentary elections if he is likely to be unable to vote in person by reason of his occupation, service or employment, or of his service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces, and if in addition he is likely to be at sea or out of the United Kingdom on the date of the poll. An Amendment was moved by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) to make similar provision in respect of local government elections, but it was thought that to meet that in full in local government elections would be too difficult from the administrative point of view. My right hon. Friend said, however, that he would try to meet the position in respect of the resident voter, and this Amendment carries out that undertaking.
    The effect is that where a civilian elector has had a proxy appointed for Parliamentary elections in respect of a resident qualification which is also a local government qualification, he may vote by that proxy and not otherwise at local government elections. The Amendment will apply only where the elector is entitled to vote as an absent voter by reason of the nature of his occupation, service or employment, and not, as at Parliamentary elections, where he is so entitled by reason of service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces. The reason for this distinction is that an absent voter application on the ground of service in the Reserve or Auxiliary Forces is to be made for a particular election only. If, therefore, civilians were allowed to vote by proxy on this ground at local government elections, it would be necessary to enable them to appoint proxies specially for local government elections. This would involve an administrative complication for which there appears to be insufficient justification having regard to the very small number of cases likely to be affected.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Consequential Amendment made.
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, in page 27, line 36, to leave out from "section," to "may," in line 37.
    350
    The object of this Amendment is to enable the Service voter to vote by post at a local government election in the same way as at a Parliamentary election. As the Clause stands he has only the alternative of voting by proxy or in person.
    Mr. Younger: There are considerable administrative difficulties about this. As I mentioned on the previous Amendment, a Service voter's application to vote by post must relate to a particular election. In Parliamentary elections the arrangement which operates whenever a vacancy occurs, or when a General Election is announced, is that all Service establishments in the United Kingdom are notified and the Service voters Register for the constituency concerned, or all the Service voters in the event of a General Election are invited to apply to the registration officer for postal ballot papers. It seems clear that such an administrative provision would be impracticable for local government by-elections.
    In these circumstances, I do not think an important administrative measure like circulating all Service establishments should be undertaken for every vacancy. It is true that it would be less difficult in the case of ordinary local government elections, but nevertheless it would still add substantial complications, and we are not anxious to complicate this Measure still further. The House will agree that the number of persons who would wish to take advantage of a provision of this kind is not very great in the case of local government elections. I believe it is the experience, in Parliamentary elections that the amount of use made of this provision by Service personnel, except at a General Election where interest is naturally widespread, is relatively small. I suggest that this would introduce a complication which would be virtually impossible to operate in respect of casual elections in local government, and that it would not be worth while.
    Commander Galbraith: We are somewhat disappointed with the reply we have had. We feel that the Service voter is entitled to every possible consideration, and that simply to rule the matter out because of administrative difficulties is not treating the matter fairly. I should have thought that it would have been possible to have a

    351
    notation on the register whereby, automatically, there would go out to Service voters a postal ballot form. When the hon. Gentleman says that matters of grave importance or interest do not arise at municipal elections I believe he is wrong. There is at the moment great interest in housing questions, with which men who are leaving the Services are very much concerned. They would, I know, desire to have the opportunity of recording their opinion about the way in which the housing problem is tackled. The Service voter does, I believe, attach great importance to the recording of his opinion at local government elections. If the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland looked into this matter I am sure they would find means of overcoming the difficulty. Service men could get the vote if only the will was there to enable them to record it.
    Amendment negatived.
    Amendment made: In page 27, leave out lines 42 to 47.—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 26.—(Voting by post by absent voters.)
    Amendments made: In page 28, line 27, leave out "by post," and insert "as an absent voter."
    In line 44, leave out from "treated," to "or," in line 46.—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 27.—(Service voters' proxies.)
    Amendments made: In page 29, line 15, leave out "for a service voter."
    In line 16, leave out "for a service voter."
    In line 31, leave out "an elector," and insert "a service voter."
    In line 38, leave out "aforesaid," and insert:
    "proxy for an elector at a local government election."
    In line 39, at end, insert:
    "(5) The registration officer shall keep a record of electors for whom proxies have been appointed and of the names and addresses or the persons appointed."
    In line 41, leave out "(7),"and insert "(6)."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 29.—(Effect of register, etc.)
    Amendments made: In page 30, line 39, leave out "electoral," and insert "local government."
    In page 31, line 6, leave out from "ground," to "otherwise," in line 8, and insert:
    "that he is not a British subject or is not of full age or is otherwise subject to any legal incapacity to vote, or that on the qualifying date or the date of his appointment, as the case may be, he was not a British subject or was not of full age or was."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 32.—(Limit of, and return and declarations as to, expenses.)
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 32, line 14, to leave out "penny halfpenny," and to insert "twopence."
    When the Bill was in Committee the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) raised the question of the adequacy and the limit of election expenses that had been suggested by the Speaker's Conference, and I undertook to have consultations with people who might be competent to guide the House in the matter. The National Agent of the Labour Party had a conference with the National Agents of the Conservative, Liberal and National Liberal Parties, who made a unanimous recommendation which I communicated to the Leaders of the parties in the House. They accepted the recommendation of the agents, and this is now embodied in this Amendment and the following Amendment which deals with this matter.
    I think the House would like to know the exact effect this will have on the limit of expenses allowed in Parliamentary Elections. At present, the allowance is 6d. for each elector plus the election agent's fee up to £75 in county constituencies, and 5d. for each elector plus the agent's fee up to £50 in borough constituencies. In the original draft of the Bill the suggestion, following the lines of the Speaker's Conference, was £450 plus 1½d. for each elector in county constituencies, or 1d. for each elector in borough constituencies. The Amendment leaves the £450 as it was but adds a ½d. in respect of each elector, making 2d. for each elector in the county constituency or 1½d. for each elector in the borough constituency.
    The House may be interested in the examples of how this will work out. In a county constituency with an electorate of 40,000 the existing law allows a maximum expenditure of £1,075. In the Bill

    353
    as introduced that expenditure would have been reduced to £700. The Amendment will raise it to £783 6s. 8d. With an electorate of 50,000, in a county constituency, the present scale allows £1,325. The Bill, as introduced, allows £762 10s. and the Amendment will allow £866 13s. 4d. With an electorate of 60,000, in a county, the candidate would be allowed to spend not more than £1,575 at present, or £825 according to the Bill as introduced and £950 if the Amendment is carried. With an electorate of 70,000 in a county, the candidate can spend up to £1,825 at present; £887 10s. according to the Bill as introduced and £1,033 6s. 8d. by the Amendment.
    In the case of borough constituencies, an electorate of 40,000 carries maximum expenditure, at the moment, of £883 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £616 13s. 4d. and the Amendment will raise it to £700. In the case of an electorate of 50,000, £1,091 13s. 4d. can be spent at present; under the Bill the figure is £658 6s. 8d., and the Amendment increases it to £762 10s. With an electorate of 60,000, £1,300 can be spent at the moment; under the Bill as drafted that would have been reduced to £700 and the Amendment raises it to £825. With an electorate of mom the maximum expenditure allowed at present is £1,508 6s. 8d.; the Bill reduced that to £741 13s. 4d. and the Amendment raises it to £887 10s.
    In each kind of electorate there is a very substantial reduction in the amount that can be spent. I understand that agents feel that Elections will, in most cases, have to be very economically conducted to bring them within these limits. My own view is that in the past candidates of all parties have spent considerable sums of money which have not produced any great results. I have no doubt that this will lead to a concentration of expenses on those methods of electioneering which are likely to be most productive of votes.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 32, line 18, after "penny," insert "halfpenny."—[Mr. Ede.]

    CLAUSE 42—(Miscellaneous amendments as to election expenses and propaganda.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 42, line 37, to leave out from "sixteen,"
    354
    to second "and," in line 38, and to insert:
    "except in so far as it relates to bands of music, torches, flags and banners."
    This Amendment proposes to alter the drafting of paragraph (b) of Clause 42 (1) as it was amended in Committee. It was amended so as to continue in force the provision as to payments or contracts for payments for bands of music, torches, flags or banners. Actually the way in which it was drafted has been found not to be satisfactory for that purpose, and, therefore, the words proposed to be inserted in this Amendment are brought forward.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
    Mr. Peake: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "music," to insert:
    "other than music reproduced by gramophone records."
    The purpose of the Amendment to the proposed Amendment is simply to get an assurance or an understanding that by maintaining these provisions of the Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibit payments in respect of bands of music, torches, flags and banners at a parliamentary election, we are not, in fact, prohibiting the quite common practice of playing a gramophone record in a motorcar to attract by a suitable tune a crowd before embarking upon an open air speech. If we have to pay something for the hire of the gramophone are we, in fact, making a payment relating to a band of music?
    Viscount Hinchingbrooke: While the Home Secretary is dealing with that point I wonder if he will deal with the situation which might arise if some zealous and interested owner of a car fitted with a radio which was taken into a public place during an election switched on the radio. He might have a candidate near or in the car when he turned on the wireless, and the band might be playing on the normal B.B.C. programme at the time. Would the playing by that band in those circumstances be considered a breach of the Corrupt Practices Act?
    Mr. C. Williams: Will a choir such as a Welsh choir be all right in these circumstances. This is a point which ought to be brought forward. I have some excellent Welsh supporters in my division, and I do not wish to see them stopped from singing if they think it necessary, because they were mostly Socialists but now they are sensible people.
    Mr. Ede: The kind of things that have been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) and the noble Lord the Member for South Dorset (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) would not be hit by this Amendment. It all depends on whether payment is made. Many bands are willing to volunteer to come forward either to support the candidate or to drown the views of his opponent, like the celebrated election at Eatanswill. If no payment is made the gramophone can be used just as the band can be used. If, however, a payment is made for it—if somebody with a loudspeaker van undertakes, let us say, to provide music while awaiting the arrival of the next speaker—I think that would, in fact, be an infraction of the law, on the assumption that the whole arrangement is being paid for. The same applies to what was said by the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams); so long as the choir comes voluntarily to the place where the singing takes place, there is no prohibition on such a thing by the words of the Amendment.
    Commander Galbraith: I would like some further enlightenment because I do not think the right hon. Gentleman has got the picture clearly. As far as I understand, it is perfectly proper for any candidate at an election to hire a loudspeaker van to speak through it himself or to play to the crowd recordings of his speeches.
    Mr. Ede: It may be in some cases and not in others.
    Commander Galbraith: Is it permissible for the candidate, having gone to that expense, to play gramophone records on that loudspeaker installation? The gramophone records, of course, would have to be purchased. Would it be proper for that to be included in the expenses of the candidate? This is a point on which perhaps we could have legal assistance, or into which the right hon. Gentleman
    356
    might look further, if he is not quite certain of the position. I am sure he would not deny those attending an election meeting an opportunity of hearing the Conservative Party playing "Land of Hope and Glory." He might object, of course, to hearing "The Red Flag" played at Socialist meetings.
    Mr. Ede: Curiously at the last General Election, in the constituency in which I live, the Labour candidate, who is now a Member of this House, was carried by his election supporters to his Committee rooms on the eve of the poll; they were all singing, very lustily, "Land of Hope and Glory." I do not imagine many other Labour candidates have had the same experience but it is astonishing what happens in the excitement of General Elections.
    I was surprised to hear that "Land of Hope and Glory" is one of the anthems of the Tory Party. I have often attempted to sing it, to the great annoyance of people standing or sitting near me, and I should not have thought that I was subscribing to the doctrines of the party opposite by so doing.
    Commander Galbraith: Would the right hon. Gentleman give that advice to his hon. Friends behind him who constantly sing "The Red Flag" in this House?
    Mr. Ede: I sing "The Red Flag," too. Regarding the point raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Commander Galbraith) if the expenditure to which he referred was on music for the election, I think it will be caught by the words; but if the hon. and gallant Member has his own records at home, brings them along and plays them, and no expense is incurred at the time, I would have thought it would not be caught. This is one of the things which will have to be judged on the facts of the case. I cannot see the difference between hiring a band and hiring a car, one of the stipulations being that the person who provides the loudspeaker shall also provide gramophone records to be played on whatever instrument may be in the car for the purpose of producing noise.
    9.0 p.m.
    Mr. Reid: It is rather important to get this point precisely right for the assistance of those of whatever party who conduct elections. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would agree that the words in the part of

    357
    the Corrupt Practices Act which are retained are "bands of music," not "music"? There are many forms of music which are not produced by bands. As I understand it, and I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree with me, if I choose to produce either a singer or a solo instrument, either alive or in the "canned" form of a gramophone record, it seems to me that I am not breaking the law because it seems that these words are all that is left of the old Section, and when one is trying to prosecute one must bring the person concerned exactly within the words. If the words are "bands of music" I should have thought that a singer or a choir or a solo instrument, whether alive or through the medium of a gramophone, is plainly exempt. I hope that the Lord Advocate will agree with that.
    On the other hand, it is equally clear that a live band—and a band need not consist of more than two persons I should think, but I will not go into these niceties—is prohibited if one pays for it, but what about using a record, or, as my noble Friend says, the B.B.C. programme? That is a difficult point. Is that a band of music or is it not? It would be highly desirable to have on record for the purpose of assisting all parties in the conduct of elections what the Lord Advocate's answer is upon that point. I agree that the Lord Advocate's view is not conclusive when it comes to a question of prosecution. On the other hand, I think that all sensible prosecutors would not bring a prosecution against someone if they were informed that in this House, when the Bill was being discussed, an assurance had been given by a Government spokesman that a certain thing was not intended to be criminal. I hope that the Lord Advocate will tell us which is the view of the Government. Is the gramophone record of the band prohibited or not if one pays for it? I hope that the Lord Advocate will also agree with me that there is no prohibition either of the solo instrument or the singer.
    The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): On this vexed question of when is a band not a band the simple solution is to be found in the withdrawal by the right hon. Member for North Leeds (Mr. Peake) of his Amendment and by leaving the law as it stands at present. If it is put to me. What is the existing
    358
    law, I would refer to the existing Corrupt Practices Act, in which there is reference to "bands of music"? That might, as the right hon. and learned Member for Hillhead (Mr. Reid) must know, refer even to a single individual. North of the Border at least we have such people as one-man bands and to that extent we do not require plurality of numbers in order to provide something which may be an offence under the Section. Nor do we require to charge him with acting in concert because a single individual might be charged.
    Looking at the matter quite seriously, I feel it would be in the interest of the hon. Members opposite who are putting forward this Amendment to the proposed Amendment if they withdrew it. I do not think that the law as it stands refers to gramophone records playing music. When reference is made to "bands of music" it refers to live bands. It is sometimes difficult to realise whether some of the bands we listen to are alive or dead. I use the word in the generic sense. Therefore, if my construction is correct, that bands of music refer to live bands, and do not refer to gramophone records, and we leave the law as it stands, I think the interests of all parties will be served.
    Mr. Sargood: May I ask if the Lord Advocate would tell the House whether the term "gramophone records "would include some speakers?
    Mr. Peake: In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Lord Advocate, and bearing in mind the safeguards which the Secretary of State for Scotland introduced yesterday, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment.
    Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

    CLAUSE 43.—(Failure to appoint election agent.)
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move in page 44, line 39, at the end, to insert:
    "and
    (ii) the reference in subsection (6) to the provision of the local elections rules therein mentioned included a reference to subsection (2) of section sixty-seven of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947."

    359
    This Amendment is to bring the Scottish part of the Bill into harmony with the changes made elsewhere. We have altered the polling or counting agent, and now we have the candidate's agent, and therefore this part of the Bill requires to be adjusted in order to conform to the new description of the agent.
    Amendment agreed to.
    CLAUSE 50.—(Powers of courts with respect of granting of relief, restraining false statements and inspection of ballot papers.)
    Mr. Wheatley: I beg to move, in page 51, line 30, at the end to insert:
    "(c) for any reference to the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, there shall be substituted a reference to a sheriff clerk."
    This is a formal Amendment merely to replace the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery in England, by the sheriff clerk in Scotland, who is the corresponding officer for the purposes of the Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    CLAUSE 52.—(Area of incapacity and inquiry into corrupt and illegal practices.)
    Amendment made: In page 53, line 15, after "that," insert:
    "of the constituency or local government area."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 53.—(Computation of time for purposes of election petitions.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 54, line 4, after second "Act," to insert "or this Part of this Act."
    This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It will apply the rules contained in Clause 53 about the computation of time to Part III of this Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 56.—(Ordinary day of election.)
    Mr. Warbey: I beg to move, in page 56, line 12, to leave out "that provided by," and to insert:
    "the same throughout England and Wales and shall be fixed for each year by the Secretary of State in accordance with."
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker: We might take the next six Amendments together.
    Mr. Warbey: The purpose of this and the following Amendments is to provide that local elections in England and Wales shall take place on the same day, on a
    360
    day which, in the nature of the case, in order to ensure uniformity, must be appointed by the Secretary of State, and that that day should be a day related to the 9th day of April. The Clause, as it stands at present, provides that local elections shall be held partly in April and partly in May. County Council elections have been held in the second week in April in the year in which such elections occur and the remaining local elections have been held in the second week in May.
    This Clause as drafted presents certain serious difficulties. The first is from the point of view of the electors. As it stands at present, the elector will be required in some years, of which next year will be one, to vote in two, or possibly even three, local elections during the short space of one month. First, he will be required to vote in the county council elections in April. Then, he will be required to vote perhaps in a borough council or a district council election in May. He may even be required to vote on one day of the week in May at a rural district council election and on another day of the week at a parish council election. I submit that to require an elector in the course of one month to present himself at the polling station on three different occasions is asking too much of people who, up to the present, unfortunately have not shown a great deal of interest in local elections. Possibly it will lead to confusion. Most certainly it will lead to laxity and apathy in the conduct of local elections.
    Then there are two serious difficulties for the electoral organisation. It will be generally agreed that the party electoral organisations are based on the divisional party as a unit. Whatever elections are taking place, the work of organisation is conducted by the divisional party through its agent, through its paid and voluntary workers who are gathered together in a joint effort to conduct electioneering in any part of the constituency for any purpose. Therefore, the divisional electoral organisations will be required in the short space of one month to conduct an electioneering effort in relation to two, three or possibly even four, different polling days. That will lead to great complexity and will place an excessive burden on the organisation.

    361
    A further difficulty for the electoral organisation is that the provision of the Bill for gap of one month between the county council elections and the remaining local elections, is too long for a concentrated effort and too short to allow breathing space for the hard pressed workers, especially the voluntary workers who mainly rally to the cause of the Labour Party on such occasions. It will not allow sufficient breathing space to enable them to re-organise and make as substantial an effort in the second spell of elections as they make in the first. The gap is too short for some purposes and too long for others. One possible solution of that difficulty is to lengthen the time to a period of two or three months.
    Then one faces the difficulty that it will involve either putting back the county council elections perhaps to March—and and I am sure that after the experience of the freeze up last year nobody will want that—or putting forward the remaining local elections to June and July and becoming involved, in rural and semi-rural constituencies, in haymaking and other farming activities. That is a time when election workers and electors spend the light evenings on their allotments and smallholdings.
    9.15 p.m.
    Therefore, the alternative solution which seems to overcome all the difficulties is that of closing the gap and having all the elections on one day. I submit that that has certain positive advantages. The first is that, if they are all held on one day early in Spring, we get the benefit of reasonably good weather. The second is that it will make both for good election organisation, which is a contribution to better elections, and for better polling on the part of the electors. It will mean that the electors who come along to vote in the borough council or district council elections, which they feel are perhaps nearer to them and to their interests, will also vote at the same time for the county council, and that will have the effect of livening up the interest in county council elections which has been one of the most unsatisfactory features of our local democracy in the past.
    The Home Secretary, when he put forward the argument for this Clause on Second Reading, used only one argument in support of the proposal, and that was that all the local associations had asked
    362
    for Spring elections during a time when they could hope for reasonably good weather. That condition is provided for in the Amendment I am now moving, and I therefore see no reason why it should not be accepted by the Home Secretary.
    Mr. Goronwy Roberts: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: The subject-matter of this Amendment engaged my very careful and prolonged attention during the preparation of this Bill. If the choice were left to me without any other influence being brought to bear upon me, I should be in favour of reducing the number of days on which elections take place in any one area. In fact, I approached the parties and the local authorities' associations with that object in view. Both the parties and the associations took the view, however, that this was undesirable. There was a very strong feeling, for instance, that non-county borough councillors did not want their elections to take place at the same time as the county council elections. They had a feeling that on occasions it might involve them as appearing on the same ticket, though in different elections, with somebody with whom they would rather not be so closely associated.
    When we came to consider the matter, we were also faced with this difficulty. The local authorities' associations were also very averse to their elections being brought on to the same day. At the present time, the county council and urban and rural council elections take place in every third year at about the interval that is prescribed by this Clause, except that they take place a month earlier. The county council elections, in every third year, take place about the 1st March—within seven days of the 1st March is, I think, actually the date prescribed—and the urban or rural council elections take place on a date which is fixed in relation to 6th April, so that approximately a month intervenes at the present time. Although I think some saving in energy might be made by bringing these two elections on to the same day, I do not think, in areas where there have been county and urban or rural council elections taking place, the difficulties that have been mentioned by my hon. Friend have, in fact, been created.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Warbey) goes further and wants all the elections in the country to take place on one day, to be fixed by the Secretary of

    363
    State. I am bound to say I think that would be a proposition which would be very inconvenient for various parts of the country. The days selected, after very careful study of local habits in various parts of the country, themselves vary. Some people like to have their elections on a Saturday. I was brought up to believe that a Saturday election was best—that Saturday was the best day for the poll to take place. I understand that nowadays that view has rather altered and that, with the growth of professional football and other interests, people who used to like Saturday elections now fight shy of them.
    There may still be some areas where Saturday elections might suit the convenience of most people. There was a peculiar provision in the Local Government Act, 1894 that the elections for urban and rural councils should take place on a Monday unless the county council fixed some other day. I am bound to say that in my experience, when that provision was actually worked so as to have the elections on a Monday, that day generally seemed to be the least convenient day of the week on which to have an election, but there may be some places where a Monday is regarded as the most suitable day. Personally, I think in this matter we must bow to the opinions of those who have to conduct the elections. On this question, those who are responsible for the organisation of the elections from the party point of view and those who are responsible for the organisation of the elections as returning officers, presiding officers and others, do not desire that these elections should be brought on to the same day.
    There is one point which my hon. Friend mentioned to which I think I should draw attention. He said that rural district council elections and parish council elections might take place on different days. It is one of the things which I think, shows how common sense occasionally prevails in these matters—whether the creeping common sense we heard of earlier today from the hon. Member for Wood Green (Mr. Baxter) or the more ordinary common sense—that rural district councils and parish council elections, although not required by statute to take place on the same day, in fact do take place on the same day. The date is fixed by the county council.
    364
    I suggest that in this question, although there are arguments on both sides, we cannot afford to neglect the experience of the people who conduct these elections, whether as promoters of candidates or as persons engaged in conducting the poll, preparing for the poll and declaring the results. I would suggest to my hon. Friends, therefore, that they should not press this Amendment.
    Amendment negatived.

    CLAUSE 60.—(Hours of poll at district and parish elections.)
    Amendment made: In page 58, line 22, leave out "that purpose," and insert: "the delivery of the said notices."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 66.—(Payment of expenses of registration.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 63, line 23, after "expenses," to insert "or contribution thereto."
    This is consequential upon an earlier Amendment in page 4 relating to the City of London.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 68.—(Registration appeals.)
    The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 66, line 15, after "lie," to insert "on any point of law."
    This Amendment is designed to ensure that the law under this Bill will remain the same as it is at present. The existing law in Scotland with regard to these appeals is that a point can be taken by way of appeal on a matter of law only. The Clause as at present drafted would allow appeals on any question at all. In order to preserve the status quo this Amendment is necessary.
    Amendment agreed to.

    CLAUSE 69.—(Supplemental provisions as to members of Forces.)
    Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Major Milner): Mr. Ede. Page 67, line 27.
    Mr. Ede: There are three earlier Amendments to page 67 which were put down in my name but which on the Order Paper are attributed to the hon. Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples). It passes my comprehension how that slip could have occurred, but these three Amendments were put down in my name.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 67, line 11, to leave out from "the," to "shall," in line 13, and to insert:
    "the appropriate Government Department for securing that (so far as circumstances permit) every person having a Service qualification by virtue of paragraph (a) or (b) of Subsection (1) of Section six of this Act."
    This and the two succeeding Amendments are consequential upon the Amendment relating to Service voters and declarations in page 7, line 1.
    Mr. C. Williams: Permit me to say on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) that we are very glad the Government are accepting these Amendments which, I feel sure, are good. There is no need for me to explain them in detail, because the only object of explaining Amendments is to convince the Government, and apparently that has already been done by my hon. Friend.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: in page 67, line 22, leave out "of those rights," and insert:
    "by him and, in the case of a man, by his wife of any rights conferred on them as aforesaid."
    In line 26, at end, insert:
    "(5) In the last foregoing Subsection the expression 'the appropriate Government Department,' means in relation to members of the Forces, the Admiralty, Army Council or Air Council, as the case requires, and in relation to any other person means the Government Department under which he is employed in the employment giving the Service qualification."—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 70.—(Persons entitled to be registered in the same manner as Service voters.)
    Amendment made: To leave out Clause 70.—[Mr. Younger.]
    CLAUSE 74.—(General provisions as to interpretation.)
    Amendment made: In page 69, leave out lines 33 to 35.—[Mr. Younger.]

    CLAUSE 75.—(Interpretation and application of local government provisions in England and Wales.)
    Amendments made: In page 71, line 1, leave out from beginning, to "and," in line 7, and insert:
    "In this Act the expression 'clerk of the authority' in relation to a borough means the town clerk, and where the town clerk of a
    366
    borough is registration officer references to the authority whose clerk he is refer to the borough council."
    In line 18, at end, insert:
    "(4) Subject to any express provision therein contained this Act, so far as it has effect for the purposes of parliamentary elections or of elections of London county councillors, shall apply in relation to the City of London as if it were a metropolitan borough and as if the common council were a metropolitan borough council, but with the substitution for references to the town clerk of references to the secondary; and for the purposes of this Subsection the Inner Temple and Middle Temple shall be treated as forming part of the said City."—[Mr. Younger.]

    FIRST SCHEDULE.—(Parliamentary Constituencies.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 75, line 6, after "except," to insert:
    "as otherwise stated and except."
    This Amendment anticipates an Amendment in page 98, lines 23 to 29, relating to the Borough of Hammersmith. As a rule, constituencies in the First Schedule are described by reference to circumstances as they existed immediately before the end of 1947, but an exception is needed in the case of Hammersmith where, in order to secure that the constituency boundary coincides with ward boundaries, it is proposed that the new constituencies should be described by reference to the boundaries of new wards constituted by Order made this year.
    Amendment agreed to.
    9.30 p.m.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 77, line 42, column 2, to leave out "Park," and to insert "Port."
    This corrects a printer's error.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) which deals with the position of the parish of Gwennap. There has been some correspondence about this, and the matter was raised on the Committee stage, when I undertook that if there were no objections raised, I would endeavour to meet the wishes of the locality. It is a small parish which has more affinities with one division than the other. I have just received the final statements which enable me to feel that this meets with general acceptance locally, and had the Debate gone

    367
    over, I would have put my name to this Amendment. I do not know if in the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, you will feel that you can call it?
    Mr. Speaker: I wish to make it quite clear that I had not selected any Amendment which changed the boundaries, but if this is merely a drafting Amendment, and there is no objection to it, I am prepared to ask the hon. and gallant Member for Camborne (Commander Agnew) to move it formally as a drafting Amendment.
    Commander Agnew: I beg to move, in page 78, line 37, column 2, to leave out "and."
    There is a second Amendment standing in my name relating to it, in page 78, line 40, column 2.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 78, line 40, column 2, at end, insert:
    "and the parish of Gwennap in the rural district of Truro."—[Comniander Agnew.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 79, line 42, at the end, to insert:
    4. Ilkeston—

    (i) The borough of Ilkeston;

    (ii) the urban districts of Alfreton, Heanor and Ripley;

    (iii) the parish of Shipley in the rural district of Belper.

    During the Committee stage of the Bill, the question was raised with regard to several constituencies whether the spread of population over the area warranted their being regarded either as borough constituencies or county constituencies. This is one of the cases where, although a constituency has been put into the Bill as a borough constituency, the density of population per acre is such as to make it more suitable for inclusion as a county constituency.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 80, leave out lines 21 to 25.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 82, line 25, column 2, to leave out "Mid Dorsetshire," and to insert "South Dorset."
    368
    This was an agreement which we made on the Committee stage of the Bill.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 83, to leave out lines 15 to 21 and to insert:
    2 Gateshead East—The following wards of the county borough of Gateshead, namely, East, East-Central, North-East, South and South-Central.
    3 Gateshead West—The following wards of the county borough of Gateshead, namely, Central, North, North-West, West and West-Central.
    This represents the revised views of the Boundary Commissioners on the proper division of Gateshead.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 84, to leave out line 11.
    This Amendment—coupled with that in line 35 effects a transposition of the Hornchurch county constituency to a position as a borough division, on the same lines as I mentioned with regard to Ilkeston.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 84, line 35, at end insert:
    5. Hornchurch—The urban district of Hornchurch.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 86, line 4, column 2, after "Easton" to insert "Knowle."
    This, and the two following Amendments—make corrections recommended by the Boundary Commissioners with respect to the City of Bristol.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 86, line 4, column 2, leave out "St. George West."
    In page 86, leave out line 18, and insert: "St. George East and St. George West."—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 91, to leave out lines 3 and 4.
    During Committee we altered the order of names in the borough of Chatham and Rochester to read "Rochester and Chatham," but no correction was made in the alphabetical order of the constituencies in Kent. This Amendment will observe the niceties of the alphabet.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 91, line 7, at end insert:
    7. Rochester and Chathatn—The boroughs of Rochester and Chatham.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 91, to leave out lines 25 and 26.
    This Amendment goes together with the following Amendments in pages 92, 93 and 95. They transfer Droylsden and Stretford from county to borough divisions.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 92, leave out lines 32 and 33.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 93, to leave out lines 2 to 10, and to insert:
    4 Blackburn East—The following wards of the county borough of Blackburn, namely, St. John's, St. Mary's, St. Matthew's, St. Michael's, St. Stephen's, St. Thomas's and Trinity.
    5 Blackburn West—The following wards of the county borough of Blackburn, namely, Park, St. Andrew's, St. Luke's, St. Mark's, St. Paul's, St. Peter's and St. Silas's.
    This is a recommendation of the Boundary Commissioners with regard to the division of the borough of Blackburn into two constituencies.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page line 36, at the end, insert:
    14. Droylsden—The urban districts of Audenshaw, Denton, Droylsden and Failsworth.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 93, line 44, column 2, to leave out "Low Hill and Kensington," and to insert "Kensington and Low Hill."
    This again is a correction in alphabetical order.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 94, line 33, column 1, to leave out, "Exchange," and to insert, "Cheetham."
    This and the following Amendments relate to the adjustment of constituencies in the City of Manchester, in accordance with the Boundary Commissioners' recommendations.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page line 34, column 2, leave out "Exchange."
    In line 35, at end, insert:
    28 Manchester, Clayton—The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, Beswick, Bradford, Miles Platting and Newton Heath.
    29 Manchester, Exchange—The following wards of the county borough of Manchester, namely, All Saints, Exchange, Medlock Street, Oxford, St. Ann's, St. Clement's, St. George's, St. John's and St. Luke's.
    In page 94, leave out lines 40 to 44.
    In page 94, leave out lines 48 to 50.
    In page 95, line 40, at end, insert:
    45. Stretford—

    (i) The borough of Stretford;

    (ii) the urban district of Urmston.—[Mr. Ede.]

