Sitting of 24 January 1951

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

LEASEHOLD PROPERTY (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) BILL
Copy ordered
"of Clause 5 of the Leasehold Property (Temporary Provisions) Bill, showing the effect of the Amendments proposed to be moved in Committee on behalf of His Majesty's Government."—[Mr. R. J. Taylor.]

TRADE AND NAVIGATION
Accounts ordered
"relating to Trade and Navigation of the United Kingdom for each month during the year 1951."—[Mr. Rhodes.]

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ROYAL NAVY

    Dockyard Employees, Portsmouth (Pay)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty how many employees in His Majesty's Dockyard, Portsmouth, earn £4 15s. or less per week.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. Walter Edwards): Five hundred and four workpeople at Portsmouth Dockyard receive a regular weekly wage of £4 15s. or less. Overtime, work on payment by results and allowances for exceptional working conditions bring the weekly earnings of about 56 per cent. of this number to more than £4 15s. Juveniles and women are excluded from these figures.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Minister consider that £4 15s. is an adequate wage, bearing in mind that the lowest paid agricultural worker gets £5 a week?
    Mr. Edwards: Up to the recent wage increase in the ship-building and engineering industries this wage was more or less
    110
    the same as that paid by private industry, but in any case the trade unions are now considering the question of wage increases.
    Mr. Michael Foot: Can my hon. Friend say when the present negotiations for increases are likely to be concluded, in view of the natural anxiety of dockyard employees?
    Mr. Edwards: An offer of increased pay has been made to the trade union side of the S.T.J.C., and we are now awaiting a decision from the trade union side.
    Mr. Awbery: Is my hon. Friend aware that the unskilled workers in His Majesty's dockyards were the lowest paid unskilled workers in the country during the years the Tories were in power?

    Construction Programme
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty (1) in view of our present defence commitments, how far the number of fleet destroyers being converted to fast antisubmarine frigates has been increased;
    (2) how far the building programme for new fast anti-submarine frigates has now been increased.
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty whether he has any further statement to make on the new construction programme.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. James Callaghan): I regret I am not yet in a position to make a statement about these matters, but I hope that it will be possible to do so soon.
    Mr. Watkinson: I apologise if my supplementary is a little long. In view of the effect of this matter on our allies, and particularly the United States of America, may I ask the hon. Gentleman, with all the seriousness at my command, whether a statement will be made in the very near future, possibly before certain decisions which may well be taken with the United States, perhaps in a week's time? May we expect a statement in the next few days?
    Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman had an answer on that point from the Lord President yesterday. As far as the

    111
    Navy is concerned, as the House knows, a number of orders for additional ships have already been placed. I am not yet in a position to give a full picture.
    Commander Noble: Does the hon. Gentleman mean that he himself will make a further statement on the Navy, or will it be included in the one which we are expecting any day now from the Minister of Defence?
    Mr. Callaghan: That question had better be addressed to those who decide those matters.
    Lieut.-Commander Gurney Braithwaite: In any case, will not a full picture be at the disposal of the House when we discuss the Navy Estimates?
    Mr. Callaghan: Certainly, by the time they come along I should hope to be in a position to give the whole story.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Could the Minister say why he is not in a position to give the whole story now? Is it because he has not got the information, or is it because Government policy precludes him from giving it?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is because there is a very long-term programme under consideration. No one can complain that the Admiralty have not been extremely forthright in the way in which they have dealt with their share of the programme.
    Mr. Watkinson: As we all know that additions will have to be made to the present construction programme, could not the Parliamentary Secretary at least say that urgent negotiations and discussions are now taking place with a view to settling an increased programme?
    Mr. Callaghan: I should have thought that was implicit in what was said yesterday by the Lord President of the Council.

    A.A. Gunnery Equipment
    Mr. Watkinsonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what steps are being taken to standardise anti-aircraft gunnery equipment between the United States Navy and our own.
    Mr. Callaghan: There is a full exchange of information on anti-aircraft gunnery equipment between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy, and
    112
    all possible steps are being taken to standardise new equipment.
    Mr. Watkinson: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that certain classes of modern British destroyers, such as the Battle class, are fitted with U.S.A. gunnery equipment? The position is, therefore, that proper standardisation—[HON. MEMBERS:"Speech."] Will the hon. Gentleman tell us what steps are being taken to avoid any difficulties, because—
    Mr. Speaker: This is going beyond the limits of a supplementary question. I wish supplementaries could he shorter.
    Mr. Watkinson: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether any steps are being taken in connection with American gunnery equipment now fitted in our ships? [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

    Aircraft (Design)
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what types of aircraft now in service in the Fleet Air Arm were designed expressly for the Royal Navy.
    Mr. Callaghan: The Barracuda, the Firebrand, the Firefly, the Sea Otter and the Sturgeon.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Does not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that there is the possibility of a certain lack of zeal in his Department in trying to get original designs of aircraft for the Navy, as opposed to modifying extensively aircraft which are redundant or not required or are not good enough for the Royal Air Force?
    Mr. Callaghan: No, Sir. New types coming in are designed for naval purposes.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: All of them?

    Aircraft (Deck Landings)
    Surgeon Lieut. - Commander Bennettasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what progress is being made in the development of a

    113
    standard technique and practice of deck landing in British and American aircraft carriers.
    Mr. Callaghan: Complete standardisation has been achieved between the Royal Navy and the United States Navy in this matter.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: In view of the considerable disparity of landing-on rates and accident rates under this technique between British and American carriers, can the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that any modifications needed for the standardisation to be made a success in this country will be done by modifications of aircraft rather than of technique?
    Mr. Callaghan: Standardisation was achieved some time ago. The process has been going on for a very long time.
    Captain Ryder: Are we standardising the American system rather than our own?
    Mr. Callaghan: It is standardisation by mutual agreement.

    Home Fleet (Manning)
    Mr. G. P. Stevensasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is aware of a shortage of personnel for manning the Home Fleet; and what steps he is taking to remedy existing deficiencies.
    Mr. Callaghan: There is no general shortage of men in the Home Fleet, but we need more senior ratings in certain branches. The remedies now being taken for this are acceleration of the training and advancement of younger men, the granting of a bounty of £100 to men who re-engage to complete time for pension, and the re-entry of experienced men.
    Mr. Stevens: Is it not true that personnel were taken from the Home Fleet to reinforce the complements of ships in the Far East, particularly near Korea?
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, that is the normal process. When ships in the Far East needed strengthening men were taken from the Home Fleet for that purpose.
    Surgeon Lieut.-Commander Bennett: Is it not a fact that one of the major obstacles to the adequate manning of the Fleet is the fact that there has been no efficient revision of the pensions structure?

    Security Arrangements, Chatham Dockyard
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if his attention has been drawn to the criticisms made by the magistrates concerning the security arrangements at Chatham Dockyard; and what steps he has taken to meet the points referred to in such criticisms.
    Mr. W. Edwards: Yes, Sir. The arrangements in force are being reviewed once more in order to see what further safeguards would be justified, having regard to the cost in money and manpower of additional controls.
    Brigadier Medlicott: Having regard to the incident on which these particular criticisms were based, and to other incidents of a rather disturbing character, may we have the assurance that special vigilance will be shown in this matter?
    Mr. Edwards: Yes, Sir, I think I can safely give that assurance. I ought to point out to the House, also, that there are thousands of workpeople going in and out of the dockyards each day, and that the number of cases up to now—though we are not complacent about it—seems extremely small.

    Duty-Free Tobacco
    Lieut.-Commander Clark Hutchisonasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he is now in a position to make a statement regarding the sale of duty-free cigarettes and tobacco to the personnel of Royal Naval Air Stations.
    Mr. Callaghan: I am glad to say that naval personnel at all R.N. air stations will be able to have an allowance of duty-free tobacco (including cigarettes) by the middle of this year at the latest.

    Pensions (Payment)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty if he will ensure that the pensions of Royal Navy and Royal Marine personnel are not unduly held up when they leave the Service, as this practice causes hardship to pensioners.
    Mr. Callaghan: Yes, Sir, and the present procedure is being reviewed once more to make sure that delays are reduced to a minimum.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the great hardship which is caused by a man's not getting his pension immediately he comes out? I raised two points recently with him on that. Will he please try to see that in future men get their pensions within a fortnight?
    Mr. Callaghan: In the great majority of cases the amount of pension earned is notified to the man immediately prior to his retirement, and payment is commenced well within a month of the termination of his service.

    Air Arm (Pilots)
    Commander Nobleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what is the present shortage of pilots in the Air Branch; and what steps he is taking to remedy this.
    Mr. Callaghan: The present deficiency of pilots is being remedied in the following ways. Basic pay and flying pay has been increased, and for short service officers an increased gratuity is payable on leaving the Service. Schemes for ensuring civil employment on leaving the Navy are in operation or are being worked out. Permanent commissions are given to extended service officers, and the ages of entry to short service commissions widened. An offer has been made to former naval pilots to re-enter for four years. National Service men may be trained to fly, and publicity has been intensified.
    Commander Noble: Is it too early yet for the hon. Gentleman to say whether there have been any satisfactory results from all these steps?
    Mr. Callaghan: I cannot give any figures yet.
    Mr. J. P. L. Thomas: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us what the effect has been on recruiting for flying duties of the granting in September of flying pay?
    Mr. Callaghan: I think it would be dangerous to give any indication of longterm trends so far.
    Mr. J. Langford-Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the offer of four years re-entry is not popular in the Air Branch of the Navy? Is he further aware that the system of promising an extension
    116
    of the permanent commissions, which does not ultimately materialise, does not provide the pilots who are required?
    Mr. Callaghan: So far as the first point is concerned, if the hon. Gentleman will let me know why, I shall be glad to look at the scheme again. So far as the second point is concerned, I do not think that the Navy can bind itself to offering permanent commissions to everybody who serves on extended service.

    Atlantic Treaty Powers (Co-ordination)
    Captain Ryderasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what arrangements exist for the co-ordination or command of naval forces of the Atlantic Treaty Powers in the event of hostilities; and whether it is proposed that Allied naval commanders should be appointed for the areas concerned.
    Mr. Callaghan: The arrangements being made cover the naval forces of all Atlantic Treaty Powers, and there must be common agreement to publication of command organisation details. No mutual decision has been taken in the matter of publication.
    Captain Ryder: Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether General Eisenhower has any connection at all with naval organisation, or is it proposed to appoint a similar naval commander?
    Mr. Callaghan: If the details were published I am sure that that point would be included.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that co-ordination of command or co-ordination of Forces without co-ordination of policy can be a very dangerous thing?
    Sir Ronald Ross: Has any decision been taken, or have any mutual arrangements been arrived at, about who is to command, even if it is not possible to publish that information?
    Mr. Callaghan: This is a continuous work that has been going on for many months, and I should not care to indicate now the precise point that has been reached.
    Captain Ryder: Can we be assured that a suitable organisation is, in fact, in existence?
    Mr. Callaghan: I can certainly assure the House that this has been the subject of continuous study, and that a number of arrangements have been made.

  BROADCASTING

    Reception, South-East England
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the unsatisfactory radio reception in South-East England, he is prepared to suspend the collection of licence fees in this area until the reception is improved.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ness Edwards): No, Sir.
    Mr. Taylor: While it is quite impossible for the residents of this area to receive any of the B.B.C's. services because of interference and bad reception, why should they have to pay the present licence fee? They ought to have compensation.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I understand that one programme is received very clearly in that area. I can give the hon. Gentleman this, I hope, helpful information: the Russians have now undertaken to prevent the interference which is now taking place.
    Mr. Marlowe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the reception in this area has been the subject of widespread complaint, and that although representations have been made to his Department there is a feeling that those representations are not being adequately considered in his Department? When the right hon. Gentleman says that one programme is well received, is he aware that the station is Luxembourg?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The B.B.C. are responsible in this matter, and they inform me that the Light Programme can be adequately received there. Complaints have been received about the reception of the Home Service. I told the House some time ago that representations were being made to the Russians, who were causing interference. We have now received a reply from them, in which they say they will take steps to obviate the interference.

    Old Age Pensioners (Wireless Licence Fee)
    Mr. De la Bèreasked the Postmaster-General whether he will now consider dispensing with the radio licence fee for the old age pensioners over 70 years of age.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: After careful and sympathetic consideration, the Government is unable to agree to the issue of broadcast receiving licences free to old age pensioners.
    Mr. De la Bère: Why does not the right hon. Gentleman abandon his half-thoughts? Why does not he do something practicable? This suggestion is not impracticable. Is he not aware that there is no justification for his refusal?

    285.2 Metre Wavelength
    Mr. Joynson-Hicksasked the Postmaster-General whether he has yet received a reply from the Roumanian People's Republic to his representations about their use of wavelength 285.2 metres; and what action he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No reply has yet been received from the Roumanian Administration. A further telegram has been sent.
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Has it got through? Would the right hon. Gentleman say when the telegram was sent, whether it has yet been received back through the dead letter office, and whether, having received a reply from the Russian Government, he has any hope of receiving a reply from the Roumanian Government about the interference on this wavelength?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am hopeful. We sent a third telegram to the Russians. We have sent two to the Roumanians.

    Television Service (Breakdowns)
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Postmaster-General how many and what total duration of, breakdowns occurring in the British Broadcasting Corporation Television Service during 1950 were due to faults in the General Post Office lines or radio links; and what percentage, both in number and duration, were these of the total breakdowns.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: In 1950 nine breakdowns in vision, with a total duration of 49 minutes, were due to faults in Post Office lines or radio links; I understand from the B.B.C. that these amounted to 7.1 per cent. and 5.1 per cent., respectively, of the totals. Additionally, there was one breakdown of five minutes in sound associated with television due to a fault in a Post Office link.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the rate of breakdown in the Television Service is 10 times the rate in the United States, and is causing concern to many thousands of television licence holders who have to gaze at the notice. "Normal service will be resumed as soon as possible"?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I was asked about the amount of delay due to Post Office faults, and I have said that there was a delay of only a few minutes over the whole period due to Post Office faults.

    Government Policy
    Sir Ian Fraserasked the Lord President of the Council if he has any statement to make as to the Government's policy for the future of broadcasting.
    The Lord President of the Council (Mr. Herbert Morrison): No, Sir. It would be premature for me to make a statement until we have been able to give thorough consideration to the many and important recommendations of the Broadcasting Committee. This will necessarily take some 'time, but we will make our views known as soon as possible with a view to full Parliamentary discussion before final decisions are taken. I should like to take this opportunity of expressing the Government's appreciation of the great public service which Lord Beveridge and his colleagues have rendered, and for the valuable report—
    Mr. Pickthom: Has the right hon. Gentleman seen it?
    Mr. Morrison: That is the kind of comment I would expect from the hon. Member—which they have submitted after an inquiry which has made exceptionally heavy calls upon them all.
    Sir I. Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman consult Parliament before the Government announce their policy in this matter, and when does he expect that we shall have a debate?
    Mr. Morrison: I cannot say; but it must be some time. It is desirable that the public and Members should have an opportunity of arguing and debating the matter, and we ourselves must take some little time to consider it. Therefore, I should not like to give a date. We must remember that the existing Charter runs to the end of the year, and, therefore, there is time. I think that the Government must come to some provisional conclusion [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I was asked that the Government should not do so, and I am saying that I think we should. In any case, the matter is not finally settled until the new Charter is dealt with later.
    Sir I. Fraser: In view of the doubt—I do not say this offensively—whether the Government represent public opinion, will not the right hon. Gentleman consider the advisability of taking the view of Parliament and, to that extent. of the nation on this matter?
    Mr. Morrison: No Government can possibly live without taking into account the view of Parliament and the view of the nation. Governments live with Parliament; we cannot live a day longer than Parliament lets us.

  POST OFFICE

    British Railways (Conveyance of Mails)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General how many times during the last 12 months he has made representations to British Railways about unsatisfactory service to his Department.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The Post Office and British Railways are in the closest regular contact at all levels to ensure that the most satisfactory arrangements are made for the conveyance of mails by rail. Representations are made either in writing or orally as circumstances require, but a numerical record is not maintained.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied about the results of his representations, or has he given up nationalisation as hopeless?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, I am not satisfied with the consequences of the representations we have made, but I am sure that the railways are making every effort in these difficult times.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend refute entirely the inference in the question that the overall service given by British Transport is unsatisfactory in this respect?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If anything it is an improvement on the old system.

    Savings Bank (Losses)
    Mr. Shepherdasked the Postmaster-General how much money has been lost through fraud since the end of the war by the Post Office Savings Bank.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The amount lost during the period 1st July, 1945, to 31st December, 1950, was about £311,000. Of this amount nearly £250,000 was lost in the years 1946-48. I am glad to say that the safeguards which we have introduced during the last two or three years are having very satisfactory results and the current rate of loss is lower than it has been for many years.
    Mr. Shepherd: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that the accounting arrangements which at one time made these losses possible are now adequate; and will he say whether the public will, within a short time, be relieved of the inconvenience of sending their book back at the completion of every page?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Sending the book back to the Department is really our only security against many of these frauds and I could not ask for a withdrawal of that arrangement.

    National Guild of Motor Engineers
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Postmaster-General what proportion of Post Office workers employed on his motor transport staffs now belong to the registered but unrecognised trade union known as the National Guild of Motor Engineers.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The latest figures submitted to me by the National Guild of Motor Engineers were equivalent to about 49.5 per cent. of the staff they seek to represent.
    Mr. Fraser: In view of this figure, will the Postmaster-General now recognise this union, having read the Treasury document produced in 1949 about staff relations in the Civil Service?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is a matter of major policy. One has to make up one's mind whether to encourage a multiplicity of unions and destroy trade unionism or whether to adopt a policy of conciliation and try to get the maximum co-operation and team-work inside this important service.
    Mr. Fraser: Is it not known by the right hon. Gentleman that this union of motor transport staff in the Post Office, of which there are about 3,000 members, is completely absorbed at the moment in the larger union to which they are supposed to belong? The representations of these 3,000 men go almost unheard and are not put forward by the other 45,000 people in the P.O.U., who are concerned largely with telecommunications.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I invited this union to meet me. We had a discussion about the matter and I got for them all the means of representation they requested. Then, unfortunately, they would not agree to the final agreement, although they had given me authority to obtain a joint meeting of all parties concerned on the basis that there would be an agreement.
    Mr. Awbery: Will my right hon. Friend take particular notice of the fact that the Opposition are continually pressing for the recognition of unions which have broken away from other organisations?
    Mr. Henry Strauss: Is not the real question that arises in this case, whether a man shall have the right to choose to which union he shall belong or whether that right shall be given to the employer?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: That has nothing to do with this matter. What has to be considered is whether there shall be effective trade union representation for the people engaged in the Post Office or whether we shall have a multiplicity of ineffective little groups.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Are we to take it from the right hon. Gentleman's reply that he has decided to depart from the previous practice, and the practice which is observed in other Government Departments, that when a grade or a union can claim to represent a certain percentage of the grade they shall be recognised?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is a complete misrepresentation.
    Mr. Fraser: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

    Postal Collections
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Postmaster-General if he will make a further statement about the later postal collections and indicate which towns will enjoy these facilities.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Late evening collections have now been introduced in some 540 towns and will, I hope, be introduced in a further 100 or so by the end of January. Recruitment difficulties have yet to be overcome in some places, including London; and in a few others sickness has caused postponement of the date of introduction.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Does the late collection apply to all the boxes in those towns and cities or only the central boxes?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There will be selected boxes.
    Mr. Keeling: Does the Postmaster-General still hope to redeem his promise of later collections in London early in the new year?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As soon as we can get over the manpower difficulty in London and recruit the postmen we shall introduce it.

    Armed Forces, Korea and Malaya (Parcels)
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Postmaster-General how many post-free Christmas parcels were sent to members of the Armed Services in Korea and Malaya, respectively, and what was the total cost to the Post Office.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The numbers of postage-free Christmas parcels sent by air to members of the Forces in the Korean operations and Malaya were 14,322 and 2,091, respectively; and the overall cost of the concession was of the order of £37,000, of which £1,000 was borne on Post Office account.
    Wing Commander Bullus: Does the Postmaster-General agree that the general public observed the rule and that there was no abuse of this concession?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There was amazingly little.
    Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: Has the right hon. Gentleman in mind the making of any further concessions for postage to the troops in Korea, particularly of printed matter?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is really a matter for the Minister of Defence. The cost is borne on the Ministry of Defence Vote, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman will put the question to my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Nicholson rose—
    Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has now introduced a much wider question. It does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper. which dealt only with Christmas mail.