    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 98, line 7, to leave out from second "the" to second "and" in line 12, and to insert:
    8. The Cities of London and Westminster—Brompton ward of the royal borough of Kensington; The county of the City of London, the borough of the City of Westminster.
    This is the first of the Amendments dealing with the adjustments necessary to make the new provision for the City of London constituencies.
    Mr. Howard: I should like to make one small point, not on the merits but on the results of this Amendment. The effect of this Amendment will be to alter the representation of the metropolitan boroughs of the London County Council. I do not want to go into the merits of it now, but may I call the attention of the Home Secretary to this fact and ask him if he would be prepared to consider it?
    Mr. Ede: Certainly.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 98, to leave out lines 23 to 39 and to insert:
    14. Hammersmith North—The following wards (as constituted by the Hammersmith (Councillors and Wards) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 729) of the borough of Hammersmith, namely, College Park and Latimer, Coningham, Old Oak, Starch Green, White City and Wormholt.
    15 Hammersmith, South—The following wards (as so constituted) of the borough of Hammersmith, namely, Addison, Broadway, Brook Green, Grove, Olympia, Ravenscourt and St. Stephen's.
    This Amendment is due to an alteration in the wards of Hammersmith while the Bill has been going through the

    371
    House, and will ensure that when the new constituencies are formed the ward boundaries for borough elections will coincide with the boundaries of the Parliamentary Divisions at the points where the two constituencies touch.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments: In page 98, line 43, column 2, leave out "Brompton."
    In page 99, line 23, at end, insert:
    34. Shoreditch and Finsbury.—The boroughs of Finsbury and Shoreditch.
    In page 99, leave out lines 41 to 43.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move in page 100, to leave out lines 4 to 8.
    The Government Amendments in pages 100 and 101 adjust constituencies in Middlesex to borough and county constituencies in accordance with the density of the population.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 100, line 10, at end, insert:
    5 Uxbridge—The urban districts of Uxbridge and Yiewsley and West Drayton.
    In line II, at end, insert:

    1. Acton—The borough of Acton.

    2. Brentford and Chiswick—The borough of Brentford and Chiswick.

    In line 24, at end, insert:
    6. Finchley—

    (i) The borough of Finchley;

    (ii)the urban district of Friern Barnet.

    In page 101, leave out lines 21 and 22.—[Mr. Ede.]
    9.45 p.m.
    Mr. S. N. Evans: I beg to move, in page 108, line 5, column I, at the end, to insert "and Tipton."
    The House may feel that this Amendment does not compare in importance with events at Trent Bridge and elsewhere, but I think that it encourages civic pride, and that is something we should seek to do. The Bill as it stands entails the severance of the borough of Tipton from the Parliamentary Division of Wednesbury and its incorporation in the new Division of Rowley Regis. Much as we regret that change, both on sentimental and political grounds, we do not oppose it, but the citizens and civic fathers of Tipton feel very strongly that the name "Tipton" should be included in the name
    372
    of the new Parliamentary Division The town of Tipton is a compact community of 25,000 electors, whereas the remainder of the new Division, consisting of 34,000 electors, is split over four different communities, Oldhill, Cradley Heath, Blackheath and Tividale. Whereas there is no postal area at Rowley Regis, Tipton has a postal area of its own. I suggest therefore, that the inclusion of the name Tipton would aid identification. The industrial borough of Tipton is very well known and, ever since the early days of the industrial revolution our products have gone out to the four corners of the earth. The Home Secretary is a good democrat and a person well versed in civic affairs. He will not fail to recognise that there is a psychological aspect to the inclusion of the name of a compact community of 25,000 citizens in the nomenclature of a constituency.
    Finally—[HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] It is very dangerous to encourage a Black Country man. Finally, I would point out that in the county of Stafford, in which the borough of Tipton is situated, there have been several new divisions which have been given double-barrelled names like Lichfield and Tamworth, Stafford and Stone and Oldbury and Halesowen. I understand in the latter case that the name was originally confined to Halesowen but following representations the name of Oldbury was added. The electors I am privileged to represent cannot see why similar consideration should not be given to Tipton. On behalf of these 25,000 hard working Black Country men and women, whose character and tradition testify to the greatness of their past and the tremendous potentialities of their future, I ask the Home Secretary to accede to their request.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: No question can be put until the Amendment has been seconded. I have asked if there is anyone to second the Amendment?
    Mr. Walter Fletcher: I beg to second the Amendment.
    I do so for two valid reasons. First of all because of a very lamentable state of affairs—I missed an Amendment in my own name. Had I moved it, I should have said exactly what the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans) said. The

    373
    other reason is that I had a close association with the gas works in Tipton, and I expect the gas works impelled the eloquence with which this Amendment was proposed by the hon. Member for Wednesbury.
    Sir Peter Bennett: I should like in a few words to support my constituent, my hon. Friend the Member for Wednesbury (Mr. S. N. Evans). This proposed constituency happens to abut on mine and I can confirm all that he said about the civic pride of the people of the Black Country. We in Birmingham have had the pleasure of working with them for many years. Large numbers of workers from Tipton and from Rowley Regis come to work in our factories. We hold them in the highest respect for their solidarity, loyalty and public spirit. I know that this matter is felt very deeply in those districts. The Black Country workers have a great civic pride, and I hope the Home Secretary will be able to fall in with the Amendment so ably put by my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Ede: I know from past experience that the burgesses of Tipton are people of great determination and resource, for I was sent there when I was at the Board of Education to open a school meals kitchen. At the same time, I was removing their powers as a Part III educational authority. The Mayor proposed my health in terms which indicated that he hoped I would not be too healthy during the next few months. Before I had a chance to reply, he announced that he had another engagement. During the afternoon I visited part of Tipton and saw there the construction of the Bailey bridges which played so great a part in the invasion of Europe. I also saw other evidence of the great industrial pride and strength of this borough. As it is the largest borough in the Division, I have, therefore, the greatest pleasure in agreeing that its name should be added to that of the Division.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Cooper-Key: I beg to move, in page III, line 38, at the end, to insert:
    3. Hastings—

    (i) The county borough of Hastings and the borough of Rye;

    (ii) the rural district of Battle, except the parishes of Burwash, Etchingham and Ticehurst.

    374
    The object of this Amendment is to retain for Hastings its status as a Parliamentary borough and to resist the intention under the Bill to make it a county constituency. I have already put forward the case for Hastings during the Committee stage and will not weary the House by repeating now my speech on that occasion. I would draw the attention of the House to the final paragraph of the White Paper issued this month by the Boundary Commission. It says:
    "We have carefully considered the arguments submitted to us on this question and we have no objection, if the White Paper proposals are accepted, to the Hastings constituency being designated as a borough constituency."
    In view of this I feel fortified in asking the Home Secretary if he will reconsider his previous decision and grant Hastings its borough status.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I beg to second the Amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 114, to leave out line 2.
    This Amendment, and the one following in line 8, will have the effect of changing Swindon from a county to a borough constituency. I think this is one of the strongest cases in the country for such a change to be made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 114, line 8, at end, insert:
    (b) Borough Constituency
    1. Swindon—The borough of Swindon.—[Mr. Ede.]
    Mr. Ede: I beg to move, in page 118, to leave out lines 22 to 40, and to insert:
    14. Leeds Central—The Armley and New Wortley, Blenheim, Central, Holbeck North, Mill Hill and South and Westfield wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    15. Leeds East-Central—The Burmantofts, Harehills, Potternewton and Richmond Hill wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    16. Leeds North-East—The North, Round hay and Woodhouse wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    17. Leeds North-West—The Far Headingley, Hyde Park and Kirkstall wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    18. Leeds South—The Beeston, Holbeck South, Hunslet Carr and Middleton and West Hunslet wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    19. Leeds South-East—The Cross Gates and Templenewsam, East Hunslet and Osmond-thorpe wards of the county borough of Leeds.

    375
    20. Leeds South-West—The Bramley, Farnley and Wortley and Upper Armley wards of the county borough of Leeds.
    This Amendment gives effect to the rearrangement of the proposed Leeds constituencies as recommended by the Boundary Commissioners.
    Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
    Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
    Miss Bacon: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 5, column 1, to leave out "East-Central," and to insert "North-East."
    First of all I should like to thank the Home Secretary for allowing a period between Committee and Report stages to enable organisations to make representations to the Boundary Commission and so produce a scheme much tidier than that suggested on the Committee stage.
    The Amendments which we propose concern not the composition but the names of the constituencies. Whenever there are compass point names there is bound to be a great deal of confusion. In this case I think the proposed names will mean more confusion than ever, because we are to have a proposed "East Central" and a proposed "Central" constituency. I am quite certain that Leeds "East Central" will be very much confused with Leeds "Central." In addition, of the 49,800 voters in the proposed Leeds East-Central Division all but 6,400 have been in the Leeds North-East Division up to now. The proposed South-West division is the present West Division minus only one ward, and for no reason whatever three wards are now to be called South-West Division whereas three wards with the addition of one ward previously were called the West Division. This sounds confusing and it will be confusing in future unless the Home Secretary agrees to the changing of the names. Therefore, I ask him to retain the names which we have previously had, and to change Leeds East-Central to Leeds North-East, to change Leeds North-East to Leeds North and to retain the name of Leeds West in place of the proposed Leeds South-West.
    10.0 p.m.
    Mr. George Porter: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
    I wish to emphasise that East-Central is a contradiction in terms. I do not know how one arrives at East Central. It must be either east of the centre or it is the centre. In view of the fact that the people I represent are definite in their desire for their constituency still to be called Leeds Central and object to anyone else using the word "Central," I hope that the word "Central" will be taken away from the new constituency and that the-constituency will be named as is proposed by this Amendment.
    Mr. Ede: I have had representations made to me from more than one quarter in Leeds that these suggested Amendments would make for convenience in the city and for the more easy identification of the proposed constituencies. Therefore, I am prepared to accept this and the two following Amendments.
    Amendment, to the proposed Amendment, agreed to.
    Further Amendments made to the proposed Amendment: In line 6, col. 1, leave out "North-East" and insert "North."
    In line 14, col. 1, to leave out "South-West,"and insert "West."—[Miss Bacon.]
    Proposed words, as amended, there inserted in the Bill.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 127, to leave out lines 2 and 3.
    This is a simple Amendment which changes the designation of the burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie from that of a county constituency to that of a burgh constituency. Historical reasons are the reason for this Amendment, which brings the designation into conformity with the actual facts.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 127, line 25, at end, insert:
    1. Coatbridge and Airdrie.—The burghs of Coatbridge and Airdrie.—[Mr. Woodburn.]
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 127, line 26, to leave out from "Bridgeton," to the end of line 34, on page 135, and to insert:
    The following wards (as constituted by the Local Government (Scotland) (Glasgow Wardsand

    377
    and Councillors) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 876) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Calton and Dalmarnock.
    2. Glasgow, Camlachie—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Dennistoun, Provan and that part of Mile-End ward which lies to the east of a line commencing at a point on the northern boundary of the ward immediately opposite the centre line of Millerston Street thence southward to and along the centre line of Millerston Street to the centre line of Gallowgate; thence eastward along the centre line of Gallowgate to a point opposite the centre line of Fielden Street; thence southward along the centre line of Fielden Street to the termination of the line on the southern boundary of the Mile-End ward immediately opposite the centre of Fielden Street.
    3. Glasgow, Cathcart—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Cathcart, Langside and that part of Govanhill ward which is South and East of a line commencing at a point on the western boundary of the ward where it is cut by the centre line of Calder Street; thence Eastward along the centre line of Calder Street to the centre of Polmadie Road; thence North-East-ward along the centre line of Polmadie Road to the termination of the line on the Northern boundary of the ward at the centre of the British Railways main line from Glasgow to Rutherglen.
    4. Glasgow Central—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Exchange and Townhead.
    5. Glasgow, Gorbals—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Gorbals, Hutcheson town and that part of the Govanhill ward which is not included in the Cathcart constituency.
    6. Glasgow, Govan—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Craigton, Fairfield and that part of Govan ward which lies to the West of a line commencing on the North-West boundary of the ward where it is cut by the centre line of Greenfield Street; thence Southward along the centre line of Greenfield Street to the centre line of Crossloan Road; thence South-Eastward along the centre line of Crossloan Road to the centre line of Craigton Road; thence Southward along the centre line of Craigton Road to the termination of the line at the ward boundary at the junction of Craigton Road and Shieldhall Road.
    7. Glasgow, Hillhead—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Kelvinside, Partick (West), and that part of Particle (East) ward which is south and west of a line commencing at a point on the ward boundary at the junction of the centre lines of Dowanside Road and Byres Road; thence southward along the centre line of Byres Road to the centre line of Ashton Road; thence south-eastward along the centre line of Ashton Road to the centre line of University Avenue; thence eastward along the centre line of University Avenue to a point opposite the centre of the southern end of Oakfield Avenue, thence in an easterly direction in a straight line to a point on the east side of Kelvin Way where the north
    378
    boundary fence of Kelvingrove Park meets the said Kelvin Way, thence in a generally easterly direction along the north boundary fence of Kelvingrove Park to the southmost limit of Westbank Quadrant, thence in a straight line in a south-easterly direction to the east boundary of the ward at the centre of the River Kelvin.
    8. Glasgow, Kelvingrove—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Anderston and Park.
    9. Glasgow, Maryhill—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Maryhill and Ruchill.
    10. Glasgow, Pollok—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Camphill, Pollokshaws and Pollokshields.
    11. Glasgow, Scotstoun—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Knightswood, White-inch and Yoker.
    12. Glasgow, Shettleston—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Parkhead, Shettleston and Tollcross and that part of Mile-End ward which is not included in the Camlachie constituency.
    13. Glasgow, Springburn—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely Cowcaddens, Cowlairs and Springburn.
    14. Glasgow, Tradeston—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, Kinning Park, Kingston and that part of Govan ward which is not included in the Govan constituency.
    15. Glasgow, Woodside—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Glasgow, namely, North Kelvin, Woodside and that part of Partick (East) ward which is not included in the Hillhead constituency.
    This Amendment refers to the City of Glasgow. Since the Bill was drafted an order has been made redividing the city into new wards, and now that the new wards have been named the purpose of the Amendment is to put in the actual names of the wards and thus shorten the descriptions already in the Bill.
    Mr. Neil Maclean: With regard to the constituency of Govan, it will be remembered on the last occasion, after we had discussed the matter and the Secretary of State for Scotland had replied, he suggested that we should meet the other people and try to come to some agreement upon the matter. I wish to say to him that I took him at his word and we tried to meet the other people but they declined to meet us. The people of Tradeston came away from the Govan constituency without notifying the Govan people as to whether they had

    379
    anything to say with regard to their attempts at filibustering.
    The point that arises here is that we tried to meet these people and come to an amicable understanding with them. We even went to the Parliamentary Committee of the Glasgow Town Council and laid our case before them and impressed them so much that they agreed to rescind the previous decision justifying Tradeston taking over the Govan Ward. They suggested that we get in touch with the Tradeston Divisional Labour Party in order to come to an agreement. We tried to do that but the Tradeston people have declined to meet us. Consequently we are compelled to come to this House and ask this House to be the judges as to whether or not Tradeston is to take up an old historic place such as the Govan Ward.
    Another objection raised by the Secretary of State for Scotland was in connection with the fact that we were dividing a ward in the re-apportionment of the Division, as set out in the Amendment I have down, with regard to both Trades-ton and Govan. He took exception to the fact that I was breaking up two wards in my Amendment. I have gone over the different wards in Glasgow, and in the 15 Parliamentary constituencies which compose the whole of Glasgow, we have five wards that are divided already, leaving out of account the Govan ward and part of Pollokshields ward. Consequently, his objection on the previous occasion should be entirely over-ruled.
    I would suggest that the Amendment that I have down brings back into the Govan constituency the old Govan ward, which has existed for eight or nine centuries. It is an old name place in Scotland and of considerable historic interest and it has several historical significances. The House of Commons has shown how willing it is to accept Amendments which affect either the historical significance of a constituency or the better settlement of the constituency itself. I trust that, on this occasion also, the sentiments of the House will be with the Govan constituency in the hope that it should be restored to its old place as a complete constituency with all its old historical associations.
    Mr. Woodburn: If I might, by leave of the House, make reference to what
    380
    was said by my hon. Friend, I would point out that on the last occasion that he brought this matter before the House I explained that we viewed with sympathy his remarks about the breaking of an old tradition. There is no question but that this Bill makes great changes in many traditional constituencies throughout the country. Earlier the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the City of London (Sir A. Duncan) put forward a most sincere and eloquent plea on behalf of that constituency. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Govan (Mr. N. MacLean) must have had a fellow-feeling for the right hon. Gentleman when he put forward his plea. Previously I recommended to my hon. Friend that he should try to get agreement amongst all those concerned in this matter. I suggested that if he came forward with an agreement the Government, who have no prejudice on this question, would deal sympathetically with the situation.
    However, he says that he has not been able to get agreement with the neighbouring constituency. The City of Glasgow has not taken any action to support his view. With the idea of helping my hon. Friend, I made what inquiries I could into the possibility of an agreement. I am sorry to report that all the political parties are reluctant to agree to his suggestion. In view of the large body of opinion which is either not prepared to help him or is frankly in opposition to his proposal, I regret that it is impossible for me to recommend the House to agree to his suggestion, however sympathetic I feel myself.
    Mr. Maclean: With the leave of the House, may I correct a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman? This constituency was taken away without the knowledge of the people of Govan. The people were not notified of any commission or committee. If the Secretary of State for Scotland is attempting to justify that deliberate action, which has been taken in order to make a safe constituency, then I have no faith in the Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 135, line 43, to leave out from "Central," to the end of line 54, on page 143, and to insert:

    381
    The following wards (as constituted by the Local Government (Scotland) (Edinburgh Wards) Order, 1948, S.I., 1948, No. 1138) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, George Square, Holyrood and St. Giles.
    2. Edinburgh East—The burgh of Mussel-burgh and the following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Craigentinny, Craigmillar and Portobello.
    3. Edinburgh, Leith—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Central Leith, South Leith and West Leith.
    4. Edinburgh North—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Broughton, Calton and St. Andrew's.
    5. Edinburgh, Pentlands—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Colinton, Gorgie-Dalry, Merchiston and Sighthill.
    6. Edinburgh South—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Liberton, Morningside and Newington.
    7. Edinburgh West—The following wards (as so constituted) of the county of the city of Edinburgh, namely, Corstophine, Murrayfield-Cramond, St. Bernard's and Pilton.
    This Amendment deals in a similar fashion with Edinburgh where an order has been issued for a re-division of the wards. This introduces the names of the new wards and takes the place of the rather detailed description given in the original Bill.
    Mr. McCorquodale: As a Scotsman who, I am sorry to say, has long moved south, I cannot help thinking that Scottish Members who still represent Scottish constituencies are losing an opportunity by not bringing in the burgh of Musselburgh into the title of what is called the East Edinburgh constituency. It is one of the oldest, if not the oldest, of the burghs in Scotland. That it is now being absorbed by East Edinburgh seems to me rather sad, and this might have been in opportunity for preserving the name.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom (Mr. McCorquodale). I should like to hear the view of the right hon. and earned Gentleman the Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. J. Wheatley) on this matter. Musselburgh is an ancient place. The term East Edinburgh is rather in-definite and perhaps the right hon. and earned Gentleman might have some suggestion to make.
    Amendment agreed to.
    10.15 p.m.

    SECOND SCHEDULE.—(Provisions of the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1944, as amended.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 149, line 28, to leave out "include the words," and to insert "refer to the."
    This is a consequential Amendment, following upon the alterations to the City of London constituency.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 151, line 46, in column 2, to leave out "and."
    This Amendment, and the next two Amendments to lines 48 and 50 relate to the same matter:
    In line 48, column 2 after "thereof," insert "and."
    In line 50, column 2, leave out lines 50 to 54, and insert: "and, if the last day is a Saturday, between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before:
    Provided that no objection may be made in the afternoon of the said last day (or it is a Saturday at any time on that day) except to a nomination paper delivered within twenty-four hours of the last time for the delivery thereof, and in the case of a nomination paper so delivered no objection may be so made to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate unless."
    They are concerned with the provisions of the Third Schedule, which lays down that any objection to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of a candidate must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers. The House may remember that this was criticised in Committee because the time for delivery of nomination papers may now extend over a period of days instead of a very short period, and it was felt that this might cause some hardship.
    These Amendments are designed to have the following effect. Except when the last day for the delivery of nominations is a Saturday, which is a rather exceptional case with which I will deal in a moment, objections to nomination papers handed in by the end of the day before can only be made between 10 a.m. and noon on the last day. Papers handed in on the last day will be open to objection at any time on that day, but, after noon, any objection to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers.

    383
    That may seem complicated enough, but, unfortunately, there is a further complication which would arise if the last day was a Saturday, because noon is then the latest time that nomination papers could be handed in. Therefore, a special arrangement has to be made for that particular case, and the Amendment provides that, if the last day is Saturday, nomination papers delivered up to noon on the previous day, that is, Friday, can be objected to only between the hours of 1 and 3 p.m. on that day; that is, for a period of two hours on the Friday. Nomination papers handed in after noon on Friday will be open to objection on Friday afternoon or on Saturday, but any objection made on Saturday must be made at or immediately after the time of delivery of the nomination papers.
    The result of this is that nomination papers presented in good time will be open to objection for a fixed period of two hours only. I think that it is clear, in the cases where Saturday is not involved, that it will only be between 10 a.m. and noon on the final day, but on the Saturday the fixed time will be between 1 and 3 p.m. on the previous day. In all cases where the nominations are in plenty of time, there will be a fixed period of two hours.
    I know that it sounds complicated, but I do not think there will be any difficulty on the part of those concerned in understanding it. The only difficulty arises when nominations are handed in at the very last moment, and that, of course, we cannot help. We have therefore provided that, where the nominations are handed in at the end of the period, objection is to be made immediately after. That seems a reasonable provision.
    Mr. Grimston: This seems a most complicated provision. Originally, the objection which we raised was that, with the enlargement of the time during which nominations could be handed in, the old provision that they had to be objected to was impracticable, because it would be necessary to have somebody sitting in the office throughout the period to catch anyone to whom he wished to object. It seems to me that these provisions will result in something very nearly approaching inconvenience. Could we have an explanation why it was necessary to make such a complicated provision to meet the point
    384
    we raised in Committee? I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth in this matter, but this provision does seem so extraordinarily complicated that I would like some explanation why it has to be so complicated. If one reads the Amendment on page 151, line 50:
    "If the last day is a Saturday"—
    objection has to be made—
    "between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before."
    That does not make sense anyway, because how can one object to a thing on the day before it is handed in? I do not understand the provision which has effect when the last day is a Saturday. It seems to me that it will be necessary for the parties to have someone continually in the office to watch for a nomination which may be handed in at the last moment on the Saturday. In view of this extraordinary complication, could we have some further explanation from the spokesman of the Government Front Bench?
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: May I ask the hon. Member, what happens if the Saturday is a public holiday? Does that affect the case in point?
    Mr. Younger: If I may have the leave of the House I will try to explain this again. I think that one may take two types of case—whether we are talking of the case where the final day is a Saturday, when the last time is noon, or the case when it is on some other day of the week, in which case, of course, it is later. In either event, the majority of the nominations will probably be handed in well before the final moment. Most will be handed in a considerable time before the last moment. When that happens, we try to arrange that the objection, instead of having to be lodged immediately afterwards, will be lodged during a fixed period of two hours.
    Mr. Grimston: On any day?
    Mr. Younger: No. In the case of an election where the final day is a day other than Saturday, the hours will be between 10 a.m. and noon on the last day. Suppose the last day is a Friday, it will be between 10 a.m. and noon on the final day.
    Mr. Grimston: That is for the objections to be lodged and, during the same time, nominations can be handed in?
    Mr. Younger: Yes. That will be the fixed time for the objections to all nominations which have been put in at that time, and that, of course, will leave a considerable margin for the objection. I do not think one can avoid this—that if nominations are only handed in at the very end of the period, one must retain the provision of objections made immediately afterwards and, therefore, we have to have the two types of provision—the fixed period allowing quite a considerable margin before the final moment for nominations and, in addition, what I might call the last-minute arrangements where the nomination itself is only handed in during the last few hours. In the latter case, the objection must be made immediately afterwards, but the effect of that should be, taking the period as a whole during which nominations may be handed in, that it will not be necessary for people to be standing by to object during the earlier period because they will be able to object during that fixed period of two hours to all the nominations handed in up to that time. Of course, for the final period of a few hours, if they wish to object to last-minute nominations, they will, as at present, have to be standing by, but that is no great hardship because the period is not long; in fact, it is much the same as at the present time.
    This will not be very difficult to understand when one knows which of these two cases it is to be—the Saturday case or the non-Saturday case. It is rather difficult to explain when one has to explain all the alternatives, but in the individual election there will not be the difficulties and the fixed hours will be quite well known.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am a little worried about this. I understand what the Under-Secretary has said, but it seems to me that the point at which objection should be made simple and time given for it, is the last minute of nomination. I know perfectly well that under this procedure it will be extremely difficult because objection must be made within two hours of the nominations being lodged, during the same period. There would always have to be someone standing by. I thought the matter was to be so arranged that a longer period was to be allowed for objections; that is to say, that nomination had to be lodged before a stipulated time, and that after the
    386
    stipulated time a longer period would be given for objection before the nomination would be accepted. As it is now it would appear the time is shorter than anything we have heard. Possibly that can be explained, but if anything funny is to be tried, anything dishonest or faked, it would be more likely to be tried at the last minute rather than at any other time, because the possibility of examining the papers, and so on, would be less. I should have thought, therefore, that the last moment for nomination should be sufficiently long for proper examination to be made. I should like some reassurance on that point.
    Mr. Ede: The arrangement in the Bill is to meet the convenience of candidates and returning officers. It is notorious that hitherto candidates' agents have sent the nomination papers to the returning officer to have them checked, and he has made some pencilled marks by the side, and returned them to the candidates' agents with a notification. If there is any informality or invalidity in the paper the agent then has ample opportunity to get that altered, and to turn up on nomination day with papers which have already been checked. Then, in some constituencies, the farce is gone through of re-examining papers which have already been marked as correct. The new provision in the Bill is that instead of having only one day, with a certain limited number of hours on that day during which nomination papers can be handed in, when the nomination paper is completed the candidate's agent can send it along and it can be lodged at the place of election. All those nomination papers which have been received prior to 10 o'clock in the morning of the last day, except on a Saturday, are open to inspection between 10 and 12 o'clock, and no other hour.
    Let us assume that a candidate has sent only one nomination paper. Although in the preliminary check that has taken place it has been passed as good, during those two hours it is found, on some objection, to be invalid. The candidate who would by that means have been prevented from standing has between 12 and three o'clock either to get that paper corrected or to get another valid paper to the returning officer. I hope the House will feel that this is the kind of arrangement that we should desire

    387
    to encourage. It enables this work to be done with greater accuracy, and I think that, in some respects, it avoids some of the difficulties that have occurred in the past when the validity of this kind of arrangement has been questioned. Therefore, I should hope that most candidates would avail themselves of this arrangement.
    10.30 p.m.
    Perhaps, a candidate turns up on the afternoon of the last day with his paper, although he has had some weeks during which he has known the date of the election. If he likes to run the risk of turning up with his paper after twelve noon on the last day, then I think he must stand the racket of having his paper objected to immediately. And if he likes to delay it till a quarter to three or five minutes to three before turning up with his paper, and the returning officer will not pass it, I think the consequences must be on his own head and he has no great entitlement to sympathy. I hope the House will think the arrangements we have made in response to the general request of the House is a reasonable one, which will allow people who conduct elections reasonably to get a great deal of assistance from it. Anyone who turns up at the last moment knows that if his paper is objected to, his nomination will be invalidated and I do not think he is entitled to any sympathy.
    Colonel Gomme-Duncan: I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman about Saturday. Presumably limitation of work on Saturday is due to Saturday being recognised as a half-holiday. What happens if Saturday is a whole holiday?
    Mr. Ede: I think that when the day is a public holiday it is a dies non for the purpose of these arrangements. I should not like that to be taken as final, but will get the answer and let the hon. and gallant Gentleman know.
    Mr. Manningham-Buller: I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's explanation that if a candidate puts in his nomination paper at the last moment, there is really less opening for objection to it than in the case of the nomination paper being in at any previous time. Does that not mean in the case of a late nomination paper, that people will have to be standing by
    388
    all through the last 24 hours to stop any wrong nomination papers being put in and to make objection directly that paper is put in? Really the effect of the provision will be to give an advantage to the candidate who likes to leave it till the last moment, because then, unless the objection is made immediately, no objection can be made.
    Mr. Ede: On the last day, if a paper is handed in, then it will have to be objected to when it is deposited with the returning officer. I think we have gone as far as we can to meet people in this matter, and while I will consider any representations that may be made to me for further improvement, I think we have generally endeavoured to meet the spirit of the Committee in the matter, and I think the arrangement will be found entirely reasonable in practice.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 151, line 48, column 2 after "thereof," insert "and."
    In line 50, column 2, leave out lines 50 to 54, and insert:
    "and, if the last day is a Saturday, between the hours of one and three in the afternoon on the day before:
    Provided that no objection may be made in the afternoon of the said last day (or if it is a Saturday at any time on that day) except to a nomination paper delivered within twenty-four hours of the last time for the delivery thereof, and in the case of a nomination paper so delivered no objection may be so made to the sufficiency or nature of the particulars of the candidate unless."—[Mr. Younger.]

    THIRD SCHEDULE.—(Proceedings at Parliamentary elections.)
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 153 line 46, after "of," to insert:
    "delivering a nomination paper or of."
    There was some doubt raised in Committee whether paragraph (8) would prevent a candidate from attending nominations even for the purpose of handing in his own nomination paper. We did not think that was the effect, but there was some doubt and the Amendment proposed is designed to make it quite clear.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 154 line 39, to leave out sub-paragraph (2), and to insert:
    "(2) In the case of a candidate who is outside the United Kingdom, a notice of withdrawal signed by his proposer and accompanied by a

    389
    written declaration also so signed of the candidate's absence from the United Kingdom shall be of the same effect as a notice of withdrawal signed by the candidate:
    Provided that where the candidate stands nominated by more than one nomination paper a notice of withdrawal under this sub-paragraph shall be effective if, but only if,—

    (a) it and the accompanying declaration are signed by all the proposers except any who is, and is stated in the said declaration to be, outside the United Kingdom; or

    (b) it is accompanied, in addition to the said declaration, by a written statement signed by the candidate that the proposer giving the notice is authorised to do so on the candidate's behalf during his absence from the United Kingdom."

    The provision that a candidate out of the United Kingdom might withdraw by telegram was criticised in Committee on the ground that it was open to abuse, and it was suggested that a better method might be found. This Amendment substitutes the provision that the proposer can send a notice of withdrawal on the candidate's behalf. I hope that that will meet the criticism that was made.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page line 3, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
    "for whom proxies have been appointed."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 157, line 32, to leave out sub-paragraph (2), and to insert:
    "(2) The surname of each candidate shall in all cases be printed by itself in large capitals, and his full particulars shall be set out below it and shall be printed in ordinary type except that small capitals shall be used—

    (a) it his surname is the same as another candidate's, for his other names; and

    (b) if his other names are also the same as the other candidate's, either for his description or for his residence unless each of them is the same as that of another candidate with the same surname and other names."

    The House may remember that in Committee a difficulty arose about distinguishing between candidates who had not only the same surnames, but the same Christian names. It was then suggested that their descriptions should be printed in large type but it was thought by some hon. Members that an advantage would be given to the candidate having his name printed in large type, and my right hon. Friend promised that this would be reconsidered. Of course, if one is to distinguish in some way or another between candidates' names where they are similar it is impossible to avoid, ex hypothesi,
    390
    some distinction, but we have tried to get as near as we can to reconciling the irreconcilable. The surname of each candidate will be printed in large capitals and full details will be set out below. If the surname is the same, then small capitals will be used to print their other names to distinguish among them. If the other names, in addition to the surname, are also the same capitals are to be used either for the description or the address, whichever is the more appropriate to distinguish them. I do not think a distinction of this kind will give any advantage to any one candidate. Since it is obviously necessary to distinguish in some visible form between them, it is impossible to avoid having a difference of some kind but this reduces the problem to one of small proportions.
    Mr. Gallacher: I would like to get some understanding of subparagraph (b). It would appear to me that where there are the same surnames, the same Christian names, and the same residence, they apply to the same person.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 158 line 47, after "a" to insert:
    "candidate or his election or."
    This Amendment is to meet a suggestion in Committee that a candidate and his election agent should have the same power as a polling agent to order the arrest of a suspected imposter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 159 line 2, leave out "by a polling agent."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 161, line 20, at the end, to insert:
    "(2) For the purposes of the said Rule 35 the agreement of a candidate or his election agent shall be as effective as the agreement of his counting agents."
    One effect of paragraph 3 of Part IV of the Third Schedule is that it will be possible to adjourn a count only if all counting agents agree. A single counting agent could prevent an adjournment where everyone else thought it would be desirable. Representations have been made that this should be modified, and to meet those representations the Amendment provides that the consent of the candidate or his election agent would be sufficient instead of all his counting agents.
    Amendment agreed to.

    FOURTH SCHEDULE.—(Amendments of local elections rules.)
    Amendment made: In page 163, line 29, leave out "who have appointed proxies," and insert:
    "for whom proxies have been appointed."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 164, line 21, at the end, to insert:
    "or in Scotland on a public holiday."
    In the case of the rules governing the issue and receipt of ballot papers for voting by post, the list of days in subparagraph (4) is added to by including "a public holiday" with respect to Scotland, so that the issue of a ballot paper to those voting by post shall not require to be done in Scotland on a public holiday.
    Mr. McKie: I would like to know if the addition of these words "or a public holiday" relates to Christmas Day and Good Friday. As the Secretary of State for Scotland knows, these days are not officially recognised in Scotland, and have not been recognised since the Reformation. Therefore, will the addition of these words "public holiday" so far as Scotland is concerned make it possible in Scotland to do what is not possible in England, namely, to serve these notices on Christmas Day or a Good Friday? The Amendment has made no provision for this point.
    Mr. Woodburn: If I may reply with the leave of the House, this is an extra advantage for Scotland.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 167, line 33, to leave out paragraph 2, and to insert:
    "2. In the case of a candidate who is outside the United Kingdom, a notice of withdrawal signed by his proposer and accompanied by a written declaration also so signed of the candidate's absence from the United Kingdom shall be of the same effect for the purpose of paragraph 7 of Part I of the local elections rules as a notice of withdrawal signed by the candidate:
    Provided that where the candidate stands nominated by more than one nomination paper a notice of withdrawal under this paragraph shall be effective if, but only if,—

    (a)it and the accompanying declaration are signed by all the proposers except any who is, and is stated in the said declaration to be, outside the United Kingdom; or

    (b)it is accompanied, in addition to the said declaration, by a written statement
    392
    signed by the candidate that the proposer giving the notice is authorised to do so on the candidate's behalf during his absence from the United Kingdom."

    This Amendment applies to local government elections the same provision relating to the withdrawal of a candidate who is abroad as the House has already approved for Parliamentary elections.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 168, line 20, at the beginning to insert:
    "(1) In paragraph 16 of Part III of the local elections rules for England and Wales (which enables two electors to require the questions there set out to be put to an applicant for a ballot paper) the reference to two electors shall cease to have effect."
    In Committee words were left out enabling two electors to require a presiding officer to put the statutory questions to a person applying for a ballot paper. The purpose of this Amendment is to put local government elections on the same footing in this respect as Parliamentary elections.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page line 23, at the end to insert:
    "and any reference in the said paragraph 17 to a polling agent shall include a reference to a candidate or his election agent."
    This Amendment also has the effect of putting local government elections on the same footing as Parliamentary elections.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 169 line 6, at end, insert:
    "(2) For the purposes of the said paragraph 33, the concurrence of a candidate or his election agent shall be as effective as that of his counting agents:
    Provided that where at an election in a metropolitan borough counting agents have been appointed to attend an behalf of more than one candidate jointly the concurrence of those agents shall be required unless each of those candidates or his election agent concurs."—[Mr. Younger.]
    Mr. Younger: I beg to move, in page 169, line 16, at the end, to insert:
    (4) The provisions of section two hundred and ninety-five of the local elections Act and, in England and Wales, paragraph 12 of Part I of the local elections rules (which provide for excluding Sundays and other days therein mentioned) shall not apply in relation to the counting of the votes and the other proceedings of the returning officer after the close of the poll or to things done by other persons in the course of those proceedings,

    393
    but the returning officer shall not be obliged to proceed with the counting on any day to which those provisions apply."
    The purpose of this Amendment is to make it clear that the returning officer may at his discretion continue the counting of votes into a Sunday or a holiday, which are days which may otherwise be disregarded for other purposes under the Bill. He is, of course, under no compulsion to do so, but it would enable him to complete the count in those circumstances.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 170, line 31, after "if" to insert:

    "(i) in sub-paragraph (3) of paragraph 1 and sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 3, for the expression "Mayor," there were substituted the expression "town clerk";

    (ii) for references to the proposer and to the seconder of a candidate there were respectively substituted references to the proposer whose name appears first and to the proposer whose name appears second on a nomination paper in respect of the candidate; and

    (iii)."

    In Scotland the town clerk and not the returning officer deals with matters in this part of the Bill, and, therefore, this Amendment seeks to substitute the town clerk for the mayor. The second part of the Amendment refers to the question of the proposer and seconder. The expressions "proposer" and "seconder" are not used in Scotland, and in this case it will be necessary to refer to the first and second proposers.
    Amendment agreed to.
    FIFTH SCHEDULE.—(Supplemental provisions as to use for Election Meetings of Rooms in School Premises and of Meeting Room.)
    10.45 p.m.
    Amendment made: In page 171, line 5, leave out from beginning, to "with."—[Mr. Ede.]

    SIXTH SCHEDULE.—(Effect of Change of Date of Local Government Elections in England and Wales.)
    Amendment made: In page 174, line 20, leave out "section," and insert "paragraph."—[Mr. Younger.]
    SEVENTH SCHEDULE.—(Consequential and Minor Amendments as to Local Government in Scotland.)
    Amendment made: In page 174, line 29, column 2, after "words," insert "the."—[Mr. Woodburn.]

    EIGHTH SCHEDULE.—(Provisions which may be contained in Regulations as to Registration, etc.)
    Amendments made: In page 176, leave out lines 40 and 41, and insert:
    "service declaration having ceased to be in force."
    In page 177, line 11, after "officer," insert:
    "mayor or person acting as mayor."—[Mr. Younger.]

    TENTH SCHEDULE.—(Adaptation and Interpretation of Enactments, etc.)
    Amendments made: In page 181, line 14, after "authority," insert:
    "and any such contribution shall be paid in the like manner."
    In page 182, line 18, at end, insert:
    "(3) In England and Wales, in section two hundred and ninety-five of the local elections Act (which relates to the computation of time for the purposes of that Act) any reference to that Act shall be construed as including a reference to Part IV of this Act."
    In line 36, leave out from second "for," to end of line 38, and insert:
    "the words 'City of London' where they first occur there shall be substituted the words 'a constituency where the sheriffs of the City of London or either of them are or is returning officer.'"
    In line 38, at end, insert:
    "(4) A notice given (whether before or after the passing of this Act) for the purposes of the proviso to subsection (1) of the said section twenty-seven (which enables a sheriff, mayor or other officer who is returning officer to require the writ to be conveyed to the acting returning officer) shall have effect in relation to all constituencies of which the person giving it is or was returning officer at the time of giving it or of which he or a successor in office becomes returning officer by virtue of that office."
    In line 38, at end, insert:
    "3. So much of section five of the local Act of the twelth and thirteenth years of Queen Victoria, chapter ninety-four, as requires registration as a Parliamentary elector as part of the qualification under that section for election to the common council of the City of London shall cease to have effect."—[Mr. Younger.]

    TWELFTH SCHEDULE.—(References in Corrupt Practices Act and Local Elections Act.)
    Amendment made: In page 187, line 15, 187 at end, insert:
    "Section 295. Section 197 Section 366."—[Mr. Younger.]

    THIRTEENTH SCHEDULE.—(Repeals.)

    Amendments made: In page 189, line 41, at end, insert:

    "12 & 13 Vict., c. xciv

    An Act to amend an Act passed in the eleventh year of the reign of King George the First for regulating elections within the City of London and for preserving the peace, good order, and government of the said City.

    In section five the words from "and who" to the words "in respect to such premises" where they last occur."

    In page 192, line 18, column 3, after "read," insert:
    "and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'."
    In line 45, column 3, leave out "Section sixteen," and insert:
    "in section sixteen the words 'cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction'."
    In page 193, line 43, column 3, leave out "Section twelve," and insert:
    "in section twelve the words 'cockades, ribbons, or other marks of distinction'."
    In page 194, line 41, column 3, leave out "Section sixteen," and insert:
    "in section sixteen the words 'cockades, ribbons or other marks of distinction'."
    In page 196, line 46, column 3, after "14,"insert:
    "in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 the words ' by two local government electors or'."
    In page 197, line 15, column 3, at end, insert:
    "and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'."
    In line 56, column 3, after "14," insert:
    "in sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 16 the words 'by two electors or'."
    In page 198, line 28, column 3, after "Form D," insert:
    "and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname' to the last 'and'."—[Mr. Younger.]
    In page 199, line 56, column 3, after "Schedule," insert "paragraph 3 and."
    In page 200, line 22, column 3, at end, insert:
    "and in the directions as to printing the ballot paper the words from 'The surname,' to the last 'and'."—[Mr. Woodburn.]
    Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 113.]

  NAVAL OFFICERS (BONUS PAYMENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Popplewell.]
  10.52 p.m.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: During the Debate on the Navy Estimates I raised a question about the payment of the 25 per cent. bonus to certain officers on the emergency lists—those officers who were on that list before 31st October, 1930, and who were subsequently promoted after being called up to the rank of commander or captain. My case rests on the regulations which were issued from time to time by the Admiralty, and the Admiralty case rests, as I understand it, on their power to alter the conditions of service without notice and without recognition of vested interest as and when they please. I must quote the regulations in support of my case. In July, 1911, the regulations stated:
  "When called up for active service officers on this list will receive full pay of their rank. On discharge after being called up they will be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment."
  In January, 1913, the regulations stated:
  "Officers promoted after they have been placed on the emergency list will receive the rate of full pay of the higher rank."
  In April, 1916, the regulations stated:
  "Emergency officers in time of war may be promoted irrespective of the regulations governing the promotion of officers on the active list."
  In April, 1918, the regulations stated:
  "If called up for active service officers on this list, if promoted and subsequently to being placed on the emergency list, receive the full rate of pay of the higher rank. They will also be granted a bonus of 25 per cent. on the lull pay (exclusive of allowances) earned during their employment."
  It is on these regulations that I base my case. It is quite clear from them that the Admiralty recognised that these officers might be promoted to the rank of commander or captain. No officer in the Service, whether on the active list or on

  397
  the emergency list, has any prescripted right to be promoted as a matter of course. All promotion to commander or captain is at the discretion of the Admiralty. It is clearly laid down in these regulations that officers may be promoted, and that if they are promoted they will receive the full pay of their rank, plus a bonus of 25 per cent. In 1927 these regulations were altered, and the 25 per cent. bonus was done away with, notwithstanding the conditions under which the officers had previously joined the emergency list. It was brought to my notice in 1942 that officers were not receiving this 25 per cent. bonus in accordance with the regulations under which they joined the emergency list. I took this matter up with the right hon. Gentleman who was then First Lord of the Admiralty, and is now Minister of Defence. I give him full credit for what he did—he instituted the necessary proceedings whereby those officers up to the rank of lieutenant-commander should receive the 25 per cent. pension, but in the case of officers promoted to the rank of captain or commander that was not done notwithstanding the regulation which I have read out.
  The reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to me on the Naval Estimates was entirely unsatisfactory. I have had correspondence with him since, and because it also has been unsatisfactory, I am raising this matter tonight. The Parliamentary Secretary told me that after the outbreak of war in 1939 it was decided that the 25 per cent. bonus should only be paid to the emergency officers up to the rank of lieutenant-commander and not to those promoted to captain or commander after being called up. That, I am told by the Parliamentary Secretary was promulgated in February, 1942. He further stated in his letters written to me in February and March, 1948, that as the original contract did not bind the Admiralty to promote these officers to either the rank of captain or commander, they are regarded as coming on to new contracts unless promoted to one of these ranks after being called out, the date of such promotion being an appropriate moment to vary their conditions of service, i.e., to cease paying the 25 per cent. bonus on full pay. That is entirely contrary to the 1918 regulations.
  The Parliamentary Secretary informed me—though he had no need to do so;
  398
  it was quite unnecessary—that the Admiralty had the power to alter the conditions of service without notice and without recognition of vested rights. It could well be that such alteration might be to the detriment of the officers concerned as in this case. The Admiralty have used these powers in such a manner that these officers who expected to get this 25 per cent. bonus are not to get it because of the changed conditions. Is it any wonder that these officers consider that the Admiralty are not fulfilling their contract and that they are being unjustly treated? They have a real grievance in this matter. It shakes the confidence of the personnel of the Royal Navy in the integrity of a contract with the Admiralty. There is no question about it but this is bound to do a great deal of harm.
  I do not know whether the Parliamentary Secretary is a good trade unionist, but I am. I am entirely in favour of trades unionism where the procedure laid for trade unionists is carried out correctly. I presume those, too, are the sentiments of the Parliamentary Secretary. Would the Parliamentary Secretary support a private employer who had a contract with his employees and who deliberately broke it? Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman I am sure would advise the employees to strike against the rascally employers who took such action. He would condemn such action at once. Yet that is exactly what the Admiralty has done. I submit that the Admiralty should set an example as good employers; but they certainly have not done so in this case. With these arbitrary powers, the Admiralty should be particularly careful how they use them. They should not use them to the detriment of the personnel of His Majesty's Navy, and I beg the Parliamentary Secretary to say that he will have this matter gone into again, in order that there may be an adjustment and that justice may be done to those officers who were subsequently promoted to the rank of commander or captain. He will then remove a real sense of grievance on their behalf.
  11.1 p.m.
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I support the case which has been raised tonight by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) a case which

  399
  he has argued so often and so well. It is a question of great importance to a relatively small number of extremely gallant officers. We should remember that in this debate we are dealing with officers who retired prior to 1930, so that their age at the end of the war could not have been much less than 60 years. They suffered all the rigours of active service at sea, and must have found it a good deal harder than men of their age in the other Services. They returned expecting to receive rates of pay, including the 25 per cent. bonus, oblivious of the fact that the bonus had been abolished. Owing to his activity in 1942 my hon. and gallant Friend was able to get the Admiralty to restore the bonus to them and, furthermore, the promotion to the rank of lieut.-commander still carried this bonus. But to those who, by exceptional merit, received no automatic promotion, but promotion by selection to the rank of commander and captain and consequently proved themselves of outstanding value to their country, this bonus has been denied.
  Surely, the basis for withholding the bonus is indeed a flimsy one; it is a niggardly act. If automatic promotion to a relatively junior rank justified generous treatment, surely those, who by exceptional service, reached greater heights deserve more of this country which they served so well. The Admiralty may have the letter of the law on their side, but I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will show a more conciliatory spirit tonight and grant to these few this sum which is infinitesimal when compared to the vast millions spent by this Government today but which will give great relief to these officers whose retired pay bears so little comparison to the cost of living today. I hope he will consider sympathetically the request which has been made, not to close this question but to re-open it and reconsider it as a result of this Debate tonight.
  11.4 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. John Dugdale): I am a little surprised that the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. J. P. L. Thomas) should have joined in this Debate because he occupied part of the office I now hold. It was only a part,
  400
  and the other half was shared by his noble Friend in another place, but during the time he was there this reform for which he has argued so cogently this evening was not brought into operation. He is doing his duty well in supporting his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor), but—
  Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: I did not get to the Admiralty until late in 1943, and the question was tackled in the early months of that year.
  Mr. Dugdale: The hon. Gentleman has managed to secure for himself some sort of alibi. I will now turn to the speech of the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for South Paddington. He says he is a good trade unionist. I think from the speech we have just heard he is a good trade union leader manquč, and he would have made a good impression standing on the tribune at the Trades Union Congress. Perhaps we shall see him in due course at the Labour Party Conference, and that his eloquence will be as great there as it is here.
  The Admiralty, as the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, consider that such promotion, that is promotion to the rank of commander or captain, is not a right but is something which may be given or withdrawn at the discretion of the Admiralty. In 1941 the Admiralty issued a new Admiralty Fleet Order, and I think for the purposes of the record I had better read what the Admiralty Fleet Order said. It stated:
  "The regulations governing the payment of 25 per cent. bonus to Emergency List Officers placed on the Emergency List up to 31st October, 1930, have been revised as follows:
  Officers placed on the list before the above date will be paid 25 per cent. bonus on full pay retrospectively to the date of being called out for service, including those who have been or may in future be promoted to the substantive or acting rank of Lieutenant-Commander and relative ranks."
  It then went on with this sentence—
  "As no officer on the Emergency List had a prescriptive right to promotion to Commander, the bonus will not be payable to officers who have been or may be exceptionally promoted since being called out to the active substantive ranks of Commander and Captain (and relative ranks) after the date of such promotion. They may, however, retain the pay of the lower rank plus 25 per cent. if to their advantage"
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves that point will he explain why the Admiralty in the 1918 regulations never said anything about the prescriptive right but said these officers would receive the full pay of the rank plus a 25 per cent. bonus.
  Mr. Dugdale: I was stating that the Admiralty held a certain view, namely, that they had no prescriptive right. After representations from the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Admiralty changed its attitude. I only want to say one thing in conclusion. Having changed its attitude and brought out the Admiralty Fleet Order to which I have referred, the then First Lord of the Admiralty, now my right hon. Friend the Minister for Defence, wrote to the hon. and gallant Gentleman to explain what had been done. He explained in detail the Admiralty Fleet Order, including the second sentence which definitely stated that this class of officer would not get the bonus. He received from the hon. and gallant Gentleman a letter in which he wrote:
  "I am very grateful for your courtesy in letting me know about the Emergency List Officers pay, and I am so glad the Admiralty have put that matter right."
  In spite of the fact that my right hon. Friend's communication included the second sentence that certain officers would not benefit from the change that had been made, nevertheless the hon. and gallant Gentleman said that the matter had been put right. Having said that, I can only suggest that he must have changed his mind since. The Admiralty have not changed their minds, and the matter must rest as it is, greatly as I sympathise with his persistence in raising this case constantly as he does. The fact is that when he was given this concession originally he agreed with it, he told my right hon. Friend that he did so, and I can only say that as he agreed with it then he must agree with it now, and that the Admiralty will maintain their position.
  Vice-Admiral Taylor: I would only like to say that when I read that letter—
  Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hubert Beaumont): The hon. and gallant Member has exhausted his right to speak.
  11.11 p.m.
  Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: There is an aspect of this matter which has not yet been dealt with. I would like to ask the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty how this matter stands in comparison with the other two Services. My recollection is that in the Army the retired officers in a similar position continued to get the increment notwithstanding the fact of promotion. I am not certain of that, but I have no doubt the position in regard to all three Services has been carefully considered. The House should be informed whether action in regard to all three Services has been the same. Clearly, if the Army officers who came back and were promoted got the 25 per cent. increment, whereas naval officers did not, there must have been injustice. Perhaps the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary will say—I am sure the House will give him leave—that he has looked into the position as regards the other Services, and that they are all treated alike—or, if not, why not, and that he will consider the matter.
  Mr. Dugdale: There are many matters in which all three Services have different regulations. It is only now that a large number of regulations are being brought into line, and the fact that a regulation may or may not exist in another Service is no proof that it should exist in the Navy. They have different regulations in many respects, not only in this one.
  Adjourned accordingly at Thirteen Minutes past Eleven o'Clock.

EMPLOYMENT
  Macclesfield and Congleton
  Macclesfield and Congleton
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Slough
  Slough
  Development Areas
  Development Areas
  European Volunteer Workers
  European Volunteer Workers
MINISTRY OF PENSIONS
  Widows and Children
  Widows and Children
  Artificial Limb-Making
  Artificial Limb-Making
BRITISH ARMY
  Married Quarters, Far East
  Married Quarters, Far East
  Court Martial, Farnborough
  Court Martial, Farnborough
  Clerks, Middle East (Release)
  Clerks, Middle East (Release)
  Civilian Staff (Overtime)
  Civilian Staff (Overtime)
  Currency Losses (Recommendations)
  Currency Losses (Recommendations)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (SENTENCES)
  PRISONERS OF WAR (SENTENCES)
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM
  POLES, UNITED KINGDOM
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Foreign Exchange
  Foreign Exchange
  Foreign Travel (Currency)
  Foreign Travel (Currency)
  Mining (Depletion Allowance)
  Mining (Depletion Allowance)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Jute Bags, Dundee (Export)
  Jute Bags, Dundee (Export)
  Cotton Industry (Production)
  Cotton Industry (Production)
  Clothing Coupons
  Clothing Coupons
  Grenfell Factories
  Grenfell Factories
  Newsprint (Pulp Imports)
  Newsprint (Pulp Imports)
  Bulk Gift Parcels (Import Licence)
  Bulk Gift Parcels (Import Licence)
  Pulpwood (Grinding Plant)
  Pulpwood (Grinding Plant)
  Cigarettes (Shortage)
  Cigarettes (Shortage)
  Prefabricated Houses (Exports)
  Prefabricated Houses (Exports)
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING
  National Parks (Animal and Bird Life)
  National Parks (Animal and Bird Life)
  Control of Advertisements
  Control of Advertisements
  Holme Park Fell, Westmorland
  Holme Park Fell, Westmorland
  SOAP RATION
  SOAP RATION
  CONVEYOR BELTING (IMPORTS)
  CONVEYOR BELTING (IMPORTS)
EDUCATION
  Women Teachers
  Women Teachers
  Building Programmes
  Building Programmes
AGRICULTURE
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Ex-Prisoners of War
  Colorado Beetles
  Colorado Beetles
  R.A.F. JET-FIGHTERS (VISIT TO U.S.A.)
  R.A.F. JET-FIGHTERS (VISIT TO U.S.A.)
GERMANY
  Affiliation Proceedings
  Affiliation Proceedings
  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (DIRECTORATE)
  SUEZ CANAL COMPANY (DIRECTORATE)
  EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAMME (NEGOTIATIONS)
  EUROPEAN RECOVERY PROGRAMME (NEGOTIATIONS)
  SWEET RATION (INCREASE)
  SWEET RATION (INCREASE)
SCOTLAND
  New School Buildings
  New School Buildings
  Hydro-Electric Projects
  Hydro-Electric Projects
  WATER SUPPLY, DENBIGHSHIRE
  WATER SUPPLY, DENBIGHSHIRE
  BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES
  BUILDING TRADE OPERATIVES
  AIR MAIL, BRITISH GUIANA
  AIR MAIL, BRITISH GUIANA
  MASTITIS (RESEARCH)
  MASTITIS (RESEARCH)
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers.

  COLOUR OF HIS MAJESTY'S SHIPS.
  2.35 p.m.
  EARL BEATTY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask His Majesty's Government the question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government, whether they have any statement to make on the reasons for altering the traditional colour of His Majesty's ships in peace time.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, trials have recently been carried out with a synthetic resin paint on a few of His Majesty's ships in place of the old-style paint. In addition to saving linseed oil, which is both scarce and expensive, the new paint is expected to provide a better finish, reduce fire risks and considerably increase durability, which will mean a substantial saving in expenditure. So far, however, we have not been able to produce the paint in the traditional naval colour but are continuing our efforts to do so. In the meantime the new paint is not being used.
  EARL BEATTY: While thanking the First Lord for his reply and appreciating the necessity for economy, I hope that he will pursue his efforts to see that the paint used in future will still be in the traditional grey.
  EARL HOWE: My Lords, before the First Lord answers, may I ask him whether it is not a fact that the grey paint was originally selected for conditions of visibility, and that the new style of paint would not be so suitable as the old style for the reduced visibility we usually have in home waters? May I also ask the First Lord whether it is not
  756
  the fact that the new-style paint is concocted according to a Japanese prescription?
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I will certainly see that, so far as possible, we adhere to tradition in colour, as in most other things. The grey colour was selected so long ago as 1901 and has been retained for the Home Fleet, though there have been various colours for some of the fleets on other stations. So far as we are concerned, the colour is very suitable and unless there are strong naval reasons for a change, then, of course, the traditional colour will remain.
  2.37 p.m.

STATUTE LAW REVISION BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT): My Lords, I rise to move that the Bill be now read a Second time. In July last I told your Lordships that we were gravely concerned about the chaotic condition of the Statute Book and that we had under consideration plans for trying to improve it. I told your Lordships of the steps being taken to press on with the preparation of Consolidation Bills and added that, in addition to the progress in consolidation, the Statute Law Committee were considering arrangements for the publication at the earliest possible date of a new edition of the Revised Statutes. The Bill which I now commend to your Lordships is the first step in this task of bringing the Statute Book up to date.
The existing Statute Book consists of twenty-four volumes of the Revised Statutes, dating from the year 1235 down to the year 1920, and thirty-one volumes of Public General Acts for the years since 1920; so that there are fifty-five volumes. These fifty-five volumes contain over 40,000 pages and this mass is growing every year at an average rate of about 800 pages. I need hardly tell your Lordships that the fifty-five volumes contain a very high proportion of matter which has been expressly repealed, in addition to the large amount which has become obsolete since the volumes were published. The purpose of this Bill, which covers the period from 1235 to 1800, is to cut away this

757
dead wood and so enable the next edition of the Revised Statutes to be contained in considerably fewer volumes than at present. The Bill follows the form of the various Statute Law Revision Acts which were passed in the latter part of the Nineteenth Century. The important part of the Bill is the First Schedule, which contains particulars of about 750 Acts which it is considered should now be repealed, either in whole or in part. The Second Schedule continues the process commenced by the Short Titles Act of 1896 of giving short titles to many early Acts which have at present to be cited by their full title on the somewhat rare occasions on which it is necessary to cite them at all.
Your Lordships must not expect too much of the Statute Law Revision Bill. Those of your Lordships who have troubled to read Clause 1 will see that it is not proposed to introduce any substantial or serious modifications in existing law. For instance, the removal from the existing Statute Book of the Act of James II to attaint James, Duke of Mon-mouth, of High Treason will not have the remarkable effect which some correspondents in the papers seem to think. It is really a Bill to render it unnecessary to include all this dead wood in a new edition of the Revised Statutes. If your Lordships give a Second Reading to this Bill, as I am sure you will, I shall in due course put down a Motion to refer the Bill to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills, in order that they may go through it carefully. This Bill has some little interest as a piece of legal archaeology. I confidently recommend it to your Lordships as the necessary first step to reducing our Statute Book to somewhat more manageable proportions. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
2.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor is much to be congratulated on having been able to introduce this Bill. I have no doubt at all that if his intentions, as expressed in the Bill and in his speech, are carried into law, a most useful reform will take place. The fact is that in this country in the matter of the revision of Statutes, we have not
758
hitherto proceeded in quite the way in which, for example, progress has been made in Canada. I know there are volumes that are called the Revised Statutes, which are issued, and issued with authority, from our Stationery Office. But nobody arguing a case and referring to the law (I speak subject to correction by the Lord Chancellor, but I think I am right) would produce a volume of the Revised Statutes and read from that. He would read from the original Statute, observing that certain parts of it had since been cut out by the Statute Law Revision Acts.
As I understand the Lord Chancellor, what he is hoping to do now is to achieve two purposes, which can, of course, be achieved only by steps. The first is to cut out, by this very elaborate Bill, a vast amount of matter contained in Statutes which have been passed by Parliament but which matter has become entirely dead wood, It is the commonest experience of those who have to argue or to deal with the law that they have to remember—or they are reminded—that particular sections of the Statute to which they are referring have been removed by the Statute Law Revision Acts. As I understand it, what the Lord Chancellor is now proposing is that we should do as a preliminary what this Bill does; and then produce something which will itself be cited as the Revised Statutes of this country. That is done in Canada. If I recollect rightly, they have there a Standing Commission which is constantly engaged in gathering together the references to matters which have become dead wood, with a view to their being cut out. If I remember rightly, the Governor-General of Canada has authority to produce the result in the form of what are called Revised Statutes of Canada, of various years, which themselves receive the authority of the Canadian Parliament.
We have never gone so far as that in practice. I believe the Lord Chancellor is perfectly right when he says that we ought to go further. Our Statute Law is necessarily very complicated and detailed. I remember a noble Lord opposite holding out the hope, in connection with the Bill dealing with the nationalisation of the railways, that after it was carried we should not need to know a great deal about railway charges, as they would be on two sides of a piece of paper which

759
we could take out of our pocket. That is an aspiration yet to be attained. It certainly will not be true about our Statutes, because they deal with all manner of subjects and must necessarily be very complicated. Nobody, lawyer or layman, would claim to know the total result in his own mind. If we can produce a series of volumes which have full statutory authority, and which are called the Revised Statutes of this realm, so that one has not to look back through the present enormous number of volumes, a great result will have been achieved, both for the effective administration of the law and for the purpose of enabling people themselves to see how the law stands. Therefore, I respectfully venture to say that this is a most valuable proposal, and I am sure every man acquainted with the administration of the law in this country will wish the Lord Chancellor nothing but success in the great enterprise upon which he is engaged.
2.48 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I think it would be right for someone on behalf of the laymen to thank the lawyers for introducing a measure of this character. I would congratulate the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor on being in a position to present this Bill to Parliament. This is a class of legislation which brings no immediate visible or practical results. It is a case in which the labour of preparation is an example of virtue being its own reward. In this country we are accustomed to say that we greatly love our traditions; there is almost a certain prejudice against touching any old institution, even though it be a Statute Book full of obsolete laws. But that love of tradition, surely, should never lead us to go so far as to leave untouched excrescences which are useless and, indeed, obnoxious. That would be what I might describe as the "cult of the cobweb." This Bill is a Bill to clear away cobwebs.
I have only one observation to make upon one particular Act. Glancing through the list of titles at the end, it occurred to me that the repeal of one measure might have some indirect effect upon the results of domestic controversies which have taken place in the Liberal Party during the last fifteen or twenty
760
years. Perhaps the noble Viscount who has just spoken may be in a special position to express a view upon this matter. It is the second Act on page 144:
"I Will. & Mary c. 16. An Act that the Simoniacall Promotion of one Person may not prejudice another."
I shall not be surprised to be told that my fears are unfounded, and that the repeal of that Act will not have the effect to which I have referred. If I can receive that assurance, perhaps later from the Committee to which this Bill is referred, I shall have great pleasure in supporting this Bill through all its stages.
VISCOUNT SIMON: If I may be permitted one further sentence, I would point out that the sin of simony did not begin with myself!
2.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT MAUGHAM: I want to add only a few words to what has been said, because, of course, every lawyer must approve this measure, and I was very glad to hear of the steps which the Lord Chancellor told us the Government is about to take with regard to the further facility for ascertaining what is the law in relation to Statutes. The comment I wish to make is that at present I am not sure that the proviso at the bottom of page 1 of the Bill may not be a little unfortunate. The words are:
"Provided as follows:
The repeal of any words or expressions of enactment described in the said schedule shall not affect the binding force, operation,"—
I leave out the words "or construction"—
"of any statute, or of any part of the statute …"
I am not quite sure whether that is intended. A great many of the Statutes—in fact, I think practically all the Statutes mentioned in the Schedule—are completely obsolete, and if these words are to be maintained without any qualification, it might be held that they still have binding force in some respects. Even in an obsolete Statute one may sometimes find a clause which could be applied at the present day. The other provisos on page 2 of the Bill are perfectly correct, but I am not quite sure that the first does not go a little too far. All I am asking now is that the Lord Chancellor should see that my observations are considered by the proper people.
2.52 p.m.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, as a layman and a Scotsman, may I congratulate the noble and learned Viscount upon this Bill? He has at least relieved two towns in Scotland from an obvious injustice. I find on page 90 that an Act of George II will be repealed. It is:
"An Act for continuing a Duty of two Pennies Scots … upon every Scots Pint of Ale … sold within the Town of Linlithgow…."
Then, on page 91, it mentions:
"An Act for enlarging … an Act for laying a Duty of two Pennies Scots … upon every Pint of Ale … sold within the Town of Montrose…."
I do not know how long it is since that particular Act went into disuse. I do not even know whether it is still in disuse. But the residents of Montrose and Linlithgow will be exceedingly relieved to know that that burden, at least, has been taken off their shoulders.
LORD RAGLAN: They have to pay even more now!
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I express my gratitude to your Lordships and give the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, the assurance he wants? If the noble Viscount, Lord Elibank, turns to page 92 of the Bill he will see that my gratitude to Scotsmen is even greater than he realises. He will see that I repeal a like Act relating to the town of Irvine, and a little lower down to the town of Glasgow and then, at the bottom of the page, I repeal the Lobsters (Scotland) Act. I will certainly ask the Committee to consider the point the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Maugham, made. As he knows, those words are found in every Statute Law Revision Act. I believe the history is that they were invented by Lord Westbury, but I think it is desirable that the Committee should see whether they could be modified in the way suggested.
On Question, Bill read 2a.