    Press Telegrams (Delay)
    Mr. Deedesasked the Postmaster-General (1) if he is aware that Press cables dispatched at urgent rates from Melbourne on 22nd December took up to four hours to reach London; and what steps he is taking to improve the service;
    (2) what complaints he has received from the Council of the Empire Press Union on delays of news transmissions by telegram; and what action is being taken to meet such complaints.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am aware that bad wireless operating conditions towards the end of last year caused delays to many overseas telegrams, including Press telegrams, to and from Australia and New Zealand. These difficulties were increased by cable interruptions. The Empire Press Union made representations on 2nd November last about heavy delays in sending messages, especially to Australia and New Zealand. Urgent cable repairs have been made and I am considering means of improving circuit capacity to and from this country.
    Mr. Deedes: Is the Postmaster-General aware how very seriously this is regarded in Australia; that for 27 days in December the service was seriously disrupted; that consideration is now being given to transferring the service to America, and that if that is done London will lose its place as the news centre?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This is due entirely to the wireless circuit. There were bad radio conditions and the stuff could not get through. We are using the Atlantic cable to try to get the stuff through to Australia and New Zealand, because we regard these delays as the cause of a great sense of grievance in the Dominions.
    Mr. R. V. Grimston: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the delays in the service cannot be put down entirely to technical faults; that they are due partly to the new set-up, for which he is not entirely responsible, and will he take the initiative in promoting a conference to see what can be done? Further, was the matter raised at all, either formally or informally, with the Dominion Premiers when they were here?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I cannot answer the last part of that question. With regard to the first part, I have already taken the initiative and called a conference.
    Mr. Deedes: In view of the importance of this matter, I beg to give notice that I shall raise it on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.
    Mr. Russellasked the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to speed up the transmission of news between Great Britain and Empire countries.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I would refer the hon. Member to my replies to earlier Questions on this subject, copies of which I am sending to him.
    Mr. Hollisasked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the greatly increased delay in the transmission of Press cables from this country to the Dominions since Electra House was put under the Post Office; what is the reason for this delay; and how he proposes to remedy it.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Delays occurred towards the end of last year to many telegrams, including Press telegrams, sent from this country to Australia and New Zealand. These delays were mainly due to bad wireless operating 'conditions and were increased by cable interruptions. A marked increase in the number of telegrams passing over the Commonwealth telecommunication network recently has
    126
    reduced the margin of reserve against interruptions, and means of improving this margin are under consideration with other administrations concerned.
    Mr. Hollis: In view of the fact that the domestic Press cannot get any paper, and the Dominion Press cannot get any news, how is it that His Majesty's Government claim adequate publicity for their beneficent activities? The right hon. Gentleman says that consideration is being given to this matter. Why was not that fact mentioned at the Commonwealth Conference?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One of the reasons why we are having this trouble, is that the Commonwealth is getting more news.
    Brigadier Raynerasked the Postmaster-General what were the average and maximum delays on Press telegrams between Great Britain and Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, respectively, during November and December. 1950.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Under the operating conditions which existed up to the middle of October last, it was usual for ordinary Press messages from Great Britain to be cleared within two or three hours of the time of handing in. Under the difficult conditions of last November and December, delays on ordinary Press messages occasionally amounted to 12 hours to Canada, New Zealand and South Africa, and to 30 hours in the case of Australia.
    Brigadier Rayner: Is not the right hon. Gentleman's answer, and his previous answers on this matter, another example of how inefficiency always follows closely on the heels of nationalisation?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. This service is not nationalised.

    Letters, London (Delivery)
    Mr. Russellasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that during the fortnight before Christmas many business letters were not delivered in the London area until five days after posting; and if he will take steps to ensure that in future they are not held up for so long by Christmas mail.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Owing to the enormous seasonal increase in the volume

    127
    of traffic; some delay to letters cannot be avoided during the week before Christmas; but I am not aware of exceptional delays prior to that week. Every effort is and will be made to deliver correspondence as speedily as possible, but it is not practicable to segregate business letters for special acceleration.
    Mr. Russell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it took five days for many letters posted in the East London area to reach addresses in Willesden? Does he not think that rather unreasonable, and will he look into the question of separating letters bearing penny stamps from those with 24½d. stamps?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Because of the inexperienced staff we had to recruit some delay was to be expected. We will do our best to watch this matter in the future.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: To minimise some of the delay, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of having a late evening collection on Boxing Day?

    International Air Mail (Rate)
    Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewingasked the Postmaster-General what percentage of the rate of six gold francs per tonne/kilometre, as agreed between the Universal Postal Union and the International Air Transport Association, he pays to British Overseas Airways Corporation for the carriage of air mail on long haul services.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There is no agreement between the Universal Postal Union and the International Air Transport Association covering conveyance rates paid by postal administrations to their national air-operators. I am writing to the hon. Member to explain the. position more fully.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: Would the right hon. Gentleman look at the B.O.A.C. report, which says, in paragraph 99, that if proper rates had been paid, their total revenue would have increased by £3 million? Is this statement' incorrect, or is the Postmaster-General using his unique position to under-cut the rate which he had agreed in international conference?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir. We never agreed the rate in international conference. These are commercial agreements, freely negotiated, and I am quite satisfied that what I have told the House is correct.
    Air Commodore Harvey: Will the right hon. Gentleman say what the rate is per ton mile?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have not the figure before me. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will put a Question on the Order Paper?
    Mr. Mikardo: Will my right hon. Friend now consider making an increase, however slight, in this rate, to help B.O.A.C. in their attempt to reduce their deficit?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I am prepared to pay a proper rate to B.O.A.C. and no more.

    Temporary Postmen (Pay)
    Mrs. Elizabeth Braddockasked the Postmaster-General why the temporary postmen employed during the Christmas rush are not paid overtime rates on the same basis as permanent postmen.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The week-day hourly rate paid by agreement with the staff association includes a factor for overtime. Rate and a half is paid on Sundays and Christmas Day.
    Mrs. Braddock: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that postmen who are taken on temporarily for holidays very often have to work much harder than permanent postmen, and resent the fact that their overtime rate is much lower than the rate paid to permanent postmen?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If the hon. Lady wants me to pay an ordinary hourly rate and the overtime rate she is really asking that the men should have a reduction in wages. I think it would be better if we left this to the trade unions concerned.

    Continental Letters (Postage)
    Brigadier Medlicottasked the Postmaster-General if he is aware that large numbers of letters from Great Britain to the Continent are still being stamped only 2½d. instead of 4d.; and if, in view of the inconvenience and loss which this causes the addressees, he will, by broadcast and other means, make the rates more widely known.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes. Sir. Full use has been, and will continue to be, made Of all available means, including Press and broadcast notices, to bring the correct rates of postage to the notice of the public.

    Sub-Postmasters
    Mr. Remnantasked the Postmaster-General what steps he is taking to review the remuneration of sub-postmasters; and when he anticipates making a statement.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This matter is under discussion with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, and I regret I am not at present in a position to make any statement on the subject.
    Mr. Remnant: This has been under discussion for some time. Is the Postmaster-General aware that owing to the long hours worked in the telegraphic sub-post offices, and the low pay, sub-post offices are rapidly becoming known as sweat shops?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: As these matters are the result of freely negotiated agreements, and another agreement is now being negotiated, it would be quite improper for me to make any comment in the House.
    Lieut.-Commander Braithwaite: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that sub-postmasters, who give their services in the villages, are so tied to their jobs that it is very difficult for them to attend such conferences? Will he inquire in some of the remote villages what they think about it?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: I have been to some of these conferences and it is not difficult for them to get there, as I can assure the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
    Mr. Remnantasked the Postmaster-General the number of resignations by sub-postmasters during the last convenient 12 months; and the number of sub-post offices now awaiting the appointment of a sub-postmaster.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There were 1,606 resignations during 1950 and 287 vacancies at the end of the year.
    Mr. Remnant: Would the Postmaster-General not agree that if he would disgorge a little of his excessive profit, he would find it much easier to fill the posts?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: There is a tremendous change over in all forms of industry, and the change over is not really excessive.
    Mr. Iain MacLeodasked the Postmaster-General if his attention has been drawn to the recent protest meeting organised by the Eastern District Council of the National Federation of sub-postmasters on 10th December, 1950, to protest against the loss of mail work as a result of plans for the motorisation in rural areas; and whether he has any proposals to make for compensation to sub-postmasters.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Yes, Sir. 1 am always ready to consider on its merits any case in which a sub-postmaster's remuneration is due to be reduced on account of reduction of work and serious hardship would result.
    Mr. MacLeod: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean, with reference to his answer to the last sentence of my Question, that in suitable cases he admits the principle of compensation?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Not the principle of compensation. But where a widow is looking after a sub-post office and, by taking certain work away from her, there is likely to be considerable financial hardship, I am prepared to look at the matter, and, if possible, effect some sort of compromise to relieve her hardship. I cannot, however, agree to the principle of compensation.

    Greetings Telegrams, Korea
    Mr. Hollisasked the Postmaster-General why the cheap rate for greetings telegrams from Korea was withdrawn from British soldiers 12 hours after it had been instituted.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The notification to Korea was premature, but the special service of expeditionary Forces' messages from troops in Korea was, in fact, authorised a few days ago. The corresponding service from this country to Korea will be introduced next Monday.
    Mr. Hollis: Does that mean that the notification was premature? Does it mean that troops were told that they could have greeting telegrams when, in fact, they could not? Is this not one of a large number of very serious errors on the part of the right hon. Gentleman?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One can understand the sort of conditions under which people are having to work in Korea, and we should not unduly complain about faults of this kind in such circumstances.

  TELEPHONE SERVICE

    Operators (Pay)
    Mr. C. S. Taylorasked the Postmaster-General how much a girl under 21 years of age is paid during her time of training to become a telephone operator; what allowance is made for board and lodging; and what travel concessions are given.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The pay in London is from 49s. 6d. to 75s. 6d. a week, according to age. Civil Service negotiated scales apply to board and lodging and one free travel pass home is allowed.
    Mr. Taylor: Is any undertaking given by these trainees that they will continue in the service of the Post Office for a reasonable time?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: If we had an undertaking of that sort we could not enforce it. There is no undertaking.

    St. Paul's Cray
    Miss Hornsby-Smithasked the Postmaster-General how many applications for a telephone installation have been received from the area of the London County Council estate at St. Paul's Cray; and how many of such applications have been met.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: About 300, of which 81 have been met. In addition, five public call offices have been installed and two more are proposed.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Is the Postmaster-General aware that many of these applicants live in what are known as houses for professional classes; that they had telephones in their former residences and that it is a very great hardship to them not to be able to continue to have a telephone in their house for professional purposes at present? Is there any hope of these people being supplied with this service?
    Mr. Ness EdwardS: This is a residential area. I am well aware of the hardship caused to these people and am doing what I can, but there are limits to the laying of new cables and the installation of new equipment.
    Mr. Arthur Colegate: Can the Postmaster-General assure us that the export of telephone equipment which is much needed at home has been stopped?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: No, Sir, I cannot give that assurance.
    Mr. Colegate: Why not?

    Wembley
    Wing Commander Bullusasked the Postmaster-General how many applicants in the Borough of Wembley await the installation of telephones; and when they are likely to have this service.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: One thousand six hundred and forty in the areas served by the Wembley, Corinthian and Arnold exchanges. Most of these applications will be met after the new exchange equipment is brought into service in about four months' time.
    Mr. Harrison: Will my right hon. Friend, irrespective of the continuous pressure for telephone equipment in this country, do everything he possibly can to keep open our export market for this telephone equipment, upon which we depend so much?

    Automatic Charges Register
    Mr. Peter Freemanasked the Postmaster-General when an automatically-controlled register of charges will be available at subscribers' premises in connection with telephone calls, such as has been in operation in Switzerland for many years.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Extensive development work is necessary in this country before such registers could be operative.
    Mr. Freeman: Would the Postmaster-General consider installing some of these automatic registers on an experimental basis in different parts of the country?
    Mr. Ness Edwards: This equipment would have to be specially designed, and that is why I say that extensive development work would be necessary.

  MINE WORKERS (MEETING WITH PRIME MINISTER)
  Brigadier Raynerasked the Prime Minister whether representatives of the National Coal Board were present during his meeting with the National Union of Mine Workers on 3rd January.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Attlee): No. Sir.
  Brigadier Rayner: As, on this occasion, the right hon. Gentleman went over the head of the National Coal Board, which he appointed, does it mean that he has lost faith in that body and equally lost faith in the other nationalised undertakings?
  The Prime Minister: The hon. and gallant Member is entirely wrong. This meeting was undertaken with the full knowledge and approval of the National Coal Board.
  Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Even though this meeting took place at the request of the National Coal Board, is it not a confession, to some extent, of failure in their relations with the miners?
  The Prime Minister: Not the slightest. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that very often when difficulties have arisen meetings have been held by Prime Ministers, including my predecessor, when they desired to speak more widely to the people actually concerned. It was done in regard to the coal miners during the war, and it never showed any distrust. It was done also with the coal owners, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman was pressed then about having shown distrust of the coal owners.
  Mr. Pickthorn: How, since the National Coal Board was not to be pre-sent on this occasion, did the right hon.
  Gentleman make sure that no day-to-day matters would be raised?
  The Prime Minister: I do not quite know what the hon. Member means.
  Hon. Members: Ask the Lord President of the Council.
  The Prime Minister: I understand that the hon. Member is referring to Questions in the House of Commons.

  ARMED FORCES

    Service Men (Medical Examination)
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Defence if he is aware of the widespread concern of the inadequate medical examination given to Service men prior to demobilisation, which tends to increase the number of healthy discharge reports
    134
    and react unfavourably on subsequent applications for pension.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Strachey): I have been asked to reply. Arrangements are now in force in all three Services for a comprehensive medical survey of all officers and men to be carried out shortly before release or retirement. The result of this examination is carefuly recorded. Where, subsequently, a claim to pension arises, the applicant is examined by a Ministry of Pensions medical board, whose report, together with the applicant's Service history —including the report of the medical examination on release—and all other relevant evidence is considered before a decision is reached. Many claims succeed notwithstanding that the Service medical report records that nothing abnormal was discovered at the time it was made.
    Mr. Dodds: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there is a large amount of evidence that the scanty medical examinations have been most unjust when illness becomes obvious after discharge? Doe he not think that the only fair system is: Fit for Service, fit for pension?
    Mr. Strachey: If my hon. looks at my reply, he will see it is to the effect that the examination, which I cannot agree is scanty, before release or retirement is not the important factor in whether the claim for pension can succeed or not.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that medical examination on entering the Services is as comprehensive as he hopes to make the release examination?
    Mr. Joynson-Hicks: Was not the last sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's original reply to the effect that the examination of pensions claims shows the necessity in many cases to contradict the results of the examination when the pensioner left the Services, indicating that these examinations are quite useless? Will he see that they are properly carried out?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. My last sentence was that "many claims succeed notwithstanding that the Service medical report records that nothing abnormal was discovered at the time it was made." But we fully agree that something may develop which may be considered attributable and which may be brought out at the Ministry of Pensions medical board examination.

    Casualties, Korea
    Air Commodore Harveyasked the Minister of Defence the latest figures of British casualties in Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: The total British casualties sustained in the Korean operations up to midnight, 20th January, were 139 killed or died of wounds, 416 wounded and 258 missing. I am sure the House would wish to join with me in expressing the deep sympathy we all feel for the relatives of these men. I will, with permission, circulate a detailed state-ment in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Air Commodore Harvey: The right hon. Gentleman has said nothing about British prisoners of war. I assume that he has not received the information. Will he tell the House what representations he has made to get information on this very important subject?
    Mr. Strachey: The missing, of course, includes the prisoners-of-war figure. Unfortunately, we do not know any more details than that. As I told the House yesterday, we have very little information and very great difficulties in getting information from the North Korean authorities.
    Mr. Keeling: Does that mean that the Minister has no information that any single one of the missing are prisoners of war?
    Mr. Strachey: I should want notice of that, but we have very little.
    Captain Ryder: Has our Chargé d' Affaires in Peking been directed to take this matter up on the spot?
    Mr. Strachey: I understand that the position is that the only authorities who will make any statement are the North Korean authorities, and they have stated that they are abiding by the Geneva Convention.
    Brigadier Prior-Palmer: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the United Nations Forces are supplying the North Korean authorities with lists of prisoners captured by the South Koreans or the United Nations Forces?
    Mr. Strachey: I understand that that is being done.
    Sir Ralph Glyn: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether the figures he has
    136
    been given include British volunteers for Red Cross stretcher work, who have been captured during these operations?
    Mr. Strachey: I should like notice of that.
    Mr. Nicholson: Has the Government been in communication with the International Red Cross authorities asking them to set up an organisation in that part of the world to trace prisoners?
    Mr. Strachey: The North Korean authorities have been pressed to allow the Red Cross representatives access to prisoners of war, but without success.
    Mr. Nicholson: Pressed by whom?
    Mr. Strachey: By the United Nations authorities.
    Following is the statement:

    —

    Navy

    Army

    Officers

    Ratings and Other Ranks

    Officers

    Other Ranks

    Killed

    1

    17

    10

    84

    Died of Wounds

    —

    1

    1

    25

    Wounded

    4

    46

    26

    340

    Missing

    1

    26

    14

    217

    ROYAL AIR FORCE—Nil

    Home Defence
    Sir I. Fraserasked the Minister of Defence if he will set up a general home defence guard to be responsible for Home Guard and Civil Defence duties.
    Mr. Strachey: This proposal has been carefully considered, but I am satisfied that, on balance, it would be undesirable.
    Sir I. Fraser: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think this an impossible arrangement to go on recruiting for Civil Defence with a promise that the people concerned can, in the event of war, immediately go over to the Home Guard? Does not this whole matter require to be gone into by the Service and Home Office Ministers at highest level?
    Mr. Strachey: No, Sir. The proposal in the hon. Member's Question would amount either to militarisation of the Civil Defence services, or, on the other hand, bringing the Home Guard under

    137
    the civil authority. We see great objections to either of those courses.
    Brigadier Head: Will the right hon. Gentleman undertake to look into this matter again, because the present situation is interfering with Civil Defence recruiting and preparedness, and the Home Guard is not doing any good?
    Mr. Strachey: It has been quite clearly stated that the Home Guard will not be raised until an emergency eventuates, and I do not, therefore, see why that should interfere with Civil Defence recruiting.
    Mr. Peter Thorneycroft: Would the right hon. Gentleman say how he can describe our present condition if he does not call it an emergency?
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that one of the motives behind the proposal in this Question is that in certain parts of the country, such as the big cities, it is perhaps Civil Defence which has a priority call for part-time manpower, whereas in certain other districts in the countryside, where airborne landings could take place, the questions are more for the Home Guard?
    Mr. Strachey: That may be so, but for the moment it is Civil Defence which has the priority. That is the only force which is being raised, and for which we are appealing for recruits.

    Regulars (Extended Service)
    Mr. Profumoasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the retention of certain categories of regular Service men for the indefinite period of the present emergency, he will amend the regulations which require married members of the Forces to have a minimum of 12 months still to serve in order to qualify their wives to join them in Germany.
    Mr. Strachey: Such a concession would have to apply to all overseas theatres, and I regret that the shortage of shipping accommodation and, in some areas, of living accommodation makes it impracticable.
    Mr. Profumo: Is the Minister aware that there are many fit men who now find themselves ineligible, because, on paper, they are due to come back within 12 months but may go on serving overseas
    138
    for the duration of a very lengthy crisis? Would the Minister of Defence take action which will rectify this injustice, and either bring these men home earlier or allow their wives to join them?
    Mr. Strachey: I quite agree that a serious consideration arises here and that we will have to deal with it, but the hon. Member should await the announcement about the duration of this whole scheme.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Defence when the present embargo on the discharge of regular personnel of His Majesty's Forces will be raised.
    Mr. A. R. W. Lowasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement on the length of time during which reservists recently recalled to the Colours will be required to serve with the Colours; and the time during which Regular members of the Forces whose engagements have expired will be retained with the Colours.
    Lieut.-Commander Hutchisonasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement regarding the length of time Reservists, and men compulsorily retained in the Forces on expiration of their normal period of service, will be required to serve.
    Mr. Alportasked the Minister of Defence whether he will consider setting a definite limit to the length of time a member of His Majesty's Forces will be required to serve after having completed both Colour and Reserve service.
    Mr. Strachey: A statement on the Government's defence programme will be made next week. I anticipate that it will be possible to answer these Questions in that statement.

    Korea (Press Censorship, Regulations)
    Mr. Edelmanasked the Minister of Defence what form of censorship is exercised over the reports of war correspondents from Korea.
    Mr. Strachey: I would refer my hon. Friend to the reply which my right hon. Friend the Minister of Defence gave yesterday to my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. Driberg) and my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood).
    Mr. Edelman: While fully recognising the need for censorship on security grounds, is it not the case that the present censorship in Korea is far more stringent and comprehensive than a comparable form of censorship during the Second World War? Will my right hon. Friend consult with the Supreme Commander to modify this censorship and enable the present trickle of news to become normal?
    Mr. Strachey: We are considering these matters, but I think that the degree of censorship to be exercised must be the responsibility of the United Nations authorities on the spot.

    Class Z Reservists (Recall)
    Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewingasked the Minister of Defence whether in calling up the Z and equivalent reservists, he will adopt the principle of calling first those reservists with the shortest service; and what arrangements he will make to exempt those reservists working on rearmament projects.
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now make a statement with regard to the recall of Class Z reservists.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenterasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement as to the recall to service of Class Z reservists.
    Mr. Nigel Fisherasked the Minister of Defence if he will make a statement regarding the recall of Class Z reservists, indicating the numbers required; the conditions, including length and terms of service; and the principles upon which selection will be based.
    Mr. Hollisasked the Minister of Defence whether he is yet prepared to make a statement about the proposed call up of members of Z reserve.
    Mr. Hugh Fraserasked the Minister of Defence what is the Government's intention as to the calling up of Class Z reservists and the military or other mobilisation of those who wrongfully avoided military service in World War II.
    Mr. Strachey: I invite hon. Members to await the statement on the Government's defence programme to be made next week.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: When working out this arrangement would the right hon.
    140
    Gentleman ensure that a tribunal is set up which may consider, in the national interests, whether it is advisable for a man to be called up or whether he should go on working on the re-armament projects on which he is engaged at present?
    Mr. Strachey: All those detailed considerations had better await the comprehensive statement.
    Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Can the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that the statement to be made will deal explicitly with the Government's intentions in regard to the Z reservists?
    Mr. Strachey: It will deal with the matters mentioned in the Questions.
    Mr. Harmar Nicholls: In view of the need to build up an effective Civil Defence force would the Minister consider making a statement whereby the Z reservists aged at least 40 or 37 years would be exempt from call in the first 12 months of hostilities, provided they are members of the Civil Defence service?
    Mr. Strachey: The hon. Gentleman had better await the statement.

    Troops, Europe (Command)
    Mr. Eric Fletcherasked the Minister of Defence if he will publish the text of the letter in which he has placed the British troops in Europe under the command of an American general.
    Mr. Strachey: The text of my right hon. Friend's letter to the Chairman of the North Atlantic Council has already been released for publication and I am circulating a copy in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Fletcher: May we take it that that does not diminish in any way the responsibility of Ministers to this House?
    Mr. Strachey: Not the legal constitutional responsibility, but it is an arrangement whereby certain British Forces are under the command of General Eisenhower.
    Mr. Bellenger: Can my right hon. Friend say whether the same arrangements are being made as were made during the last war for courts martial, discipline and other matters of that nature, having regard to the fact that British

    141
    soldiers will be placed under American command?
    Mr. Strachey: Our Forces will retain their code of discipline, their commanders will have courts-martial warrants and confirming powers, and the normal processes laid down in the Army Act will operate.
    Following is a copy of the letter:
    1st January, 1951.
    "DEAR MR. MINISTER,
    Following the approval by the North Atlantic Council, which met under your Excellency's Chairmanship in Brussels on 18th and 19th December, 1950, of the Report on the Creation of an Integrated Force for the Defence of Western Europe, including the appointment of a Supreme Commander, Europe, I am authorised by His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom to confirm that they welcome wholeheartedly the appointment of General of the Army, Dwight D. Eisenhower, as Supreme Commander, Europe, and will take immediate steps, in accordance with the arrangements set out in the Report, to bring under his command those Forces which they propose to allocate to the Integrated Forces.
    Yours sincerely,
    (Signed) E. SHINWELL.
    His Excellency Monsieur PAUL VAN ZEELAND."

    Manpower (Organisation)
    Mr. Nigel Fisherasked the Minister of Defence if he will review the use of manpower in the Service Departments in order to make more men available for active service.
    Mr. Strachey: The Service Ministers are keenly alive to the importance of organising the manpower at their disposal in such a way as to achieve the greatest military effect.
    Mr. Fisher: In that case, would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the latest figures indicate that there is one man at the War Office for every 10 soldiers, one at the Air Ministry for every eight airmen, and one at the Admiralty for every four sailors? Does he regard that as satisfactory? Does he not think that the many Service personnel at desk jobs could be relieved, and the work given to Civil Service clerks, who would do it just as efficiently and at rather lower cost to the public?
    Mr. Strachey: The degree to which civilians are employed on these tasks has been constantly extended. This matter has been very carefully considered by the staffs concerned in all three Departments.

BILL PRESENTED
  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  "to provide that any power which is or was conferred on the Board of Trade by the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, or by the Export Guarantees Acts, 1939 to 1948. to give guarantees to or for the benefit of a person shall be taken to extend and have extended to the giving to him of certain similar undertakings in relation to the business of any company controlled by him, and to the giving of guarantees and undertakings to or for the benefit of any such company," presented by Mr. Harold Wilson; supported by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mr. Bottomley; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 59.]
BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTION
  FOOD SUPPLIES (CLEANLINESS)
  Dr. Broughton: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for the cleaner handling of food, and move a Resolution.
  COMMONWEALTH AND EMPIRE PROBLEMS
  Squadron Leader Kinghorn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for a permanent body to be created to consider the problems affecting the countries of the Commonwealth and the Colonial Empire, and move a Resolution.
  COAL (UTILISATION)
  Mr. Blackburn: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 2nd February, I shall call attention to the need for urgent measures to be taken for more efficient coal utilisation throughout industry, and move a Resolution.
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Read the Third time, and passed.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) [MONEY]
Resolution reported,
"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the law in regard to the protection of salmon and freshwater fish in Scotland, including the whole of the River Tweed, and for purposes connected therewith, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under the said Act."
Resolution agreed to.

SALMON AND FRESHWATER FISHERIES (PROTECTION) (SCOTLAND) BILL
Considered in Committee.
[Major MILNER in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(PROHIBITION OF POACHING.)
3.35 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out "ten," and to insert "five."
During the Second Reading of the Bill, much sympathy was expressed for the individual who has been described as the traditional poacher. It may or may not have been very wise to express some of the sentiments that were then expressed. but they can be excused because the issues raised by the Bill would not have cropped up had the Bill followed a somewhat different pattern.
If we take what would be regarded as the serious view of the Committee, there will be general agreement that any person who fishes in waters, to which legal access may be obtained for a small payment, without first obtaining the necessary permit, is deserving of being treated as a law breaker and of suffering the appropriate penalty. The issue which is raised here is not of the penalty but the extent of the penalty proposed in the
144
Bill. It may be claimed that the payments that have to be made by those who desire to fish for salmon are in many cases very small indeed, and do not provide any reasonable excuse to an individual for not availing himself of a permit. It is true that the cost of a permit may be small in some cases, but it is not true that it is always small.
Take, for example, the river Machrie on the west side of Arran. The charge is £40 per month for the right to fish for salmon. Take the river Awe, bounded by the old Breadalbane estates; the charge is 100 guineas per month. The fisheries at Gatehouse of Fleet in the Solway are owned by the Forestry Commission. The charge there is £1,000 per year. Those are examples.
Major McCallum: May 1 interrupt the hon. Gentleman? I think he is slightly misinformed. The Breadalbane estates own no fishing grounds.
Mr. Rankin: I am sorry if I did not make the point quite clear. I did not say that they owned fishing grounds. I referred to that portion of the river bounded by the estates.
Major McCallum: There are no estates.
Mr. Rankin: Well, the old ones, where the fishing rights have been let out to an individual who is now charging 100 guineas per month.
The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I really cannot see the relevance of these figures to the present question, which is the simple one of reducing the proposed fine from £10 to £5. I hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members—
Mr. Rankin: Further to that—
The Chairman: Order. 1 hope that the hon. Member and other hon. Members will do what they can to expedite business on this Bill because I am afraid that it may otherwise take a very long time indeed.
Mr. Manuel: Surely the point made by my hon. Friend has a bearing on the case. If fishing facilities are prohibited by price it is an inducement to those who cannot afford the price to fish illegally.
Mr. Rankin: That was the point that I was trying to establish, that under this Clause we are seeking to increase the penalty which is imposed on the person whom we regard as the traditional poacher, and at the same time, because of the prohibitive charges for the right of fishing, we are providing an incentive to an individual to poach; and we are giving currency and substance to the further charges that the salmon fisheries in Scotland today are nothing but a well organised ramp.
Another point which is being made is that we must increase the penalties on the traditional poacher because in many cases the individual who uses the rod and line is part of a gang; that is, the commercial spivs are using not merely the devices referred to in other parts of the Bill but attachments to the ordinary rod and line which bring them into the category of gangsters. My point on that is that we could quite well cover our purpose by bringing these individuals into Clause 4 (c), which covers the use of electrical devices, by amending it to read:
"…electrical or any other devices."
That would bring those people within the scope of a much greater penalty than the one which we propose to inflict under this Clause.
To substantiate my case, I submit that under the Bill big advantages are being given to the present owners of fishing rights. The Bill emphasises their ownership of the salmon, whereas the salmon actually belongs only to the person who catches the fish. I agree that we have to take precautions and some measure of control in the interests of the nation on that aspect. At the same time, in view of the advantages which are given to one section of the community, we should not impose steeper penalties on the single rod and line expert who for good and sufficient reasons may not have written permission but may have had verbal permission from the owner of the rights.
3.45 p.m.
Brigadier Thorp: I feel that the Title of the Bill itself. the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill, makes nonsense of the Amendment. The object of the Bill is to protect the salmon from illegal taking while it is in the river
146
or the mouth of the river, and it is no good saying that there are traditional poachers and that we should be kind to them. It makes nonsense of the Bill to put forward that sort of thing—
Mr. Rankin: I thank the hon. and gal-lant Gentleman for giving way to me. When I used the term "traditional poacher" I was simply borrowing a phrase which was much used during the Second Reading. I was not seeking to justify these people. Brigadier Thorp: That makes the Amendment even more stupid because I do not know whom the hon. Member Is trying to help. The Bill lays down, probably rightly, that the fine for taking fish without written permission should be £10, and for some reason the hon. Member thinks that that should be reduced to £5. He brought in a certain amount of clap-trap about improving the position of the owners of fishing and all that, but 1 cannot see that he has made any point in support of his Amendment.
Mr. William Ross: I do not see how it follows that because the Title of the Bill is the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Protection (Scotland) Bill it makes nonsense of the Amendment. It would make nonsense if the Amendment ruled out altogether any penalty for poaching. What we seek to do in the Amendment is to ensure that the existing penalty of £5 shall not be increased. No reason was given on Second Reading or in the speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Berwick - upon - Tweed (Brigadier Thorp) why the penalty should be increased. Hon. Members should realise that the Bill has not arisen because of the traditional type of poaching. It is all very well for the hon. and gallant Member to smile, but he should look at the Report of the Maconochie Committee on Poaching and Illegal Fishing of Salmon and Trout in Scotland, upon which the Bill is based. It says that the Committee's terms of reference were:
"…to enquire into the prevalence of the illegal taking or killing of salmon and trout"—
a very important part—
"by methods which may cause serious damage to fish stocks.…"
If he will read the Report he will find

147
that what was causing concern was commercial poaching by people taking not an odd fish but hundreds of fish and hundreds of pounds worth of fish, and. quite apart from that, spoiling all the fish that remained.
Brigadier Thorp: If the hon. Member feels so strongly about it why does he not seek to remove the penalty altogether?
Mr. Ross: Not at all. 1 do not see why we should remove the penalty altogether, and I see no reason why we should double the penalty from £5 to £10. Whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman likes it or not, during the Second Reading debate the Secretary of State for Scotland talked about the "respectable poacher." The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) followed suit and called attention to the fact that people would be fined £2, £3 or £4 and not the maximum of £10. If that is the case, why increase the penalty to £10?
The Lord Advocate suggested that we were taking out of the Report of the Maconochie Committee the parts that suited us, but we are taking out of that Report the parts to which their terms of reference directly related. They were not asked to consider the effect on the ordinary type of poacher at all. Even there, however, when they did suggest penalties, they suggested a comprehensive class of penalties, with a maximum of £50. to deal with the small offenders as well as with the big ones, leaving it to the magistrates to decide. I do not see any reason why we should consider that the ordinary poacher is destroying in some new and desperate way the stocks of salmon, and it would be better to leave the penalty as it is. For that reason I support the Amendment.
Mr. Gerald Williams: I am sure all Members of the Committee know that a great deal of commercial poaching is going on through rod and line. People talk in friendly terms of the traditional poacher, and we all have a soft heart for the chap who has an occasional day's fishing. But no form of poaching should be looked upon with favour in this House. There are many people going out with rod and line to reconnoitre the
148
pools so that, when the gangsters come along, they know what stones not to trip over, where the fish lie, and how to get them. Both are there under the guise of rod and line fishermen and if somebody comes along, they say, "Sorry old chap, we have mistaken the water. We are out for an honest day's fishing" The hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) shakes his head—
Mr. Rankin: Do I take it, from the line of argument that the hon. Gentleman is following, that he is against the distinctions laid down in the Bill? Does he propose to remove all the distinctions and submit all the poachers to the same penalties?
Mr. Williams: If the hon. Member wants to make a distinction between poachers, I would remind him that this is a maximum fine. So, if a harmless man is caught, he can get away with 10s., but if the authorities want to stamp upon somebody who is doing it in a more spiteful and bitter way, they can fine him £10.
Mr. Ross rose—
Mr. Williams: There are so many of these people that they probably get a considerable amount of fish. They go out in parties, they have their scouts out, and in many cases when somebody has come along, they have used violence and gone so far as to throw him in the water. Surely a fine of £10 is not too much for people like that?
Another thing is that they take in their pockets small, often home-made, explosives, so small that they can hardly be seen. They put these in the river and kill a great many of the small fish—the large fish of the future. They also injure the fish going up to breed, and that do this under the guise of being rod and line fishermen. It is an old trick, when the water is clear and the fish can be seen lying there, to throw in a little weight with three hooks arranged round it to snatch the fish. That can be done easily under the guise of rod and line fishing. With the price of fish going up, the temptation to fish commercially with rod and line is increased. Surely, therefore, it is only right that the fine should go up? Finally, I ask hon. Members to remember that it is only a maximum.
The Lord Advocate (Mr. John Wheatley): It might be for the convenience of the Committee if at this stage I recall to the attention of hon. Members the pattern of this Bill, because this Amendment seems to me to have been taken in isolation without having regard to the other provisions of the Bill.
We seek in this Bill to classify offences according to their nature, with a rising scale of penalties in accordance with the nature of the offence. This Clause deals with fishing for salmon without permission. The next Clause deals with fishing for salmon or freshwater fish by illegal methods. We then deal with the case of two or more persons, the gang, who commit an offence against the first or second Clauses of the Bill. And then we deal with the methods of fishing which are obnoxious to all of us, the use of explosives and noxious substances, with a rising scale of penalties in that order.
We are dealing here with the person who fishes without legal permission. It would be wrong to assume that we are dealing only with the individual who goes down to the river to take one for his own pot, because experience has shown us that, at least in certain quarters, there is the threat of the person going down and catching the salmon and perhaps selling it to the local hotel keeper. We have to try to envisage all the types of cases that will fall within the ambit of the Clause, and in these circumstances it seems to me that increasing the maximum penalty—and I reiterate the point that it is a maximum penalty—is perfectly justified, particularly having regard to some other factors.
The figure at present is £5 but, as I pointed out on Second Reading, that figure was fixed as far back as 1844. If we are re-enacting the law now in 1951, it seems to me that a maximum fine of £10 in 1951 is not disproportionate to a maximum fine of £5 in 1844. If we look at it from the point of view of the effect on what has been referred to as the legitimate poacher, and if we think of what the maximum fine of £5 would be in 1844 in relation to his wages then as compared to the maximum fine now of £10 in comparison with his wages at the present day, then again there is much less disparity between his wages and the maximum fine now than there was in 1844.
150
Now pressure is being brought to bear on us from both sides of the Committee because some of the subsequent Amendments suggest that we should make the penalties under this Clause more stringent. Here we confine the right of forfeiture to the fish found in the possession of the poacher. Moreover, as I pointed out on Second Reading, we do not, as is sometimes customary, make more severe penalties available for a second and subsequent offence. In this Clause we have tried to strike a balance between the two, having regard to the fact that here we shall he dealing with the individual who fishes without legal authority and that he may be a person who is either fishing for his own pot or for the pot of somebody else. Having regard to these factors we felt that it was a justification for increasing the maximum fine to £10.
I trust that any sympathy which may be felt for the person who has been described as the traditional or legitimate poacher will not obscure the view of the Committee to our sense of responsibility in finding an appropriate sentence to deal with this offence. On that note I ask my hon. Friends to reconsider the position, and I ask the Committee to accept the Clause as it stands.
4.0 p.m.
Mr. Carmichael: It would be very wrong for us on this side to allow that speech by the Lord Advocate to go unchallenged. He said that we must not overlook the intention behind the Bill because of some sympathy which there may be with the ordinary poacher. From what he has said, the Lord Advocate seems to have three different types of person in mind: first, someone from his family going down to the river to get a salmon; next, the poacher, who may feel that he can make a deal with the local hotel; and then, the organised gang.
On examining the report of the Maconochie Committee and the Bill, we are bound to recognise that the Bill was introduced primarily because of the organised gangs. But for this reason there would have been no suggestion of a Bill to protect salmon. We are entitled, therefore, to ask whether anything has happened with salmon fishing to show that the person who is described as the "ordinary" poacher has increased in number. Is there now a spate of these

151
people, and have the courts been overrun by them in the last few years? If there is evidence of any extension of this kind of poaching or of supplies for local hotels, then we are entitled to hear it, but I know of no evidence to justify the introduction of the Clause to deal with those two classes other than the organised gangs.
It may be argued that, technically, the Clause will apply to organised gangs, but in actual fact they will be dealt with under Clause 4. There is no justification, therefore, for the Clause. There is not a single Amendment to reduce the amount of the fines against the so-called organised gangs. If the Lord Advocate is arguing on a wage basis, there would be room for a whole lot of new Bills to make things hard for the ordinary people.
What the ordinary poacher is doing is, at worst, to commit an offence by trying to steal salmon from the rivers. That is not a very serious offence nowadays when we are thinking in terms of changing the whole social order under a Labour Government. It will be clearly realised by hon. Members on this side that at the same time as the poacher is committing that offence, we are strengthening the power of the people who own the land and the rivers. I never thought that a Labour Government, in the present serious situation of the world, would spend a day attempting to strengthen the power of the landlord against the wee innocent poacher from the village. That is what is happening.
As far as the £10 fine is concerned, what we should be doing is to argue that it should be higher for the gangsters and easier for the small poacher. We have been reasonable enough to say that because the Bill has been introduced and we are prepared to help in attacking the gangster groups, the limit should be £5 for the ordinary man. Since it has been argued on earlier occasions that the sheriff very rarely imposes a fine of more than £1 or £2, why should there be all this trouble over £10?
I have been advised that a sheriff who was recently trying a case in the South said that had the new Bill been in operation as intended, he would have imposed the maximum penalty. I am a little afraid of some of the sheriffs in Scotland, because not only are most of them good
152
anglers, but some of them own a good deal of the rivers.
The Lord Advocate: Nonsense. What evidence has my hon. Friend of that? He has made a statement which reflects upon the judiciary on Scottish benches, and to which I take great exception. If my hon. Friend is making that accusation I hope he will either adduce evidence to support it or withdraw it.
Mr. Carmichael: What accusation have I made? My right hon. and learned Friend assumes that I am going to make one.
The Lord Advocate: No.
Mr. Carmichael: Then what is the accusation I have made? Is it an accusation to say that a sheriff owns a river?
The Lord Advocate: In its context, it was.
Mr. Carmichael: I have made no accusations against any sheriffs. I made my remarks in that way so that I should not ruffle the tempers of the landlords on the benches opposite. [Interruption.] Most of the people on this side are associated with the mean poacher. I have said nothing against anybody who sits in the courts. All I have done is to say I had been advised that a sheriff had said that he would apply the maximum penalty, whereas it is very rare for them to impose even as much as £5.
We think that the maximum fine should remain at £5. We desire neither to reduce nor increase that figure, which we think is a reasonable proposition. The important point is that the Bill was introduced to deal with organised gangs. That being so, £5 is a reasonable maximum against the ordinary poacher who, if he does not have written consent, can be dealt with in this way. If he belongs to an organised gang, then written consent does not matter and he will be dealt with under Clause 4.
Mr. James Stuart: I rise for only a short period to pour oil, and not poison, on these troubled waters. I should like the Bill to be agreed to in its present form as far as the point under discussion is concerned. As the Lord Advocate has said, the raising of the fine to £10 is its first change since 1844. It