NURSERIES AND CHILD-MINDERS REGULATION BILL.
2.55 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE MINISTER OF STATE FOR COLONIAL AFFAIRS (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the purpose of this Bill, which is a short and quite uncontroversial measure, judging by its progress in another place, is twofold. First, it provides for the regulation of privately run nurseries, where children are looked after, either for the day or for the day and night for the working week; and, secondly, it provides for the regulation of minders who, for reward and in their own homes, look after children under five while their mothers are at work. The powers asked for in the Bill are essential if the health and welfare of young children, most of whom will be under five years of age, are to be safeguarded, and if mothers who go out to work, either from economic necessity or in the national interest, are to be able to do their jobs knowing that their children are properly cared for while they themselves are away from home.
Just as during the war we had to call upon married women to go back to work to produce munitions so now, in some parts of the country, we have no alternative but to ask them to go back to industries producing goods for export or essential home needs. Noble Lords will remember that during the war day nurseries and nursery classes were provided on a substantial scale, and almost wholly by the local authorities. Some local authorities also organised and supervised daily minding on a large scale. There were, during the war, about 1,400 day nurseries and 15, supervised daily minding schemes in operation. That was the work of the local authorities. Soon after the war ended, we began to adapt these war-time nursery arrangements to post-war needs. We foresaw that the period of transition from war to normal conditions was likely to be long, and that, in some areas, in the national interest, the need for women workers in industry might be just as great as it was for war production. That is exactly the situation in some of our exporting industries to-day—particularly, of course, in the textile industry.

763
The local authorities, as they did during the war, are still doing their best. They still provide nearly 900 nurseries with places for about 44,000 children under five, as well as 370 nursery schools for 19,000 children and 2,360 nursery classes for over 68,000 children. In the cotton-producing areas of the north-west, since the great export drive began, the local authorities have produced proposals for 52 additional nurseries and 12 additional nursery schools, which will be opened as soon as they can be constructed and staffed. The difficulties which a local authority have to overcome in providing new nurseries or nursery schools are greater to-day than they were during the war. Buildings which could then be used, with little alteration or adaptation, are now needed for their normal peace-time purposes. Sites in places convenient for the mothers are extremely hard to find, and building labour and materials are in great demand for housing and other urgent requirements of the present day. On the other hand, some mills and factories have spare accommodation which, with a modest expenditure of building labour and materials, can be turned into reasonably satisfactory nurseries. A nursery on the premises in which the mother works has always had certain important advantages over one elsewhere. Mother and child can see each other during the working day; the mother does not have to take the child to the nursery—perhaps in crowded public transport in bad weather and in a different direction from the factory—before she goes to work in the morning, and fetch it again at night when she is tired from the day's work. These are important considerations in favour of this novel arrangement, not only from the point of view of the convenience of the mother but also from the point of view of the health and well-being of the child.
In view of this new development and the satisfactory character of this provision, we have already in England and Wales some 80 nurseries operating in mills and factories, mainly in the cotton mills in the north-west of England. More of these factory nurseries are now projected and will soon be starting. Most of these factory and mill owners have been wise enough to seek the expert help of the local medical officer of health before setting up
764
a nursery. They have been extremely co-operative. But some have not done so; it is not the universal rule. Even when the medical officer of health has been called in to advise at the start he has at present no statutory powers to inspect and supervise the nurseries at regular intervals. Everyone knows that young children are particularly susceptible to infectious diseases, and that unless nurseries are designed and staffed with this danger in mind the risks to the health of the children are serious. The care of babies and young children is a skilled job for trained people. Ignorance of the elements of nursery hygiene may lead to proposals to utilise odd corners of a factory for this purpose, without regard to such absolute essentials as adequate air space ventilation, water, and sanitary conveniences. Such conditions have already come to our notice.
We have also had our attention called to cases of severe overcrowding—a nursery suitable for twenty children, for instance, has been catering for as many as fifty. Sometimes, again, it is proposed to put the nursery in the charge of a woman who is no doubt kindly and maternal but who has little or no training or experience to qualify her for such a job. At the present time, children may be exposed to many risks—and have, indeed, already been exposed to them. A nursery may come into existence without a local authority knowing it is there, and it may continue without any supervision or any authority to inspect it. Even if it does come to the notice of a local authority, there are not sufficient powers at present to enable the local authority's medical officer of health to enforce minimum standards. It is to provide safeguards to health and welfare that this Bill has been introduced. It is a Bill which has had an almost universal blessing. All concerned with factory nurseries are at one in wanting the regulation and supervision asked for in this measure. The Society of Medical Officers of Health, the associations of local authorities, organisations like the Cotton Board (which is representative of both employers and employed), sensible mill-owners, the Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Health are all of one mind, so far as this Bill is concerned.
The Bill, of course, goes beyond the nurseries to which I have referred—

765
namely, those provided by employers on their premises. The demand for women workers has led to the setting up of nurseries by private persons in private houses for private profit. Nobody knows how many such places there are, but we are told by the London County Council that they are aware of the existence of forty-seven in London alone.
The practice of daily minding, which was traditional in Lancashire before the war, but is now unpopular there because of the better service which day nurseries have given mothers, is tending to grow. Whether the children are cared for in day nurseries or by daily minders, I think everyone will agree that the necessary provision for their health should be made. When, as we are doing, we ask mothers to return to industry in the national interest, we ought to be able to assure them that if their children go to a day nursery or to a daily minder while they are at work we shall do our best so to supervise that nursery or minder as to ensure that their children are well looked after. Without this Bill we are not in a position to do that.
I will now deal briefly with the main proposals in the Bill. Clause 1 requires a local health authority to keep a register. On this register they will place premises not wholly or mainly used as private dwellings where children are looked after for the day, of for any longer period not exceeding six days, and also persons living in their area who, for profit and in their own homes, look after children under five for the day or for any longer period not exceeding six days. The reference to a period "not exceeding six days" is necessary to cover nurseries or minders who look after the children of women employed at night or in day shifts, and where the children are looked after apart from their parents day and night for six days at a stretch, being returned to their parents at week-ends. Clause 1 goes on to enable any person caring or proposing to look after children in the way described, whether in the nursery or in a home, to apply to the local health authority for registration. The local health authority may refuse to register any premises or person if they are satisfied that the persons who will look after the children are not fit to have the care of children or if the premises
766
are not fit to be used for that purpose. That is the main object of Clause 1.
Clause 2 enables the local health authority to limit the number of children to be received in a nursery or by a minder. It also enables the authority as respects nurseries to require that the person in charge shall have proper qualifications; that the nursery shall be adequately staffed and equipped; that the premises and the equipment shall be adequately maintained; that the children shall be properly fed and kept under medical supervision; and that records shall be kept of the children cared for. Subsection (6) of Clause 2 provides that in regard to existing nurseries no requirements as to the qualification of the person in charge, or as to staffing or equipment, shall be imposed so as to require anything to be done before a reasonable time has elapsed from the commencement of the Act. This allows existing nurseries a reasonable time to remedy defects of premises, staff or equipment.
Clause 4, subsection (1), makes it compulsory to register any premises used as a nursery within the meaning of the Bill. It provides that if at any time after the three months from the commencement of the Act a child is received in a nursery, and the nursery is not registered, or any requirement imposed by the local health authority is contravened or not complied with, the occupier of the nursery shall be guilty of an offence. Subsection (2) makes it an offence for a minder to look after children in his home without being registered if he is not a relative of the children, if the number of children exceeds two or they come from more than one household. We have tried here to limit registration and supervision to people who go in for the minding of children as a business. We do not want in any way to interfere with the kindly relative or friend who looks after one or two children while the mother is away. The term "relative" is denned in Clause 13. I hope the definition is sufficiently wide. These people will not commit any offence if they continue after this Bill becomes law to look after the children of other members of their own family. The neighbour who looks after children will not be interfered with so long as the children come from one household or, if they come

767
from more than one household, they do not number more than two.
Clause 5 enables the local health authority to cancel registration if any of their requirements have not been met—for instance, if any person employed in looking after children in a nursery, or any minder or person employed by the minder to look after children, is not fit to do so; or if the premises are unfit to be used for the care of children. Again, there is a saving to ensure reasonable treatment for existing nurseries. Clause 6 requires the local health authority, where they propose to refuse or cancel a registration or to impose requirements, to give the person affected an opportunity to be heard by the authority. If aggrieved by the authority's decision that person may appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction or, in Scotland, to the sheriff.
Clause 7 provides for inspection of nurseries and minders' homes by any person authorised by a local health authority on their behalf. Subsection (1) gives such authorised person the right to enter a nursery at any reasonable time to inspect the premises and the children cared for there, the arrangements made for their welfare and any records relating to them. There is no such right of entry to a minder's home but, on the other hand, if the local authority's officer is refused admission to the home of a minder registered under Clause 1, or has reasonable cause to believe that children are being received for minding in a home which is not (but ought to be) registered, he may apply to a justice of the peace, or in Scotland to the sheriff, for a warrant authorising him to enter the home or premises and to carry out an inspection. We do not want to invade the home of the Englishman or the home of the Scotsman. What we have therefore seen fit to say is that no official may enter these homes unless authorised to do so by a justice of the peace or by a sheriff.
I think that those are the main provisions of this short Bill. It is uncontroversial. It is one which I think will have a very beneficial effect upon a large number of children and which will also encourage mothers to feel that their off-spring are being properly cared for while they are doing useful work. I hope that this Bill will receive your Lordships' favourable consideration. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
3.11 p.m.
VISCOUNT BRIDGEMAN: My Lords, I am sure that we all are most grateful to the noble Earl opposite for the very clear and persuasive way in which he has moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I should like to say straight away that we on these Benches consider the Bill to be a good Bill and, in these times, a necessary Bill, because, as the noble Earl said just now, it is largely occasioned by the need to stimulate our exports, particularly in the textile industry. It is necessary to make it as easy as possible for mothers with young children to go to work or to return to work, as the case may be. Therefore, we gladly give this Bill a Second Reading. We do not expect to have many Amendments to the Bill. However, I think that there was one point raised in another place to which further consideration was promised. I should like to express our appreciation of the way in which the Amendment proposed by my right honourable friend in another place has been received and incorporated in the Bill. It makes the Bill a better Bill.
This Bill strikes me as being a pretty good example of decentralization and of flexibility—which is somewhat unusual with anything connected with the Ministry of Health. In fact, the Bill is well above the average. Although there is the disadvantage that some local authorities may make less use than others of their powers under this measure, none the less I think that the advantages of decentralization and flexibility so outweigh that possible defect that we can accept it. In our opinion, the local welfare authorities, as opposed to the central administration of the Ministry of Health, are certainly the right people to administer this Bill. It is also absolutely right that employers have been catered for in the way in which they have. I am certain that that is right, because surely the question whether you have a day nursery in a cotton mill or in a works, or whether you have the local authority's day nursery, depends to a great extent upon the location of the factory and where the workers have to come from. As the Bill now stands, it should be possible for local welfare authorities to make arrangements to give mothers the facilities they require, and, in cases where factories are in the right places for day

769
nurseries to assist employers to set up such nurseries or to improve their own day nurseries till they reach the standard which we all wish to see. I think that progressive employers will welcome inspection of these centres, provided the inspection is done by progressive inspectors. I cannot speak for the textile industry, but I feel sure in my own mind that that is so.
There will no doubt be a certain number of borderline cases, such as those mentioned when the first clause was discussed in another place. There are some points and some cases which are not very clear, as, for instance, the phrases "wholly or mainly," "who for reward receive into their homes," and "relative." There will be many borderline cases with which local authorities will have to deal, and for that reason I was rather surprised that, when the suggestion was made in another place that the co-operation of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children should be sought, the suggestion was turned down rather coldly. There will be borderline cases in regard to which the co-operation of that Society, with all its experience and with its trained staff, would be very useful to the local government authorities.
I noticed two other points in the debate in another place. The first was a statement that the local authorities were not expected to recruit extra staffs. That was a welcome statement and I hope it turns out to be right, because it is so easy, when an authority is starting a new service, to recruit extra staff and then find perhaps that in certain parts of the country they will be underemployed. Therefore, that statement was most welcome to me. The other statement that I noticed was to the effect that the people who did the work were qualified. I take that to be a reference to the inspectors. I wonder whether the noble Earl, in his reply, could tell us how they are qualified—whether it is by experience or otherwise. What is their qualification? Because this is a most important point. Merely to say that they are qualified does not make us much the wiser.
Having said that, may I now make one or two more general remarks? It is very easy to be sentimental about this Bill. It is easy to give it a welcome without being clear in our minds exactly
770
why we welcome it. The Government spokesman in another place said that the proper place for a child under the age of two is at home, and that mothers of children under the age of two should be positively discouraged from going to work and leaving their children. We entirely agree with that statement, and we are glad that it should have been made, but I think that in principle and as an ideal we should like to go a little further, because two years is a very young age. If times were easy and the need for women to go to work, especially in the textile industry, were not so essential, then I doubt whether we should be satisfied with that age, although we have to be satisfied with it now.
There is another matter which I should like to mention. I am not speaking for anyone else now; I am speaking my own mind on this point, because there is no representative present on the Episcopal Bench. It occurs to me that a day nursery is likely to be a secular place. I do not want to stress the point unduly. If anyone in charge of a day nursery put up, say, a reproduction of a Florentine picture of the Holy Family or of an angel, probably someone would come along and take it down. I do not wish to take the point further now, but I mention it as a consideration which we should bear in mind in dealing with matters of this kind. To sum up: we consider that this Bill is a right and proper Bill for the times and, as such, we warmly welcome it and support its Second Reading, but as an expedient. I, for my part, do not consider it ideal, because the ideal, as I see it, ought to be one of healthy children looked after by competent and understanding mothers in happy and Christian homes.
3.19 p.m.
THE EARL OF IDDESLEIGH: My Lords, I am impressed by the welcome which has been given to this Bill. I am also impressed by the case which the noble Earl has made for its Second Reading. I would not, of course, oppose the Second Reading, but it may be opportune to draw attention to certain points which are deserving of consideration at a later stage. I hope that His Majesty's Government are convinced that it will be possible to apply this Bill to the private child-minder who receives children into her own home and can look after them. It appears to me to be an exceedingly

771
difficult provision to enforce. I hope that the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will be able to tell us that this point has been considered and that His Majesty's Government are optimistic. There is the greatest danger in passing legislation unless we are convinced that it is really practical to enforce it in all or at least in a substantial majority of cases.
In the second place, I would venture to point out that some of the conditions which may be required for the continued registration of premises will need a little further elucidation. First, there is the question of qualified persons. When we were dealing with the Children Bill a little while ago, all sides of the House agreed that one of the most serious considerations of the present day was the great lack of persons who were qualified to look after children, and I should be very sorry indeed if the day nurseries invaded the narrow, limited field of qualified persons. It is surely much better to consider, not the qualifications but the character and aptitudes of the person who is to run a day nursery, and to leave for the deprived children's homes the very small supply of technically qualified persons.
I hope the noble Earl will consider whether it is possible to be a little more precise on the effects of the clause dealing with the requirement of medical supervision for children in day nurseries. Of what exactly does medical supervision consist? Does it merely mean that a doctor is at call in case of need, or that a doctor has approved the arrangements; or is there to be some further requirement for regular visits by medical men? If that is the case, we should consider whether the resources of the medical profession are such as to allow regular visits to these day nurseries. Finally, I hope the noble Earl will toe able to tell us something of what is in his mind with regard to the records which the day nurseries are to keep. I suppose there is a strong case for some record of attendances. Does the noble Earl also mean to provide for records of growth, weight, measurements, and so on, which are very valuable in relation to children? These are minor points which we could well deal with at a later stage, and I do not expect the noble Earl to be precise in answering every one of them. On the whole, I support the Bill, and trust that
772
the day nurseries will not by this means be decreased, but rather that the movement may be stimulated.
3.24 p.m.
LORD ROCHDALE: My Lords, I do not propose to take up more than a few moments of your Lordships' time, but more than one noble Lord, in referring to this Bill, has drawn attention to its connection with the textile industry. It is as one who has been closely connected with that industry that I venture to make one or two points. A great deal has been said, in your Lordships' House and elsewhere, during the last two years and more, on the great need for incentives in industry. Those of your Lordships who have made those points have always, I think, been at pains to make it clear that in referring to incentives they are not referring to money incentives and that there are a great many other forms of valuable incentive. I regard the objects of this Bill as trying to provide such an incentive. It seems to me that the Bill aims at providing an incentive to married women with young children to contribute something towards industry or other important work.
I imagine—and I certainly hope—that it will be generally admitted that no country, and least of all this, can continue its existence without the background that is achieved from a proper home family life. I imagine there must be thousands of women, conscious of that fact, who hesitate to go out to work because they doubt whether their children will be properly looked after in the various nurseries, and by minders and so on, while they are working. They hesitate to do that because, perhaps, they have lack of confidence in the existing establishments which have been set up, either by firms or by private individuals, whether or not for gain for this purpose. That means that if they come to the conclusion that they cannot trust their families to these places they forgo any increment to their incomes—an increment which may well be of great service to them in helping them to look after their families in the way that they would like. I believe that this Bill will go a long way to relieve them of their worries and hesitations in that respect; and, to that extent, I believe that it provides an important form of incentive in the industries where these people work.

773
That brings me to my second point—I think it is common knowledge now that the sellers' markets overseas are rapidly filling up. It is common knowledge also that where these market changes occur, one of the symptoms is that buyers become more and more particular about the quality of the goods which they are offered. I am quite sure that that is the experience of thousands of industrialists who are trying to export to-day. Whilst one must say that at all times, and not only particularly now, exporters should do their utmost to ensure that the goods they send out of the country bear out the proverbial British quality, it is to-day more than ever vital that that should be the case. I believe that nothing contributes more to faulty individual work than worry on the part of the worker, whether a man or a woman—and I should suggest particularly in the case of a woman—over his or her children. Anything that can relieve workers of that worry will contribute towards a better quality of work and, as a result of better quality, a greater quantity of exports. Those are the two main points I want to make in welcoming this Bill.
There is one further point I would add. As I understand it, the Bill deals with establishments where there is no form of teaching attached, as contrasted with the case of nursery schools. I realise that under the special circumstances which exist to-day there is a case for both nurseries, as referred to in this Bill, and for nursery schools. No doubt, in the years to come, there will continue to be that need for both these types of establishment. No doubt, also, as the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading pointed out, the difficulty about increasing the numbers of the nursery schools is not only the difficulty of building new premises but, I would suggest, the difficulty of finding suitably trained people to run them. I hope, however, that when these difficulties become less acute if there is a question of giving preference either to nurseries or to nursery schools, preference will be given rather to the nursery schools where some form of education is given than to the nurseries where no education is given. With those few remarks, I welcome this Bill.
3.30 p.m.
LORD HARLECH: My Lords, I would like to ask the noble Earl who is in charge
774
of the Bill one question, and it relates to the word "qualifications." I have rather an apprehension about "qualifications," if they are to be laid down by some central authority, or even by a major authority. Surely all experience goes to show that the best people to run these temporary nurseries are people who are qualified by experience, rather than on paper. A marked tendency to-day—and it is one of the most serious tendencies of the time—is to say that you are qualified if you have passed, say, some particular diploma examination at the London School of Economics, but may be unqualified even though you have spent forty years successfully in doing a job. That, as I say, is one of the troubles of the day—paper qualifications. I suppose that the person to determine whether or not an individual is qualified to take charge of one of these nurseries will probably be the medical officer of health. I have the utmost regard for some of the medical officers of health of this country. They have done grand work. They have been responsible for improvements in water supplies, sanitation and housing, and they have done much with regard to D.P.H. at Glasgow and all over the country. Their labours have been magnificent. For all that, I am not sure that their particular experience makes them the best people to determine who is to look after children, well or sick, in these nurseries, or to lay down the qualifications for such persons—or, indeed, to deal with the children in this connection.
After all, if one is ill one does not send for the medical officer of health. It is not his job to look after people who are ill. He is a man who has to be trained in the science of preventive medicine, not curative medicine. The trouble, of course, is that Whitehall—particularly—believes that all men are born equal. I have had to deal with a large number of very fine medical officers of health, and I have paid tribute to some of them as quite outstanding men. On the other hand, I have known others who are complete "duds" (I must use the word), particularly when they get outside their own line of country—namely, meat inspection and things of that kind, which they do very well. They are not well suited to dealing with matters such as we are discussing now. They have done wonderful work in their own sphere, but it is difficult to believe that

775
they are the right people to be entrusted with this task.
I am convinced that, if this scheme is really to be made successful, in every case it will be necessary to secure the co-operation—the free giving of which is so characteristic of our experience of work of this kind in this country—of the voluntary effort, particularly of the volunteer women. You must secure the co-operation of people who will take an interest in these day nurseries and nursery schools. They did it before the war with good results; but if it is said that this is to be a purely Government show, and that it is a case of "Hands off," so far as people such as those who have devoted much of their lives to the work of organisations like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and to philanthropy in these matters are concerned—and may I say that some splendid women have worked in this field?—the results which we all desire will not be achieved. If such people are to be excluded from this organisation, then you are setting the clock back and not forward. The one chance of success for a Bill of this kind is to ensure the least amount of bureaucracy possible—especially the paper bureaucracy with regard to written qualifications—and the maximum of humanity and the human touch.
3.35 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, as a Lancashire man and one who has been engaged in the cotton industry all my life, I feel that I would like to say a word or two on this Bill. I share fully all the regrets of the noble Lords who have intimated that they regard it really as a backward step to have again to bring into industry the mothers of young children. I agree that it is necessary at the present time, but I hope that that necessity will not last for many years. But I feel that, while the necessity does last, it is absolutely essential that the best possible conditions should be provided for the children in the day nurseries. I am sure that the people of Lancashire—employers and local authorities—who are setting up these day nurseries are quite determined that there shall be first-rate conditions for the children. It may well be that we shall gain valuable experience in addition to that which we have already
776
with regard to the health possibilities of this kind of nursery. Therefore, I welcome the Bill, and I also welcome very much the speech of the noble Earl who I opened the debate this afternoon.
There is just one point on which I am a little uneasy, and that is with regard to the question of appeals from the decision of the local authorities to the magistrates. Now our towns in Lancashire are, generally speaking, rather small places, and the people who serve as magistrates and on the local authorities are frequently the same people. Often, therefore, it would be a case of appealing from John and James to James and John. I would much rather that the appeal were to the Minister. That would be one way to get out of the difficulty—which your Lordships must face up to—arising from the fact that feelings in Lancashire on this subject are very acute. We have had a good deal of experience of children being taken out to be cared for during the day while their mothers are at work. That has been going on for a good many years, and there has been a good deal of propaganda against it, in which, I may say, I have taken part. The result is that feelings on the whole subject are very strong in Lancashire, and it may well be that people who are leading figures in a local authority will be so strongly opposed to day nurseries that it will be difficult for employers to set them up. I hope that that is a point which will be considered by the Government. I think that an appeal in the first instance, at any rate, from the local health authority to the Minister, would be better than having an appeal to the local Bench of magistrates. With that one suggestion I warmly welcome this Bill.
3.38 p.m.
LORD CAWLEY: My Lords, the noble Earl who introduced this Bill spoke of the need for it from the point of view of enabling children to go into day nurseries while their mothers are at work. But there is another aspect of this matter, which I feel certain will grow. I happen to know of one day nursery which was set up for the purpose of taking in children when their mothers were at work. That nursery was run by a lady who, so far as I know, has no paper qualifications, with assistants who also, I believe, have no paper qualifications. But all those people are much interested in that kind of

777
activity and they are doing very good work indeed. What I want to call attention to is the fact that their experience has been as follows. The people who come to the nursery have not been confined to mothers who go to work, depositing their children while they do so; another class who come are women who wish to leave their children while they do their shopping. I believe that that is something which is going to continue. It must be a great relief to a mother to find some good place where she can leave her child while doing that work. In these days when domestic help is so difficult to get, even members of your Lordships' House may at times find it difficult to deal with children, and no doubt that experience will make you more sympathetic on this subject and help you to understand it better than you might have done hitherto. I think this is a movement which will extend. In regard to the question of qualifications, the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, has pointed out that it is undesirable that we should draw people from other nursing services. I hope nothing in the Bill will make it more difficult to staff these homes, or do anything which will curtail or delay this very desirable movement.
VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, I should like to say something from the point of view of my own experience. During the war, in my house in the country, I had two day nurseries, first one and then the other, of up to 28 children, with their nurses and attendants. I wish to say that the inspection and supervision to which we were submitted by the local authority were admirable, though I am talking, of course, of my own county council. It was so good that it was hard to imagine they had not been brought up to it. If the present system of inspection, supervision and attendance by doctors (who made very little money for all they did; for the children were very frequently ill, as children are) is continued, we shall be working on the right lines.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: My Lords, I should like to say a word in support of noble Lords who spoke in regard to the character and capability of the various kinds of child minders. I would also like to be clear whether the owners of the homes referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 1, and also
778
in subsection (2) of Clause 4, include any reference to those who have adopted children. I should like it to be made clear that adopted children are to be of a different status from those not adopted, and are to be treated as natural-born children by those who have adopted them. That point does not seem to be noted in the Bill, so far as I can see. If the noble Lord could clear up that point, I should be grateful.
3.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to all the noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for the friendly welcome they have given this Bill. It will be of great encouragement to all those concerned in its operation, as well as to those of us who are responsible for endeavouring to secure its passage through Parliament. I would like to answer some—I fear not more than some at this stage—of the points raised in discussion. I would gladly reply on Committee stage to those points which I may be unable to answer to-day. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, raised two points which I should like to answer now He complained that we were inclined to turn a cold shoulder to the services that had been offered us by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. I can assure the noble Viscount that we shall welcome any assistance or advice that the Society can give us, probably through its local branches in particular cases. The local health authorities will naturally be most anxious to obtain any information the Society can provide about the unsatisfactory conditions in certain homes. I think what I said just now about particular cases applies generally. I would like also to assure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that we shall welcome a ay help we can get—I speak of course for the local authorities who will be operating this Bill—from voluntary agencies and from individuals with special knowledge of child care.
The second important point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, was the qualifications of local inspectors who are sent by the local authorities into these nurseries. They will either be doctors or health visitors, who are already concerned with the care of children under the Child Life Protection Acts. These health visitors are qualified nurses with special experience of children, so that in all cases

779
these inspectors will be people who really know how children should be cared for.
Another issue of some importance was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Iddesleigh, and concerned the supply of qualified persons to do this work. He was afraid, I think, that we should be calling upon trained nurses, who are, naturally, much in demand at the present moment for other purposes. Only one trained nurse will be required at each nursery. The other staff will be nursery nurses, not trained nurses in the medical sense, but persons who have had training under the child care organisations. We are assured by the Ministry of Labour that there will be no difficulty in securing this sort of staff. The noble Earl also asked about the purpose of keeping records. These records will not be unnecessarily elaborate or detailed. The sort of thing they will cover is attendance in the nurseries, and such simple facts about the children as their weight and state of health on admission, and their state of health at given moments. I do not think this will be putting an unnecessary burden on those who have to keep these records and they are essential to give a general background of the nursery. The noble Earl also seemed to be a little doubtful about enforcement in the case of child minders looking after children in their homes. I assure the noble Earl that we are satisfied that this measure can be enforced by the local health authorities. They will have a qualified staff, and there is no reason to suppose that they will not have the co-operation of all people of good will who care about children.
I welcome the reference by the noble Lord, Lord Rochdale, to the importance of incentives. I think this Bill will provide a new incentive which will affect many people in his part of the world, and it will be a contribution, in a modest way, to the export drive in textiles. I would like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, that in the qualifications for which we are asking we should certainly include experience of looking after children, as well as paper knowledge. He need have no fear that that aspect of the matter will be disregarded. I took note of the point of the noble Lord, Lord Darwen, about the machinery provided for appeals against decisions of local authorities. This point will be carefully exam-
780
ined before the Committee stage. I am afraid that this has been rather a cursory reply to the number of points that were raised by noble Lords in the course of the debate, but I think they mainly concerned Committee questions, and I shall be delighted to reply more fully when we reach the Committee stage. I would just like to repeat how grateful I am to the House for the keen interest that has been taken in this matter, and for the support given to the principle of this Bill.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CRIMINAL JUSTICE BILL.
4.52 p.m.
House again in Committee (according to Order).
[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]
Clause 44:
Remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions.
44.—(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 SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, in subsection (1), to omit "detention centres." The noble Lord said: This is by no means a hostile Amendment. It is intended only to give to the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, an opportunity, which I am sure he will welcome, of telling us what is the meaning of the words "detention centre." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 10, leave out ("detention centres").—(Lord Schuster.)
LORD CHORLEY: We had a discussion on the problem of detention centres when Clause 18 was before the Committee last week, and there is not a great deal I can add to what was said on that occasion. The object of the detention centre is to provide a short, sharp term of punishment for a lad, in order to bring him right up against the fact that he has committed a crime against the community. As your Lordships appreciate, it will no longer be open for the court to impose a sentence of imprisonment for a lad under the age of seventeen, and therefore it is necessary to provide some alternative form of punishment. It is thought that special imprisonment, but

781
in a building divorced from the sordid unpleasant atmosphere of the ordinary prison, will be the best method of dealing with a lad between the ages of fourteen and seventeen, who, in the view of the court, is not an appropriate person to be sent to an approved school.
It is, of course, quite true that the clause contemplates the sending of a boy over seventeen to a detention centre of this kind. There again, the object is much the same. The atmosphere and surroundings in these detention centres can obviously be made quite different from those of the ordinary prison. The primary object of this type of sentence is not, by any means, reformatory. I think it was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, who pointed out that it is obviously not possible to take in hand the serious reformation of this type of young man on the basis of a period of three months' detention. Nevertheless, in the surroundings which the detention centre will provide, something may be done in the way of reformation as well. Your Lordships will appreciate that a lad over seventeen can be sent to a detention centre only once. If that fails and he commits another crime and comes before the court again, the court will then have to decide what is the more serious type of punishment appropriate to his case—it may be Borstal, or it may be thought that imprisonment is the only suitable punishment. That is the object behind this clause. In the circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment, and will agree that, while it is an experimental type of punishment, it is one which holds out some prospect of success.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I cannot say that the noble Lord has taken the matter much further than the stage we reached the other day. I then made a specific suggestion—namely, that in view of the obscurity in which we all find ourselves as to what is intended by "detention centres" the Home Office should produce a detailed circular describing them and the sort of training which is to be given in them. I would remind the Committee that we are greatly restricting the powers of imposition of imprisonment on young offenders. I am very glad that we have taken that step. But this restriction makes it all the more necessary that the courts should know
782
what is meant when they order, as an alternative sentence to imprisonment, a period in a detention centre. I have asked question after question about these detention centres, not only during this debate, but during the last eighteen months, and so far I have had no explanation which gives me a picture of what they are going to be. How, for instance, are you going to deal with the two classes of the younger offenders and the older offenders? How are you going to deal with the offenders who have quite a short sentence, and the offenders; who are to have a sentence up to six months? I ask the noble Lord, in view of these facts, to give us a definite answer, at any rate on the Report stage, as to whether the Home Office are producing a White Paper, or sending a circular to the various courts. In any event, I shall be glad if the noble Lord can give us a detailed description of these new and very important institutions before we part with this Bill.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Might I just follow that up by saying what I think? We should also like to know, either now or on Report, what plan the Government have in regard to the building of these detention centres. When will the first be ready? Are there going to become in different parts of the country? Is it planned to build six, eight, or ten to start with; and is there anything at all solid behind this proposal? It is necessary to know that, so that those who have to administer justice in the courts will have some idea when the first centre will be ready. Indeed, some of those who sit in the courts may be able to see the centres in operation. What kind of programme have the Government for the building of these detention centres? If the noble Lord cannot answer that now—I hope he may be able to—at least the House is entitled to have that information when we reach a subsequent stage of the Bill.
LORD GODDARD: I expressed my feelings and doubts in this matter of detention centres when Clause 18 was being discussed, and I do not want to travel over the same ground again. At any rate, the noble Lord to-day has told us one thing. We have been hearing all along that the object of the Government was reformation. I now understand that detention centres are to be places of punishment and not reformation. That may be perfectly right; and I am not saying that

783
these young men should not be punished. But what good it can do to send a boy for three months, or even six months, to these places—except simply to administer punishment—I cannot for the life of me understand. I would point out that subsequent subsections to this clause make it clear that the present Acts apply. That means, as I understand it at present, that the position is open to modification. Is the remission of one-third of the sentence to be allowed from these detention centres? If that is so, the ordinary sentence will be two months and not three months, and that does not seem to me to be very desirable.
I also notice that the appropriation of a prison as a detention centre is contemplated. That means, I suppose, that if detention centres cannot yet be provided in country houses, or other places which may be found, these young men will be taken to prison. I would appeal to the Government to withdraw these centres until they have some policy which can be placed before the courts, and until the courts can be informed as to what is meant by treatment in a detention centre.
LORD CHORLEY: I am sure the noble Viscount would not expect the Home Office to prepare a circular between the time when he first made the suggestion last week and the resumed discussion.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: It is a proposal of eighteen months ago; it is not a new proposal.
LORD CHORLEY: I promised that I would bring it to the notice of my right honourable friend, and that has been done. The proposals for these detention centres is to some extent experimental, and, if I may express a personal view, it would be wrong to try to introduce a cut-and-dried scheme which would fit all types of youthful offenders. As soon as any of these detention centres is built the courts will be notified. That is provided for. It would be quite wrong for me to hold out to your Lordships that in the present situation, from the point of view of building, there is any immediate likelihood of their being ready within the next few months, or even within the next year or two. To hold out any suggestion of that kind would be altogether too optimistic and quite unjustified. When the first one or two are ready—and it is the intention
784
that they shall be conveniently situated about the country—every opportunity will be given for magistrates and Judges who wish to see what they are like to visit them.
As I said in connection with the previous clause, it is hoped that there will be a much closer co-operation between the Judiciary, both high and low, and the Prison Commissioners in the administration of this Bill when it becomes an Act. With regard to the point made by the Lord Chief Justice, I confess that it is one which had not occurred to me. I will have that looked at, and I hope I shall be in a position to make a statement with regard to it on the Report stage.
LORD LLEWELLIN: The noble Lord cannot tell me how many are contemplated?
LORD CHORLEY: The actual number will obviously have to be decided as the Act is administered. It will depend to some extent upon what happens in the future. This is in effect an enabling Bill, which provides that these detention centres may be brought into existence. I think your Lordships have the impression that the scheme is a good deal more cut-and-dried than it is possible for it to be at present.
VISCOUNT SIMON: May I make one observation? The noble Lord speaks so reasonably, and is so anxious to do what is right. This is not a matter of complaint at all. What does strike me is that there is no attempt anywhere to define, even in the widest terms, what this phrase "detention centres" means. Of course it would be quite wrong, I think—and probably impossible—to have a close, cut-and-dried definition, but it seems to me a very odd thing that you should have in an Act of Parliament a phrase which in itself means nothing at all. "Detention centre" is not a phrase that is known to anybody in any way, except so far as I the noble Lord and others interested are good enough to explain what is meant. Surely it is wrong not to include in the definition clause something, however general in terms, which indicates the kind of thing that is meant. The noble Lord speaks of people of a particular age receiving a short sharp sentence to pull them up. I can see that we cannot put all those words in the Act, but is it not rather ridiculous to introduce into a Bill a phrase

785
which presumably is a term of art, but which is not denned in any sort of way at all? If I might suggest it to the Lord Chancellor, I would like him to consider whether, before we finally dispose of it, there ought not to be something, however general the terms, indicating the kind of place which is meant. I know what a prison is, and I know what Borstal is; but nobody reading this can ever know what a detention centre is. For all I know, it might be a shopping centre.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think I said, in answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that I would consider putting in a definition, although I can see great difficulties about it.
LORD SCHUSTER: I do not want to delay the discussion, but as I said before, my Amendment is not intended in any way to be hostile. It is disappointing to people who are accustomed to sitting in courts, and who are anxious to welcome any method of further classification, to find they are expected to be satisfied with a phrase which does not put them in any better position than they were before. I do not think any of us likes short sentences, and this appears to be a device which is intended to perpetuate, in respect of this particular kind of boy, the short sentence which cannot reform and is merely intended to punish. With that, all I can do is to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL HOWE: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment, may I say that I intervene with great reluctance, being a layman and not understanding anything about it? I have listened to noble Lords on all sides asking specific questions with regard to this question of detention centres. I have not yet heard an answer from the Government to any of the questions asked by noble Lords. Would it be possible for the noble Lord to give us on Report stage a considered statement with regard to these detention centres? I think the present answer of the Government is most unsatisfactory. After all, this is not an entirely new proposal; the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has been asking questions on the subject for the last eighteen months. Surely the Government ought to be able to give us a little more information. I appeal for further information on this subject. Otherwise, when we come to Report stage, if
786
there is an Amendment on the Paper I hope that some noble Lord will press it to a. Division. And if so, I shall certainly support it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 44, line 18, leave out ("appearing to the court to be").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD GODDARD: There are a great many criminal laws where this expression "appearing to the court to be" forms part of the Act. I am wondering why in this particular case these words are to be taken out.
LORD CHORLEY: If your Lordships will look at subsection (3) of Clause 77, which is the interpretation clause, you will see the words:
"Where the age of any person at any time is material for the purposes of any provision of this Act, or of any Order in Council made thereunder, regulating the powers of a court, his age at the material time shall be deemed to be or to have been that which appears to the court to be or to have been his age at that time."
In view of this subsection, the words proposed to be deleted ire not regarded as necessary.
LORD GODDARD: I quite understand, and I am obliged to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 44, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: In Clause 44, subsection (1), the noble Lord will observe that the Secretary of State can provide remand centres amongst other things. If we turn to subsection (3), it appears that a young person under the age of seventeen can be committed to a remand centre for the purpose of obtaining a medical report on his physical and mental condition. In such a case the council of the county or county borough who would be responsible for his maintenance if he were retained in a remand home will have to pay for his detention in that place. As I understand it, precisely similar centres are provided in subsection (4) of Clause 45. What I am uncertain about is this. If the Home Secretary decides to provide remand centres, have they to be kept up by the local authority? Will the local authorities have any say as to where these centres are to be placed? In any event, it is quite clear that the local authority

787
will be expected to pay for the maintenance of an individual under the age of seventeen who has gone into a remand centre for the purposes of the provision of a medical report. Can the noble Lord give me some information as, to who will, in fact, be expected to maintain these centres?
LORD CHORLEY: As I understand it, the remand centre is provided by the Home Secretary and will be maintained by him, although a local authority may be under the obligation to pay for the maintenance of an individual lad who is sent there for the kind of purpose which the noble Earl indicates.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If a boy normally goes to a remand home at the expense of a local authority, then the local authority should pay the Home Secretary for the cost of keeping him in the remand centre.
Clause 44, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 45 to 47 agreed to.
Clause 48:
Rules for the Management of Prisons, Remand Centres, Detention Centres and Borstal institutions.
48.—(1) The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions respectively, and for the classification, treatment, discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein.
4.17 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD moved, in subsection (1), after "treatment," to insert "employment." The noble Viscount said: My object in proposing this Amendment is to mention employment specifically as one of the subjects upon which the Secretary of State should make prison regulations. I make no apology for raising this question. It is one of the key questions of the Bill. It raises the whole question of prison labour. Prison labour has come into our discussions more than once during this Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Oaksey, raised the question specifically in the early days of the Committee stage, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor then gave the answer that labour should be hard, that it should be well organised, and that there should be no loafing in prisons—I paraphrase roughly the general trend of his arguments.
I have an uneasy feeling that, as things are now—I am not blaming any of the officials—there is a great deal of unemployment and under-employment in our prisons. No doubt, the problem has become very difficult: the prisons are overcrowded, and it is always very difficult to organise employment, particularly for short sentences. None the less, if I compare the position to-day with what it was before the war when I was Home Secretary, I believe that the problem has become both more urgent and, at the same time, in one respect at least, easier to deal with. In the years before the war, the criticism was always made that, with a large number of unemployed outside the prisons, it was difficult to bring prison labour into competition with outside labour. I need not argue the point that we need the labour of every man and woman in the country, and there is therefore no fear of prison labour—in any case only a small body of labour—creating unemployment outside.
I remember that in the pre-war days we based our policy upon the recommendations of what was called the Salmon Committee—a Committee presided over by Sir Isidore Salmon. I think that that Committee reported in the year 1933. The Second World War came and we did not get very far with those recommendations. The recommendations were most valuable at that time; they are more than ever valuable to-day. The broad conclusions of the Salmon Committee were, first, that prison labour tended to deteriorate in the years between the two wars—or perhaps I should put it rather more accurately if I said that it deteriorated in the period after the First World War, the reason being that in war time it was possible to occupy prisoners with war work of various kinds and. as a result, the production statistics were improved and the reinstatement of the prisoners was greatly helped.
Then came peace conditions, and the demand from the outside tended to dry up, with the result that prisoners as a whole were driven back upon the old routine of a most unsatisfying type of work, such as the making of mail bags. I am afraid that the same result is going to take place now. I am informed that during the Second World War there was a great improvement in the actual production of prisoners' work. They took an interest in what they were doing. They

789
felt that they were helping in some degree to take part in war work and production accordingly went up, with a good result for the country and with an equally good result for the prisoners. I am now informed that that outside demand is falling off, that prisoners are being forced more and more into the old routine work and that even at a prison like Wakefield, where in recent years, as we know, the prison authorities have availed themselves of the stimulus of outside work, a considerable number of prisoners are engaged upon routine hand sewing. I quote that instance as an illustration of the danger of prison labour drifting back into the old rather soulless routine.
The second conclusion that the Salmon Committee reached was that the conditions of prison labour—I am now using their exact words—"made prisoners soft and mentally slow." That is the very result that I am sure we all wish to avoid. As I say, I realise the present difficulties. I realise the difficulty particularly of overcrowding and of the staffs. Yet, within those limitations, I believe that a good deal more could be done than is actually being done at the present time. I have the feeling that there is an atmosphere almost of hopelessness in view of this most difficult problem, and that if it continues one of the main objects of this Bill—namely, the reforming of the prisoner by hard and not uninteresting work—will to a great extent be frustrated. On that account, I have certain definite proposals to put before the Government.
First, I suggest to them that they should now make the Director of Industries—the official of the Prison Commissioners who deals with labour conditions in prison—a member of the Prison Commission. That was a recommendation of the Salmon Committee which was very well received at the time. I myself feel that prison employment is so essentially a part of the reformative work of prison that it is necessary that the representative of that branch of the work should actually be a member of the Prison Commission. That is my first proposal. My second proposal is that a much more definite programme of prison work should be prepared than has up to the present been the case. By that, I mean that particular kinds of work should be allocated to particular prisoners. I mean also that the Government should enter into active
790
consultation with the trade union authorities to avoid any difficulties about employment, say, in some of the more skilled trades, and that in particular, wherever it is possible, the prisoners should be engaged upon work of definite national importance. I have in mind particularly agricultural work, afforestation, land, drainage, and also, not least, the housing of prison staffs and, if necessary, the police. Two of the great difficulties in the field of penal administration at the present moment are the shortage of houses for prison staffs and the shortage of housing for the police. Why should not some of this labour in prison that is at present either unemployed or under-employed be engaged upon this work of first-class national importance?
Next, I would bring prison earnings into much closer relation with earnings outside. It was during the Home Secretaryships of my noble friend, Viscount Simon, and myself that earnings upon a fairly extensive scale were introduced into prison life. Those earnings were upon a very tentative basis. I am told that at present they amount to a maximum about Is. 6d. per week only—a very small sum but a sum, be it noted, that has been sufficient to stimulate the interest of a great many prisoners. I believe that if this Bill is to achieve the full results that we all wish, a definite step forward should be taken in bringing those small earnings, which are really only doles, into relation with labour conditions outside. This is not a revolutionary proposal. It has been tried in one or two of the Scandinavian countries and I believe it has been tried in one or two of the States of the United States. Generally speaking, if a prisoner is engaged upon skilled work, he is credited with the proper rate of wages. The wages then go for his own keep. If necessary, they go for compensation for his victim. They go to his family, and a certain share is accumulated for him, to give him a small fund when he comes out of prison. I hope that the regulations which the Secretary of State will issue under this Bill will include further regulations with reference to prison earnings, so that we may get away from this atmosphere of the small and almost ineffective dole and, in its place, substitute a real stimulus to a prisoner to take an interest in his work and to make good by the reformative

791
effect that interesting work is bound to have upon him.
Lastly, I suggest to the noble Viscount the Lord Chancellor that the time has come to make it possible for prisoners to keep alive their insurance cards. I know the difficulty that has always been urged against this proposal—namely, that there is no contract of labour between the Government and the prisoner. That may be a formidable legal objection. None the less I feel it is necessary that somehow or other it should be surmounted. Particularly now, when insurance is being so greatly extended, it is all the more important that a prisoner, when he leaves prison, should not be an outcast, without an insurance card, without (it may be) the card for his old age pension, but that he should be kept within the general machinery of insurance benefits. I have made these proposals to impress upon your Lordships the great importance in a Bill of this kind of this question of prison employment. I regard it as one of the key questions in the whole Bill On that account I think it should be mentioned especially in this clause as one of the subjects upon which the Secretary of State should make specific regulations. I hope that if he does make these regulations he will take into account the points that I have mentioned, that he will bring up to date the system that has fallen out of date, and that he will make use of the valuable experience that we have gained upon the subject in recent years. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 46, line 42, after ("treatment") insert ("employment").—(Viscount Templewood.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to support my noble friend Lord Templewood in the plea that he has made to the Government to accept the Amendment which stands in his name. I do so because I believe that I have some knowledge of this subject. For twenty years or more my father happened to be a governor of three prisons in succession in this country; and in those three I was practically born and bred. During the first period of my life, I had many opportunities to see the insides of prison, to see the prisoners at work and to appreciate to a large extent the soul-destroying
792
work which at all times they were asked to undertake. I well remember that in those days there were, practically speaking, five principal jobs of work which they could do. They were: book-binding, tailoring, mail-bag manufacturing—to which my noble friend has referred—the general repairs and renovations in the prison itself, and cleaning and gardening—where there was a garden in the particular prison. Many years later, in the year 1939, at the time he was Home Secretary, the noble Viscount who moved this Amendment was good enough to allow me to go round the various prisons in England again, because at that time I was going to move the Criminal Justice Bill for him in your Lordships' House. It was with some astonishment that I found that, nearly twenty years later, there was in fact the same class of work in prison, and that that was all the prisoners had to do.
My noble friend has given your Lordships a sound account of the Salmon Committee's Report, and there is no need for me to refer to it. But I have always thought that the Prison Commissioners, and the Home Secretary in particular, should devote more attention to securing a far wider range of work for prisoners in local prisons and in convict prisons to undertake. We all know that to-day, as was the case in the past, prisoners are locked up at a very early hour. But if they have had some interesting and absorbing occupation during the hours of work, they will find more contentment and more rest in the solitary confinement which they are bound to undergo for many hours. I have had my suspicions in the past that much of this difficulty in finding work for prisoners in prison was due to trade union restrictions. There may have been some reason for it at that time, but I do not think there is any need for it to-day. Just at the end of the war, when I happened to be Under-Secretary of State at the Home Office to the present Lord President of the Council, we took it in turns to visit certain remand homes in and around the London area. We actually found one home where, when we asked if the girls who were in that house could do decoration—such as painting the walls and the woodwork and so on—we were told that that was not allowed because it was against the trade union regulations.

793
I believe that those conditions should now cease, and that the Home Secretary, together with his Prison Commissioners' advisers, should enter into consultation with the trade unions, and with business enterprises generally, to inquire whether there is any, and if so what, prospect of increasing the type of work which prisoners can do in prison.
Lastly, I would add that, since those early days when I was connected with prisons, there has been one change. It is over twenty-five years ago now that my father himself recommended to the Prison Commissioners that those prisoners who were of good behaviour should be allowed out to work in the agricultural areas, to do drainage and such work of national importance It was with some satisfaction that last year I succeeded for the first time, after constant and continual pressure, in getting prisoners from, I think, Pentonville Prison in London to come down; and they were actually working on my own property at home, doing the land drainage work which, twenty-five years before, my father had recommended that prisoners with good conduct should do. It takes the machinery a long time to work, but I most heartily support the suggestion and the recommendation of my noble friend. I hope the Government will give it very favourable reception, and will agree to the insertion of this word in the Bill. To make doubly sure that what is in the Bill is brought into full operation and effect, the co-operation of the Prison Commissioners, the Home Secretary, the trade unions and other business enterprises should be sought.
VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE: I feel so strongly upon this subject that I cannot resist saying a few words in support of this Amendment. I cannot imagine anything more conducive to a resumption of delinquency than the mental stagnation that results either from unemployment or from employment upon uninspiring work. I want particularly to support that part of my noble friend's speech in which he spoke of the desirability of employing prisoners upon work which is, at the present time, of extreme national importance. In that connection, I should like particularly to emphasise and endorse what he said with regard to agriculture, on the one hand, and forestry, on the other. We are faced with a very serious dearth of agricultural workers on
794
the land of Great Britain to-day. We have never been faced, even in war time, with a greater prospect of ultimate starvation unless we—pre-eminently among all European countries—win from the land far more food than we are winning to-day. Similar considerations apply to forestry. We are facing something; like a timber famine unless we can reinstate our wood-land areas with a large proportion of I her timber which two world wars have removed from them.
In that connection, I should like to tell the Committee, apropos of what my noble friend Lord Templewood said with regard to overseas experience, something which I think it may interest your Lordships and him to know; that is, that a large proportion of the splendidly executed afforestation which has been going on in New Zealand for the last twenty or thirty years, has been carried out by prisoners. Not only have such men done useful work of national importance while under prison discipline but after they have been released a large number of them have turned their hands usefully to afforestataion work. I have had personal experience of this, for I have seen them at it when I was Governor-General of New Zealand. I may say that it convinced me more than anything else of the extreme value of prisoners being employed on really useful work of national importance. These men from the New Zealand prisons were also employed on quarrying, with a view to the production of read metal, and on building. They received, as my noble friend has indicated is customary in some overseas countries, a small wage which was applied either to the purchase of tobacco or some other minor luxury, or to the support of their families.
Finally, I should like to say this, In the middle of the 'thirties—I think it was in 1935 or 1936—we had in this country a large number of occupational centres in the special areas where unemployment was rife. It was part of my duties as President of the National Council of Social Service, and in collaboration with His Royal Highness, the late Duke of Kent, to visit these occupational centres. I have never been more impressed during the whole of my life than I was when I visited these centres. I saw the value of such efforts, the inspiring effect which they had upon many of these poor people who as the result of prolonged unemployment had lost a great part of

795
their interest in life. Surely, the same thing applies to these people whom we are endeavouring to reform in our prisons. I will not say anything more on this matter now, but I feel that if Satan still finds mischief for idle hands to do, that applies in a very special sense to those undergoing reform in our prisons.
LORD SALTOUN: I cannot imagine anything more likely to promote the moral reform of a man undergoing sentence of imprisonment than to provide him with a practical way of making money to be used for the support of his wife and family. I always feel that, when a man is sent to prison, it takes away the support of his wife and family. And that must of itself bring to the man a certain moral degradation. I think the ideal at which we should aim is to give them work in the way that has been suggested this afternoon. It would certainly take from my mind that sense of horror which I have whenever I hear of a man being sentenced to prison, and the apprehension which I feel as to what will happen to his wife and family.
4.45 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This has been an interesting debate, and the Amendment, I think, has been used rather as a peg on which to hang it. If I may, I will deal with the Amendment first and with the discussion later. So far as the Amendment is concerned, it seems to us that to insert the word which the noble Viscount suggests is quite unnecessary. Indeed, by singling out one, it might make it desirable to insert a good many. This particular passage in the Bill reads:
"The Secretary of State may make rules for the regulation and management of prisons, remand centres, detention centres and Borstal institutions, respectively, and for the classification, treatment, discipline and control of persons required to be detained therein."
Obviously, the Secretary of State may make regulations with regard to employment in prisons, just as he must make regulations with regard to health, clothing, education, opportunities for religious instruction and religious worship, and things of that kind. All those things come under the word "treatment" and the earlier words "regulation and management of prisons." There would be no objection to putting in this word were it not that the effect would rather be to suggest the desirability of putting in many other words which are
796
already covered by the words "management" or "treatment" As I say, I do not very much mind whether we do or do not accept the Amendment, but my case is, that the necessary words are already there. If the Amendment is made, it might be necessary to put in many more words.
Having dealt with the peg, I now come to the substance of this very important matter. I find myself in complete agreement with the noble Viscount in thinking that this is the very heart of the problem. I believe he paraphrased my remarks, and I am afraid that I have not a very clear recollection of what I said, but I certainly think that it is of the essence of success in prison treatment that these people should be put to work, and to work hard, so that they will get tired—that is, in the physical sense. But the work should be work in which they can take some sort of pride—not merely digging a hole and filling it in again, or something of that sort. That is all wrong. Nothing is more likely to give a man back his self-respect than really to be able to get down to work which is worth doing—work in which he can feel some pride. The Government and successive Home Secretaries, have always been much alive to this problem. But we must be realists and face the difficulties. In the year 1924 a Director of Industries was appointed. The noble Viscount has suggested, as a practical measure, that the Director of Industries might be made a Prison Commissioner. I venture to disagree, and for this reason. This is a most important job and, moreover, it is an absolutely whole-time job. If the Director of Industries is made a Prison Commissioner, he will have to deal with all sorts of prison problems and will not be able to concentrate on this particular vital problem. So far from such an appointment being a good thing, I venture to think that it would be a bad thing not to have this man concerning himself solely with this problem.
The position at present is this. The Director of Industries is assisted by five supervisors of industries and farms, and eight technical officers who give advice on specific trades. At prisons and Borstal institutions there are a number of industrial managers—ten in post, a further eight to be appointed. These are responsible either for a large establishment or

797
for a number of small institutions. At each establishment there are also trade instructors, some of whom are trained prison officers, some skilled civilian tradesmen. There are at the present time 256 officer-instructors and 89 civilian tradesmen. In addition, there are 260 prison officer trade assistants, who are employed under the Director of Works. So your Lordships will see that, of a total of 605 recruits in the prison service with special building trades qualifications, 70 are engaged in instructing prisoners and Borstal inmates in vocational training; and the others are engaged in the production of buildings, maintenance and repair work on the fabric of institutions. I cannot deny what the noble Viscount says, that the difficulties have come on us since the war. That is the fact. I will give an illustration of a practical sort of difficulty we have to face. During the war the women in Holloway prison were employed assembling wireless parts. It was not difficult work, but it needed some little skill and attention. It was useful work, it was interesting work and they did it well. What they produced was valuable and, what was more important, the effect on these women was also valuable. It is the fact that there is no longer a demand for these parts. Indeed, people outside making these parts have had to dispense with some of their labour. That is an illustration of a practical problem which now arises.
Your Lordships said, and said with great truth, "Send these people out. Let them go and work on the land and in the forests." That is absolutely right. The Prison Commissioners would agree entirely; but your Lordships will observe this. If we have prisoners working outside prison, they must have more supervision. If I could get additional staff of 1,000 men, I could largely solve this problem; but one of the difficulties we are up against to-day is this shortage of staff. When I am confronted with the problem of a small staff, it is idle to tell me to spread men out. It cannot be done. I am not saying there is no answer, a non possumus answer; but we must be realists. Though it is of enormous importance that it should be done, these are some of the problems that we are up against. On the other hand, all the articles in common use in prisons—mats, brushes, blankets and bedding and other articles—are made by the prisoners
798
themselves, and much is supplied to Government Departments. Much of the food in prisons is grown by prison labour. Where there are farms, farm work is one of the main occupations. In London, in Wormwood Scrubs and Pentonville, it would be difficult to get these people to farms or forests, as there is none within easy reach.
In our present shortage of manpower, we have recently revised the whole question of prison employment, with a view to securing the best use in the national interests of the resources available in prison labour, always bearing in mind that the use of this labour is twice blessed—it not only brings into being something which is of value in our time of shortage, but it does something to rehabilitate the character of these men. Government Departments, local authorities and public corporations should be asked to buy as much as possible of their requirements from the prison administration. We entirely approve of the extension of the range of work on which prisoners may be employed in places outside the prison walls. We approve in principle the production by the prisoners of articles for sale or the open market. Of course these proposals are subject to agreement with the appropriate employers' organisations and trade unions as to the rates to be paid. Though there have been considerable difficulties in the past, I think recent discussions show that those difficulties may be surmounted. After all, conditions to-day are not so formidable as they were. We are now living in a period of full employment—or comparatively full employment—making it more easy to cope with the situation than in the old days, and I do not anticipate the resistance from the trade unions which used to be forthcoming.
The installation of machinery for the purpose of advancing prison industries is a matter which the Prison Commissioners have very much in mind. But again I am being a realist when I say that to get machinery at the present time is not easy. Many factories and industries are crying out for these machines, and it is difficult to give first place to prisons. If your Lordships want an acceptance of the principle that it is important to instal these machines, I accept the principle and, what is much more important, can assure your Lordships that the Prison Commissioners will accept it. Though

799
up against a difficult problem, they realise its importance and are doing everything they can to solve it. I accept to the full what has been said about the importance of providing useful work for prisoners. I assure your Lordships that the Prison Commissioners are very much alive to it. The Home Secretary is very much alive to it. Though the present time is full of difficulty, we shall go on in every way we can to try and surmount those difficulties.
The noble Lord asked me about earnings. Until quite recently, the earnings of prisoners were very low—something of the order of 6d. to 9d. a week. Recently, those rates have been increased by 50 per cent. Realising the importance of this question, the Prison Commissioners appointed an office committee to advise them about what they should do on the whole question of earnings in prison and in Borstal. One point for consideration is that the earnings scheme to-day applies only when the prisoner has reached the stage at which certain privileges attach; that is, after one month in the case of "star" prisoners and three months in the case of others. Therefore, the earnings scheme does not apply to a man who receives a sentence of three months. The Prison Commissioners have received the report of their office committee and it is now receiving their consideration. An improved scheme is likely to result from its recommendations. I cannot think that the proposal that prisoners should be credited with wages at the rates ruling outside is right or fair or practical. The cost of maintenance in prison, if allowance is made for overheads, is far higher than any prisoner would pay outside and, if charged in full, few prisoners would have anything left at all.
Apart from that difficulty, there is a great variety in the conditions of work in prison, and they are doing jobs for which the rates of wages outside differ enormously. It may be simply a matter of prison discipline and convenience of administration that a man is employed in one particular task which gives him the low earnings. We must remember, also, that many are unwilling workers; that there would be great difficulty in assessing the value of the work at outside rates, and the payments due on such rates would often be very small. I venture to think
800
that that is not the right criterion. I believe that the right criterion is to give a man something which is sufficient to act as an inducement to him to do strenuous and good work. I would suggest that this is more likely to be the standard to be adopted. But, as I have said, this Report has only just been received by the Prison Commissioners, and it is now having their consideration.
I now come to the other difficult question, which I had to consider when I was the Minister of Insurance—namely, the matter of insurance, short-term benefit and long-term benefit. Many people may fall out of insurance. They may fall out of insurance because they are sick, because they are unable to pay, or because they are too poor. In those circumstances, what happens if they are not qualified? They then qualify for national assistance. I must say, quite frankly, that I should not think it right to grant a concession to a prisoner which I did not grant to an honest man who had not done anything wrong, but who, by reason of his poor circumstances, was not in a position to demand insurance benefits as of right. The prisoners must, in my submission, be content with national assistance. We must, however, be very careful that the insurance card, by the gaps or spaces on it, does not advertise to the world at large or to the employer that the man has spent some time in prison. That would be unfair. At the present time, as your Lordships' know, the qualification for short-term benefits is 26 contributions since entering into insurance, and 50 contributions paid or credited in the last complete year. For long-term benefit it is 156 contributions, or an annual average throughout of 50 contributions paid or excused. I do not see that prisoners, doing prison work, can be regarded as though they were employed for the purpose of the insurance scheme.
I think it would be a wrong conception altogether to treat the Prison Commissioners as being in the contractual relation of an employer to persons who are consigned to their care for custodial purposes. Accordingly, the regulations which the Ministry of National Insurance propose to make under the Act would exempt prisoners, amongst other classes, from liability to pay contributions under the scheme. But that will not prevent the prisoners who can do so from paying contributions as non-employed persons, under

801
Class 3, for the purpose of their long-term benefits, and arrangements are being made to allow the prisoners to pay such contributions—or, at any rate, such arrangements are being canvassed. The payment of contributions for short-term benefits, however, will be precluded. For the reasons which I have already given, I do not think it right that prisoners should be credited with such contributions. That is a broad question of principle.
That is all I have to say. I am grateful to the noble Viscount for raising this question. In my opinion, this is the key question of the whole problem. It is beset with great difficulties, but the Prison Commissioners are a body of men who realise absolutely how important is this problem. They are facing up to the difficulty and doing all they can to meet it. I do not think there is anything else I can say, except to repeat that I regard it as a matter of absolute indifference whether this word is, or is not, inserted. It is plainly there. I have given your Lordships what assurances I can. I have told you that earnings are now under consideration, and I have explained the position about insurance. I realise how vitally important employment is, and if and when I can get a larger prison staff, I shall then be able to disperse my prisoners much more, doing variable work. That is almost entirely a question of staff.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I agree with most of what the noble and learned Viscount has said, but I do not think this question of supervision is quite as difficult as it is sometimes made out to be—that is to say, so far as it relates to the "star" class prisoner, or the man who is coming towards the end of his sentence and is soon to get the remission he has earned for good conduct. In the case of the Borstal institution that my brother was running during the war (he has now left, and moved to another one), a new system was introduced whereby he sent out his young Borstal boys to work on farms. They were given bicycles to go to quite distant farms, and, although others absconded when they were in the institution itself, I do not believe there was a single instance of one of those boys absconding while on that work. They were not supervised at all until they got on to the farm, and they were then merely supervised by the farmer. I am told that the Home Office
802
normally send only one warder with about forty "star" class prisoners who go out on these jobs. I urge the noble and learned Viscount to try and get the Home Office to use that system even more than they are doing at the present time.
With regard to the question of the Industrial Director being made one of the Prison Commissioners, I would remind your Lordships that one of the Prison Commissioners is a doctor, and he carries out his medical duties in addition to his general work as a Prison Commissioner. I would suggest that the question of the appointment of the Industrial Director should be considered again from that point of view. If he is a Prison Commissioner no doubt he will be able to get direct to people to whom he could not get as a mere Industrial Director. Finally, I would say that, as we are all agreed that employment is most essential, in my view it would be a good thing to insert the word "employment." After all, the words "discipline" and "control" are included. They may be thought to be fairly synonymous; at least, they are as synonymous, I should have thought, as "treatment" and "employment." It seems to me that it would show that Parliament wanted to lay particular stress on the employment problem if we included the word "employment" as proposed by my noble friend Viscount Temple-wood.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I do not mind at all. If the noble Viscount would like the word inserted, I am quite agree-able.
LORD SALTOUN: Before we leave the matter of insurance, I would like to ask the noble and learned Viscount whether it would be possible to get all the business of the employment and insurance cards of the discharged prisoner arranged in the prison before he is released, so that he does not have to make to local labour exchanges explanations which are rather embarrassing.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We will consider that point.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am obliged to the noble and learned Viscount for the sympathetic answer which he has given to my proposal I am also grateful to the Committee for having given so much attention to what he rightly des-