153
is a very reasonable proposition. I hope that the Committee will agree to it and that we need not continue to argue about this. The great majority of us want the Bill and to get on with it. The provisions of the Clause are perfectly reasonable after over 100 years without any alteration in the law.
It might be as well if some of the hon. Members who have spoken realised that the Bill is not intended to protect landlords, as the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) seemed to suggest that it was, and is not intended to protect the poacher, which is the impression which people might get from listening to some of the debate on Second Reading and again today. Nor is it intended to protect the sheriffs. It is devised purely and simply to protect the stocks of salmon and to see that this source of wealth and value to our country of Scotland is not damaged or ruined for the future.
There are a great many Amendments on the Order Paper. I hope we shall be able to progress and that the Committee will agree that the suggestion contained in the Clause is not unreasonable. It is in fact less than was suggested in the Maconochie Report—
Mr. Carmichael: No.
Mr. Stuart: This applies to the single poacher. It would be a pity if we were to continue referring to him as a "legitimate" poacher. It would be very difficult to say that there could be, for instance, a legitimate murderer or housebreaker. If we are to adhere to the rule of law we must try to carry out the law, and I think that the proposition put forward by the Government is reasonable.
Several Hon. Members rose—
The Chairman: I hope the Committee will come to a decision now. We have had a reasonable debate and there are many Amendments on the Order Paper.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I do not intend going beyond the Amendment and I do not wish to pit my brains and experience in the legal sphere against those of my right hon. Friends. But to say that because there has been no change in the penalty since 1844, while money values have fallen, it is reasonable now to double it is a dangerous argument.
154
We would justify many cases well outside the poaching law for revision upwards on that basis. Who knows what the maximum fines might be imposed over a very wide field using that argument?
Mr. Stuart: One cannot do much more than hang a man.
Mr. MacMillan: Hon. Members opposite should remember that landlords did exactly that in the past. At one time it was so dangerous for a man to exercise his natural right to take a salmon that he could be hanged for it. In 1884, when the Crofters Commission was set up against the wishes of the Government, it was in order to protect the crofters against landlords. [An HON. MEMBER: "That is the wrong year."] I am quite sure the hon. Member opposite would have been much more at home politically 100 years ago than he is today.
I understood the Secretary of State to give an assurance that if this Amendment were pressed, he would not oppose the reduction to £5. If that assurance were given, or strongly implied, it is a serious thing to go back on it when it is obvious that many hon. Members do feel that the penalty should be kept at £5 as a maximum and not increased to £10. I should be sorry indeed if the Secretary of State were to go back on that as I think the assurance was given.
The Lord Advocate: Will my hon. Friend quote the passage?
Mr. MacMillan: I cannot quote the passage but I am offering an opportunity to my right hon. Friend, who is much better equipped than I am, to contradict me if I am wrong. Most of us wanted this Bill specifically because it was an attack on the commercial gangs and not upon the individual salmon poacher who goes out and takes a salmon for his own use. To bring in the hotel people is only to point out a weakness in the Bill. The person who tempts the poacher and buys from him will get off scot-free. The hotel keeper will not be punished at all; the poacher alone will be punished. Do not let us use the hotel people against the traditional poacher, or the legitimate poacher, or whatever we like to call him. Let us remember that many local poachers themselves want to suppress the spiv gangs which are operating against their interests.
The Chairman: The hon. Member is going too wide in this debate. These questions have no near relationship to the simple question of the reduction of the fine. Hotel keepers do not come within that question.
Mr. MacMillan: I am sorry, Major Milner, but, far from pressing the matter too far, I would point out that all these things are in notes I have taken as other hon. Members were speaking. The hotel keeper was mentioned as a reason why the fine should be increased. My right hon. and learned Friend referred to the increase in the fine in relation to the cost of living having gone up and other things, and I do not think I have gone very widely beyond what should be said. The Bill was designed and supported by us on this side of the Committee as an attack on commercial gangs and not on the small local man taking a salmon for his own table, and I hope the Committee will support the Amendment so that the fine will be kept down to £5. Sheriffs usually impose a fine of £2, possibly £3, or £4, but seldom £5.
4.15 p.m.
Mr. Rankin: I am deeply disappointed that this Amendment did not receive the support from my right hon Friends which, rightly or wrongly, like my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan), I imagined they would give to it. However, we have made our protest—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] Oh, it is still open.
Amendment negatived.
The Chairman: The next Amendment, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "pounds," to end of Clause, is in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson). Perhaps the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) would address any remarks he wishes to make on the Amendment in his name, in page 1, line 14, at end insert:
"and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed"
to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Dumfries, as the two Amendments appear to be the same in effect.
Mr. Stuart: The Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) is of a limiting character, whereas the Amendment in my name rather extends the Clause. I do not
156
object to speaking on that Amendment, but it seems to me that they have an entirely different object.
The Chairman: I am assuming that they evidently have, the same object—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—and tend to apply Clause 17 and not to provide a separate forfeiture in respect of a separate offence.
Mr. Niall Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, to leave out from "pounds," to the end of the Clause.
If I may say so, you have correctly interpreted the intention of my Amendment, Major Milner. At first sight one would suppose that the person who took the fish would be permitted to remain in possession of it, but, if hon. Members turn to Clause 17 they will see that:
"Any person who is convicted of an offence against this Act in respect of which no provision for any forfeiture is expressly made shall be liable to the forfeiture of any fish illegally taken by him or in his possession at the time of the offence, and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed."
This Amendment is intended to leave the law as it is at present in that it is possible for the courts to order the forfeiture of the rod and tackle. That is under the Act of 1844, which says:
"and it shall he lawful for any Person employed in the Execution of this Act to seize and detain all Fish so taken, and all Boats, Tackle, Nets and other Engines so used. …"
That apparently is how the law stands at present. Unless an Amendment is made in some such form as that which I suggest it will not be possible for a water bailiff to seize the rod of a poacher under Clause 10 (1, d) if he finds a poacher on the water.
It seems extraordinary that in the face of the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee the Government should have seen fit so to reduce the penalty, because even though they are increasing the maximum fine from £5 to £10 it would seem that the penalty is being reduced if the rod and tackle are not to be subject to forfeiture. In page 9, paragraph 22 of their Report, the Maconochie Committee say:
"We are therefore strongly of the opinion that the existing maximum penalties require to be greatly increased so as to hear a direct relation to the present day circumstances."
Surely it is especially important, now that the Government intend to try to keep a

157
careful record of catches, that they should make quite certain that the amount of poaching by rod and line is reduced to a minimum; otherwise they can have no kind of accurate record of the takings from any particular river.
In addition, there is the fact that anyone who is poaching for salmon is frequently apt to say that he is only fishing for brown trout. If the rod is not subject to seizure it will simply mean that the only person who can give the evidence against him will not have the rod on which to base, that evidence. As the Bill now stands the evidence of one man is not sufficient in this case. It will simply be a case of the evidence of one person against that of another as to whether the accused person was fishing for brown trout or salmon—
The Chairman: The hon. Gentleman must confine himself to the terms of the Amendment. It is a simple question of whether the words giving power of forfeiture in this specific instance shall be included in the Bill or not. The question of brown trout or even of instruments does not arise on the Amendment.
Mr. Macpherson: I was only putting forward an argument to show how necessary it was to enable the rod not only to be forfeited if necessary but also seized. Unless that can be done I conceive that it will be even more difficult than at present to secure convictions for poaching. That is one of the reasons why I suggest to the Lord Advocate that this Amendment should be accepted.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman at least owes it to the Committee to tell us why the Government have seen fit to remove a penalty which at present exists. It seems to be an important consideration because any sportsman—and poachers no doubt consider themselves sportsmen—probably attaches at least as much value to his own rod as to anything else, and the sacrifice of that would in many cases weigh more with him than would a considerable fine. The Committee has to make up its mind whether it wishes poaching to be minimised or not. If so it must provide a sufficient deterrent, and the mere deterrent of a £10 fine without the forfeiture of the rod and tackle also is inadequate.
Mr. Stuart: I think that I am now beginning to understand my hon. Friend's
158
Amendment. If I am correct I support it, because I agree with him entirely in saying that the forfeiture of the rod and gear would be one of the best deterrents.
Mr. Carmichael: May I raise the point that this part of the Bill deals exclusively with fish, although I know that another Clause is to be introduced?
Mr. Stuart: I have on the Order Paper an Amendment which deals with gear, and I am attempting to speak about that Amendment. I will try to make myself clear. As I said, I think that that deterrent is one of the best ways of stopping poaching, if that is our desire and intention. Prevention is the best form of cure, and I should have thought that if the fear of the poacher included the fear of the possible loss of his rod or gear it might act as an effective form of deterrent.
It would, of course, operate only in appropriate cases. As an hon. Member opposite said earlier, we all know that the fines are maximum. In cases before the sheriff fines vary from £1 to £2, £3 or £4, but in the case of the hardened poacher the fear that he might forfeit his gear would be a very effective way of attempting to stop the poaching with which we are dealing. I was interested in a letter which appeared in the "Scotsman" on 5th January, in which it is stated:
"Under the Bill the 'decent' poacher"—
the word "decent" is not his own word, he is quoting from HANSARD—
"will be better off on conviction than he is under the law as it stands. His rod and relative gear will no longer be liable to forfeiture."
I hope that the Lord Advocate will give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) and to my own Amendment because I hope that all of us have the same object in view. I think that if my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has expounded the matter accurately, as I am sure he has done, what he has suggested is what we ought to aim at. I hope that the Government will agree with us.
The Lord Advocate: May I preface my remarks by supporting the view that the result of the two Amendments would be exactly the same? There seems to be a certain dubiety about it in the minds of some of my hon. Friends. If the Amend-

159
ment moved by the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) were carried the provisions of Clause 17, the general forfeiture Clause, would automatically be attracted, whereas by dealing specifically in this Clause with a method of forfeiture the provisions of Clause 17 are expressly excluded. Both Amendments seek to bring within the Clause the penalty of forfeiture not only in respect of fish but of all implements used in obtaining the fish which are dealt with under the Clause. Therefore, they deal with exactly the same point.
I should again like to remind the Committee that although we have departed from the recommendations of the Maconochie Committee, we have done so in the effort to build up a structure of offences under the Bill. When the Maconochie Committee made their recommendations they were dealing with general penalties which would include not only the particular type of offence envisaged in this Clause but those in some of the other Clauses which deal with what is regarded as a graver offence. And when we split up the nature of the offence we have, I submit, correspondingly to split up the nature of the penalties; and that is the genesis of the alteration which we seek to make in the existing law.
4.30 p.m.
May I point out again to the Committee that it is only the individual person who would be caught by this, and, as I see it, only the individual person using rod and line. Because if he is fishing without legal permission, and he is fishing by any means other than net and coble, he is committing an offence against Clause 2; and Clause 2 attracts the general forfeiture provision of Clause 17. If he is fishing without legal permission and using net and coble, as I understand this process at least two persons are required to be involved in the operation. In those circumstances the provisions of Clause 3 would be attracted and again the penalties under Clause 3 attract general forfeiture. So, by a process of elimination, we find that the only person with whom we are dealing so far as forfeiture is concerned is the person fishing by rod and line.
Sir David Robertson: I think the Lord Advocate is wrong in the submission he is making.
160
There are numerous single poachers in Scotland. They have been prosecuted on the North and South Esk, and the only means by which these men can be penalised under this Bill is under Clause 1. In addition, there are men who operate hung nets on the estuary of the Tay; men going out ostensibly to fish for white fish, whereas in fact they are fishing for salmon by putting an illegal net, a weighted net, across the flow. For that reason I would urge the Lord Advocate to give way on these two Amendments.
The Lord Advocate: In the first place I was just giving an historical review; I had not come to the rest of my argument. Secondly, as I understand the operation described by the hon. Gentleman with regard to the hung net, it would be a contravention of Clause 2 of the Bill. It is not net and coble and therefore it is an illegal method of fishing, and accordingly an offence under Clause 2. As I see it, we are dealing with a fisherman who is fishing without written permission by means of rod and line. In those circumstances we feel that to make the rod subject to forfeiture might result in a penalty disproportionate to the offence.
As I said in answer to the previous Amendment, we were getting pressure from both sides. Some people were saying we were being too lenient, and others that we were really imposing too high a penalty. We have tried to effect what we regard as a reasonable compromise. Having regard to the fact that the really serious lawbreakers are all embraced by other Clauses of the Bill, and on conviction under those Clauses forfeiture certainly is open to the court, in dealing with the single rod and line fisherman fishing without legal permission, it would be disproportionate to enable the court to forfeit the rod and line which, I am informed, might be a very expensive instrument. It would result in a penalty against the person far beyond that envisaged under the Clause.
Having regard to the fact that we have stepped up the maximum penalty, hon. Gentlemen opposite will see, in a spirit of sweet reasonableness, that this, against the background I have described, is probably a fair and proper burden for the type of offence we are trying to deal with in this Bill.
Brigadier Thorp: There is one point which I should like cleared up. It is the

161
point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) when speaking on his Amendment, about the production of the rod at a court. Will there be any method of producing the rod and line if it is not to he confiscated? I think that point is very relevant and important. There are many cases where the evidence is produced only by producing the rod and line.
The Lord Advocate: It seems to me to be a question of circumstances in each case. In my opinion it would not be necessary to produce the rod and line to prove that a man was fishing without legal permission. The evidence of witnesses who said they saw him there, allied to the evidence that there was no written permission given to the individual to fish, would be sufficient to warrant a conviction. As the only issue under the Clause is fishing without written permission, the production of the rod and line would not be necessary to secure a conviction.
Mr. Ross: Considering that I opposed the raising of the penalty originally, it will not come as any surprise that I am opposing this Amendment. My point is that the definition of illegal fishing with rod and line, and the types of persons doing it who would be brought under this Clause, is far too wide for us to accept the general penalty brought forward, first by the Government and now by the Opposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Ayrshire, Centre (Mr. Manuel), received a very interesting letter from the Ayrshire Angling Association which I think has a considerable bearing upon this point. The Secretary and Treasurer of the Association writes:
"… I consider the £10 rather a vicious penalty to impose on a rod and line angler who may be fishing quite fairly. Obviously a man may be fishing with permission, in a pool"—
and this is the important point—
"hook a salmon, and be taken downstream—or upstream—beyond his 'march' while playing the fish. It appears to me that under the proposed terms of the Bill he will then be liable to the £10 penalty."
The writer then objects very much to that. I think he will object very much more if this really respectable fisherman is to be subjected to the forfeiture of his rod and line.
Mr. G. Williams: Would it ever happen?
Mr. Ross: It is all very well for an hon. Gentleman from an English constituency to say it would never happen, but it does happen and I consider that the Secretary of the Ayrshire Angling Association is much more conversant with what does happen in Ayrshire.
Brigadier Thorp: Just a fishing story!
Mr. Ross: I suggest that the Lord Advocate is quite right in digging in his heels on these Amendments.
Captain Duncan: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) referred to this as a "vicious penalty." It has been the law since 1844 and I do not see the point of his remark that it is a vicious penalty. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to look it up I would refer him to Section 31 of the 1868 Act.
Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not suggesting that because a thing has been law for a certain time it would not be a vicious penalty?
Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman was trying to make out that the Amendment of my hon. Friend was increasing the penalty and therefore it was a vicious penalty. There is no suggestion of that at all. The point of my hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend is the re-imposition of the law as it has stood since 1844 in connection with the forfeiture of gear.
The Lord Advocate talked about this, referring only to the single fisherman, fishing without permission with rod and line. I should like to ask him how much he knows about poaching?
Mr. Manuel: How much does the hon. and gallant Member know`?
Captain Duncan: There are extremely efficient fishermen fishing singly, with a single rod and line illegally, and catching enormous numbers of fish.
The Lord Advocate: They are fishing illegally by methods not provided for in Clause 2, and therefore in contravention of Clause 2, and accordingly their instruments are liable to forfeiture.
Captain Duncan: That is the point I am trying to get at. If that is so let me give one instance. Some of these fellows are extremely adept at this game.

163
Suppose a man has three hooks and bits of lead attached to the appropriate points on the line—
Mr. Manuel: Not only the poachers.
Captain Duncan: The hon. Gentleman knows how to do it. Everyone does. Perhaps we might have some expert evidence from him later. Suppose a man has three hooks and bits of lead at the appropriate places on his line and he is at a nice pool where he can see the fish. He can cast over the fish and foul-hook them. Some of these people can do that with 100 per cent. efficiency. Is that illegal fishing within the terms of Clause 2 or not? It appears to me that in a court of law, without the production not so much of the rod but of the bait and line, it would be impossible to prove that the man was fishing illegally. Unless we can have a clear explanation on that point, this Amendment ought to be pressed to a Division so that we can ensure that the present law is continued.
The Lord Advocate: Manifestly, if a man was suspected of foul-hooking a fish, or of using any other illegal method which would be a contravention of Clause 2 under which forfeiture of the rod and line is competent, the water bailiffs would have power under Clause 10 to seize the rod and line, and eventually it would be produced in court. I cannot see the difficulty which the hon. and gallant Gentleman envisages.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: It is all the more important, in view of what the Lord Advocate has said, that the instrument should be readily available for production in the sheriff court. If the water bailiff is able to get hold of the instrument, whether it is a rod or line or whatever it may be, then that is all right: but it would be possible for the poacher to throw it away—
The Chairman: I do not think that question arises. The Committee are talking about the forfeiture of instruments and not about whether or not they should be produced in court. That is a different matter which does not arise under this Clause.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: I agree. I was trying to reinforce the arguments
164
adduced by my hon. Friends that unless there is power of forfeiture there is not the power to produce the articles in court. I will not stress that point. Other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), have spoken as if under Clause 17 the rod and line would certainly be forfeited. As I understand the Clause, that is not so. If a poacher who had been fishing in a legitimate way with rod and line were summoned in the sheriff court, the sheriff need not forfeit the rod and line. The rod and line would be liable to forfeiture just as would be the gaff, the net or any other implement used.
Mr. Ross: I was drawing attention to the Amendment dealing with Clause 1 and not Clause 17.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: The object of moving the Amendment to Clause 1 is to bring these offences under Clause 17 into line. That is perfectly well understood by every other hon. Member, so I will not stress the point further.
4.45 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: I hope that the Committee will resist this Amendment. On Second Reading we were told by the Secretary of State for Scotland that he expected a great number of godfathers to this Bill. When one examines the Order Paper today, one would imagine that they have turned into stepfathers; and the Opposition may yet throw in two or three stepmothers and then the position will be worse than being caught with the "witch."
I wish to call attention to the position of the city angler in places like Edinburgh and Midlothian. If a city angler finds that he has a day off and the weather is good, he may decide early in the morning to go fishing in the Tweed; but the shops which sell the permits for fishing do not open until 9 a.m. or 10 a.m., and the result is that often a fisherman goes to the river without a permit. Though a permit may cost only 5s. when bought before the man goes to the river, if a man is caught by a bailiff without a permit he will be charged 10s. The fee is doubled. Under this Bill he will be classed as a poacher. I do not understand the jargon about the honest or legitimate poacher, nor does the sheriff sitting in court. The sheriff must do his duty. He cannot push the law one way or the other.

165
We have had mentioned a prosecution which took place recently in a sheriff court. I do not hold any brief for the poacher. His name was Robert McCallum and he was described in court as a persistent offender. This man was not caught in the act. He was chased by two water bailiffs who alleged that they identified him as a man who had been fishing illegally and who had dropped two foul-hooked salmon and a fishing rod. The man challenged the bailiffs to produce his fingerprints on the rod, but they did not take the opportunity. It was said in court that the man had a bad record. The sheriff, who was only doing his duty, said, "If the new Bill had been on the Statute Book, I could have dealt with you in another fashion."
I want my right hon. and learned Friend to make sure that there will be no question in future of our people being in the position of the city angler who inadvertently goes to the river without a permit and is placed in the position of being a poacher. I have had drawn to my attention instances of gear being forfeited on the River Tweed and taken to St. Boswell's. No charge has been levied against the man concerned. He has been told at a later stage that if he cares to go to St. Boswell's, which might entail losing a day's work, he will get his gear. The time has arrived when the position covering all fishing in Scotland should be reviewed.
Mr. Manuel: I wish to declare an interest. I think all hon. Gentlemen ought to declare whatever interest they may have in this subject. As an honorary president of the Ayrshire Angling Association I take great interest in anything appertaining to angling welfare. It appeared to me that the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan) had rather an intimate knowledge of illegal and foul-fishing methods. One cannot charge the poacher with being the only person who fishes illegally. In fact, it has been known that, when fish has been needed for the table, even gamekeepers have been instructed to extract it from the water by unusual methods. Possibly that should be kept in mind and greater regard paid to the correct taking of fish by those who ought to be indicating the correct procedure in this matter.
166
I want to oppose the intention of these two Amendments, because, as I see it, it would be vicious to the extent that gear today would be costing more than the amount of the fine that would be applicable to this type of offence under Clause 1. Apart from the line or anything else, one cannot buy a good rod today under £12 or so. I am speaking of the kind of rod that any keen angler would use. In the type of case instanced by the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), I feel that foul-hooking or snatch-hooking and things of that kind are surely governed by Clause 17, under which there is provision for forfeiture where there is illegal fishing in the sort of case which the hon. and gallant Gentleman mentioned. Therefore, I feel that, in this particular instance, we ought not to be governed by forfeiture, because the value of the gear forfeited might be more than the amount of the fine imposed for the offence.
Mr. N. Macpherson: I must say that we on this side of the Committee are not satisfied with the explanation given by the Lord Advocate. There seems to be no reasonable argument produced by him for changing the law, which is what he is doing here. This is a direct change of the law, and all that he is doing has the effect of saying that, no matter how often a man might be accused of poaching or be convicted, every time his rod would be handed back to him. In effect, the court would be saying to him "Here you are; go and do it again."
The Lord Advocate: I should be very surprised if any court were ever to say to a person accused of poaching "Here is your rod; go and do it again."
Mr. Macpherson: That is the inference to be drawn, and that is what may be read between the lines. That is what will be the effect, and it is really quite beside the point to argue what would be the effect of other Clauses in regard to illegal practices, unless it is possible for the water bailiff or other authorised person to seize the rod in the first place. It will be very difficult for the courts to identify the offender, if they will ever be able to do it, and that being so, it will simply mean an inevitable increase in poaching, which this Bill is intended to reduce. For that reason, I feel certain that my hon. Friends on this side of the Committee will wish to oppose this provision.
Mr. Rankin: I want to put only one point to the hon. and gallant Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), who, when the last Amendment was being considered, suggested to the Committee that we should try to get this Bill through with a large measure of agreement and without too much quarrelling over it. I think that to some extent that appeal influenced the attitude of my colleagues on this side of the Committee with regard to the Amendment standing in my name and the names of some of my hon. Friends, because we did not press that Amendment to a Division. As a result, we took it that it had been accepted in the Committee that the maximum penalty should be £10. Now we find that the Opposition, practically by a trick, are seeking to change the maximum of £10 to a maximum of nearly £22 as the penalty on the single rod and line fisherman. That is the effect of this particular Amendment, and it just shows once again that we simply cannot trust the Opposition.
Mr. Stuart: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, may I say that we are not seeking to increase the existing penalty at all, but to leave it as it stands.
Mr. Rankin: On the assurance of my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel), I have somewhat minimised the penalty, but it actually works out at £27 or £28. That is what the Opposition want; that is their purpose. I hope that, if they are going to press this proposal to a Division, my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate will dig in his heels and resist it.
Mr. Spence: The hon. Member who spoke last sought to create the impression that in some way or other we had introduced an Amendment to provide for forfeiture of rod and line by a trick, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the Order Paper he will see perfectly plainly that, in regard to whether the penalty should be £5 or £10, there could have been no doubt in anyone's mind as to the intention of those on this side of the Committee who support the Amendment for the forfeiture of the rod as well. I suggest that there was no attempt to mislead the other side of the Committee about it.
168
I believe that, if we do not get into the Bill the Clause calling for the forfeiture of the rod and gear, we shall produce an increase in poaching instead of a decrease in it. It is precisely the same thing as handing back the jemmy to a burglar. For that reason, I hope the Committee will divide and that this Amendment will be made to the Bill.
Brigadier Thorp: I do not think the Lord Advocate met my point when he mentioned the production of the rod and line as evidence in cases of fishing without written leave. The real point concerns fishing for salmon without written leave. It is possible to fish for trout without written leave, but one can use methods which will catch a salmon; in fact, these methods do result in catching salmon, and, unless the gear used in such methods is produced as evidence in court, the man gets away with it, because he says that he is quite legally fishing for trout. For that reason, there should be provision for the rod and line to be produced as evidence.
The Lord Advocate: I do not think that difficulty really does exist, because, after all, if the court can only convict for the actual commission of an offence, I think it could do so without the evidence of the actual rod and line. It would be a question for the court.
I am going to make this appeal to the Opposition, and I beg the leave of the Committee for a couple of minutes in which to do it. When dealing, with the previous Amendment, I pointed out that we were under pressure from both sides of the Committee, on the one side to cut the penalty down, and, on the other side, to get rid of forfeiture, and we thought we had effected a half-way-house solution, having regard to the pattern of the Bill and the provisions of this Clause for that type of offence.
It is confined to the individual, who is acting as an individual, in fishing by legal methods, but without written permission. It would be a very bad send-off for this Bill, which has met with general acceptance, if on a matter of this nature, which involves the structure of the penal Clause, we should have a Division on this particular Amendment. Accordingly, I urge the Opposition to approach this matter from the point of view of a compromise between extreme views on both sides, and

169
one which fits well into the pattern that we propose in the Bill.
5.0 p.m.
Captain Duncan: I may be very stupid, but I have not got this quite clear. Clause 1 says:
"If any person without legal right…"
and then further down:
"forfeiture of any fish illegally taken…"
That does not mean that it was taken without permission; the Clause says "illegally" which means, presumably, by illegal methods. If this Clause could be confined to illegal fishing with rod and line. I should be prepared to let it go at that, particularly in view of the appeal made by the Lord Advocate, but my difficulty is that I feel that as things are at the moment we are not going to attack the illegal fisher strongly enough, and perhaps the Lord Advocate will look at that again.
Amendment negatived.
The Chairman: The Question is, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Stuart: Does that mean, Major Milner, that you are not calling my Amendment in line 14, at the end, insert:
"and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed."
The Chairman: Yes, I am afraid does.
Mr. Stuart: I had hoped it might be put separately. While I was perfectly agreeable to discussing the two together,
I was under the impression that my Amendment would be put.
The Chairman: There is a misunderstanding. As the intention of both Amendments is in essence the same, and as the Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause" was agreed to, it is not possible for me to submit the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment to the Committee.
Mr. Stuart: With all respect, Major Milner—and, of course, I cannot contradict your Ruling—surely it does not fail to make sense to add the words which I wish to insert after the wording as it now stands in the Clause?
The Chairman: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's point, but as the words which it was sought to leave out have been left in the Clause, I do not think it is permissible to adopt his suggestion.
Mr. Stuart rose—
The Chairman: On consideration, if the right hon. Gentleman wishes at the end of the Clause to add the words in his Amendment, I am prepared to put the Question.
Mr. Stuart: Then I beg to move in page 1, line 14, at the end to insert:
"and of any instrument or article in respect of which or by which the offence is committed."
Question put. "That those words be there inserted."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 180; Noes, 198.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(APPREHENSION OF OFFENDERS.)
Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 5. line 32, to leave out subsection (2).
The Deputy-Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee if this Amendment and the later one in the name of the right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart), in page 5, line 41, to leave out subsection (3), were taken together.
Lord Dunglass: I quite agree, Sir Charles, that it would be convenient to discuss these two Amendments together.
As I understand it, this is a limiting Clause in that under the present law it is the right and duty of an owner, or, indeed, of any person, who sees the law being broken, to apprehend the offender. Clause 12 restricts the right to apprehend to constables and water bailiffs and to persons appointed by the Secretary of State.
There are two arguments used in favour of this Amendment, the one of expedience and the other of principle. Clearly, when there is a shortage of water bailiffs and of police, and such people find it very difficult to carry out their duties, it would be inadvisable, I should have thought, to limit the classes of persons who can apprehend offenders. But on the matter of principle, and one of really more importance, I always understood—and I am sorry the Lord Advocate has gone—that it was an essential principle of the common law that it was not only the right but the duty of a citizen to uphold the law. For instance, if the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and myself were walking clown the street and I started to break the windows of the house of the Secretary of State, it would be the duty of the hon. Member for Shettleston to apprehend me.
That is, I think, a principle running right through the common law of the land, and it was a principle which was sustained, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman will know, by the Act of 1868 which this Clause is amending. The object of this Amendment is simply to continue the status quo that exists under the Act of 1868, where an owner, or, indeed, any person, has the right, and the duty, I would add, to uphold the law. We think that this Clause seriously weakens that position and we are strongly opposed to it as it stands, and strongly in favour of this Amendment. I hope the Secretary of State will give us some satisfaction on this because it is something

251
to which we attach considerable importance.
Mr. McNeil: Unhappily my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate is not here at the moment. I must say that the noble Lord has offered a most unusual and novel interpretation of my duties as a citizen, and I will certainly confer with my right hon. and learned Friend on this strange aberation. Whatever the law may be, I would most respectfully suggest that, in the unlikely event of the noble Lord finding my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) breaking my windows—
Lord Dunglass: I put it the other way round.
Mr. McNeil: Even so, far from it being my hon. Friend's duty to arrest the noble Lord I do not think he has powers to do so, and it would certainly be more discreet to call a policeman.
Lord Dunglass: If he could find one.
Mr. McNeil: Even if he could not find one at that moment I would be inclined to think, subject to what my right hon. and learned Friend says, that he would be discharging his duty if he went to the nearest police station and said "That bad chap the noble Lord has been smashing windows again."
Commander Galbraith: Suppose my noble Friend was about to cut the Secretary of State's throat. Would the right hon. Gentleman then suggest that his hon. Friend should do no more than go to the nearest police station?
Mr. McNeil: I do not think the situation is as critical as the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggests. In that event, however, I hope that out of affection as well as a sense of duty my hon. Friend would come to my assistance and seek to restrain the noble Lord in this unusual and passionate exercise. I would say it was also the duty of my hon. Friend as a citizen to make sure that the unusual and passionate activities of the noble Lord were brought to the attention of the police, and his further duty to offer evidence. I will consult my right hon. and learned Friend on this, but I think it is an unusual suggestion that each of us has the obligation as a citizen to behave as a policeman,
252
even to the point of apprehending people whom we arbitrarily think are committing an offence, although it is clearly our duty to uphold the law.
Sir Ian Fraser: Having reason to believe they are committing an offence.
Mr. McNeil: That might be an argument to put forward in a court if I subsequently sued the noble Lord in a civil action. However, this interesting discussion and these imaginative exercises are a little outside the point.
I quite understand the worries of the noble Lord and his hon. Friends in putting down these two Amendments. As he said, under the Act of 1868 people were empowered to seize and detain a person found committing an offence. I hope the noble Lord will agree that we have changed our thinking since those days. I anticipate that not all sections of the public would approve of my, continuing to have this unusual and arbitrary endowment of power.
Lord Dunglass: That provision in the Act of 1868 has remained the law to this day. It may be unusual, but today we do not seem to have any legal advice available in the Committee. I still believe that this Clause weakens the general law, in that under the common law it is the duty of a citizen to attempt to apprehend another citizen who is breaking the law.
Mr. McNeil: I will certainly find an opportunity to comment upon that point on the Report stage. If the noble Lord is found to be right beyond all dispute in the literal interpretation of that, I will consider his proposition. I have something to say which, I am sure, has not occurred to him and which may encourage him not to press his Amendment. It is true that we confine the power to the police constable and to the water bailiff and to such officers of the district board as may be authorised by the Secretary of State. It seems to me quite plain that if they had reason to believe or reason to suspect that poachers were unusually active, and representations were made to me by the board that their resources were insufficient to maintain normal policing in the area, I certainly would not hesitate to endow with the power under the Clause other officials of that district board. I hope that the noble

253
Lord and his hon. Friends will think that that is reasonable.
I am against specifically endowing everyone with the statutory right to apprehend anyone whom they have reasonable cause to think is behaving improperly. Indeed, I think, though this is only a debating point, that if the common law is as the noble Lord thinks it is, there would be no need for me to gild the lily by writing it into this Act. I do not think that it is. I can understand the reasons which made it necessary in the Act of 1868, and I do not think that the same reasons obtain today; but should it be shown that there were insufficient forces in any area, then I can scarcely imagine that any Secretary of State would hesitate to vest the officers of the district board with necessary powers, and certainly I would.
Mr. Stuart: I was not here earlier in this discussion and I apologise for intervening, but I should like the Secretary of State to think of this point, because, as I understand this matter, under the present law any person can seize and detain a salmon poacher. The reasons for this are perfectly plain. There are many rivers where there are no bailiffs at all, as we know, and vast stretches of rivers which the bailiffs cannot entirely cover. Any legitimate angler or owner or gamekeeper, or whoever it may be, can at the present time act, and if they cannot act it appears that, if this becomes law. all that will be possible is for the person who witnesses an act of poaching—as, for example, people who are employed by the Loch Lomond Angling Improvement Association—to say to the poacher, "Wait there until I fetch a policeman," and the police constable may be 15 miles away. That would not be at all a satisfactory way to apprehend a person who is deliberately poaching. Therefore, I think that my noble Friend is right in what he said, and I hope that the Government will consider this matter further.
9.30 p.m.
Sir I. Fraser: The noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass) deplored the absence of a lawyer. I am only an amateur lawyer, but I have had occasion, quite fortuitously, to deal with a question analogous to that we are now discussing, and I would submit this point to the Secretary of State. There may be.
254
perhaps, a good reason why this power was included in the old Act. Contrary to the opinion expressed by some of my hon. Friends, I believe that the common law does not go so far as to make it the duty of a citizen to apprehend any person thought to be committing such an offence as we have in mind.
It is true that it is the duty of any citizen to apprehend a person he has good reason to think is committing a felony. If it were to be shown that the person was not committing a felony but merely brandishing a knife for fun, or merely sharpening his razor for amusement, the person who apprehends him would not be guilty of assault, because he would be carrying out his duty. While that may be the common law in relation to felony, it may not be the position in the case of misdemeanours we have in mind.
The difficulty my right hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) has just indicated was the reason why this was made a statutory right or duty. The fact is that when this particular misdemeanour occurs it is in a remote place, and the only way of apprehending anyone is to give power to the citizen to do it. In the light of that, I ask the Secretary of State to consider accepting the Amendment or taking legal advice on the matter.
Mr. Gage: I intervene only because the Secretary of State expressed surprise that a person is not entitled to arrest a fellow citizen. It has always been the law of this country, as my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lonsdale (Sir I. Fraser) has just said, and I am sure it is the law of Scotland, although the Lord Advocate will correct me if I am wrong, that a citizen has the duty to arrest another citizen whom he reasonably considers to have committed a felony. That is certainly correct so far as England is concerned, and no doubt it is correct so far as Scotland is concerned. I am unable to say whether the offence under the 1868 Act is a felony—it may be only a misdemeanour.
The Lord Advocate: As we are dealing with Scotland, let me say that a felony and a misdemeanour do not find any place in the law of Scotland.
Mr. Gage: That only reinforces what I said earlier that it is high time the law of Scotland was brought into line with

255
the law of this country. I recall that there is a duty in Scotland on a citizen to arrest in case of a serious offence. That does not necessarily imply that my right hon. Friend is right in saying that these two subsections should be deleted, because I, in common with other Members, have always felt very chary about extending the rights of arrest in minor offences. The common law of England, which says that it is the duty of the citizen to arrest in cases of felony, refers largely to murder, manslaughter and really serious cases of larceny where it should be perfectly clear that a crime is being committed. It is, therefore, very different to give the power of arrest in what might be called more minor offences. We have to be exceedingly cautious about extending the power of arrest.
Lord Dunglass: I am not suggesting extending the power. It has been the power up to now.
Mr. Gage: My knowledge of the Scottish law is at fault there. I am, however, a little surprised to find that there is in Scotland the powers to detain and seize someone who is committing an offence which I assume is of a poaching nature. That possibly might be going further than many of us would care to go. One has to be very cautious about extending the power of arrest. In the case of the water bailiff, constable, or officer appointed by the Secretary of State there arises the question of the deputy water bailiff. I recognise that there is much in my hon. Friend's argument that there may be occasions when water bailiffs and officers are not sufficient and one has to be appointed temporarily to carry on that duty. Therefore, I think it would be right to extend the power of arrest to such persons.
I find a good deal of difficulty in cases of this nature in saying that the power of arrest should just simply be given to anyone who happens to be a citizen. It is quite true that for serious offences in England there is the general duty of the citizen to arrest. In these circumstances, I hope that the Secretary of State will look at this again, because I think there is great force in the argument that the water bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State is not sufficient. The right hon. Gentleman ought to consider the question of other people who ought
256
to be allowed to arrest, and I confess that I am not anxious to see that power extended simply to any citizen who might be there.
Mr. C. Williams: I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), that there is nothing in this Amendment which extends the law as it stands at present. The fact is that under a Clause in the Bill the present law is being changed. I was amazed at the speech of the Secretary of State. I always regarded him as an orderly and quiet person. Surely there is an old habit in this country—I think it goes north of the Border—that if, for instance, an old lady is robbed of her bag she will shout, "Stop thief." I always understood that it was the moral duty of anyone seeing the person running away to stop that thief. The right hon. Gentleman said that apparently one's duty would be to seek and inform a policeman. That would give a very considerable start to the person committing the offence.
Mr. McNeil: I am sorry if I misled the hon. Member. In the case of the old lady who lost her purse or, to go back to the original proposition of the noble Lord the Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass), attempting to do me grave bodily injury, I do not suggest that anybody should stand aside. What I understood the noble Lord to argue was that the citizen had a duty—the hon. Member for Torquay says a moral obligation—to arrest the offender. I said that that was not my understanding of the position, and that he had neither the power nor the legal obligation to make an arrest. If he had a legal obligation and failed to discharge it he would be proceeded against. He has a moral right to track the thief, recover the money and detain him.
Everyone has a moral obligation, and, I think, an obligation as a citizen, to assist the police to uphold the law, to prevent the breaking of the law. But we were talking originally, inside this Clause, about arrest. That is the word in the Clause—"arrest"—and I say that I should be extremely surprised if I were to be told that that is a right resident in the citizen.
Mr. C. Williams: Yes, but I was trying to deal with that when I gave way to

257
the right hon. Gentleman. I am not a lawyer, and I will not take the word "arrest" in the meaning in which I was understanding it in dealing with this Amendment. I will say, rather, "apprehend" or "keep" the person until a form of "arrest" can be made. It has always been the duty, and I think everyone will agree that it is the duty of everyone to try to stop crime. That is the first point.
The second point is this. If, in the Bill, we were putting in something new, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), seemed to imagine, then there would be something in not allowing this power to be extended; but we are not extending this power: we are only, in our Amendment, wishing it to continue. The whole of the Bill is apparently an appeal from the Government to try to stop certain forms of attack on the salmon of Scotland. They ask us to do that, yet, in the remote areas, there must be many occasions when it cannot be possible for a water bailiff to be in the place where the attack is being made. Surely in this great appeal which the Government are putting forward in this Bill, which is unexpected, coming from those quarters, and for which their case is sound, as I believe it to be, they must be wrong in weakening the power for the preliminary stopping of this form of despoliation of the salmon fisheries.
I really cannot see any reason for their opposition to our case. We are not giving powers of arrest. We are leaving the powers which exist today of detaining the person until the police can catch him and give the appropriate evidence. As I said at the beginning, I think that the procedure which follows upon the cry "Stop, thief !" is a perfectly sound one. The man who tries to stop him or does stop him does not arrest him in a formal way. He simply holds him until the police come. That is all of the power that exists under the old Act, which is now being taken away, thus weakening the whole of the Government's case in the Bill.
The Secretary of State thinks the Scots are logical people, but when he and the Scots lawyers come here and make this suggestion it appears to me, and, I think, to anyone of Celtic or Saxon blood, that they are losing the whole of their sense of logic—unless they accept this Amendment, which, after all, is not to extend the powers.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: I wonder if the Secretary of State is not regarding this matter as an exercise in theory on this occasion rather than as a very practical question. Let us consider what we are dealing with. We are dealing with the possibility—nay, almost the certainty—that we shall have a group of two or three men going to a pool in a river miles away from any police office. My home in Scotland is at the top of a glen, 16 miles from the nearest policeman. Some evening, shall we say, a gamekeeper or owner, or a member of his staff, comes along and sees a man casting explosives into a pool, or casting poison into it, or using an electrical appliance—
Mr. McGovern: Or an atom bomb.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: —to kill 20, 30 or 40 salmon. Does a man like the Secretary of State, a Scotsman, and a keen fisherman—really suggest that this owner, gamekeeper or ploughman, seeing such an act being committed, shall say nothing except, "You ought not to do this, you naughty man. Stand where you are until I go to the telephone a mile away and call a policeman 16 miles away. Stand here until he comes"?
9.45 p.m.
I never thought that the right hon. Gentleman would be made to look so silly as that suggestion makes him look. What is the sense of this? At present the right hon. Gentleman knows that he has not the number of bailiffs, policemen or officers to police, or anything like it, the Scottish rivers. Yet he will not move in this matter and will not appoint a single deputy officer unless the crimes have been carried on for some time and the local board says, "We cannot cope with this continuity of crime. For goodness' sake give us additional policemen, bailiffs or officers."
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman, as a practical measure, that until he has that staff and until he has seen the new process functioning he ought as a sensible man, a keen fisherman and one who is prepared to defend the place of salmon in the Scottish economy, not to alter the present law. If, in a year or two's time, he can come to the House and say, "I have provided the servants which I need for this operation. I am satisfied that these men are adequate to stop salmon poaching," the House would not for a moment hesitate to accept his request.