803
cribed as the key to the whole Bill. As it is the key to the whole Bill, I should much prefer to have the word "employment" in, and I am therefore glad to hear that he is prepared to accept the Amendment. The only other observation I would make is that I am sure we were all glad to hear of the number of industrial advisers and labour experts who are now engaged in the present administration. At the same time, in spite of this great increase in the staff of industrial experts, the conditions of prison labour to-day are about as bad as they have been at any time in the last twenty-five years. I am told that, so far from every prisoner being expected to do eight hours work a day, the time is often much less owing to there being no work for him. I hope, therefore, that as a result of this debate all those concerned will look at this problem once again to see whether, in spite of the difficulties which the Lord Chancellor has described, and which I freely admit, a definite improvement could not be made in prison conditions.
I say no more, except to thank the Lord Chancellor and to end with one further suggestion. I still maintain my view that the Industrial Director should be a Prison Commissioner. What I should also like the Home Office and the Government to consider, be the man a director or a Commissioner, is whether he should not issue annually a specific report about work in prisons. At present we have a few paragraphs in the general report. I would have said—particularly after this debate to-day, in which it has been shown that we are all intensely interested in the problem—that we ought to have regularly a detailed report showing how far we are making progress upon the lines suggested by the Lord Chancellor, and how far we are really reorganising prison work upon the lines of the recommendations of the Salmon Committee. That being so, I thank the Lord Chancellor for accepting my Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.13 p.m.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved to add to subsection (4):
"(e) any person serving a sentence of corrective training."
The noble Lord said: This again is in the nature of an exploratory Amendment,
804
in order that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, can tell us a little more about corrective training. It is difficult to understand why Clause 48 confers upon the Secretary of State the powers set out in subsection (4), with regard to people who are serving preventive detention and various other kinds of sentence, and should not give him a similar power in respect of persons serving a sentence of corrective training. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 47, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Schuster.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid the noble Lord will have the same feeling when he has heard my reply to this Amendment as he had a few minutes ago on the earlier clause. In respect of the proposals in regard to corrective training, I am afraid that I have nothing more to add to the explanation which I gave the other day when your Lordships were discussing this matter. I hope, however, that I can persuade the noble Lord that there is a good reason why the regulations relating to preventive detention should be made, and that there should not be similar rules relating to this question of corrective training. As the noble Lord is aware, the purpose of preventive detention is mainly custodial. The men are to be kept there for a long period of time in order that they may not continue to be a menace to the community. It is obviously necessary that there should be rules to govern their conduct while they are under this preventive detention.
With regard to the men who are sentenced to corrective training, I suggest to your Lordships that the position is quite different. They are to be classified, and if, as a result of the observations and the classification, the Prison Commissioners are satisfied that they are men who are likely to be amenable to corrective training, they will be sent to one or other of the centres which, as I explained to your Lordships on the last occasion we hope to establish during the next few years. The sort of corrective training Which will be given there is very much like that which has been going on in the best prisons, Wakefield and Maid-stone, over the last years. The men who are not regarded as likely to be so amenable will be sent to ordinary prisons. At

805
the new centres, the treatment will not I be exactly The same as is meted out to the ordinary prisoner who has been sent to the normal type of prison. Your Lordships will see that to a substantial degree, these men will be dealt with, so to speak, each on his own merits.
In those circumstances, I suggest to your Lordships that it would be quite wrong to lay down a hard and fast set of rules which might have the effect of making it, at the best, exceedingly difficult to apply the sort of treatment which is regarded as appropriate to particular groups, or even possibly to particular individual prisoners. I think your Lordships will agree that the position of the men who are sentenced to a long period of preventive detention is altogether different from the position of the men who are sentenced to corrective training. In those circumstances, I hope the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I still think that, without going into minute details, the Government could give us a great deal more information upon this question than we have so far received. This is not a new question at all. It did not even start in the years immediately before the war, when the noble Viscount on my right and myself were Home Secretary, It started in the days of Lord du Parcq's Committee in, I think, the year 1932. That valuable Committee made a very detailed Report upon the whole of this question. If I remember rightly, they described the kind of training that they proposed for corrective training and preventive detention. What we should like to know now is whether the Government adhere to that description and, if they do, why they cannot publish a White Paper, or make a statement upon the Report stage, giving, not a detailed description of exactly what is to happen in each of these two cases but a general picture of the kind of training, of the main centres in which it is proposed to give it, and the sort of staffs that they propose to get for them. We are not asking this question in any captious spirit. We merely want to know what proposals of this kind really mean, and what The Government have in mind in suggesting them as alternatives to and substitutes for existing circumstances. It
806
is vitally important, not only to this House but to magistrates and superior courts who should know what is intended.
I hope, therefore, that we shall hear more about this before we leave the Bill. I hope also that the Government, if not upon this stage, at any rate upon the Report stage, will include in the Interpretation Clause a definition of corrective training and preventive detention. If the noble Lord will look at Clause 77 he will see that a description is given of a whole number of other things that are just as difficult to define as corrective training and preventive detention. I cannot see why, if you put in a description of remand homes and remand centres and so on, you should not also put one in for preventive detention and corrective training. I would therefore urge upon the noble Lord not to rest on the very perfunctory kind of information that we have so far received but to take the House a little more into his confidence.
LORD SCHUSTER: Almost every word the noble Lord said convinced me more and more that there ought to be rules, that the Home Secretary ought to make them and that they ought to be published. I cannot understand why it is necessary to make rules for other particular types of offender and not for this type—a particular type, not perhaps in respect of the crime committed but in respect of the treatment he is to receive. I should have thought that the Secretary of State ought to tell us, and tell the persons who have to impose sentences of imprisonment, under what rules these people are to be looked after in those places. I do not follow the answer that has been given—but the answer has teen given, and I do not wish to waste time. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, 48, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 49 agreed to.
Clause 50:
Corporal punishment in prisons.
(2) Rules made as aforesaid may authorise the infliction of corporal punishment for mutiny, incitement to mutiny, or gross personal violence to an officer of a prison when committed by a male person serving a sentence of imprisonment, corrective training or preventive detention.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in subsection (2), after "prison" to insert "or Borstal institution." The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will be aware that a male person undergoing imprisonment or corrective training is liable, if he assaults an officer, to corporal punishment. But I do not see any such provision in the case of lads undergoing Borstal treatment. I see no reason for that differentiation, and that is my reason for moving to insert the words: "or Borstal institution." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 48, line 14, after ("prison") insert ("or Borstal institution").—(Lord Raglan.)
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: The noble Lord has said quite rightly that this clause provides that there should be corporal punishment in cases of men sentenced to corrective training or to preventive detention. I raise this point only to ask the Government to elucidate the manner in which they intend to maintain law and order at Borstal institutions, and whether they are certain that without the power of corporal punishment they can ensure that there will be no mutiny, or incitement to mutiny, or cases of personal assault or violence on an officer, in Borstal.
The Committee which discussed this subject in 1936 were unanimous in their belief that corporal punishment in Borstal for these three crimes should be abolished. They pointed out that in the twenty-seven years up to 1936 there were only twenty-six cases of corporal punishment in Borstal institutions. But there was a division of opinion amongst those who gave evidence before this Departmental Committee. The Prison Commissioners did not think it worth while to retain the power of corporal punishment; the visiting committees, on the other I hand, thought that this power should be retained, but used in only very exceptional circumstances. The governors of Borstal themselves were divided, five being in favour of the repeal and two in favour of retention. Again, in Scotland, there was no desire on the part of the people to see corporal punishment introduced into their Borstal institutions. All I want to know from the Government is this: How do they intend to keep law and order in Borstal institutions if they do away with corporal punishment? At
808
the same time, could the noble Lord say how many cases of assault and of incitement to mutiny there have been in these institutions since 1936? I support the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in his Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: The noble Lord, Lord Raglan, in a very brief speech, said he could see no difference between the position in an ordinary prison and the position in Borstal—
LORD RAGLAN: I said I saw no reason for differentiating. That is not quite the same thing.
LORD CHORLEY: With great respect, I think your Lordships appreciated what the point was. It seems to me that the noble Earl has given an answer in his very able and succinct analysis of the Report on corporal punishment. The Departmental Committee heard the evidence and came to the conclusion that in the case of the ordinary prison there is, so to speak, no alternative punishment. The very fact that a prisoner misbehaves is an indication that he is not much concerned with gaining remission. The Committee's view was that there is no other form of punishment available except corporal punishment. In regard to the lads in Borstal, however, there was a substantial weight of evidence against maintaining that punishment. The Prison Commissioners themselves did not wish to have it and the majority of Borstal governors were against its retention. In Scotland, where they gave up corporal punishment long ago, they do not wish to see it re-introduced. The Government have accepted that weight of opinion.
The noble Earl asks how, in the circumstances, discipline is to be maintained in Borstal, in the event of mutinies and assaults. He was good enough to tell me earlier in the afternoon that he would be asking me for the figures. For the ten or twelve years before the evidence was taken by the Departmental Committee the number was, on the average, about one a year. Since that time the situation has been very much the same. In 1936 there was one, and then right down to 1941 there was none. In that year there were four. In 1942 and 1943 there was none. In 1944 there was one, in 1945 none, in 1946 four and in 1947 one. Therefore so far as the situation inside the Borstal institutions is con-

809
cerned, it has not varied very much from what it was during the years preceding the Report of the Departmental Committee. But I should inform your Lordships that, owing to the crowded state of Borstal institutions a number of lads who had been kept in prison before they were sent to Borstal do not come into this figure. The record, therefore, is not so unsatisfactory. A rather larger number have been guilty of this sort of assault and they had to be birched.
The noble Earl asked how, if we abolish the birch we can keep discipline. The answer is this. If the lad is intractable and unsuitable for Borstal training he will be sent to prison. That is the alternative; and in this kind of case that alternative is regarded as sufficient punishment. That is the view of the Government. That is a sufficient alternative punishment, and in view of the comparatively small number of cases of this kind I think your Lordships would agree that it would be unfortunate to continue corporal punishment in Borstal in order to meet a situation which obviously is not at all serious and when there is the alternative of sending the completely impossible lad—the lad who is quite resistant to training—to prison, where he can be dealt with like any ordinary prisoner. Perhaps I ought to correct that, because I do not think that, if he is sent to prison, he can be made subject to corporal punishment, as his original sentence was to Borstal and not to imprisonment. So, if he were taken away from Borstal and sent to prison because the authorities said that he was not amenable to Borstal training, he would be subject to the ordinary prison discipline, but not to corporal punishment.
LORD SALTOUN: I would not like to let the noble Lord's reply pass without making public my opinion—that to send a boy to prison is far more cruel than to give him corporal punishment, which is short and sweet, and usually very much more beneficial.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I am, perhaps, one of the few in this House who object strongly to judicial whipping of all kinds. I am not prepared actually to oppose this clause, but I think noble Lords should remember this fact: that in Scotland there has been no judicial whipping in cases of mutiny and assault, such as are contemplated in this clause, with the
810
exception of a single prison where it has been permitted. And in that prison, I understand, there has not been a sentence of that sort for several years. That goes to show that if the Scottish case is a test case, it is possible to maintain discipline in prisons without this punishment. At the same time, as I say, I am not going to oppose the clause. I know that a good many of the prison officers attach considerable importance to having this punishment in reserve, and I am not prepared to add to their anxieties at this moment when they already have so much on their backs. However, when it comes to extending it to Borstal, I am strongly opposed to the extension. I remember talking to several of the most successful of the Borstal masters—the housemasters, for instance, who were in very close touch with the Borstal young men. So far as I can remember, I never found a single master who was in favour of retaining this form of punishment. That seems to me to differentiate this case very much from the case of the prison warders who, rightly or wrongly, attach importance to its retention. Therefore, I hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment and will take the view that there is no reason to retain a punishment that is obviously repugnant to a great many of the staffs of the various Borstal institutions.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I should like to add only one word to the reply which has been given by the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan. I do not feel strongly one way or the other about this matter. I am perfectly prepared to accept the noble Lord's explanation that he thinks that, if a boy is not receptive of Borstal treatment and is given to mutiny or incitement to violence, he had much better go to prison. I would agree with that view before I would agree to a proposal to institute corporal punishment in Borstal institutions, after it has been so vigorously opposed by some of those who are connected with and work in Borstal itself. I do not know whether my noble friend behind me feels the same as I do. In those circumstance, I certainly should not be prepared to support the Amendment which he proposes.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 50 agreed to.
5.37 p.m
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 50 to insert the following new clause:
Amendment of Prison Act, 1865, as to introduction of prohibited articles.
"For the purposes of Sections thirty-seven to thirty-nine of the Prison Act, 1865 (which relate to the conveyance of prohibited articles into or out of prisons) a person shall be deemed to convey or introduce an article into a prison if he conveys it to a prisoner outside the prison, or deposits it at any place outside the prison with intent that it shall come into the possession of a prisoner."
The noble and learned Viscount said: The object of this new clause is to deal with this situation. The Prison Act of 1865, which dealt with the giving of prohibited articles to prisoners never, of course, contemplated that it would happen to-day that prisoners would be employed outside the prison. There is to-day, unfortunately, a certain amount of trafficking in prohibited articles taking place which does not involve any offence under the Act of 1865. Let me give your Lordships an illustration. Someone may leave a parcel of tobacco for a particular prisoner who is working outside. Quite obviously, it is possible to take proceedings against the prisoner and it ought to be possible to take proceedings against the man who tempts the prisoner. This new clause brings up to date the principle of the Act of 1865 and makes it applicable to modern circumstances where prisoners are working outside the prison. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 8, at end insert the said clause.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 agreed to.
Clause 52:
Release on licence of persons serving imprisonment for life.
52.—(1) The Secretary of State may at any time if he thinks fit release on licence a person serving a term of imprisonment for life subject to such conditions as may be specified in the licence; and the Secretary of State may at any time modify or cancel any such condition.
LORD BLACKFORD LORD BLACKFORD moved to add to subsection (1):
"Provided that no person convicted of the murder of a police or prison officer shall be released on licence under twenty years; and no person convicted of murder committed during the commission of a felony shall be released on licenco under fifteen years."
The noble Lord said: I have been moved to put down this Amendment entirely by an answer given by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to a question posed by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, just before the Second Reading of this Bill. Perhaps I may be allowed to remind your Lordships of the details of that question and answer. The question put by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Simon, was:
"How many reprieved murderers have been released during the last ten years and what was the average length of their sentence?"
The Lord Chancellor's reply was that 104 persons had been so released. Of them, 28 had served sentences varying from three months to five years, 52 had served sentences varying from five years to ten years, 24 had served sentences varying from ten years to fifteen years, and only three had served sentences of longer than fifteen years. Incidentally, those figures total 107, but we need not worry about that. If we disregard the lowest category, which clearly applies to people like survivors of suicide pacts, and we disregard the top category—no doubt, the three men misbehaved themselves in prison and lost remission marks—we find that 76 out of 104, or about three-quarters of them, had served sentences which averaged something less than nine years.
Those figures were a great surprise to me. It seems likely that, whatever modification may be made to Clause 1, fewer people even than the 11 per annum who have hitherto been hanged will be hanged in the future, and therefore we may say that persons such as those indicated in my Amendment will almost invariably be reprieved. I submit that a sentence which may average only about nine years is not a sufficient sentence for such persons as here indicated. The objects of my Amendment are obvious: first, to protect the police and peaceable citizens; secondly, to discourage the professional criminal class from carrying arms, and to warn them that if, in the course of the commission of their crime, they kill a policeman, then the punishment will be imprisonment for life, with a minimum of twenty years if their behaviour is good, and if they kill an ordinary citizen in the commission of a felony, then if their conduct is good, their punishment will also be imprisonment for life with a minimum of fifteen years. It may appear illogical

813
to differentiate between the ordinary civilian and the police, but I have put the Amendment down in this way simply to bring about additional protection for the police.
I do not want to appear savage or reactionary, or to be against prison reform; on the contrary, I am strongly in favour of it. After all, we all know quite a number of people who we feel ought to be murdered—the feeling is particularly prevalent in political life. But the law says that we must not murder them and, therefore, they continue to trouble us to the end. No doubt that feeling awakens in us a certain sympathy for less stable citizens who take the law into their own hands and who commit murder, very often under circumstances of great provocation; there is the case of the woman who kills an intolerably cruel husband, or a person who strikes a fatal blow in a drunken quarrel, and bitterly regrets it afterwards. I am quite ready to agree that such persons may be let out after a reasonable length of time, and that they are fit subjects for the reforming zeal of any Home Secretary.
Of course, it may be argued that the discretion given to the Home Secretary in this clause is sufficient. But Home Secretaries come and go; they vary in temperament, outlook, and predilection. Certain Home Secretaries may have great predilection for reforming the prisoner— that is to say, for his cure. I was much impressed the other day by the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in regard to Clause 1, in which he told us about the 174 reprieved and released murderers, and what jolly good fellows they all turned out to be, except for fifteen who were unfortunately re-convicted, one of whom was so thoughtless and ungrateful as to commit a second murder. But he did not devote a single sentence of his speech to the 175 persons who had suffered violent death at their hands. Therefore, I wish to take it out of the hands of any Home Secretary whose zeal for reform and cure may get the better of his duty to protect and prevent. I wish to warn the criminal world what will be the dire punishment should they carry arms and commit murder in the coarse of their crimes. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 49, line 39, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Blackford.)
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: Before we proceed further with this debate, might I raise a point of order and put a question—namely, whether it is proper to propose a clause which would interfere with the prerogative and require the Secretary of State not to recommend the release of prisoners on licence before a certain period has elapsed? I do not know whether there are any precedents for legislation of that kind, and of just this nature, and perhaps the Committee might be well advised to consider whether it ought to proceed further with this discussion. Perhaps the Lord Chancellor, or some other noble Lord who is better acquainted with these particular points than I am, may be able to give an answer to that question.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess that I do not know the answer to that. But I think it would be most undesirable, from every point of view, to pass a clause like this. I did not think the noble Lord would move this Amendment, in view of the alteration we made to Clause 1. I do not know what his intention would have been if we had left Clause 1 as it was passed. But if he wants to advertise the fact that the particular murders which he has set out are murders of special gravity, I entirely agree with him. Even so, to remove entirely the power of the Home Secretary to advise His Majesty or to exercise the prerogative of mercy would be completely wrong. Suppose that there was a case of a prison mutiny, and a man who had shot a policeman and had served fifteen years behaved with the utmost gallantry and saved the life of a warder; or put out a fire, or something of that sort. I think it would be a dreadful thing that the Home Secretary should be precluded by Statute from even considering the case.
Many other instances occur to me. I can think of no precedent for such a proposal as this. Surely the whole working of our Parliamentary institution is that ultimately there is some Minister who has the duty of advising the Sovereign and should be unfettered in the advice which he gives, subject only to Parliamentary criticism, and that sort of thing. I think it would be deplorable if we were to introduce what I believe to be a wholly novel practice whereby we put it out of

815
the power of the Home Secretary, whatever the circumstances may be, to allow men out of prison. Therefore, on principle, I should be entirely opposed to any such clause.
VISCOUNT SIMON: Perhaps I may be allowed to say in a few sentences that I agree entirely with what the Lord Chancellor has said. I do not think that you can classify murders by general description. A murder which is not the murder of a policeman, or of a prison warder, may be just as serious, and may have been perpetrated in circumstances which completely justify whatever the maximum punishment may be. The case of the plotted murder of a private individual for purposes of gain appears to me to be in every respect susceptible, and rightly so, of the same sort of punishment as that of a person who murders a constable. I remember the case of a man who, some time ago, married three girls in succession and, when he learned they had very little money, after a day or two induced them to take a bath and seized them by the heels and drowned them. I cannot conceive that that particular class of offence should be regarded more lightly than the grave offence of killing a policeman. On that ground, apart from any other, I would urge upon my noble friend Lord Blackford that we cannot classify murders.
I feel even more strongly that to state a maximum which can in no circumstances be reduced is completely contrary to the well-established practice by which the Home Secretary does his best to consider the circumstances of the individual case. And I believe it would be very wrong to alter that principle. It is difficult to think of any example, as the Lord Chancellor has said. The only matter that occurs to me at the moment is that we have recently been invited to pass an Act which says, whatever the circumstances may be in which you find the wrong colour petrol in your tank, if you have sold the car you shall forfeit half the value of the car you have sold.
LORD BLACKFORD: I am quite ready to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 agreed to.
Clause 53 [Temporary detention of persons liable to detention in a Borstal institution]:
On Question, Whether Clause 53 shall stand part of the Bill?
LORD LLEWELLIN: I would like to make some comment on this clause. It is a clause which allows people who are sentenced to Borstal to be detained temporarily somewhere else until necessary arrangements are made. I raise this point only to draw attention to something which I think may need consideration. I do not ask the Lord Chancellor to give me an answer now. Perhaps, if he will look into it, he will be able to tell me later whether my information is correct or not. If a boy escapes from a Borstal institution, and then comes up before a court because he has committed an offence since his escape, that court may either send him to prison or send him back to Borstal on his existing sentence; or may give him a fresh sentence to be served at Borstal. I am told that if the boy is given a fresh sentence at Borstal (a course which has the advantage that he has then a longer term to serve, and to the public it is shown that at any rate some notice has been taken of the crimes which he committed after his escape) according to Home Office rules it counts as though it were a new sentence, and that lad goes direct to some Borstal institution.
If, on the other hand, he is sent back to do the remainder of his old sentence and nothing more, I am told that he is treated as a defaulter under that old sentence, and he goes for, it may be, three, four or five months to Wormwood Scrubs—a place which it is improbable that he will like, for it is not so pleasant to be in as a Borstal institution. Thus if a lad has done only three or four months of his existing sentence, giving him an extra sentence in fact lets him off more lightly. It seems to me that that is entirely wrong. I feel that it is right that some notice should be taken of the offence which he has committed in the meanwhile. I have raised this point but, as I say, I do not expect an answer to-day. I would like the Lord Chancellor, if he will be so good, to look into it and tell me whether I am right or wrong. If I am right, I hope that that procedure at the Home Office may be altered.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Obviously I am not in a position to deal with the noble Lord's point at the present moment but I will certainly look into it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am much obliged to the noble and learned Viscount.
Clause 53 agreed to.
Clause 54:
Transfers from prison to Borstal institution and vice versa.
54.—(1) The Secretary of State may, if he is satisfied that a person serving a sentence of imprisonment is under twenty-one years of age and might with advantage be detained in a Borstal institution, authorise the Prison Commissioners to transfer him to a Borstal institution; and the provisions of the Second Schedule to this Act shall thereupon apply to him as if he had on the date of the transfer been sentenced to Borstal training:
Provided that if on that date the unexpired term of his sentence is less than three years those provisions shall have effect—

(a) as if for references therein to three years and four years there were substituted respectively references to the unexpired term and a period being the sum of the unexpired term and one year; and

(b) if the unexpired term is twelve months or less, as if the proviso to paragraph 1 of the said Schedule were omitted.

LORD GODDARD LORD GODDARD moved, in subsection (1), after the first "institution" to insert:
"and after consultation with the judge or presiding chairman of the court which passes the sentence."
The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to provide that if the Secretary of State considers taking a young prisoner who has been sentenced to imprisonment and moving him to a Borstal institution, he should first consult with the judge or the presiding chairman of the court which has passed sentence. I hope that this is an Amendment which the Lord Chancellor will feel inclined to accept. It sometimes happens that a court deliberately refrains from imposing a sentence at Borstal by reason of the nature of the crime, or something of that sort, and, in view of what has occurred in the past, it may be very difficult for Judges to know what to do. There was a famous case which I am sure the Lord Chancellor knows quite well, which was the subject of a good deal of discussion some time ago. My noble and learned predecessor, Lord Caldecote, sentenced a young soldier who had raped a girl
818
on a dark night in a lonely road. He deliberately sentenced that soldier to three years' penal servitude. Later he found that for some reason or other the young fellow had been removed to Borstal. There was another case in the North of England which created a great deal of stir in the county of Durham. Some young men held down and raped a girl in a public park and the learned judge passed sentence of Borstal, because he thought that the same sort of thing would happen if he passed sentence of imprisonment. A great many protests were made, and I do not think that the sentence was approved by the Home Office in that case. All I ask by this Amendment is that if the Home Secretary is contemplating exercising his power of putting a boy who has been sentenced to prison into Borstal, he should take the opinion of the judge or the presiding chairman of the court which passes the sentence before he does so. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 12, after ("institution") insert the said words.—(Lord Goddard.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It is clearly right that the opinion of the judge or presiding chairman of the court which passed the sentence should be taken, and I am told that it is so taken, nowadays, at any rate—I think there were exceptions in the war. The two cases; to which The noble Lord, Lord Goddard, referred have been very much under my notice. In the one case, if I remember rightly, I do not think that Lord Caldecote was asked his opinion. I recall that he was very indignant about what happened, and I am sure that if he had been asked whether he thought the convicted individual should go to Borstal he would have given an indignant negative. It is, I am told, the invariable practice of the Home Office to consult the judge or the presiding chairman in these matters. The only difficulty I feel about inserting the words proposed by the noble and learned Lord is that a case might arise where the judge or the presiding chairman had died or was ill or had gone out of the country. If I insert in the Statute words making it a condition that the Home Secretary can act in this way in this sort of case, only after consultation with the judge or the presiding chairman, it seems to me that there may be difficulties. What I will do is to accept the Amendment new.

819
But I may have to consider adding some words to deal with the point to which I have just alluded—the words "where possible," or something of that sort. I may have to insert some such words on the Report stage. I hope that that will satisfy your Lordships and, if that is so, I accept this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. The wording of the present clause was criticised during the Committee and Report stages in another place. It was said that the words might be read as giving power for a person transferred from prison to a Borstal institution to be detained for longer than he would have been detained under his sentence of imprisonment. The new wording makes it quite clear that the period for which such a person is liable to detention in a Borstal institution is that for which he could have been detained if he had continued to serve his sentence of imprisonment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 50, line 18, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 26 and insert ("apply to him as if he had been sentenced to Borstal training three years before the expiration of that term").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 54, as amended, agreed to.
5.59 p.m.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 54 to insert the following new clause:
Pregnant woman to be removed from prison during childbirth.
"—(1) Where a woman serving a sentence of imprisonment is found in accordance with the procedure under the Sentence of Death (Expectant Mothers) Act, 1931, to be pregnant such woman shall for such period before and after the birth of her child as the Secretary of State may direct be removed from prison to such place as the Secretary of State may direct not being within the precincts of a prison and shall there be subject to such supervision as the Secretary of State may direct.
(2) Any period for which a woman is removed under the foregoing subsection shall be reckoned as part of the sentence."
The noble Lord said: I am not saying that the drafting of this proposed clause is all that it should be, and it may well be that it will need looking at if the principle is accepted. The principle which I
820
am trying to put forward is that the Home Secretary shall be given power to release a pregnant woman from prison for the time of her pregnancy so that the child—who, after all, has nothing to do with the woman being in prison—shall not be born within prison walls. I know that subterfuges have been in operation for some time in regard to the filling in of birth certificates in cases of this kind. For instance instead of putting down on a certificate, say, "Holloway prison" a number in Holloway Road or in the adjoining road may be inserted. Nevertheless, I think it would be a good thing for the Home Secretary to have this power, so that the woman could be taken into hospital where the child could be born. If this could be done the stigma of being born in prison would not rest on her son or daughter. Then, if necessary, the woman could be taken back to prison. That is the sole object of my Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
After Clause 54 insert the said clause.—Lord Llewellin.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a matter about which I have long felt keenly, and I have great sympathy with the principle behind the Amendment. At the present time we try to do it by not referring to the name of any prison. For example, instead of saying "Holloway Prison," we put in "101 Holloway Road." No doubt if you went into the matter, you would find that 101 Holloway Road was Holloway Prison, so that does not quite meet the problem. So far as power is concerned, it is already contained in the Bill. If the noble Lord would be good enough to look at page 51 of the Bill, he will see that:
"The Secretary of State may—
(b) If he is satisfied that a person so detained requires medical or surgical treatment of any description, direct him to be taken to a hospital or other suitable place …"
I want to go on from the power and tell your Lordships what I have been authorised to inform the House. If any woman asks to be allowed to have her confinement outside the prison, and if it is possible to make suitable arrangements for her to do so, the Secretary of State would, under the powers given by the Bill, authorise her removal to hospital or any suitable place accordingly. Of course, it would not always follow

821
that there is a suitable place. Lying-in hospitals are very crowded nowadays, and we find that there is very competent and skilled treatment in prison itself. It may well be that a woman may prefer to remain in prison. But she is the judge of that. If she wants to go outside and there is a suitable place, the Home Secretary can authorise it.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I am quite satisfied with that, and I am glad that my Amendment has elicited that statement from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I suppose I may take it that in any case of this sort the woman would be told that she has this opportunity.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Certainly.
LORD LLEWELLIN: So long as that is included in the statement, I am satisfied. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 55 and 56 agreed to
Clause 57:
Discontinuance of terms "criminal lunatic" and" criminal lunatic asylum"
(5) The Board of Control may, with the approval of the Minister of Health, by statutory instrument make rules for the care and treatment of patients detained in Broad-moor institution; and any statutory instrument containing such rules shall be laid before Parliament after being made.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is the first of two drafting Amendments, consequential on Clause 79 being amended so as to enable two different dates to be appointed for bringing different provisions of the Act into force, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 12, leave out from beginning to ("all") in line 13.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 53, line 17, leave out from ("Health") to end of line 18.—(The Lord Chancellor)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD SCHUSTER LORD SCHUSTER moved, in subsection. (5), after "approval of the" to insert "Secretary of State and the." The noble Lord said: This is a more substantial Amendment than those I have moved earlier. When we read this clause with the two clauses which follow, it is almost impossible to make out where the jurisdiction of the Secretary of State and the jurisdiction of the Minister of Health respectively begin and end. The people who are detained in what are called Broadmoor institutions are people who have gone there under process of law, because they have at some time or another either been found in a court of law to be insane, or have been so found after having been convicted. Under Clauses 58 and 59 it is obviously intended that the Secretary of State shall not lose all jurisdiction over them. I do not understand why, when the rules for their treatment are to be made under subsection (5) of this clause, the Board of Control, with the approval of the Minister of Health, are to make the rules. I need not labour the point, which is quite on the surface. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page.13, line 25, at end insert ("Secretary of State and the")—(Lord Schuster)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As the noble Lord says, it is a very simple point. So far as treatment is concerned, all treatment of a sick person is made and rules are prescribed by the Minister of Health, who alone is responsible for health. The Secretary of State is the only authority who can authorise release—no one else. But with regard to treatment, that is the responsibility of the Minister of Health; it has nothing to do with the Home Secretary.
LORD SCHUSTER: The noble and learned Viscount will see that in line 27 it says not only "treatment" but "care and treatment" That is very close to saying how they are actually to be confined or detained. It seems anomalous that the Board of Control, with the authority of the Minister of Health, and without any consultation with the Secretary of State, can make those rules.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is the position. "Care" is all part of the medical aspect.
THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR: In Scotland it is the Secretary of State, and therefore those words ought to be inserted.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I would add one word which I think will save my moving my Amendment to insert a new clause after Clause 59. It is now quite clear that when a man who is insane and sent to Broadmoor recovers and is recommended by the Board of Control and the Minister of Health as fit to come out, they cannot let him out without the express authority of the Home Secretary. That is the law as it stands and as it will stand in the future.
LORD SCHUSTER: That is what we were trying to find out, but the method I adopted was not a very neat one. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 57, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 58 [Removal to Broadmoor institutions of certain persons serving life sentences]:
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved to leave out Clause 58.
The noble Lord said: Your Lordships will see that this clause starts:
"If in the case of a person sentenced under Section one of this Act to imprisonment for life …"
It applies only to people dealt with under a clause that we deleted. This Amendment is therefore consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 58.—(Lord Llewellin)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The noble Lord is quite right. This is consequential, and I accept it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clauses 59 and 60 agreed to.
Clause 61:
Persons Unlawfully at Large
61.—(1) Any person who, having been sentenced to imprisonment, corrective training, preventive detention or Borstal training, or ordered to be detained in a detention centre, or having been committed to a prison or remand centre, is unlawfully at large, may be arrested by a constable without warrant and taken to the place in which he is required in accordance with law to be detained.
LORD OAKSEY LORD OAKSEY moved, in subsection (1), immediately before "detention centre" to insert "remand home or" The noble Lord said: This clause deals with persons unlawfully at large. The Amendment I suggest is designed to permit a constable to arrest persons who are unlawfully at large from a remand home as well as from other places where they might be detained. It seems to me that they may be equally unlawfully at large from a remand home as from a remand centre, a detention centre or a prison, and it is equally important that they should be re-arrested without a warrant. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 23, after ("a") insert ("remand home or").—(Lord Oaksey)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The only reason why a remand home is not included in subsection (1) is that under Section 78 (4) of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1935, there is a provision that a child or young person who escapes from a remand home may be apprehended without warrant. That section makes further provision which makes it an offence for any person knowingly to assist or induce a child to escape, to harbour or conceal him, or to prevent his returning. That means that we have this small code in Section 78 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, which has not been touched, and we thought it as well to leave it at that.
LORD OAKSEY: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD OAKSEY: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 30, after ("a") insert ("remand home or").—(Lord Oaksey)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I am prepared to accept this Amendment. It is clear that a child or young person committed to a remand home for punishment on conviction for an offence should have his sentence suspended during such period of time for which he escapes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD OAKSEY: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 55, line 30, after ("centre") insert ("or having been committed to a prison or remand centre").—(Lord Oaksey.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment does not deal with the case of a young person who has been convicted and sentenced. This deals with the position where the young person has been committed to a prison or remand centre—that is to say, committed to await trial. If he escapes there, all one can do is to catch him as quickly as possible. There is no question of a sentence. Therefore I think this Amendment is wrong.
LORD OAKSEY: In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 62 and 63, agreed to.
6.13 p.m.
Clause 64:
Restriction of power to arrest without warrant under 5. Geo. 4. c. 83.
"64. Notwithstanding anything in section six of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, a person found committing tree offence of pretending of professing to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means or device, by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on any of His Majesty's subjects, shall not be apprehended under that section except by a constable, and shall not be so apprehended by a constable unless the constable has reason to believe that that person will abscond unless arrested, or is not satisfied as to the identity or place of residence of that person"
LORD AMWELL LORD AMWELL moved to omit "reason to believe" and insert "reasonable ground for believing" The noble Lord said: The first two of the three Amendments I have down on the Marshalled List go together. They are of less importance than the Third Amendment, and a word or two will explain the position in regard to both. Clause 64 was inserted into the Bill by the Home Secretary in another place as a result of the withdrawal of an Amendment by Mr. Brooks. The whole thing seemed satisfactory at the time, but there had not then been time enough to look into the implications of the clause as it at present stands.
I do not think this is a controversial matter but, for one thing, it was not appreciated that the language was a departure from the usual "form of language in other Statutes. It was also not
826
appreciated precisely what the effect of the clause would be. I am advised that the present form of words in the clause may make it virtually impossible to challenge in court a constable's exercise of the power of arrest. If my form of words is accepted, there would be the duty, as there is under earlier Statutes, for the constable to take the name and address of the accused before making an arrest without warrant, and, if lie has been given the name and address, he can make the arrest only if he has a reasonable ground for believing either that the accused will abscond or that the name and address given are false. That, of course, would not apply if the arrest was made in the home of the person concerned. It is for those reasons that I have put down the first of the three Amendments. They merely bring the matter in accordance with what exists in earlier Statutes of a similar character. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 29, leave out from ("has") to ("that") in line 30, and insert ("reasonable ground for believing")—(Lord Amwell.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: These words were rather carefully chosen. The noble Lord is quite right in his history of the matter. A clause was put forward to deal with these matters, which are of interest to that group of people commonly called Spiritualists. As the noble Lord said, Mr. Brooks interested himself in this matter. The Home Secretary drafted this clause to try to meet their requirements, and, at any rate, did meet their requirements at the time. In consequence, their clause was not moved and they accepted the Home Secretary's clause.
To come to the first Amendment of the noble Lord, it is quite clear, whether you use the words "has reason to believe" or the words "has reasonable ground for believing," that a court would be entitled to inquire whether, in fact, the constable had reason to believe or had reasonable ground for his belief. As was said by a very learned Judge a long time ago: "The state of a man's mind is as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion" It is perfectly open to the court to argue whether the constable had reason, or whether there were reasonable grounds for his belief. In fact, there are precedents both ways. If the noble Lord will look at the Firearms Act, 1937,