259
But it is madness to do it now and it is foolishness on the part of one who holds the great office of a practical Secretary of State for Scotland to ask for such a stupid measure as this.
Lord Dunglass: The proposition that it is the duty of the citizen to apprehend an offender has started a considerable discussion with a wealth of illustration. What we are asking the Secretary of State to do is simply to leave the law as it is in the Act of 1868 under which an owner or any person has the right to apprehend. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman knows it, but what he is doing here is to put us in a much more restricted position than exists even in England. In the English Gaming Act and the Act of 1923 dealing with fishing, owners, occupiers, gamekeepers, servants and their assistants may apprehend and hand over to a police officer. We shall have to divide unless we get satisfaction. If the Lord Advocate will look into this with a view to leaving the law as it is and not restricting us to the small categories of people with a right to apprehend, we shall be grateful.
The Lord Advocate: I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the powers which exist under the Acts of 1868 and 1857. We are not dealing merely with either the common law right or the common law duty of a citizen to prevent the occurrence of a crime. I think that there would be a distinction between the right and duty of a citizen to prevent a crime which was a common law crime and that which was a statutory crime. In the obviously apparent case of the common law crime of theft, the citizen knows that an offence is being committed, but we get into more difficult territory when dealing with statutory offences about which the ordinary citizen may not have the same knowledge.
If we go back to Section 29 of the 1868 Act, which hon. Gentlemen opposite wish to see restored, we shall find these words:
"It shall be lawful for any person, without any Warrant or other Authority than this Act, brevi menu to seize and detain any Person who shall he found committing any Offence…"
contained in certain sections in the Act. Moreover it says:
and to carry such Person before any Sheriff or Justice of the Peace or other Magistrate.…
260
So it is not just a question of seizing or detaining or preventing them from getting away. It is the further power of carrying them bodily before a sheriff or magistrate or, alternatively, handing them over to a police constable.
Look at the difficulty into which one might be getting oneself. Here is a person without any warrant, such as a water bailiff or a person appointed by the Secretary of State would have, without the ostensible authority of a police constable who is wearing a uniform, suddenly saying to another person, "Stop." The person stops. He seizes him and then proceeds bodily to carry him before a sheriff or magistrate. Nothing more calculated to create a breach of the peace is conceivable. Whereas the water bailiff or the person appointed by the Secretary of State can produce a warrant of his authority, the ordinary citizen not embraced by that definition is not able to show any such authority. Therefore what hon. Members opposite wish to see restored—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Maintained."]—is the right of any citizen not only to seize and to detain but to carry such person before any sheriff or justice of the peace.
Mr. C. Williams: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
The Lord Advocate: No, the time is getting short. We looked at this from the point of view of maintaining the peace. We came to the conclusion that there was no longer any justification for giving these wide powers to every citizen in the land because, in so far as there may be certain common law rights of which hon. Members are aware, manifestly the provisions of the 1868 Act were importing additional powers to the citizen, otherwise there would not be any need to import them into that Act. All we seek to do by this Clause and the other Clause is to say that, in so far as these common law powers have been extended by the 1868 Act, we wish to restrict them to water bailiffs, officers appointed by the Secretary of State and police constables. They are the people with the ostensible authority to carry out rather drastic measures, whereas the ordinary citizen would be at a great disadvantage and would probably create circumstances that might lead to a breach of the peace.
Mr. Williams: May I ask one question to save a lot of time?
The Lord Advocate: Let me finish this point and then I will give way. With regard to the English position, under the 1923 Act the power to apprehend without a warrant is confined to water bailiffs and their assistants and not given to the large category of people whom the noble Lord considered, and certainly not to the citizens at large. The noble Lord referred to the Gaming Act, but I am referring to the Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Act of 1923, which is the Act dealing with the subject with which we are dealing in this Bill. There the right to arrest without a warrant under Section 71 is confined to water bailiffs and to their assistants.
Mr. Williams: Has the Lord Advocate had any case at all where the existing law has been abused which would give some justification for the change? Apparently he only made the supposition of what might happen.
The Lord Advocate: This is a question of looking at the extended powers under this Bill which are covering a larger territory than the 1868 Act. There have not been a great number of prosecutions under that Act and the circumstances envisaged here have not often arisen; but in the wider context of this Bill they are more liable to arise oftener. What I am really concerned about is that it is very dangerous to give the right, not only of seizure and detention, but of apprehension, to the ordinary citizen who has no ostensible warrant of authority. In so far as the section extends the common law right and the duty of the citizen, we think it should be restricted to the classes contained in the Clause.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: Am I right in assuming that if this Clause becomes law, an owner who sees two men operating as I suggested a few minutes ago, and who holds those two men until a policeman is brought, commits an illegal act?
Mr. McNeil: He does not commit an illegal act. The hon. Member, who chastises me for being so stupid, must reflect upon his own experience. No one in that situation commits an illegality, although it is quite true that he does it at his peril. I am not a lawyer, but I recollect reading a case recently where a man, wanting to help the police, made a
262
rugby tackle upon a man coming out of a picture house, but he discovered that he had tackled a plain-clothes policeman. As the Committee will remember, that man was proceeded against. If a proprietor tackles the wrong man, he may be proceeded against, but he commits no illegality.
I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen will look at this matter again. I am anxious to meet them if there is a reasonable case. There is power under Clause 10 (5) for the Secretary of State to vest power in any person or officer if he thinks that a case is proved. Indeed, the case put by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), is precisely the case we are offering.
I know that the right hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of the situation. As far as I know, no one, certainly in recent years, has employed the 1868 Act, which the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), finds so attractive and so essential, and the powers of which the hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart), finds so attractive and such a disaster to desert. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, only the officers equipped under the Fishmongers' Corporation—I gladly concede that they did an excellent job we will be discussing that later—used those powers. The ordinary person, the ordinary proprietor, did not use them, I imagine, because, as I think would be admitted, the powers originally embodied in the 1868 Act would no longer be very cheerfully accepted by a 20th-century society. If there is an area where I can help, then I or any subsequent Secretary of State will certainly do so, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to press the Amendment.
Mr. Stuart: What we want to do is to make the Bill an effective Measure. It is quite clear that the existing powers have not been abused. It is clear also that the Bill would remove those powers from certain people. If we want to make this an effective Measure, and if it is indeed the desire of the Government, as I believe it to be, to stop poaching, then we think that it is a great pity to remove these powers at present. There having been no abuse, no harm would be done if these powers were retained.
Question put, "That subsection (2), to 'officer' in line 32, stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided: Ayes, 142; Noes, 124.

Division No. 13.]

AYES

[5.5 p.m.

Amory, D. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

Channon, H.

Fisher, Nigel

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R (Blackburn, W.)

Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

Foster, J. G.

Astor, Hon. M.

Clyde, J. L.

Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

Baker, P.

Cooper, A. E. (Ilford, S.)

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Baldwin, A. E.

Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

Banks, Col. C.

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

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Craddock, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Cranborne, Viscount

Garner-Evans, E. H. (Denbigh)

Bevins, J. R. (Liverpool, Toxteth)

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

Glyn, Sir R.

Birch, Nigel

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Gridley, Sir A.

Black, C. W.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Grimston, Hon. J. (St. Albans)

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

Crowder, Capt. John F. E. (Finchley)

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Boothby, R.

Cundiff, F. W.

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

Bower, N.

Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S)

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Davidson, Viscountess

Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Boyle, Sir Edward

de Chair, S.

Hay, John

Bracken, Rt. Hon. Brendan

Deedes, W. F.

Head, Brig. A. H.

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Donner, P. W.

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

Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

Heald, L. F.

Brooke, H. (Hampstead)

Drewe, C.

Heath, E. R.

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.

Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

Dunglass, Lord

Higgs, J. M. C.

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

Duthie, W. S.

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

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

Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

Hollis, M. C.

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Smithers, Sir W. (Orpington)

Hopkinson, H. L. D'A.

Mellor, Sir J.

Snadden, W. McN.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury)

Spearman, A. C. M.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

Spence, H. R. (Aberdeenshire, W.)

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Nicholls, H.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N Fylde)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Nicholson, G.

Stevens, G. P.

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

Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)

Hurd, A. R.

Nugent, G. R. H.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Hutchinson, Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)

Nutting, Anthony

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

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

Odey, G. W.

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Hyde, H. M.

Ormsby-Gore. Hon. W. D.

Studholme, H. G.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

Teevan, L. T.

Jeffreys, General Sir G.

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Jennings, R.

Osborne, C.

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Keeling, E. H.

Peake, Rt. Hon. O.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Kerr, H. W. (Cambridge)

Perkins, W. R. D.

Tilney, John

Lambert, Hon. G.

Peto, Brig. C. H. M.

Turner, H. F. L.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Pickthorn, K.

Turton, R. H.

Leather, E. H. C.

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Vane, W. M. F.

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

Prior-Palmer, Brig. O.

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Lennox-Boyd, A. T.

Profumo, J. D.

Vosper, D. F.

Linstead, H. N.

Raikes, H. V.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)

Rayner, Brigadier R.

Waterhouse, Capt. C.

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Redmayne, M.

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)

Remnant, Hon. P.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

McAdden, S. J.

Roberts, P. G. (Heeley)

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

McCallum, Maj. D.

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Roper, Sir H.

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

McKibbin, A.

Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Russell, R. S.

Wills, G.

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Savory, Prof. D. L.

Wood, Hon. R.

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Scott, Donald

York, C.

Maitland, Comdr. J. W.

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Smith, E. Martin (Grantham)

TELLERS FOR THE AYES

Marples, A. E.

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Major Conant and

Mr. Wingfield Digby

NOES

Acland, Sir Richard

Dodds, N. N.

Jay, D. P. T.

Albu, A. H.

Driberg, T. E. N.

Jenkins, R. H.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Dye, S.

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Edwards, John (Brighouse)

Jones, Jack (Rotherham)

Awbery, S. S.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Jones, William Elwyn (Conway)

Ayles, W. H.

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Keenan, W.

Bacon, Miss A.

Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury)

Kenyon, C.

Balfour, A.

Ewart, R.

Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

Barnes, Rt. Hon A. J.

Fernyhough, E.

King, H. M.

Bartley, P.

Follick, M.

Kinley, J.

Blackburn, A. R.

Foot, M. M.

Kirkwood, Rt. Hon. D.

Blenkinsop, A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Lindgren, G. S.

Blyton, W. R.

Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.

Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

Booth, A.

Ganley, Mrs. C. S.

Logan, D. G.

Bowden, H. W.

George, Lady M. Lloyd

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Bowen, R.

Gibson, C. W.

McAllister, G.

Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton)

Gilzean, A.

MacColl, J. E.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

Brockway, A. Fenner

Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur (Wakefield)

McGhee, H. G.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Grenfell, D. R.

McGovern, J.

Brooks, T. J. (Normanton)

Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley)

McInnes, J.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

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

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

McLeavy, F.

Burke, W. A.

Grimond, J.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Burton, Miss E.

Gunter, R. J.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

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

Haire, John E. (Wycombe)

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Callaghan, James

Hale, J. (Rochdale)

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)

Carmichael, James

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Manuel, A. C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Hamilton, W. W.

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Champion, A. J.

Hannan, W.

Mellish, R. J.

Chetwynd, G. R.

Hargreaves, A.

Messer, F.

Clunie, J.

Harrison, J.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Cocks, F. S.

Hayman, F. H.

Mitchison, G. R.

Coldrick, W.

Herbison, Miss M.

Monslow, W.

Corbet, Mrs. F. K. (Peckham)

Holman, P.

Moody, A. S.

Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Morley, R.

Crawley, A.

Houghton, Douglas

Morris, R. Hopkin (Carmarthen)

Crosland, C. A. R.

Hoy, J.

Morris, P. (Swansea, W.)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

Hubbard, T.

Mort, D. L.

Daines, P.

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

Moyle, A.

Davies, A. Edward (Stoke, N.)

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Mulley, F. W.

Davies, Harold (Leek)

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Murray, J. D.

Deer, G.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Nally, W.

Delargy, H. J.

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Neal, H.

Diamond, J.

Janner, B.

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

172

173

Oldfield, W. H.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Tomlinson, Rt. Hon. G.

Oliver, G. H.

Silverman, S. S. (Nels)

Vernon, Maj. W. F.

Padley, W. E.

Simmons, C. J.

Viant, S. P.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Slater, J.

Wallace, H. W.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Smith, H. N. (Nottingham)

Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)

Paton, J.

Snow, J. W.

Wells, P. L. (Faversham)

Pearson, A.

Sorensen, R. W.

West, D. G.

Pearl, T. F.

Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir F.

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

Poole, Cecil

Sparks, J. A.

White, Mrs. E. (E. Flint)

Popplewell, E.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.

Pryde, D. J.

Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

Wilkes, L.

Pursey, Commander

Strauss, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Vauxhall)

Wilkins, W. A.

Rankin, J.

Stross, Dr. B.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Summerskill, Rt. Hon. Edith

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Rhodes, H.

Sylvester, G. O.

Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras. N.)

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)

Shackleton, E. A. A.

Thurtle, Ernest

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Shawcross, Rt. Hon. Sir H.

Timmons, J.

Mr. Collindridge and Mr. Royle.

Question put, and agreed to.

Division No. 14.]

AYES

[9.59 p.m.

Acland, Sir Richard

Griffiths, W. D. (Exchange)

Neal, H.

Albu, A. H.

Hall, J. (Gateshead, W.)

Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.

Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

Hamilton, W. W.

O'Brien, T.

Anderson, A. (Motherwell)

Hargreaves, A.

Orbach, M.

Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)

Harrison, J.

Padley, W. E.

Awbery, S. S.

Hayman, F. H.

Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Dearne V'lly)

Bacon, Miss A.

Herbison, Miss M.

Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

Balfour, A.

Hewitson, Capt. M.

Pargiter, G. A.

Bartley, P.

Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)

Pearson. A.

Benson, G.

Hoy, J.

Peart, T.

Blyton, W. R.

Hubbard, T.

Poole, Cecil

Boardman, H.

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

Popplewell, E.

Bowden, H. W.

Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayr)

Pryde, D. J.

Bowen, R.

Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

Rankin, J.

Braddock, Mrs. E. M.

Hynd, H. (Accrington)

Rees, Mrs. D.

Brook, D. (Halifax)

Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

Rhodes, H.

Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

Jenkins, R. H.

Richards, R.

Brown, T. J. (Ince)

Johnson, James (Rugby)

Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvonshire)

Burke, W. A.

Keenan, W.

Robertson, J. J. (Berwick)

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

King, H. M.

Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

Callaghan, James

Kinley, J.

Ross, William (Kilmarnock)

Carmichael, James

Lee, F. (Newton)

Royle C.

Castle, Mrs. B. A.

Lindgren, G. S.

Silverman, J. (Erdington)

Champion, A. J.

Logan, D. G.

Silverman, S. S. (Nelson)

Chetwynd. G. R.

Longden, F. (Small Heath)

Simmons, C. J.

Cocks, F. S.

McAllister, G.

Slater, J.

Coldrick, W.

MacColl, J. E.

Snow, J. W.

Collick, P.

Macdonald, A. J. F. (Roxburgh)

Soskice, Rt Hon. Sir F.

Collindridge, F.

McGhee, H. G.

Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)

Cove, W. G.

McGovern, J.

Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)

Cullen, Mrs. A.

McKay, J. (Wallsend)

Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare)

Davies. S. O. (Merthyr)

McLeavy, F.

Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin)

Deer, G.

MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)

Thomas, I. R. (Rhondda, W.)

Delargy, H. J.

McNeil, Rt. Hon. H.

Timmons, J.

Driberg, T. E. N.

MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

Vernon. Maj. W.

Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield. E.)

Wallace, H. W.

Edwards, Rt. Hon. N. (Caerphilly)

Manuel, A. C.

Webb, Rt. Hon, M. (Bradford, C.)

Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

Weitzman, D.

Finch, H. J.

Mellish, R. J.

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

Follick, M.

Messer, F.

Wilkes, L.

Foot, M. M.

Middleton, Mrs. L.

Wilkins, W. A.

Fraser, T. (Hamilton)

Mitchison, G. R.

Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Abertillery)

Freeman, J. (Watford)

Moody, A. S.

Williams, Ronald (Wigan)

Gage, C. H.

Morley, R.

Winterbottom, R. E. (Brightside)

Gibson, C. W.

Morris, P (Swansea, W.)

Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

Gitzean, A.

Mort, D. L.

Younger, Hon. Kenneth

Glanville, J. E. (Consett)

Moyle, A.

Griffiths, Rt. Hon. J. (Llanelly)

Nally, W.

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Mr. Hannan and Mr. Sparks.

NOES

Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)

Deedes, W. F.

Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.

Astor, Hon. M.

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord M.

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

Baker, P.

Drewe, C.

Linstead, H. N.

Banks, Col. C.

Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond)

Lloyd, Maj. Guy (Renfrew, E.)

Bennett, Sir P. (Edgbaston)

Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

Longden, G. J. M. (Herts. S.W.)

Bennett, W. G. (Woodside)

Dunglass, Lord

Lucas-Tooth, Sir H.

Bishop, F. P.

Fisher, Nigel

McCallum, Maj. D.

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

Foster, J. G.

Mackeson, Brig. H. R.

Boothby, R.

Fraser, Hon. H. C. P. (Stone)

McKie, J. H. (Galloway)

Bower, N.

Fraser, Sir I. (Lonsdale)

Maclay, Hon. J. S.

Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.

Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. (Pollok)

MacLeod, Iain (Enfield, W.)

Boyle, Sir Edward

Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)

Macpherson, N. (Dumfries)

Braithwaite, Lt.-Comdr. J. G.

Gates, Maj. E. E.

Manningham-Buller, R. E.

Browne, J. N. (Govan)

Grimston, R. V. (Westbury)

Marshall, D. (Bodmin)

Buehan-Hepburn, P. G. T.

Harris, R. R. (Heston)

Marshall, S. H. (Sutton)

Bullock, Capt. M.

Harvey, Air Codre. A. V. (Macclesfield)

Mellor, Sir J.

Carr, Robert (Mitcham)

Heath, E. R.

Morrison, Maj. J G. (Salisbury)

Channon, H.

Henderson, John (Cathcart)

Nicholls, H.

Clarke, Brig. T. H. (Portsmouth, W.)

Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

Nugent, G. R. H.

Conant, Maj. R. J. E.

Hornsby-Smith, Miss P.

Nutting, Anthony

Cooper-Key, E. M.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence

Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

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

Howard, G. R. (St. Ives)

Orr-Ewing, Ian L. (Weston-super-Mare)

Craddook, G. B. (Spelthorne)

Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

Osborne, C.

Cranborne, Viscount

Hurd, A. R.

Perkins, W. R. D.

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

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

Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)

Cross, Rt. Hon. Sir R.

Hylton-Foster, H. B.

Raikes, H. V.

Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.

Keeling, E. H.

Rayner, Brigadier R.

Cundiff, F. W.

Lambert, Hon. G.

Remnant, Hon. P.

Darling, Sir W. Y. (Edinburgh, S.)

Lancaster, Col. C. G.

Robertson, Sir D. (Caithness)

264

265

Rodgers, J. (Sevenoaks)

Sutcliffe, H.

Wheatley, Major M. J. (Poole)

Roper, Sir H.

Teevan, L. T.

White, J. Baker (Canterbury)

Russell, R. S.

Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)

Williams, C. (Torquay)

Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.

Thorneycroft, G. E. P. (Monmouth)

Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)

Soott, Donald

Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

Williams, Sir H. G. (Croydon, E.)

Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.

Thorp, Brigadier R. A. F.

Wills, G.

Smith E. Martin (Grantham)

Tilney, John

Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

Smithers, Peter (Winchester)

Turner, H. F. L.

Wood, Hon. R.

Snadden, W. McN.

Turton, R. H.

York, C.

Stanley, Capt. Hon. R. (N. Fylde)

Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.

Stewart, J. Henderson (Fife, E.)

Vosper, D. F.

TELLERS FOR THE NOES.

Storey, S.

Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)

Mr. Studholme and

Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)

Waterhouse, Capt. C.

Mr. Wingfield Digby

Stuart, Rt. Hon. J. (Moray)

Watt, Sir G. S. Harvie

It being after Ten o'Clock and objection being taken to further Proceeding, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

Clause 2.—(METHODS OF FISHING.)
The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Captain DUNCAN:
Page 1, line 16, at end, insert:
"Provided that this section shall not apply to any person using a gaff as auxiliary to fishing with rod and line."
The Deputy-Chairman (Colonel Sir Charles MacAndrew): I do not call the Amendment standing in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) as there is a similar Government Amendment on the Order Paper.
Captain Duncan: May I be assured by the Secretary of State that he will, in fact, move that Amendment?
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. McNeil): I do not know how regular this is, but I gladly give that assurance to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
I beg to move, in page 2, line 6, after "proprietor," to insert "or occupier."
This covers the occupier as well as the owner because in many cases there will be long leases.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Perkins: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
"or gaff or snare or explosive or gun."
The object of this Amendment is to allow a proprietor to use any known method to exterminate pike in a river. As the Bill is now drawn, I understand
174
that the only method by which coarse fish and fresh water fish, including pike, can be taken from a river is by rod and line, net or trap. Consequently, I wish to add the words:
"or gaff or snare or explosive or gun."
The Committee are, no doubt, aware that in many Scottish salmon rivers there are a lot of pike. I am certain that hon. Members in all quarters will agree that pike are vermin. I can give the House a small illustration. Last year I caught a small pike weighing about one and a half pounds; I cut him open and found four salmon parr inside him. At the end of a year 250 pike, if they feed four times a day, can destroy something like a million salmon. Pike are vermin and, in fact, do more damage in a river than all the poachers put together. I therefore move this Amendment to enable the proprietor of a river to use any method to get rid of these brutes.
5.15 p.m.
Mr. McNeil: For very obvious reasons I cannot accept this Amendment. It is not that I am at all unsympathetic to the general proposition put by the hon. Gentleman. We are all aware of the great damage which pike can do in a river or a loch, although I should like to see the statistical evidence upon which the hon. Gentleman comes to the conclusion that one pike can do more damage than all the poachers. That is a rather wide conclusion.
We have, of course, made provision for the normal methods of attacking pike by the use of the snare and trap, but the other two methods advocated would, I fancy, do more harm than good. For example, if we authorise the use of a rifle

175
or a gun for pike, what can we say to a man who we meet on the river bank, with a rifle under his arm and who is obviously looking for a good-sized salmon? He will say, "No, you are making a great mistake. I am carrying this rifle only in case I see a pike. I should not dream of using it in any other circumstances." That would seem to me to be a thorough defence, although, I should think, a most unlikely tale.
As to the use of explosives, I am willing to be instructed in the technicalities of the subject, but it would seem to me a fairly risky business unless we were satisfied that an explosion would kill only pike. We are excluding the use of explosives because we know of the great damage done to salmon parr and trout by the use of explosives. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that there is a provision in Clause 9 by which, if it is established that explosives are needed for the benefit of the fishery, the Secretary of State is entitled to give such permission. If a case were made which convinced me that exclusively pike could be attacked or that a fishery could be improved by the use of explosives, then, of course, I would be anxious to be so persuaded, but I suggest that to permit the use of firearms and explosives to attack pike would lead us to a much worse position than we are in at present. I therefore cannot accept the Amendment.
Mr. Perkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) Nothing in this section shall be construed as prohibiting the use of a gaff or landing-net as auxiliary to the taking of salmon or freshwater fish by rod and line.
This is the point on which an hon. Gentleman opposite asked for an assurance. The use of a gaff as an auxiliary to the ordinary methods of fishing by rod and line is legal at the present time except on the Tweed between certain dates. The dates are 15th September to 1st May. The Amendment makes it clear that the use of a gaff as an auxiliary exclusively to fishing by rod and line will continue to be legal except where it is at present prohibited. I hope, therefore, that
176
the Committee will accept this Amendment.
Mr. John Morrison: I should like to take the opportunity of thanking the Secretary of State for including this Amendment. I have an Amendment down on similar lines later which is more or less covered by this one. I should like to ask the Secretary of State to answer the question about tailer, which was invented to protect fish. I hope that that will be covered as well.
Mr. McNeil: It is not an instrument with which I have any familiarity. I have not used it, but I understand the purpose of it. I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that on Report I will introduce an Amendment to cover the legitimate use of the tailer.
Mr. Pryde: On behalf of my constituents I should like to thank my right hon. Friend for the Amendment, which is sensible and practical.
Captain Duncan: I had an Amendment down on this point, but I think that the right hon. Gentleman's is better than mine, and I thank him for it.
Amendment agreed to.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Brigadier Thorp: I should like to clear up a point—
Captain Duncan: On a point of order. I have an Amendment down to the Clause, in page 2, line 7, at the end, to insert:
(3) No person shall use any instrument for dragging for nor any otter for catching salmon or freshwater fish.
Is it your intention to call it, Sir Charles?
The Deputy-Chairman: No.
Brigadier Thorp: The point I want to raise I may have to raise later. It is how the various Clauses affect England, particularly the district of the Tweed Valley. Does this Clause, which prevents a person taking fish and salmon in any inland water, cover the district of the River Tweed outwith Scotland? I believe that that is the right word, and that it means "outside" Scotland. Does the Clause cover that? What is the meaning of "inland waterway"? I see that the definition says:

177
"'Inland waters' includes all rivers above estuary limits and their tributary streams, and all waters, watercourses and lochs whether natural or artificial draining into the sea."
What is the definition of "draining into the sea"? There are many small lochs and ponds, and even bigger spaces of water in north Northumberland, and I am not quite sure how far we can, or will be permitted, if the Bill becomes an Act, to fish for freshwater fish in these various pieces of water, and I should like an explanation of how far this Clause affects England and how far south it will be effective.
Mr. Woodburn: On Second Reading I raised some legal points about the definition of net and coble, and I suggested that the Lord Advocate might look into the question and that the Secretary of State might take powers to review cases where the physical condition of the river made it impossible for that method to be used in the traditional way. Such variations occur on the River Tay, and I raised the special problems of the River Forth. I take it that since there is no Amendment down by the Secretary of State he has been unable to find any method of introducing flexibility.
I should like to explain to the Committee that I have made some inquiries myself of the fishermen and other people connected with the Forth, and that I have been unable to find any method of making the law more specific without making it worse for the fisherman. It is not my intention, naturally, to make the position worse for the fishermen, but I should like to state that on Report, were such a method found, I should introduce such an Amendment. At the moment I do not propose to move one.
Captain Duncan: I want it made quite clear what exactly is the method of rod and line. The Amendment which I had down, about which I asked a moment ago, and which has not been called, was designed to try to obtain from the Government a clear statement of what rod and line really is. For instance, using an otter is fishing with rod and line, with a great many hooks at the end but it can be classed as rod and line. There are various instances of dragging which are a form of fishing with rod and line,
178
but I am not clear whether they are illegal fishing, and covered in the Bill.
I want the Minister who is to reply to explain quite clearly, in addition to the definition in the definition Clause, what is rod and line, because we should get it clear. We have to tighten up the Bill to prevent the poacher, driven from gang poaching, going into individual poaching harder than ever with single rods and lines and clearing pools almost as fast as the gangs are clearing them now with various illegal methods.
Mr. Pryde: There is a great deal in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite has just said. We require a clear definition of what legal rod and line fishing is. However, the point I want to raise is this. The Committee have now agreed that legal fishing can take place only by possession of a permit, and I want to ask my right hon. Friend if he will make provision for permits to be available to anglers early in the morning.
Sir D. Robertson: Further to the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), as the law now stands the instruments he has in mind are illegal. They are all covered in Section 17 of the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868. It says:
"Every Person that shall use any Light or Fire of any kind, or any Spear, Leister, Gaff, or other like Instrument, or Otter, for catching Salmon, or any Instrument for dragging for Salmon, or have in his Possession a Light or any of the foresaid Instruments under such Circumstances as to satisfy the Court before whom he is tried that he intended at the Time to catch Salmon by means thereof, shall be liable to a Penalty"—
of such and such an amount.
Under the Second Schedule of the Bill that section is entirely deleted, and so the Amendment in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend, which has not been called, is of great importance to this Committee, because I can assure the Committee that this practice, which is known in Scotland as "sniggering," and which was referred to by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) is a matter of very great importance in a Bill entitled "Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries (Protection) (Scotland) Bill."
The Deputy-Chairman: I have not called that Amendment whether it is important or not.
Sir D. Robertson: But I am speaking to the question that the Clause stand part, Sir Charles. You have come to a decision about the Amendment and that must stay, but if, by this Bill—and I think I am correct in saying this, and the Lord Advocate will, of course, say whether I am or not—Section 17 of the 1868 Act is deleted it will be possible for men to carry on these illegal practices—as they will. That seems to me an extraordinary situation.
Mr. McNeil: I think I can give fairly satisfactory answers to the few points that have been raised, though they will not all be quite acceptable. I am indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn), for his very clear statement on the subject. The Lord Advocate and I have gone into this subject very thoroughly, with, as I am sure my right hon. Friend will believe, anxiety to help him and to help his constituents, who are placed in difficulty.
We have not found a way by which we could so confine the practice and yet not open a floodgate to destroy the main purpose of the Bill. We cannot find a reasonable method which would give protection to the fisheries in Scotland, although no doubt that would be of benefit to my right hon. Friend's constituents. If, however, my right hon. Friend can, from his researches, in collaboration with his constituents, offer us any suggestion between now and Report stage we will naturally examine it very anxiously.
With regard to Berwick, the Bill, if approved, will be operative in precisely the areas defined. The definition will be found in Clause 20. I must confess that I am a little doubtful whether this will cover the dams and lades which are said to drain into the sea, because I suppose they are on that side of the Border.
5.30 p.m.
Brigadier Thorp: The point is that there are reservoirs which run into the sea eventually, but they do not run via the Tweed. Do they come under this Bill? They are in the watershed, being reservoirs built for supplying towns on the Tyne. They flow out to the sea through the Tyne; they are inland waterways flowing out to the sea, but they do
180
not flow into the district of the Tweed, although they are actually situated there.
Mr. McNeil: I am assisted by my right hon. Friend who is very familiar with that part of the world, and who is very anxious that none of his fishing tributaries should be interfered with. It seems unlikely that they would be affected by the Bill. We are concerned with those tributaries draining into the Tweed, and I would think—although perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will give me time to confirm it—that they are not affected.
I share the anxieties of the hon. and gallant Member for Angus, South (Captain Duncan), about the use of the otter, but I think both he and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) will find that their worries are covered by a proposed Amendment to Clause 22, which stands on the Order Paper in my name: in page 10, line 1, at the end to insert:
"with such bait or lure as is lawful at the passing of this Act."
That means that rod and line is legal only so far as it is operated with lures which are normally accepted under the existing Act. This quite clearly excludes the otter, and another method about which the Committee will be very anxious—the use of a heavy hoop for sniggering. Both those will be excluded.
I am glad my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) thinks that this is useful. I was indebted to him on Second Reading for drawing my attention to the incompleteness of the definition. I gather that there are other parts of the Bill on which he will not find my attitude so acceptable, but perhaps we shall be able to do something there, too. There is a very reasonable anxiety on the part of fishermen about getting permits at 7 a.m., but I think my hon. Friend will agree that it would be pushing me too hard to ask me to provide in the Bill that all the people of all the associations who issue permits to anglers should be under a statutory obligation to provide them by 7 a.m.
I hope—and I think it is a reasonable hope—that agents and factors and associations will see that a fisherman who complies with the Statute should have his access to the waters early in the morning facilitated, but I think we would tangle

181
ourselves up if we tried to have a statutory provision on the subject.
Mr. Charles Williams: I am not certain how far the Bill goes in connection with the otter. I understand that only the normal bait or lure may be used. Suppose an otter is used, or suppose a bigger piece of wood than is used with an ordinary trout line is floated down with several flies on it, or put out along the lochside. That is quite practicable, if one knows how to do it. Is that legal or not? In some places timber is floated down a lochside. It would be perfectly possible to float timber down a loch and to have behind it, especially with a good wind, a line with flies on it. Is that legal or illegal? I appreciate that this is a complicated subject which may not have been examined. I am not happy about the legal position.
Mr. McNeil: I think it was quite clear to the committee of inquiry that if timber with lines attached is floated down a river or loch that is certainly illegal. There are only two legal methods of fishing for salmon and sea trout and they are quite clearly defined in the Bill. I also give it as my opinion that if the hon. Gentleman were to display with an angling net the irresponsibility he sometimes displays in this Committee and trailed an otter with a line he would be behaving illegally.
Mr. Williams: I do not think there is any great harm in what I have said, and it could quite well be done with many legal instruments for catching fish. All I ask the right hon. Gentleman to do is to look at this between now and Report to see whether he cannot clarify the position.
Mr. McNeil: The hon. Gentleman disposes of rights in one of our northern counties and I have no doubt that people in the district will be gratefully encouraged by the free way in which he looks upon methods of fishing. I will, of course, look at this between now and Report stage, although I doubt very much whether I shall be able to add to what I have already said.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(ILLEGAL FISHING BY TWO OR MORE PERSONS ACTING TOGETHER.)
Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, to leave out "either of the foregoing sections" and to insert:
"the last foregoing section."
This is really an exploratory Amendment. We want to find out from the Lord Advocate whether, unintentionally, this Clause has been made too harsh. As he will have realised from what we have already accomplished, we feel that those who are subject to the penalties under Clause 1 should be subject to the maximum fine of £10 and also the forfeiture of their gear. On reading Clause 3, however, it would seem that two persons who are committing the offence of fishing without permission might render themselves liable to the maximum fine under Clause 5. I can hardly believe that is intended. If that is not so, why is there no mention of Clause 1? I am sure that there is a satisfactory explanation. It may be that this is a slip and that the penalties are too harsh.
The Lord Advocate: The reason why we embrace Clause 1 as well as Clause 2 within the provisions of Clause 3 is this: we might have the case of a gang fishing without legal permission but fishing by legal methods such as the net and coble. The only two legal methods so far as salmon fishing is concerned are either by rod and line or net and coble. If we had a gang using the net and coble method of fishing, although they had not the authority to fish in the area, they might have a very extensive haul, and if they were not brought within the ambit of Clause 3, they would be confined to the limited penalties of Clause 1, which is obviously most undesirable.
We might have two people said to be acting together carrying out a more innocuous form of poaching. That is a consideration which the courts will certainly take into account and, no doubt, impose the appropriate penalty in each case. If we are going out to get the gang, and that is, I think, the purpose accepted on all sides of the Committee and by all responsible persons, we have to recognise that the gangs may be operating without permission but operating by legal methods and, therefore, we want to bring them within the net.
Mr. Woodburn: People may be fishing with permission with net and coble. It is rather difficult to see how one can fish with net and coble, even with permission or with a licence, without having two or more persons, and it seems to me that the penalties are necessarily bound up with the question of whether they have permission or not. It seems that the penalties may apply to them even though they are fishing with licence from the authorities or proprietors, but any infringement of the law with regard to net and coble might bring them within rather heavy penalties. That is what causes alarm to legitimate fishermen who earn their livelihood by this method. They feel that they may unintentionally over-step the law and bring themselves within these rather high penalties. May I ask the Lord Advocate whether the question of permission really governs this Clause?
Lord Dung1ass: I think we can accept the Lord Advocate's explanation as being satisfactory. Obviously, the discretion of the courts must be exercised in this matter, and I would be content with that.
The Lord Advocate: We are only considering the question of whether or not Clause 1 should be brought within the ambit of Clause 3. That is the only matter on which I am addressing the Committee at present. For the reasons which I have indicated, I think that it is absolutely essential. If it be that people by what they deem to be legal methods actually fish by illegal methods, it is not Clause 1 which we would be considering but Clause 2, and that does not fall within the scope of this particular Amendment. I can assure the noble Lord that the courts do exercise proper discretion in all cases.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
5.45 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: Clause 3 states:
"If two or more persons acting together do any act which would constitute an offence against either of the foregoing sections of this Act, every such person shall be liable to the penalties set forth in section five of this Act."
If one person does any act which is regarded as an offence, does he come under Clause 5?
Mr. Woodburn: May I, without repeating my previous question, ask the Lord Advocate if he can say if there is any
184
distinction made in the case of a fisherman earning his livelihood or whether that will be a matter simply for the discretion of the courts?
Mr. N. Macpherson: May I ask whether it was the intention of the Lord Advocate, in presenting this case, to cover the question of early warning or not? Where it is a question of one or two persons taking part in poaching and another person being stationed to give early warning, would that third person come under the Clause? Assuming that the answer is "yes"—I do not know whether it is or not—on the grounds that these three persons were intending to act together from the start, that they were a team and working together, what would be the position of a person who is entirely outside the team that was poaching and who thought it would be a good idea to give warning to them, although he was, in fact, not one of the team? It would be very much more difficult, I think, to bring such a casual warner within the terms of the Clause.
The Lord Advocate: I would point out to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) that if only one person commits an offence under Clause 1 or Clause 2, he does not fall within the ambit of Clause 3. Such a person would be dealt with under Clause 1 or 2, dependent upon which Clause was invoked.
The right hon. Member for East Stirling (Mr. Woodburn) is still worrying about his constituents who might think that they are fishing legally but who, in point of fact, are fishing illegally. We must assume that they are fishing with a legal right but employing methods which, in their hearts, they think legal but which the courts would deem illegal. If the court came to the conclusion that the methods were illegal, a conviction would have to follow. What penalties would be imposed would be a matter for the court, having regard to the circumstances of the case, and, therefore, if it was an honest mistake the right hon. Gentleman need not fear that any dire punishments would be inflicted upon the persons.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. N. Macpherson) wanted to know about the person who gives warning. The classic case of that is a person who remains in a motor car and switches off and on the

185
lights as a method of giving warning of the approach of the police or water bailiffs. It is not for me to give, in advance, any definition of what the law might be in a particular case, but it is well-known that a person who is ert and part of the commission of an offence is equally guilty of the offence. In the Criminal Justice Act, 1949, we made it clear that this was also part of the law of Scotland so far as statutory law offences were concerned. Accordingly, a person who is stationed to give warning while other people commit an offence would quite clearly be art and part in the commission of that offence.
A good example is a member of a gang stationed outside a house into which housebreakers are breaking. If he has kept watch he is equally guilty of the offence with those who enter the house and commit the crime of housebreaking. So far as the person who is not stationed there to do that is concerned, but who does so, it may be a matter of the circumstances in each case, but if he did it knowingly, knowing that he was assisting in the commission of the offence by giving warning to those who were committing the offence to enable them to go scatheless, in my opinion he could be convicted of being art and part of the commission of the offence.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(PROHIBITION AGAINST USING EXPLOSIVE AND OTHER NOXIOUS SUBSTANCES FOR THE DESTRUCTION OF FISH.)
Mr. Rankin: I beg to move, in page 2, line 19, after "with," to insert, "or without."
We have been dealing so far with a whole series of malpractices concerning salmon fishing. We have been trying to make it more difficult for gangs, commercial spivs and even the rod and line expert to take salmon from our rivers. These are all minor offences. While we are taking all these steps to enable salmon to increase, we are ignoring the greatest offence of all. We are ignoring the people who pour noxious substances into the rivers which destroys all life and makes these rivers both evil and unsightly, as well as offensive to the neighbourhoods through which they flow.
186
This is a major offence which is being allowed to pass almost unnoticed.
I know that the introduction of these words would make a major change in the Bill. My right hon. Friend may say that this matter will be dealt with by another Bill at a later stage, or that the matter is under consideration. I suggest, however, that nothing but good could result if this Amendment were accepted. I know that many difficulties are involved in meeting its implications, but it would give sufficient time for the industrial undertakings adequately to deal with their effluent so that we can safeguard the fish life in our rivers.
Mr. McNeil: There is hardly a word my hon. Friend the Member for Trades-ton (Mr. Rankin) has said with which I disagree. There is no doubt that this is the subject which concerns us all. It is a subject which, because it has not been properly dealt with in the past, is doing great harm to Scottish interests. Nevertheless, I ask my hon. Friend not to press his Amendment. He indicated that he thought there might be time for industrial interests to make the necessary arrangements to prevent the discharge of noxious effluent into our rivers. He will agree, on reflexion, that this Amendment is impracticable. He probably knows that there is a report available in the Vote Office which comes from the Committee that was set up under the distinguished chairmanship of Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay which deals with this subject?
Mr. McGovern: Humphrey Bogart?
Mr. McNeil: Humphrey Bogart might be able to deal with this subject more directly, but he would not deal with it so thoroughly as Sir Humphrey Broun Lindsay. We are actively examining this report, and I shall shortly be having consultations with a multiciplicity of interests affected by it and the Bill. There are not only the industrialists but the river boards and local authorities, as well as a great range of other interests, that must be consulted if we are to make a job of it. I can give an undertaking on behalf of the Government that we hope to be able to offer a Bill within a few months, and I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to see his way to withdraw his Amendment on that assurance.
Mr. Rankin: I have no desire to short-circuit possible legislation, or to create a new Bill by the insertion of a two-word Amendment. In view of the very comforting assurance that my right hon. Friend has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Stuart: I am sorry that it has not been possible to call the Amendment which stands in my name and the names of several of my colleagues. I am referring to the Amendment in page 2, line 19, at the end, to insert:
"(c) sells in contravention of any of the provisions of Part 11 of the Pharmacy and Poisons Act, 1933, or any rules made thereunder, any substances containing hydrocyanic acid, cyanides or double cyanides of mercury and zinc or any other poison or other noxious substance which may be used to take or destroy fish; or."
The subject of this Amendment would appear to be particularly appropriate on a Clause which deals with noxious substances for the destruction of fish. Poison would seem to be particularly relevant in this connection—and I should have thought that a Clause in this respect would not have been out of order.
It seems to me that the present position in regard to the sale of certain poisons is somewhat lax in certain respects. Such poisons as cyanides can be brought from ironmongers and agricultural stores. We should be grateful if the right hon. Gentleman could give some consideration to this matter.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(PENALTIES FOR CONTRAVENTIONS OF SECTIONS 3 AND 4)
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, after "on." to insert "conviction on."
A person is not liable to either fine or imprisonment, or both, on indictment, but merely on conviction on indictment. Therefore, we are moving this drafting Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(TAKING OF DEAD SALMON OR TROUT)
Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 2, line 34, at the beginning, to insert:
"Without prejudice to the operation of section three of the Diseases of Fish Act, 1937."
This Amendment is necessary to safeguard the powers of some fishery boards in regard to dead or dying fish. We need a safeguard under Section 3 of the Diseases of Fish Act, 1937. That section gives power to district boards to take practical steps to secure the removal of dead or dying fish.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF SALMON OR TROUT.)
6.0 p.m.
Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, to leave out subsection (3).
The Deputy-Chairman: As this Amendment and the next one, that to page 3, line 15, deal with the same matter I think that we can take them together.
Mr. Ross: This subsection makes it possible for a person to be convicted under any of the previous subsections on the evidence of one witness. This raises a fundamental point of Scottish justice. It is not that I have any sympathy with commercial poachers. I deplore their depredations as much as anyone else and I want action taken against them. It is not that I want to make it more difficult to get a conviction against them, but, against that, we have to balance the question of protecting the public and of the whole idea of justice. I oppose it, therefore, on the more general issue of the traditional sense of Scottish justice, which lays it down that there should be at least two witnesses before a man can be convicted of an offence.
It is a very serious thing that we should be rendering a man liable to a fine of £50 or three months' imprisonment and going so far as a fine of £500 and two years' imprisonment on the evidence of one witness. We should guard very carefully against the possibility of a miscarriage of justice. Under this Clause we are making it possible for a man to be subject to these penalties and to that loss of freedom on the evidence of one witness only,