827
for instance, or the Protection of Animals Act, 1911 (there are many others), he will find that the words "has reason to believe" are there. I agree that there is, for instance, the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1920, where you have the longer phrase, "reasonable ground for believing." But this clause having been put down with the present phraseology, and it being open to the court to examine whether it is the one set of words or the other, I suggest that we ought not to alter the clause now, especially in view of the fact that there are ample precedents for the form of words which we have got here.
LORD AMWELL: This is really a case of second thoughts on the part of those who were responsible for the original Amendment. In the circumstances, I should have thought it was desirable that Members in another place should have the opportunity of knowing that there had been second thoughts, and that they should be able to look into the position again. However, if the position is as the Lord Chancellor states, I am quite willing to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD AMWELL LORD AMWELL moved to add to the clause:
"(2) For the purposes of section seventeen of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879 (which confers a right to claim trial by a jury in cases otherwise triable summarily) a person charged under section four or under section five of the Vagrancy Act, 1824, with the offence of pretending or professing to tell fortunes, or using any subtle craft, means or device, by palmistry or otherwise, to deceive and impose on any of His Majesty's subjects shall be deemed to be liable on summary conviction to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months, and may claim trial by a jury accordingly"
The noble Lord said: The Amendment is one which raises a very controversial issue indeed, and one that has been considered from time to time in years past, It deals with the manner in which people who attend Spiritualist meetings, and people who are interested in a practical way in what are called psychic matters, are treated under the old Witchcraft Act, and, in this particular case, under the Vagrancy Act. The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that in proceedings under the Vagrancy Act such persons shall have the right to claim a trial by jury. It is a matter of considerable pre-
828
judice even to-day, and it seems to me, and to all of those who are interested in mediumship and things of that character, to be quite out of date and unreasonable. I cannot, of course, argue for the abolition of the Vagrancy Act, because that does not arise in this Amendment, but we would like to have some mitigation by allowing mediums prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act the right to claim a trial by jury. In last week's Observer—and I instance this in order to show the kind of unreasonable prejudice which still exists upon this subject—a very noted critic, Mr. George Orwell, reviewed a book recently published called The Heyday of a Wizard. He had in the article the words "Sludge, the Medium," which was the title of a poem by Robert Browning. It will be remembered, by anyone who knows anything about it, that that was nothing more than a piece of personal spite on the part of the poet against a famous medium. In that review Mr. George Orwell wrote that things said in the book about the powers of a particular medium were incredible and, therefore, must have been fraudulent.
Now it is that attitude of mind which seems to me characteristic of many people who refuse to look into the amazing evidence that exists upon the subject of psychical research in general. There is the Society for Psychic Research, with forty odd volumes of proceedings undertaken in a thoroughly scientific manner, giving evidence of certain things which, if it had been upon any other subject upon the face of the earth, would have been considered overwhelming. Yet it is said by a reviewer of the standing of Mr. Orwell that because a thing is incredible, therefore it must be fraudulent. A lot of things are incredible. The recent development of modern physics is incredible. The things that are said in relation to the subject of relativity are incredible, at any rate to the layman. Incredibility, after all, is a very natural thing. Of course these things are incredible. But the question is one of evidence, and against that there is prejudice which does affect the question of prosecution under the Vagrancy Act.
Quite a long time ago I developed psychic powers myself; I became by way of being a medium. I developed certain mediumistic powers, not professionally, not for purposes of gain, not even for

829
purposes of public exhibition, but quite privately. I know, of course, a good deal about what can be seen, apart from any philosophy attaching to it. I am not considering whether it proves future life or anything of that kind. That is not the point. The point is that there are certain phenomena which have a tremendous volume of evidence in their favour, and yet it is all regarded as fraudulent. That prejudice exists and affects the Spiritualists very unfavourably indeed. No one denies that there are fraudulent mediums. It is a subject which lends itself to credulity and, therefore, to the people who play upon credulity; but that does not dispose of the iniquity of injuring people under obsolete Acts of this character.
The purpose of my Amendment is merely that there shall be the right of a medium, for instance if prosecuted under the Vagrancy Act, to claim a trial by jury. The unusualness of what are called psychic gifts makes the question very difficult indeed. There was a case quite recently where two policewomen went to a medium—certainly a medium who charged fees—and evidence was given by them to the effect that the medium had pretended to tell fortunes. Those two policewomen were believed by the magistrate, who said that their evidence ought to be accepted. Yet those policewomen were in prison themselves very shortly afterwards for a long series of thefts. So, after all, there seems to me to be reason in this claim for the right to trial by jury.
I would like to point out with regard to the Vagrancy Acts that it is not a question as to whether money is accepted at all. I said that I had developed psychic gifts in my own time. Quite seriously, I developed a certain form of mediumship up to a point as a matter of interest, but I did not go very much further into it. I could have been prosecuted under the Vagrancy Acts, in spite of it being a private affair of my own. Experiments are now being conducted by Professor Saul, experiments in precognition—that has to do with future events and is something akin to fortune telling. He is a prominent gentleman, a professor who has received a tremendous amount of publicity recently in connection with investigations and experiments on scientific lines which, against the laws of chance, show results 100 per cent. in favour of the
830
experiments. I am not arguing for or against them. But to suggest that those experiments are fraudulent would involve, and could involve, Professor Saul in a prosecution under the Vagrancy Act. We cannot argue about dispensing with that Act, because that matter, unfortunately, is settled for the time being. I think it ought to have been repealed long ago. But we can reasonably mitigate the unreasonable consequences that are involved for mediums, whether they are fraudulent or whether they are not. There is a certain element of fraud, as I say, and the issue is a very fine and sensitive one. There are, or there have been in the past, many mediums who were genuine but at the same time, were tempted—after all, their gift is not always on tap—to eke out by means of small frauds the effects of their demonstrations. We all know that that kind of thing exists, and no one proposes that people who fraudulently impose upon the public for monetary gain shall not come under the law.
But the law exists, apart from those obsolete Acts, and I therefore move this Amendment, which will simply give people of this character—who, after all, are put into a category which includes people who are branded for life by proceedings of this nature—the opportunity of trial by jury. The advantage of trail by jury lies in the fact that there is a jury. The multiplication of one person by twelve does not make it a greater fount of wisdom, but there are certain other incidental points about trial by jury, including the right of appeal, and so on, which would make that system much fairer to mediums who deal in matters of investigation and inquiry into a subject which is recognised by everyone who knows anything about it to be well worthy of scientific and philosophical consideration—and that in spite of the difficulties and the element of fraud that has been, and still is, unfortunately, attached to the subject of the development of Spiritualism in its various phases. I am not a Spiritualist myself, because I do not accept the religious theory, and I do not think the greater part of the Spiritualist phenomena prove a future life. But I know from my own experiments, knowledge and investigations that the subject is one that ought to be looked upon seriously and scientifically because of its scientific and philosophic importance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 32, at end, insert the said subsection.—(Lord Amwell)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I should be reluctant to go into this matter again. I thought it was finally disposed of by the Home Secretary's clause, which was accepted. It is quite clear, I think, that under the Vagrancy Acts, fraud is a necessary ingredient of the offence. The law officers were asked about this in 1943 and they advised that that was so. The Home Office thereupon circulated that advice to all chief constables, saying that fraud was a necessary ingredient in this offence. The Home Office added that proceedings against Spiritualists under the Act should be taken only where there had been complaints by the public of fraud or imposture and the taking of money or other valuable consideration. Finally, they advised chief constables to consult the Director of Public Prosecutions in all cases before taking proceedings.
Consider what would be the effect of this Amendment. If the noble Lord had sought to increase the penalty, or to increase the three months so that automatically the accused would have a right to trial by jury, I could understand it. But there is no precedent for this. Why should we give fraudulent mediums a privileged position—and I emphasise the word "fraudulent"—as regards the right of claiming trial by jury? Moreover, this proposal covers not only fraudulent mediums under the Vagrancy Acts; it covers all the riff-raff, fortune tellers, palmists, thimble-riggers and all sorts of people who come within these provisions of the Vagrancy Acts. How could I make an exception to the perfectly well understood rule, and give all these people a privilege which does not in any other case attach to a penalty which is under three months? If provision were to be made at all, the proper way to do it would be to raise the maximum term by a separate Bill, and then the right to go before a jury would follow automatically. It would be setting a very bad example if I were to single out these people and give them some privilege which is not given to any other of His Majesty's lieges. I had hoped that the clause which the Home Secretary put down would provide a compromise on this matter. It proved satisfactory to Mr. Brooks and Mr. Silverman, and they did not move their Amendment. I hope
832
we shall adhere to this clause instead of opening out on this difficult subject again.
LORD AMWELL: I know, of course, that this is a matter of compromise which I was accepted by Mr. Brooks and his friends in another place. But the compromise did not include the question of trial by jury. I suppose it is quite impossible to argue the case any further, because it could be argued satisfactorily only on the question of the Vagrancy Acts themselves. The purpose of my Amendment was to register a protest against the extremely unfair position in which Spiritualistic mediums are put. I know that the word "fraudulent" is mentioned, but it is because of the difficulties of the matter that I have spoken. I could mention, for instance, the famous Duncan case, where it was proposed in court that certain demonstrations should be given and that was definitely refused.. I am sure it would not have been refused in any other kind of case, but the whole thing is festooned with prejudice, and it is because of that that I moved my Amendment. I believed I was ventilating the feelings of a large number of people in this country—in fact millions of people who are attached to the Spiritualist movement. A large number of professional and non-professional mediums feel it a tremendous stigma that their work ranks with vagrancy and witchcraft. They are not treated fairly, and they never have been. I moved my Amendment; because I wanted to put the position once more before your Lordships. In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 64 agreed to.
Clause 65 agreed to.
Clause 66:
Amendments of Forfeiture Act, 1870.
66.—(1) Sections six to thirty of the Forfeiture Act, 1870 (which relate to the administration of the property of convicts) shall cease to have effect.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved to omit subsection (1) The noble Earl said: My object is to seek elucidation and some information. I wish to know whether a person, either before or after he is sentenced, will have power to appoint as a power of attorney his wife or solicitor, or some other person who can represent him

833
and look after his affairs for him. I am seeking to find out what is intended. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 56, line 38, leave out subsection (1)—(The Earl of Munster)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: We are abolishing by this Bill the distinction between a felon convict and a misdemeanant convict. Whereas the misdemeanant convict has power to appoint a power of attorney the felon convict was dealt with by a different set of rules, The effect of this clause is that we shall now put the felon convict in the same category as the misdemeanant convict, so that he will have power to appoint a power of attorney.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I thank the noble and learned Viscount for his reply, and in the circumstances ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 agreed to.
Clause 67 [Education of persons detained]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to delete Clause 67. The noble and learned Viscount said: I propose to leave out this clause because the provisions of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill deal with this matter. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 67.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD RAGLAN: As the noble and learned Viscount may know, there are quite a number of children attending approved schools who attend public secondary schools. I hope it is quite clear that that position will not be in any way prejudiced by this Amendment.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That is so.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 68 [Amendment of s. 71 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment, and is preparatory to the next. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("this") in line 29 and insert—("(2) In the said Section seventy-one as amended by").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved to add to the clause:
"(3) The provisions of the said Section seventy-one shall apply as amended by this section to any approved school order made before the commencement of this Act if the period during which the person to whom it relates could be detained thereunder apart from the provisions of this section has not expired at the commencement of this Act.
(4) This section shall, in its application to Scotland, have effect subject to the following modifications:—

(a) for references to Section seventy-one of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933, and to subsection (1) of that section there shall be substituted references to Section seventy-five of the Children and Young Persons (Scotland) Act, 1937, and to subsection (1) of that section; and

(b) for subsection 12) there shall be substituted the following subsection:—

'(2) In the said Section seventy-five as amended by this section the expression "compulsory school age" means school age as defined in Section thirty-two of the Education (Scotland) Act, 1946:

Provided that—

(a) subsection (4) of that section (which extends the school age in the the case of certain children requiring special educational treatment); and

(b) subsection (2) of Section thirty-three of that Act (which provides that a child shall be deemed to attain any given age on the fixed date for commencing or for terminating attendance next following the day that he actually attains that age)

shall not apply"
The noble Lord said: This is substantially a drafting Amendment. The clause as it stands is necessitated by the raising of the school leaving age from fourteen to fifteen. That makes it necessary to keep for another four months a child who will be released from an approved school at the age of fifteen so that arrangements can be made for finding him work, and all matters of that sort which are so necessary at the time when he leaves the approved school. As the clause is drafted, however, it provides only for the position where the child has been committed after the commencement of the Act. Of course it is necessary also to deal with those cases where the child is already at the approved school when the Act comes into force. The object of the Amendment is to cover that position. I should point out also that the new subsection (4) makes the necessary modification to the Scottish law for the purpose of applying this clause to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 57, line 35, at end insert the said subsections.—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
6.41 p.m.
Clause 70:
Application of ss. 2 and 3 to courts-martial.
70.—(1) His Majesty may by Order in Council make provision for applying Sections two and three of this Act to courts-martial under the Naval Discipline Act, and the said Section two to courts-martial under the Army Act and the Air Force Act, and may by Order in Council make such adaptations and modifications of the said Acts as His Majesty considers necessary or expedient in consequence of the passing of those sections.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER THE EARL OF MUNSTER moved, in subsection (1), to omit "and three" The noble Earl said: This Amendment was originally put down in order also to seek some information from the noble Lord. Since it has been put down, however, I have come to the conclusion that what is intended in subsection (1) of Clause 70 really makes nonsense. As I understand it, it was the intention of His Majesty's Government to do away with the corporal punishment which could be inflicted upon a sailor under the Naval Discipline Act. That it has not been done for many years does not affect my argument. We are leaving in the Bill, in Clause 70 as it stands, the power for corporal punishment to be inflicted under the Naval Discipline Act, so long as the punishment is inflicted with the birch and not with the "cat-o'-nine-tails" I feel sure that some Amendment is necessary from that side alone.
The purpose of my moving this Amendment was to seek from His Majesty's Government the following information. Under this clause we are seeking to amend the Naval Discipline Act which, I believe, is of the year 1797. What I want to know here is this. Some time ago a Committee were appointed under the Chairmanship of Mr. Justice Lewis to go into the whole question of trials by courts martial. That Committee have made a Report which is now being discussed by His Majesty's solicitors and by the respective Departments. I believe that it is contemplated that legislation will have to be introduced quite soon to deal with the question of
836
courts martial. It seems to me a little unfortunate to tuck into this Bill one clause to amend the Naval Discipline Act, and the Army Act and the Air Force Act also where they are concerned. I want to know from the Government whether they can give me an indication when the Report by Mr. Justice Lewis is likely to be published, and whether it will, in point of fact, require amendment of the Courts Martial Act. If it will, would it not be better to leave this clause out and to introduce the clause again when a new Bill dealing with the specific subject comes up for discussion? In any event, this clause as it stands merely says that flogging can be continued under the Naval Discipline Act, which is the very thing which His Majesty's Government wanted to avoid. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 58, line 37, leave out ("and three").—(Earl of Munster.)
LORD CHORLEY: With regard to the question of courts martial which was raised, I understand that that Report will be published before very long. I cannot for the moment commit the Government any further in respect of what decisions they may take as the result of the Report, as I am sure the noble Earl will understand. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment, of course, would be to prevent the naval authorities from clearing up this situation, which they can do under the law as it stands, and will stand, by administrative action. In respect of the use of the "cat-o'-nine-tails," that has been abolished administratively for a very long period. The use of the birch is still in existence, as the noble Earl himself indicated, but this could also be cleared up by administrative action. The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be to make it necessary to bring the matter back to Parliament before the necessary steps could be taken. I do not think that that is desirable. The noble Earl himself would probably agree that that would not be very satisfactory.
THE EARL OF MUNSTER: I agree that Section 3 of the Naval Discipline Act has not been used for many years, and there would be a frightful outcry from the general public if it were used. Section 2 deals with the question of being sent to penal servitude. That could well be abolished. Here we are amending Acts of

837
Parliament, chiefly the Naval Discipline Act. What I am trying to explain is, that in all probability other amending legislation will have to come along ultimately to deal with the whole question of courts martial. It seems to me that it would be much better to amend the Naval Discipline Act and any other Act at that time, rather than to put a small clause into this Bill which, as it is drafted at the moment, due to the Amendment we have made to Clause 3, does not make sense, because it still maintains what His Majesty's Government wanted to avoid.
LORD CHORLEY: I do not agree with the noble Earl on that point, but I will certainly look into this matter between now and the next stage. If those responsible feel that there is substance in the noble Earl's point, then we can deal with the matter.
THK EARL OF MUNSTER: Clause 70 at the moment does not carry out what the Government intended—namely, that flogging should be done away with in the Navy. What Clause 70 means now is that flogging can take place in the Navy, so long as it is not done with the "cat-o'-nine-tails."
LORD CHORLEY: Quite; that is the intention.
The EARL OF MUNSTER: Most reluctantly I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70 agreed to.
Clause 71 agreed to.
Clause 72 [Power to order detention in a remand centre under s. 67 of the Children and Young Persons Act, 1933]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 60, line 26, leave out ("If") and insert ("Where").—(Lord Chorley.)
LORD RAGLAN: What is the difference in meaning between these two words? I see there are three subsections, all of them conditional, but two of them begin with the word "If" If this Amendment is accepted, two of them will begin with the word "Where" and one will begin with the word "If" I have not the faintest idea what the distinction is.
LORD CHORLEY: The art of draftsmanship is very deep. Far be it from me to try to attempt to penetrate these mysteries.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 72, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 73 to 76 agreed to.
Clause 77 [Interpretation]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 43, after ("court") insert ("after considering any available evidence").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is really a drafting Amendment also. It defines the term "punishable with imprisonment" which, as your Lordships will remember, has been inserted in quite a number of provisions in the Bill by a series of Amendments which have been accepted. Its effect is to make it clear that in determining whether an offence is punishable with imprisonment the restrictions im-imposed by Clause 17 of the Bill upon the imprisonment of offenders under a specified age shall be disregarded. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 65, line 45, leave out from ("offence") to ("shall") in line 46 and insert ("punishable with imprisonment shall be construed, in relation to any offender, without regard to any prohibition or restriction imposed by or under this Act upon the imprisonment of offenders of his age, but").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to
Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 78 [Application to Scotland]:
LORD LLEWELLIN: This Amendment is consequential on the deletion of Clause 1. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, leave out line 15.—(Lord Llewellin)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment is consequential on the substitution of the new clause dealing with the effects of probation and discharge for Clause 12 (1) of the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, leave out ("subsections (1) and") and insert ("subsection").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is consequential on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, at end insert ("Section (Effects of probation and discharge):").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is consequential on the new clause relating to the abolition of privilege of Peerage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 19, at end insert ("Section (Abolition of privilege of peerage in criminal proceedings) ").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This is also really a drafting Amendment. Clause 68 of the Bill, as amended, makes the necessary modifications of Scottish law for the application of that clause to Scotland, and this Amendment is to make it clear that the clause shall extend to Scotland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 26, at end insert ("Section sixty-eight;").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment and the next at line 33 are consequential on the abolition of privilege of Peerage. The Tenth Schedule is being divided into three Parts, one to relate to repeals extending to England, one regarding repeals extending to Scotland, and the third to repeals extending to Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 31, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts II and III").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 33, leave out ("Part II") and insert ("Parts II and III").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY LORD CHORLEY moved, after Clause 78 to insert the following new clause:
Application to Northern Ireland.
"The following provisions of this Act shall extend to Northern Ireland, that is to say—
Section (Abolition of privilege of peerage in criminal proceedings);
Section seventy;
Part III of the Tenth Schedule, and subsection (4) of Section seventy-nine so far as it relates to the enactments specified in the said Part III;
but except as aforesaid this Act shall not extend to Northern Ireland"
The noble Lord said: This is really a consequential Amendment arising out of the abolition of privilege of Peerage, and it is for the consequential repeal of various Statutes in force in Northern Ireland, as set out in Part III of the Tenth Schedule. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 35, at end insert the said clause.—(Lord Chorley)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 79 [Short title, commencement, extent and repeals]:
LORD CHORLEY: This and the following two Amendments, which go together, are drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 39, leave out ("and") and insert ("Provided that").—(Lord Chorley)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 40, leave out ("by any such Order").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: I beg to move the next Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 66, line 41, at end insert ("and any reference in any provision of this Act to the commencement of this Act shall, unless otherwise provided by any such Order, be construed as a reference to the commencement of that provision").—(Lord Chorley)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This Amendment and the following one which go together are consequential drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Amendments moved—
Page 66, line 42, leave out subsection (3). line 45, leave out ("and II") and insert ("to III").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Remaining clause, as amended, agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
6.58 p.m.
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.
LORD LLEWELLIN LORD LLEWELLIN moved, in the proviso to paragraph 1, to omit "twelve" and insert "six" The noble Lord said: Hitherto the minimum period to be served before initial release from Borstal training has been a period of six months, and the maximum period one to three years. In the Schedule with which we are now dealing the period of six months has been increased to twelve. I am well aware that in the early days of the war some boys were released from Borstal institutions contrary to the wishes of the governors of those institutions, and many of them were released, because of war circumstances, without their individual cases being considered. In the view of those whose duty it was to train them and to advise as to their release, the cases of quite a number of the boys who were prematurely released were not successful. But in quite a number of other cases it has been appropriate to release boys under twelve months—between six and twelve months. I know this myself from an experience which I had as a member of the visiting committee of the Feltham Borstal institution where, in appropriate cases, having heard the governor's views on the matter, the visiting committee recommended to the Home Office that the boy should be released after he had completed perhaps six, seven, eight or nine months in the institution.
May I lake another institution with which I am familiar—and I make no secret about it because my brother was governor of it—and quote the experience of recent periods there? Taking the period from December 1, 1944, to March 31, 1945, 33 of the boys from that institution were discharged under twelve months from the date of conviction; and of these 9—and only 9—have been reconvicted. If you compare that with the 28 who, in the same period, were discharged after having served twelve months or more, you find, unfortunately, that no fewer than. 20 of those 28 have been reconvicted. But from these figures what. I think does appear is this. Taking 9 from 33, we get 24. So that means that 24 of the boys released from that institution under a period of twelve months would under this Bill serve for an unnecessarily long time. Let us take another period—from July 1, 1946, to December 31, 1946. In that period 110 were discharged, 58 under the twelve months, and of these only 7 have been reconvicted. So in that case 51 lads are left who were released under twelve months, who up to date have not been reconvicted, and who all of us hope will never be reconvicted. Of the 52 others who had served more than twelve months when discharged, unfortunately 15 have already been reconvicted.
From these figures I submit that it does appear that there ought still to be this discretion to release young fellows who have made good as soon as those in authority determine that they have, in fact, made good. You do not want to keep people for a minimum period of twelve months if all the advice of the housemasters and of the governor as investigated by the visiting committee and eventually by the Home Office, is to the effect that these cases can quite properly be released earlier. If you do not act on that advice the result will be that Borstals will become more and more crowded and more expense will fall on the public purse. And it must be remembered that these boys will be kept away from useful industrial occupations—farming or whatever it may be—for longer than is necessary. So, I suggest that we should be well advised to keep a minimum period of six months.
I hope that I have already made the point I wish to make, but may I draw attention to the fact that keeping the period at six months does not mean that

843
anyone is going to be released automatically at the end of six months? This clause says that the Prison Commissioners shall not be allowed to release anyone under twelve months unless the case is taken to the Home Secretary and dealt with under the exceptional powers which, of course, he still has. In the particular cases that I have quoted there would have been some 24 in the first instance, and some 51 in the second instance who would have served for an unnecessarily long time. That would be 75 additional cases for the Home Secretary to use exceptional treatment in over two periods of less than six months each. I suggest that we should do much better to leave this matter where it is.
I will give your Lordships another reason why I suggest we should leave it where it is. In some cases, as those who have taken an interest in matters of penal reform well know, the boy who is convicted ought to be sentenced to a full period of training, whether he eventually does the whole of it or not. Now it is often very difficult for one, as Chairman, to convince other members of the Bench that a boy is not being treated much too harshly by being sentenced to three years at Borstal. They are apt to say: "Surely that is far too long," and you have to explain to them that it does not necessarily mean that the boy will have to do the three years. Indeed, in most cases he does not. You explain to your fellow members on the Bench that if the lad does well he can get out after the end of six months. Then you convince the rest of the Bench—what is probably right—that the time is the right one at which to get hold of the young man and give him Borstal training before it is too late. Perhaps some of those on the Bench would much sooner give the lad three months' imprisonment—a sentence which would be quite hopeless from the point of view of reforming the young man while there is still time.
I urge this Amendment from that point of view. Thirdly, I urge it from the point of view of what the Judge or the Chairman of Quarter Sessions has to say to the young man whom he is sentencing. Formerly he could say: "Though I am sentencing you to three years at Borstal, it depends entirely upon your own behaviour how soon you are released. It is possible
844
that if you behave really well you may get out at the end of six months." If we pass this clause I suppose that, in future, a Judge or a Chairman of Quarter Sessions will have to say to the young man before him: "I am sentencing you to three years at Borstal. If this had occurred a year ago I could have told you how it would have been possible for you to get released after six months. Now, I must inform you that you must do twelve months, probably, before you can be released from Borstal." In my view that is a retrograde step. No one need be let out automatically after the six months' period, but it is just as well to be able to encourage these young men, and for the Chairman of Quarter Sessions to be able to get the consent of the rest of the court. This power has not, I think, been abused by governors of Borstal institutions, by visiting committees or by the Home Office itself. Why we should not still keep the power to release good cases as soon as those in authority are convinced they have been reformed, I cannot, for the life of me, understand. What is proposed in this Schedule seems to me an entirely retrograde step, and I hope that the noble Lord who is to reply to me will say that he is not going to take it. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 12, leave out ("twelve"), and insert ("six")—(Lord Llewellin.)
LORD RAGLAN: I have been for many years chairman of the visiting committee of the Borstal institution where my noble friend's brother was governor, and I would like strongly to support what he has said. There is an opinion abroad that there is something casual about these releases. I assure your Lordships that that is not so. A meeting of the visiting committee is held every month, and, shortly before that, the governor assembles his housemasters and they go carefully through every possible case for discharge. Then they bring their list before the visiting committee who also go through it very carefully indeed. If his case is approved by the visiting committee, a lad is put on the discharge list, to be discharged in two months' time. If during those two months he does anything wrong his name may be removed from the list. Every possible care is taken to see that lads are not discharged

845
before they properly can be discharged. It is not very often that they are discharged six months after the date of detention, but sometimes both the authorities at the institution and the visiting committee are convinced that a lad should never have been sent to Borstal at all. In those cases it is certainly proper that the lad should be discharged after six months.
There is only one other point which I wish to make. It has been thought proper that these Borstal institutions should be supervised by visiting committees. The principal duty of these committees is to deal with this matter of discharge. If all discretion is removed from the visiting committees, if they are turned into rubber stamps, then persons who value their time will not be willing to serve on these committees.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I do not know what answer the noble Lord is going to give to this Amendment. If his answer is going to be a negative one, I hope he will think again about it, because here we have had expressed, not idle theories, but the practical experience of two noble Lords who are dealing with these questions at first hand. I was greatly impressed by the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I have been equally impressed by what the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, has just said about the great care exercised by visiting committees before any young man is released. It seems to me that an overwhelming case has been made for leaving the state of affairs as it is. I have heard no complaint against it. In fact, I do not know how this provision has come into the Bill at all. I hope, therefore, that the noble Lord will not give the negative answer he might have intended to give and that after what he has heard from the noble Lords he will think again and produce a different proposal on the Report stage.
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment; nor, to be frank, am I so impressed as the noble Viscount who has just spoken by the arguments adduced in support of it. I just cannot follow the figures given by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, was much more correct when he said that the cases at six months were very few.
LORD LLEWELLIN: My figures were of releases under twelve months. The proposal in the Bill is quite new, that releases shall not be made under twelve months; so I gave the figures of those released under twelve months. They are not comparable to those given by my noble friend, Lord Raglan, because he gave those at six months.
LORD RAGLAN: I said that those released at six months are very few indeed, but a large number are released at about eleven months.
LORD CHORLEY: No doubt there have been a number of cases, especially in recent years, when a boy served some time in prison before going on to Borstal, because there was no room for him. If the noble Lord's figures were investigated, one would be able to discuss them on that basis. He will appreciate that it is exceedingly difficult for me to deal with figures of that kind when I have not had an opportunity of looking at them before the noble Lord brings them to our attention.
LORD LLEWELLIN: I can assure the noble Lord that my figures are correct. I would not have given them unless they had been.
LORD CHORLEY: I am not suggesting that the noble Lord has produced figures which he docs not firmly believe are correct; but if one had time to look at them, it might well be that one would find there were lads who were in prison before being sent to Borstal, and that would be a matter to be taken into account. The alteration in the law proposed in the clause has not been decided upon lightly, but after a careful consideration by those who, with great respect, are better able than the noble Lord to judge what is best in this sort of case. Naturally, coming from noble Lords who have had considerable practical experience of Borstal treatment, what they said is fairly entitled to great weight—
LORD LLEWELLIN: Give us the reason.
LORD CHORLEY: But so, obviously, are the views of those who have been dealing with the whole of this matter over years, and who are not concerned only with individual visitations of Borstals here and there. The object of the alteration is to bring the law into relation with what

847
actually happens, which is that Borstal treatment takes place over a substantial period of time. When a lad is sentenced to Borstal, the first thing that happens is that he has to be carefully observed over a substantial period of time, so that it may be three months after his sentence before he ever gets to Borstal. The training does not really begin until the six months is half expired. The view is that, to get satisfactory results, it is necessary to have a substantial period of time. There is, unfortunately, a widespread opinion that Borstal treatment will come to an end soon after six months and that has had very bad effects. As Chairman of a Quarter Sessions, I would not dream of telling a lad he would be out at six months if he behaved himself. It depends how the mind works. I would tell him that if he behaved, it might well be that the period might be substantially cut down, but I would have thought it dangerous to suggest to him he might be out at six months, or soon after the six months. The view is that the alteration is required, and I am afraid that I cannot accept the noble Lord's Amendment.
LORD LLEWELLIN: Having first of all attacked me on the figures I gave, the noble Lord told me I spoke from no experience, so far as I could understand his remarks. I was putting forward an honest and straightforward case in which I believe. And in dealing with my Amendment, he did not deal with it in a way in which Amendments honestly put forward are dealt with in this House. On the other hand, he has given no reason whatever why this period should be extended to twelve months. I was all the time expecting to hear why the minimum period before a governor can recommend release for a boy who is doing well should be twelve months. That is the short case I put.
LORD CHORLEY: I hope the noble Lord remembers, as he himself pointed out, that the Home Secretary can always make an order.
LORD LLEWELLIN: That is quite different. I gave a number of cases where boys have been released under twelve months and very few of them have been reconvicted. I think both my noble friend Lord Raglan and I, and the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, are entitled to a better reason. Why should we keep
848
these boys in an extra six months? The noble Lord has not answered that point at all. I may have taken him completely by surprise by the figures I gave. I only ask that we should be given a good reason for this alteration of the law, when I am convinced that it has worked quite admirably up to date. I shall remain convinced that I am right in this until I hear a good reason for this alteration of the law—and the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has given none, except that there is a prevalent knowledge about that people get out of Borstal too early. That is the only reason which the noble Lord gave at all, as I understand him, and that is not borne out by my figures. It is not those released early who are normally reconvicted; it is those who are kept for their full term, and whom it has been impossible to reform.
As the noble Lord complained that I had not given him the figures, and that he had not had an opportunity of investigating them, I will not press my Amendment at the moment. However, I am quite serious about it. I believe we are taking a retrograde step, and one which I think the Government ought to reconsider to see whether they cannot meet me. There is probably an advantage in being regarded not only as a man who insisted on capital punishment being restored but also as one who insisted on the man who had made good not having to serve twelve months when he might be let out at six months. For that reason, also, I shall put down this Amendment on Report stage, and I hope the noble Lord will then have had second thoughts and will be able to meet me. At the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
LORD CHORLEY: I will say merely that I shall be glad to look more closely at the noble Lord's figures and, indeed, at his whole argument.
LORD LLEWELLIN: We might discuss it together.
LORD CHORLEY: I shall be glad to do so.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: The next is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 17, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD CHORLEY: This also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 69, line 37, leave out from ("effect") to ("is") in line 38, and insert ("unless the person to whom it relates").—(Lord Chorley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORDOAKSEY LORDOAKSEY moved, in paragraph 4, to delete "penal servitude." The noble Lord said: This is really a drafting Amendment. Your Lordships will see that paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule refers to "penal servitude," which is abolished by Clause 2 of the Bill. Therefore, I suggest that those words ought to be omitted. I think the words that ought to be left out are, "or to penal servitude." I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 3, leave out. ("penal servitude.")—[Lord Oaksey.)
LORD CHORLEY: I think the noble and learned Lord has moved this Amendment under a misapprehension in regard to Scotland. Penal servitude will continue to exist in Scotland and, in the circumstances, it is necessary to have the clause as it stands.
LORD OAKSEY: In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CRANWORTH LORD CRANWORTH moved, after paragraph 4, to insert:
"5. If any person while detained in a Borstal institution shall escape therefrom he shall upon recapture be detained in a Borstal institution Constructed and regulated with a view to the prevention of persons escaping therefrom."
The noble Lord said: I find some difficulty in moving this Amendment. In the first place, I am certain that your Lordships will not accept it and, in the second place, it is not really the Amendment I want to move. The Amendment I want to move, and which I have tried to move—unsuccessfully, unfortunately—is as follows:
"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 at Assizes, he shall not be returned to Borstal."
I am well aware that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has expressed sympathy in regard to this point. Nevertheless, I feel it my duty
850
to say a word or two on behalf of my neighbours in Suffolk and on my own behalf. Up to the war we were a law abiding and peaceful body of people, crime was well in check and there was very little of it. True, we had our Berstal Institution at Hollesley Bay, but it was an institution of which we were remarkably proud: the inhabitants of that institution behaved themselves reasonably well; very few attempted to escape, and, when they did, the crimes they committed were negligible. Furthermore, the percentage of reformation there was high. A great many of our young boys made good in various walks of life. Several of them obtained commissions in His Majesty's Forces, and some of them received high decorations for gallantry. But since the coming of the war all that has changed. I am given two reasons by those who ought to know for that change. The first is the shortage of staff, and the natural decrease in its quality. That, I feel, is something that could not be avoided. The second is that the boys who were sent to Hollesley Bay were no longer of that reformatory type we had before, but consisted, partially at all events, of incorrigible young men. As proof of this I would tell your Lordships that one of these young men, with whom I had the misfortune to come into somewhat close contact, I found at the age of twenty had already been convicted no fewer than nineteen times. You can imagine what was his influence on the rest of the Hollesley Bay colony.
When this was debated before, my noble friend Lord Templewood asked for certain figures. I have some figures here, and I think your Lordships may find them of interest. In the year 1939 there were 13 youths who escaped, and they committed 3 crimes; in 1940, 50 escaped, and they committed 15 crimes; in 1941, 95 escaped, and they committed 30 crimes; in 1942, 107 escaped, and they committed 49 crimes; in 1943, 76 escaped, and they committed 87 crimes. Certain steps were taken, I presume by the Home Office, which were very effective, because in the next year, 1944, only 40 escaped; and they committed 18 crimes. The next year, 1945, unfortunately, the figures went up, and 49 escaped and committed 48 crimes. In 1946, 53 escaped, and they committed

851
35 crimes—most of them rather worse. The local inhabitants and the local institutions repeatedly made complaints to the Home Office, and in the fullness of time the Home Office acted, and acted to some purpose, because they sent down no less a person than Mr. Herbert Morrison.
Mr. Morrison came down to Hollesley Bay, he had the boys assembled and he gave them a good "talking to;" in other words, what we used to call when I was at school, a "pi-jaw." I am told by those who heard it that it was a remarkably fine speech, full of sound sentiments and good advice. Your Lordships will be shocked, as I was myself, to hear that it had no effect whatever on the Borstal boys; there was no response to this "pi-jaw." Indeed, so far from there being a response, in the year 1947, 80 boys escaped, and they committed 76 offences. These were the offences they committed: burglary, 2; housebreaking, 10; shopbreaking, 21; entering with intent, 6; other aggravated larcenies, 6; larceny of pedal cycles, 7; larceny from unattended vehicles 12, and other simple and minor larcenies 8. Those crimes were all committed in a restricted area, and I venture to think that it is a pretty serious list. I am fully in sympathy with those who seek to reform these boys by sympathy and kindly treatment and not by brutal methods, but I do not think we are going about it in the right way. I am certain that the percentage who were reformed before 1939 was infinitely greater than it is to-day. I am also not unaware of the rights of the peaceful, law-abiding citizens who live around Hollesley Bay.
There is not much in this Bill which gives encouragement to the law-abiding and peaceful citizens, but in this particular case I venture to make a plea for them. I would go so far as to say that the present position in the Hollesley Bay Colony is nothing less than a scandal. What happens to these boys when they run away? Nearly always they are captured, and if the crimes they commit are sufficiently serious, in due course they come to Quarter Sessions. There they seldom put up a defence—they usually plead guilty. Why should they do anything else? They stand in the dock with a smile on their faces, and why should they not? What happens to them? They are convicted, and then, in the vast majority of cases, they are returned to the Borstal from whence they came. When they get
852
back there—so I am credibly informed, because I have good means of finding out information—apart from suffering certain inconveniences over a comparatively short period, they really suffer no punishment at all. That system has two major defects. The first is that the police are extremely reluctant to prosecute, because they say it is a waste of time and money. The second is that the people around Hollesley Bay—my neighbours and indeed myself—say: "If we committed one of these crimes, if we broke open a house, threatened an old woman and took her savings, we would go to prison for twelve months, eighteen months, or two years. But if we were a Borstal boy we would practically not be punished at all." They ask: "Why on earth should a Borstal boy be above the law?" and, upon my soul, I do not know what answer to give. I cannot expect your Lordships to pass my Amendment as it stands, but I hope that the Government will seriously examine this question with a view to stopping what at the present moment is neither more nor less than a scandal. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 9, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Cranworth.)
LORD AILWYN: I should like in the fewest possible words to support my noble friend in this Amendment. I know a little of the feelings of those who live in close proximity to this Borstal institution, and it seems intolerable that they should be subjected to the annoyance and unpleasantness of visitations from these escapees—I believe that is the right word—and that on top of it they should have no redress of any sort or kind if their houses are broken into and their goods stolen. I am one of those who feel that, on the whole, this Criminal Justice Bill is inclined to lay too much emphasis on the welfare and the hoped-for reformation of the evil doer. It is high time that a little more attention was paid to the protection and security of the ordinary law-abiding citizen. For those reasons and because I think my noble friend's Amendment would be along the lines of improving that situation and showing that the normal citizen is not to be entirely neglected, I strongly support the Amendment as amended by my noble friend.
LORD CHORLEY: I think, if I may say so, that my friend Sir Alan Herbert

853
would prefer the word "escaper" to "escapee," although I do not think he would like either of those words.
LORD RAGLAN: Absconder.
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid that we cannot accept this Amendment, even if it were moved in the words the noble Lord said he would have preferred to use. We had quite a substantial discussion upon this problem at an earlier stage, and I am sure that at this time of night your Lordships would not like me to go over the whole of that ground again. I should, however, like to repeat the expressions of sympathy which my noble and learned friend used in regard to all those people who live in the neighbourhood of one or two of these Borstal institutions, where there has been a good deal of this absconding and where, undoubtedly, quiet and peaceful householders have been subjected to a great deal of annoyance and, in a number of cases, even worse.
This proposal is, in effect, to establish a sort of prison for Borstal boys and is, therefore, contrary to the whole policy upon which Borstal training has been carried out ever since the commencement. This training is not punishment, and it depends a good deal upon the honour of these lads. Unfortunately, in a number of cases, they let us down, but the noble Lord himself pointed out how, during the years before the war and before the situation became so difficult, it was, on the whole, very successful. The noble Lord referred to many cases where these lads played a most honourable and distinguished part in the war. What he is particularly concerned with is the class of boy who commits a crime on breaking out. But almost all these crimes are, so to speak, incidental to the breaking out. A lad breaks out, and he has no food, so perhaps he steals some food. He wants a method of getting home, so perhaps he steals a motor car or a bicycle. Nine out of ten of these cases, although they are still criminal, are incidental to the escaping.
If they are very bad cases, of course, the Judge at Assize or Quarter Sessions can, in fact, commit the lads to prison, and they are committed to prison from time to time. If they are sent back to Borstal, and the Prison Commissioners think it is a case where some sharp pun-
854
ishrnent is required, there is a part of Wandsworth Prison set aside where they can be, in fact, and are from time to time, dealt with on punitive lines. But by and large experience shows that these boys, after absconding once and after the training has; had time to take effect, become amenable to training at the Borstal, and the number of cases where there is further absconding is, I am informed, comparatively small. We have here to choose between two evils, and the Borstal system is such that it requires that there should be this trust and this open training system. I think your Lordships will agree that, on the whole, it is much better that we should go on with the training and not re-establish the present prison system for Borstal boys.
LORD CRANWORTH: I thank the noble Lord for his reply. I am disappointed in it. I do not think it is the reply he would have made if he lived within ten miles of the Hollesley Bay Colony. But of course I have no option, more especially in view of the remarks with which I started but to ask leave of your Lordships to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule [Release on Licence of Persons Sentenced to Corrective Training or Preventive Detention]:
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 70, line 20, leave out ("shall" and insert ("may").—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Fourth Schedule agreed to.
Fifth Schedule:
Administrative Provisions as to Probation.
(3) Any case committee for a petty sessional division not being a separate probation area, or any probation committee, may co-opt such number of persons, possessing such qualifications as may be prescribed, as they think fit:
Provided that the number of members so. co-opted shall not exceed one-third of the number of members of the committee, and no person shall be so co-opted if he is a justice of the peace for any county or borough in which the probation area or any part thereof

855
is situated, or which is wholly or partly comprised in that area.
7.42 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN LORD RAGLAN moved, in paragraph 2, to omit sub-paragraph (3). The noble Lord said: I am sorry this Amendment has come on so late, because it raises a point of considerable importance; but I shall have to say a few words about it. The sub-paragraph which I propose to leave out is that which empowers probation committees and case committees to co-opt persons who are not magistrates. This is a proposal which I think is open to grave objection. The first objection is that these persons are to be co-opted; the noble and learned Viscount opposite, or whoever holds his high office, will have no voice in their appointment. The Lord Chancellor should have a voice in the appointment of all persons concerned in the administration of justice. Your Lordships will be aware that to be a magistrate is the ambition of a great many people, and a great deal of intrigue and lobbying goes on with a view to being appointed. A good deal of that intrigue will be transferred to these appointments, and people who manage to get themselves co-opted will consider themselves entitled to the next vacancy on the Bench. That will make matters more difficult for those responsible for the appointment of magistrates.
But that is not the only objection. Another is that it is a principle of statutory committees, as of other committees, that all members are equal in power and responsibility; and that, from the nature of the case, cannot apply here, because those members who are not magistrates can obviously not have cither the powers or the responsibilities of the members who are. What is even more serious is that the Schedule proposes to confer upon persons who are not magistrates certain magisterial powers. Your Lordships will see that on page 75, line 7, it says:
"It shall be the duty of case committees to review the work of probation officers in individual cases…."
That includes the power to order a probation officer to bring the probationer before the court. That is definitely a magisterial power, and yet, as your Lordships will see, it might fall to be exercised by persons who are not magistrates
856
at all. That also is a serious objection to this proposal.
Those who are concerned with probation—at any rate, those to whom I have spoken—are of opinion that this proposal will certainly hinder the work of probation officers. Probation officers have quite enough supervision as it is; they do not want a lot of amateurs fussing around to assist them in their work—and that is the sort of person the are likely to get under these provisions. In my county I hear complaints occasionally that there are not enough magistrates to carry on the ordinary work of the court, but I have never heard any complaint of there not being enough persons to do this work of probation. If there are not enough people, the proper course would be to appoint one or more additional magistrates, and not to embark on this experiment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 74, leave out lines 7 to 15.—(Lord Raglan.)
LORD CHORLEY: I am afraid we cannot accept this Amendment. We start with the position that both these committees are, in fact, committees of the justices, and that the only power given is power to co-opt; it is primarily at their discretion to co-opt or not, according to whether they feel the need for reinforcement. Moreover, the persons who are to be co-opted must be persons with the qualifications prescribed by the Secretary of State.
LORD RAGLAN: What does that mean
LORD CHORLEY: It means, for instance, the qualification of being a member of an education committee, or a remand home committee, or something of that kind. The Government take the view that it may be valuable to these committees to have the possibility of reinforcing themselves by bringing in other people who are well qualified to deal with problems of this kind. I am afraid we cannot take seriously the suggestion that because somebody is brought in from the local education committee he is going thereby to establish some right to be nominated for the next vacancy to the Bench. As regards case committees, the Committee which reported on social services in 1936 emphasised the great

857
importance of having reinforcements of this kind to the case committee.
I am rather surprised that the noble Lord, who has so much experience in the administration of the criminal law, does not feel the great value of the committee's being able to reinforce themselves in this way. After all, it is entirely at their discretion. If they are a strong committee and do not feel the need of assistance of this kind, they need not call for it; but if they find that they can improve their technique or make themselves better able to deal with their problems by bringing in assistance of this sort, it: is for them to do it. In many parts of the country the various burdens of duty pressing on magistrates are very heavy, and I should have thought that the noble Lord would have appreciated the opportunity of relieving them to some extent by giving them power to make co-options in this way.
LORD RAGLAN: In the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD CHORLEY: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 18, leave out ("that") and insert ("which").—(Lord Charley.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Fifth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Sixth Schedule [Release of Young Offenders from Prison on Licence]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 5, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to add to the Schedule:
"5. Where the unexpired part of the sentence of a person released under the said Section fifty-one is less than six months, the provisions of this Schedule shall apply to him subject to the following modifications—

(a) the period for which he is under supervision under paragraph 1, and is liable to recall under paragraph 2, shall be a period of six months from the date of his release under the said Section fifty-one;

(b) if he is recalled under paragraph 2, the period for which he may be detained
858
thereunder shall be whichever is the shorter of the following, that is to say—

(i) the remainder of the said period of six months; or

(ii) the part of his sentence which was unexpired on the date of his release under the said Section fifty-one, reduced by any time during which he has been so drained since that date;

and he may be released on licence under paragraph 3 at any time before the expiration of that period."

The noble and learned Viscount said: This Amendment gives effect to a proposal which was made by Mr. Benson on the Report stage in another place and accepted by the Government in principle. The proposal is that in the case of an offender under 21, sentenced to imprisonment, who is released on licence under Clause 54 (2) on conditions which require him to be under supervision, the minimum period of supervision shall be six months. As the fill stood, the period of supervision would have been only such part of his sentence as remained unexpired at the time of his release on licence. In the case of a short sentence this would be very risky. It would be an advantage that the period of supervision in all cases should be of sufficient length to be of some effect. The requirement that the period of supervision should be a minimum period of six months is an improvement on the original proposal in the Bill. Accordingly, I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 77, line 23, at end insert said paragraph.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is absolutely right. Obviously we need some substantial period of supervision, otherwise it may not be effective at all. I agree with this Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Sixth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Seventh Schedule agreed to.
Eighth Schedule [Transitory provisions]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment, to insert the words "or ought to be," is a drafting Amendment. Paragraph 1 (1) of the Schedule already makes provision for persons sentenced to penal servitude who are in custody at the commencement of the Act, and sub paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 makes provision for persons sentenced to penal servitude who are lawfully at large on licence at

859
the commencement of the Act. We have omitted to make provision for those who are unlawfully at large at the commencement of the Act—that is, anybody who has escaped just before the Act comes into force and may still be at large. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 10, after ("is") insert ("or ought to be").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a minor drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 11, leave out ("though") and insert ("if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 79, line 47, leave out ("though") and insert ("if").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 80, line 4, leave out ("such") and insert ("the").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Eighth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
7.51 p.m.
Ninth Schedule [Consequential and minor amendments]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Under the Licensing (Consolidation) Act, 1910, a man who has been convicted of felony is for ever disqualified from holding a justices' licence. That seems to me to be wholly wrong. The man may have committed an offence of stealing some trifling sum in his youth and he may have completely made good the offence; he may have gone to war and he may have won great distinction. We cannot think that it is right that there should be an automatic disqualification which lasts for the rest of his life. By all means let him be referred to the justices who may then consider what they should do in his case, but it is wholly wrong that there should be an automatic disqualification extending over a man's life. The object of this
860
Amendment is to get rid of this automatic penalty. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 6, at end insert—
("The Beerhouse Act, 1840. 3 & 4 Vict. c. 61.
In section seven the words 'of felony or' shall cease to have effect.")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
LORD LLEWELLIN: AS your Lordships may remember, I had an Amendment down to get rid of these penalties in the case of the younger offenders. I am glad that they are to be abolished entirely. In any event, the matter may have to be taken into consideration by the licensing justices.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 82, line 35, at end insert—
("The Refreshment Houses Act, 1860. 23 & 24 Vict. c. 27.
In section twenty-two the words 'of felony or' shall cease to have effect,")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendments to the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, are consequential on the Amendments to Clause 34. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 8, at end insert—
("The Criminal Appeal Act, 1907. 7 Edw. 7. c. 23.
In section fourteen, in subsection (4), after the word 'section' there shall be inserted the words 'and subsections (1) to (3) of section thirty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948'.
In section seventeen, after the word 'bail' there shall be inserted the words 'and the power of the court to give directions under the proviso to subsection (2) of section thirty-four of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948'; and after the words 'such power' there shall be inserted the words 'under this Act'.
In section nineteen, after the word 'mercy' in the second place where it occurs, there shall be inserted the words 'or of any representation made by any other person'.")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The amendment of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, is necessary in consequence of the abolition by this Bill of the requirement of entering into recognisances to prosecute an appeal to Quarter Sessions with diligence. Section 14 of the Protection of Animals Act, 1911, provides that the court may direct that a recognisance may include an undertaking not to sell or part with the animal until the appeal is determined or abandoned, and to produce it on the hearing of the appeal if such production is possible without cruelty. The Amendment enables the court to make an order to this effect, instead of directing that an undertaking shall be included in the recognisance. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 85, line 17, at end insert—
("The Protection of Animals Act, 1911. 1 & 2 Geo. 5. c. 27.
In section fourteen, in sub-section (2), for the words from 'direct that the Recognizance' to 'under-taking' there shall be substituted the words 'order him' and at the end of the subsection there shall be added the words 'and a person who fails to comply with an order under this section without satisfactory excuse shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds'")
—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to the Second Schedule to the Criminal Justice Act, 1925, is to the effect of the present Clause 28, which is being deleted. This clause, which was accepted on Report stage, enables courts of summary jurisdiction to deal summarily with offences of fraudulent conversion where the amount or value of the property does not exceed £20. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 86, line 41, column 2, at end insert—
("In the Second Schedule, in paragraph II, after the words 'section eighteen' there shall

("3 & 4 Vict. c. 61.

The Beerhouse Act, 1840.

In section seven, the words 'of felony or'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
be inserted the words 'section twenty (where the amount of the money or the value of' the property in respect of which "the offence is committed does not exceed twenty pounds)'.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The Amendment to the Police Pensions Act, 1948, is consequential on the provision made in this Bill for he new sentences of preventive detention and corrective training. Such sentences are added to the sentences which under the Police Pensions Act may involve the forfeiture of a police pension. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 89, line 21, column 2, leave out from ("surgical") to end of line 48.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 92, line 10, at end insert—

("Police Pensions Act, 1948.

In section four, in subsection (1), after the words 'penal servitude' there shall be inserted the words 'preventive detention or corrective training'."

—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Ninth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Tenth Schedule [Enactments repealed]:
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential upon what has gone before. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 93, leave out lines 7 and 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment effects the repeal of the provisions in the old Act, for reasons that have been already explained. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 03, line 31, at end insert—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is to Part I of the Schedule which refers to certain repeals. Those repeals extend to Scotland and they appear in Part II of the Schedule. Part I refers to England only. Part II contains repeals extending to England and Scotland. I beg to move.

("23 & 24 Vict. c. 27.

The Refreshment Houses Act, 1860.

In section twenty-two the words 'of felony or'").—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This is a similar Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, leave out lines 49 and 50.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment relates to Part II of the Schedule, containing those enactments relating to England and Scotland which are being repealed. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 95, leave out lines 38 to 42.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment and the next, which relate to the repeal of the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, are consequential upon the amendment we have already made to Clause 34. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 6, column 3, after "(1)" insert "(3)"—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 6, column 3, leave out from "(5)" to end of line 8.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.

("5 & 6 Geo. 5. c. 90.

The Indictments Act, 1915.

In section four, the words 'and the person accused shall have the same right of challenging jurors'.")—(The Lord Chancellor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to
Amendment moved—
Page 93, leave out lines 34 to 37—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The same principle is involved here as in the Amendment at page 93, line 31. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 94, line 4, at end insert—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: The words which are being repealed provide that the Criminal Appeal Act, 1907, shall not apply in the case of convictions on indictments or coroners' inquisitions charging any Peer or Peeress or other person claiming the privilege of Peerage, with any offence not now lawfully triable by a court of Assize. The Amendment is consequential on the new clause abolishing privilege of Peerage. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 8, column 3, at end insert ("In section twenty in subsection (2) the words from 'but shall not apply' to the end of the subsection").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment results from the transfer to Part II of the Schedule of those enactments relating to both England and Scotland which are being repealed.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 14, leave out lines 14 to 18.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment provides for the repeal of certain words in the Indictments Act. It is consequential upon the provision made by Clause 31 (1) for peremptory challenge in cases of misdemeanour as well as in cases of felony. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 96, line 30, at end insert—
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: This Amendment deletes from the Schedule the reference to Section 62 (4) of the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act 1946. This section provides that where an employer is convicted of certain offences under the Act, involving failure to pay contributions, he shall be liable to pay the contributions to the Industrial Injuries Fund. Subsection (4) of the section applies these provisions where a court of summary jurisdiction deals with such a case by making a probation order without proceeding to a conviction. In future, where such a case is dealt with

("PART III.

REPEALS EXTENDING TO SCOTLAND AND NORTHERN IRELAND.

20 Hen 6. c. 9

Recital of Magna Charta relating to Trial by Peers; Noble ladies to be tried as Peers of the Realm are tried.

The whole Act.

31 Hen. 8. c. 10

An Act for the placing of the Lords in the Parliament.

Section nine.

33 Hen. 8. c. 12

An Act for Murder and Malicious Bloodshed within the Court.

Section seven.

5 Hen. 8. c. 2.

An Act concerning the Trial of Treasons committed out of the King's Majesty's Dominions.

Section two.

2 & 3 Edw. 6. c. 1

An Act for the uniformity of service and administration of the Sacraments throughout the Realm.

Section ten.

1 Eliz. c. 1

An Act for restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.

Section eighteen.

1 Eliz. c. 2

An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Divine Service in the Church, and the administration of the Sacraments.

Section nine.

2 Eliz. c. 1.

An Act of the Parliament of Ireland restoring to the Crown the ancient Jurisdiction over the State Ecclesiastical and Spiritual, and abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same.

In section fifteen, the words from 'And if it shall happen' to the end of the section.

2 Eliz. c. 2.

An Act of the Parliament of Ireland for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and Service in the Church, and the administration of the Sacraments.

Section nine.

13 Chas. 2. Stat. 1. c. 1.

An Act for the Safety and Preservation of His Majesty's Person and Government against Treasonable and Seditious practices and attempts.

In section seven, the words 'that no peer of this realm shall be tried for any offence against this Act but by his peers, and further'.

1707 Anne c. 7.

An Act of the Parliament of Scotland ratifying and approving the Treaty of Union of the two Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

So far as it ratifies, approves and confirms the following words in Article XXIII of the Treaty of Union, that is to say, the words from 'and particularly the right of sitting upon the trials of peers' to 'at such trials as any other peers of Great Britain'; the words 'and shall be tried as peers of Great Britain'; and the words 'and particularly the right of sitting upon the trials of peers.'

by a probation order, the provisions of the new clause which are being substituted for Clause 12 (1) of the Bill should be sufficient to enable the court to mike an order for the payment of contributions; but for great caution it is proposed to preserve on the Statute Book the provisions of Section 69 (4) of the Act of 1946.
Amendment moved—
Page 98, line 38, leave out lines 38 to 40.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved to insert as a new Part III.

6 Anne c.11

The Union with Scotland Act, 1706.

Section four, so far as it ratifies, approves and confirms the following words in Article XXIII of the Treaty of Union, that is to say, the words from 'and particularly the right of sitting upon the trials of peers' to 'at such trials as any other peers of Great Britain'; the words 'and shall be tried as peers of Great Britain'; and the words 'and particularly the right of sitting upon the trials of peers'.

6 Anne c. 78

The Scottish Representative Peers Act, 1707.

Section twelve.

33 Geo. 3. c. 45

An Act of the Parliament of Ireland for the trial of Treason committed out of the King's dominions.

Section two.

39 & 40 Geo. 3. c. 67.

The Union with Ireland Act, 1800.

Section one, so far as it ratifies, confirms and approves the following words in Article IV of the Articles of Union, that is to say, in the fourth paragraph, the words from 'and that he shall be liable' to 'charged'; and in the last paragraph the words from 'and the lords' to 'respectively on the part of Great Britain'; the words 'and particularly the right of sitting on the trial of peers'; the words 'be sued and tried as peers, except as aforesaid, and shall'; and the words 'and the right of sitting on the trial of peers'.

40 Geo. 3. c. 38.

An Act of the Parliament of Ireland for the Union of Great Britain and Ireland.

Section one, so far as it ratifies, confirms and approves the following words in Article IV of the Articles of Union, that is to say, in the fourth paragraph, the words from 'and that he shall be liable' to 'charged'; and in the last paragraph the words from 'and the lords' to 'respectively on the part of Great Britain'; the words 'and particularly the right of sitting on the trial of peers'; the words 'be sued and tried as peers, except as aforesaid, and shall'; and the words 'and the right of sitting on the trial of peers'.

6 Geo. 4. c. 66.

The Trial of Peers (Scotland) Act, 1825.

The whole Act.

4 & 5 Vict. c. 22.

The Felony Act, 1841

The whole Act.

25 & 26 Vict. c. 65.

The Jurisdiction in Homicides Act, 1862.

Section nineteen.

20 & 21 Geo. 5. c. 45.

The Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act, 1930.

In section nineteen, in subsection (2), the words from 'but shall not apply' to the end of the subsection.").

The noble and learned Viscount said: These repeals are consequential on the new clause abolishing privilege of Peerage in criminal proceedings. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 99, line 26, at end insert the said new Part III.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Tenth Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Title of the Bill:
LORD LLEWELLIN: This is consequential on our first Division rejecting the suspension of the death penalty for murder. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In line 1 of the Title, leave out from ("Act") to the second ("to").—(Lord Llewellin.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT SIMON: My Amendment has two merits. The first is that it is agreed by the Government, and the second is that it is the last Amendment on the paper. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
In line 9 of the Title, after ("courts") insert ("to abolish privilege of Peerage in criminal proceedings").—(Viscount Simon.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
8.6 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper. We shall miss Lord Addington's services on the Committee, but we are fortunate to obtain those of Lord Rushcliffe. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Lord Addington be discharged from serving on the Joint Committee, and that the Lord Rushcliffe be named of the Committee in his place.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

LONDON - CARLISLE - GLASGOW - INVERNESS TRUNK ROAD (DERBYSHIRE) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No. 25) 1947. MERTHYR SLIP ROAD BETWEEN TRUNK ROADS A470 AND A465 (GLAMORGAN ) COMPULSORY PURCHASE ORDER (No. 1) 1947.
Report by the Chairman of Committees of the House of Lords and the Chairman
870
of Ways and Means in the House of Commons under Section 3 of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, That no Petition has been presented against the Orders; laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

DARWEN CORPORATION BILL.
Committed: the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.
ROUND OAK STEEL WORKS (LEVEL CROSSINGS) BILL. [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL. MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (SHREWSBURY) BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examinees.

EGHAM URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL. WHITSTABLE URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL.
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at eight minutes past eight o'clock.