189
and thereby increasing the possibilities of a miscarriage of justice. That is a fundamental principle and is altogether apart from the fact that in some cases there might be persons who were determined somehow or other to get at an individual. The unsubstantiated evidence of one witness would be sufficient to cause these penalties to be imposed.
It was Lord Mackintosh, one of our learned Scottish judges, who spoke recently against this principle being brought into Scottish law. I hope that Scottish Members will raise their voices tonight and make sure that we will not deprive any Scottish person or anyone living in Scotland of his freedom for the sake of making it easier to get convictions in some particular cases. We have to watch carefully our fundamental freedom, and for that reason I strongly oppose the introduction of this subsection.
Mr. Rankin: I understood that this particular Amendment was being taken in conjunction with the one that stands in my name, in line 15, leave out "one witness" and add "two witnesses."
The Deputy-Chairman: Yes, they both deal with the same point.
Mr. Rankin: I shall be quite in order, therefore, in supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr.Ross). I realise fully that if the Bill is to be of any use it must work, and because of the circumstances under which the poachers work it will be very difficult to get two witnesses on whose testimony a conviction could be secured. Nevertheless, we have got to weigh, against that fact, the danger that this part of the Bill may be used as a weapon of victimisation. We face the further possibility, to which I do not think any Member of the Committee will subscribe, that certain persons, living in a small community, may find themselves able to apply victimisation, because one particular person will be vested with a certain authority under this Bill and might be able perhaps to say something against another which might not necessarily be justified.
Commander Galbraith: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that somebody placed the fish in the possession of the gentleman who is afterwards brought to court?
Mr. Manuel: There might be no fish.
Mr. Rankin: It does not always necessarily follow that a person needs to have a fish in his possession before he can be charged under the Bill as it stands. That is where the danger of victimisation might possibly arise. I know, of course, that it may be argued that there is precedent in Scottish law for the testimony of one witness. It may be that my right hon. Friend will be able to say, "We have instances already where one witness is all that is demanded." All I would say, in reply, is that everyone on this side of the Committee has condemned that as bad law. We have condemned it in the past, and if that is to proceed tonight I am still condemning it. That is the reason why I suggest that two witnesses should be inserted into the Bill instead of one.
Mr. McKie: The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) appealed to Scottish Members to raise their voices on this question. I gladly respond to the invitation which he extended to me, but I am sorry that I cannot raise it in the strains which he would wish me to do, because I very much hope that the Lord Advocate will stand very firm on this point and resist the plea of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock, and the somewhat weaker plea made by his hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). When I say it was weaker, I do not mean it offensively, but the hon. Gentleman himself indicated in the closing sentences of his speech that he did not go as far as his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock in the soundness of his arguments. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock took the very high line of the elementary principle of Scottish justice. The hon. Member for Tradeston said no doubt the Lord Advocate could produce very good arguments to show that this was not really contravening the law of Scotland in any way.
Mr. Rankin rose—
Mr. McKie: No, I cannot give way. The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that when we are in Committee he can make a second speech, and he can follow me with another speech if he is fortunate enough to catch your eye, Sir Charles.
I was about to say, when I resisted the hon. Gentleman's enticement to give way.

191
that the Solway Act, 1804, has certainly given to the salmon fishing in that famous estuary the protection of one witness only in the matter of convicting poachers. I do not know if hon. Gentlemen opposite will like it any better because it has been in existence for 150 years. It is true that it was a piece of legislation promoted by a Tory Government, though it was reinforced by the Whigs, which may make it more acceptable to hon. Gentlemen opposite. It has stood the test of time and under it the one-witness principle has been maintained.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Tradeston, who seemed to be on weak ground, knew that not merely might the principle of one witness exist in Scottish law, but also that it was necessary in some cases because of the difficulty of securing a conviction in poaching cases as only one person might have been available. I am sure that that was the underlying principle of the Solway Act of 1804. The hon. Gentleman can take it from me that it would have been very difficult for the Solway stake net fishing, which has been a very good thing for Scotland, not merely for those who are engaged in it but as a means of providing food for the people of Scotland generally, to promote their industry to the flourishing condition which it still enjoys unless the one witness principle had been enacted in the Act of 1804 by a Tory Government, supported by the Whigs, in those days of long ago.
I hope that I have said enough to show hon. Gentlemen opposite that they have no support from me for the idea that there should be more than one witness. Many of the people who engaged in the Solway stake net fishing industry are anxious to know whether, if we agree to this Clause going forward, the Act of 1804 will be repealed. It says in the Schedule that two Sections of the Act are to be repealed. They want to know whether they will have the benefit of the one witness which this Clause of the Bill provides. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to clear away doubt on this matter. Apart from that point, I certainly support the principle of the one witness.
Mr. McGovern: I oppose the whole proposal that it shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this Clause
192
on the evidence of one witness. My mind goes back to the years 1930 and 1931, and to the time when a storm arose here one evening because a Clause was proposed in a Transport Bill to give power to convict on the evidence of one policeman. The Minister had to withdraw the Clause and alter it. Members of the House of Commons were vigilant in seeing that justice should be done, and although they were prepared to give the utmost protection to pedestrians and to the community in general, they wanted to safeguard the rights of any individual who was brought before the court.
I am prepared to hear what the Lord Advocate has to say in defence of this proposal. A man could be caught in an act, and it would only be one witness who would determine whether he had committed a crime or not. The man could be caught with explosives and with all the gear necessary to commit an offence. The evidence of one witness might be deemed to be all that was necessary. Nevertheless, we have known in the past of cases in the court where there have been questions of identification. An individual might have been suspected of committing an offence, and some one person would say: "That is the man who was guilty of the crime." Surely no court, whether of judge or sheriff, even in those circumstances, should be given power to convict.
I have spent a long period or time hearing trials in the High Courts, sheriff courts and justices' courts. I should be very loath to put power into the hands of any person sitting on a bench to convict upon the evidence of only one witness. That would be an extremely dangerous thing to do. Members of this Committee would be failing in their duty, no matter what side they may sit on, if they were prepared to give power in the bold way that it is sought in the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
Sometimes, in defence of a Clause of this kind, a case is put by a Minister, but we have always to remember that when a judge or sheriff is dealing with an offender he does not take notice of the Minister's statement as reported in HANSARD. He takes notice of the law as laid down in the Act of Parliament. We want to make sure that we say exactly what is meant when we give

193
power to convict on the evidence of one witness.
I am told that this principle has been the law of Scotland for 150 years, but to say that it should not be altered now is the most outrageous doctrine I have ever heard. Many of the laws which have been operating in this country are only now beginning to be altered, when democracy is beginning to operate. We see not only the necessity to change such laws but the kind of people who made the laws which have operated in this country. Hon. Members need be in no doubt that if this matter is taken to a Division, and if there has not been a satisfactory answer from the Government Front Bench, then I shall go into the Lobby against this Clause. It is outrageous to propose to place power into the hands of individuals to convict on the evidence of only one person.
I know of men who have been convicted in the past on the evidence of two or three witnesses, yet I have been convinced that they were innocent. We know that people may have a certain amount of spleen in a vindictive way which makes them go and swear false evidence against others. I say that the greatest criminal in the country is entitled to the greatest protection we can give to ensure that justice is done. It is outrageous to propose what is in the Clause, and I heartly oppose it and will go into the Lobby to vote it down.
Mr. Hoy: I add my voice to the voices of other hon. Members in this Committee, because I am very loath to make what would be a fundamental change in the law of Scotland. I support my hon. Friends the Members for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). I would say, in passing, that my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston is on very much better ground on this occasion than he was with his last Amendment. A very distinguished member of the Scottish bench, only on 18th December last year, when summing up in a case in the Glasgow High Court, said something which was a complete answer to the hon. Member who said that this principle has been the law of Scotland for 150 years. I think the hon. Member was arguing on a wrong supposition. He ought to have made it clear that what was done in the Act affecting the Solway did not apply generally to the law of Scotland. The
194
learned lawyer to whom 1 have referred said:
"It is a firmly fixed principle in the law of Scotland that the essential details of a charge cannot be proved by the statements of one witness alone. There must be corroborative evidence."
Because of that, he gave a decision in favour of an accused person. [HON. MEMBERS: "Who was it?"] Lord Mackintosh. I think he was stating the law of Scotland.
It would be a great departure to make it possible under a Bill of this kind for the evidence of one witness to convict a person who can be found in or near some fishing grounds. It might even be that because of a grudge by one person against another a conviction might take place. I am sure that the Committee will be loath to depart from what has been the law of Scotland. We shall certainly listen to what the Lord Advocate has to say, but I can assure him that he will have to make a very strong case to convince hon. Members, at least those on this side of the Committee, that this change in the law ought to be made.
The Lord Advocate: I was hoping, in view of the progress that we had been making with the Bill, that despite the fact that the Rule has not been suspended we might be able to complete the Committee stage today. Therefore, I intervene at this stage in the hope that I may be able to short-circuit what might otherwise be a very long and interesting discussion on a very interesting point. I do not think I need assure my hon. Friends, nor hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, that this departure from the normal law—
Mr. Rankin: On a point of order, Sir Charles. May I ask for clarification of the position? I understood my right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate, to say that the Rule has not been suspended but according to the Order Paper it has been. Which is correct?
The Deputy-Chairman: There was a good deal of noise going on at the time in the House. The Motion to suspend the Rule is on the Order Paper, but it was not moved. So we stop at 10 o'clock.
The Lord Advocate: I trust that the information which I have managed to convey will sink into the minds of those for whose benefit it was mentioned. I am sure that hon. and right hon. Gentle-

195
men opposite, as well as my hon. Friends, will appreciate that we did not lightly depart from what is, I entirely agree, a fundamental principle of the Scottish law of evidence. We gave this matter very great consideration indeed. I will give the Committee the reasons which eventually weighed in favour of adopting this Clause.
Before doing so I will make some general observations. While conceding to my hon. Friend the Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) and to my other hon. Friends that this is very much a fundamental principle of our law in Scotland, I do not think that one could say that it would be outrageous to convict on the evidence of one witness and one witness alone, because it is, for instance, the general rule in the English criminal court that it is sufficient to take the evidence of one witness to justify a conviction. There are exceptions to it, but that is the general rule. I am not praying that in aid to support what we are doing here, but I am merely rebutting the suggestion that it is outrageous to have such a code of law. We have our own code of law in Scotland, and I wish to approach the problem from that point of view.
My second observation is this. The subsection only permits the court to convict on the evidence of one witness; in other words, it would be open for the court to say, "I am not satisfied on the evidence of one witness." On the other hand, it would be competent for the court to say, "I am satisfied on the evidence of one witness"; but I can give the assurance that it is the practice of the court to look perhaps even more carefully at the evidence in cases where the evidence of one witness would suffice as compared with cases in which there is a multiplicity of witnesses to give evidence.
Be that as it may, we come to the question whether or not this is justifiable. Here we come to the very basis of the Bill—the fons et origo of the Bill—the attempt to get the gangs. There is no doubt whatsoever about that. The great difficulty—I ask hon. Members to consider the practical difficulty—was that the gangs in their depredations do not usually select the points where multitudes of witnesses will be present to give testimony against them; normally they select a remote part of the country where a good pool is
196
available and where there is little likelihood of anyone being present to witness their offence. In many cases the only possibility of their being detected is by a water bailiff or some other person being on patrol on a lonely stretch.
From the information put before us, and having regard to various submissions made before the Maconochie Committee, we were satisfied that the likelihood of getting any legal evidence sufficient to warrant a conviction in these circumstances was very remote if we had to depend on the ordinary law whereby we require either two witnesses or one witness corroborated by facts and circumstances. I would say parenthetically that for that reason, if either of these Amendments were to be selected, I should prefer the one in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. 'Ross) to that in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) because I believe that the latter is rather misleading.
Mr. Ross: Am I to understand that there has not been a single conviction of any of the gangs in Scotland?
The Lord Advocate: The difficulty is —I was coming to the point—that under the existing law there was no provision comparable to the provisions of this Clause and one of the great difficulties which we experienced was that unless we caught the person in flagrance delicto our hands were tied, and if we managed to get the person coming from the locus, whether it was 300 yards, three miles, or 30 miles away, stopped the vehicle and found it laden with salmon, nets or explosives, we could do nothing, because under the existing law we could not identify that with the commission of an offence at a certain point. Evidence to that effect was given by the Chief Constables' Association, who pointed out the weakness in the law, and it was in order to stop up that gap in the law that the previous subsections in the Clause were introduced. The Committee will agree that these are very necessary provisions, because if we are to carry out warfare against these gangsters we must have the necessary weapons with which to do it. Let us be realistic about that.
Having taken that power, we were faced with the difficulty that unless we managed to get them in circumstances where we had more than one witness

197
available or in circumstances where a witness could be corroborated by facts and circumstances—the standing general law of Scotland in this matter—it would be impossible to get a conviction. We were dealing with a case where much of the evidence might be obtainable only in remote parts of the country where we could expect only one individual to be. That is the practical difficulty, and I hope that my hon. Friends will appreciate that we had to approach it from that point of view. In the last analysis it came down to this, "Are we prepared to have some effective sanction to stop up this gap or, in order to preserve this general law and not to make any infringement of it in this case, are we prepared to lose the sanction which we might otherwise have?"
When we came to examine that, we found, not in the cases mentioned by the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie), but in another much more analogous case, that the general law of Scotland had already been departed from in this sense. On the question of poaching for game. which is an analogous case to poaching for salmon, we find that an offence against the Poaching Prevention Act of 1862 is at present an offence which can be proved by the evidence of one witness. So that this is no entirely new innovation into the law of Scotland, although it is true that all these cases are exceptions to the general rule.
6.30 p.m.
I do not want to deal with a number of other illustrations where by statute Parliament has said that the evidence of one person will be sufficient in Scotland, because I do not think they are apposite to this debate. However, the case of the Poaching Prevention Act is apposite because the courts have held that that Act attracts the provisions of the Day Trespass Act of 1832, and accordingly one witness would suffice.
In the last analysis we had to make up our minds whether we were to carry out effective warfare against these people or not; whether we were to have the means at our disposal not only to catch them, because that is not sufficient, but to put them into court and get a conviction against them, which is the important part of the proceedings. After grave consideration, we came to the conclusion that without this provision it might well be
198
that the other provisions of the Clause which are acceptable and desirable and necessary might become absolutely nugatory. I make this personal assertion, that I did not like departing from this normal rule of law. In the light of that explanation, and in these circumstances, I trust that hon. Members opposite and my hon. Friends will accept this provision in the spirit in which it was moved into the Clause.
Mr. Henderson Stewart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been dealing with an important point of Scottish law, but he left me in a little doubt. As we are all anxious to take the proper view in this matter, and bearing in mind the importance of maintaining our Scottish traditions, I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman to examine the following points.
He said that if he were pressed upon this matter—I suppose he meant that if it had to be a choice of one thing or another—he would prefer the Amendment of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to the other Amendment, since the former proposes to leave out subsection (3) altogether. Suppose that were done, would it then be impossible for any offender under this subsection to be prosecuted and convicted on the evidence of only one witness? If that is so, the re-marks of the right hon. and learned Gentleman run more powerfully. I was left in some doubt because it seems to me possible that the law of Scotland as it now is. and the procedure of the courts as it now is, might make it possible for a judge to have only one witness and, because the evidence was so strong, to decide that the evidence of that one witness was adequate to prosecute.
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that is not possible, I shall have to vote against either Amendment; if he says it would be possible, then I, and perhaps other hon. Members, would like to think this matter over. It is one of great importance and the right hon. and learned Gentleman might feel disposed to clear our minds on it.
Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I am not quite satisfied with the explanation which the Lord Advocate has given us. It still remains the fact that any person
"found in possession of any salmon or trout, or any instrument …"

199
can be convicted on the evidence of a single witness. The Committee ought to weigh this with great care, because when it comes to an issue of balancing technical convenience in the operation of an Act of Parliament against the fundamental rights of the individual concerned in the prosecution, the benefit of any doubt we may have in our minds ought to be cast in favour of the rights of the individual rather than in favour of the convenience of operating the Act. We should not lightly go into the Lobby, if this comes to a Division, in support of the argument put forward by my right hon. and learned Friend. So many things are already weighted against the individual in an isolated area confronted with all the pomp and ceremony of a court prosecution, that further to make him subject to conviction on the evidence of one witness is altogether too much to his disadvantage.
I am fairly sure that what the Committee, the Lord Advocate, and those who framed this provision had in mind was the person in a remote area where there are not many bailiffs or policemen or witnesses. These may be the places where most of the. offences take place, but the fact remains that to many of us on this side of the Committee it seems possible under this provision to have the victimisation of individuals who will fall under the suspicion of a bailiff and who at present cannot be convicted without more than one witness.
It is all very well for the. Lord Advocate to say that this is an attack upon the gangs. It is not confined to an attack upon the commercial gangs. This can be used against any isolated individual, and it can be used a lot more effectively against him than it can against organised gangs comprising several persons. In fact, I doubt whether one witness coming forward against the testimony of six, or eight or 10 persons in a gang of alleged poachers would find it possible to get a conviction, whereas his testimony would be much stronger coming forward against an iso-lated individual. Therefore, this will weigh more heavily and unfairly against the isolated individual, who is easily victimised and possibly deliberately selected for framing up, than against the gangs against whom it is intended to operate.
200
I wish the Lord Advocate could produce some stronger arguments why we should depart from the existing practice of the prevailing law before we go into the Lobby. If we do divide, which I hope we shall do on this issue, I shall go into the Lobby against it, because it is a nefarious doctrine that we should subjugate the fundamental rights of the individual to the convenience of the operation of any Act of Parliament.
Sir William Darling: The Committee will have thrilled to the concluding remarks of the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan). I have been struck by the fact that the advice tendered to the Committee has come mostly from representatives of well-known sporting areas—the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern), the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) and the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. Hoy)—
Mr. Rankin: And the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling).
Sir W. Darling: The Committee would be well advised to take the advice of the Lord Advocate on this matter. The right hon. and learned Gentleman at any rate has moved about the country outside his constituency to an extent sufficient to know that when persons go poaching they do not go in large numbers. [An HON. MEMBER: "How does the hon. Member know?] Poaching is an individual affair.
Supporters of the Government, in the discussion here tonight, have been deliberately saying that they want to defeat the law, that the protection of fish is an interest which they do not have in mind, and that they are going to make it quite impossible for anyone who commits a misdemeanour to be arrested. Do these gentlemen from urban areas of Glasgow and Lanark possess any elements of imagination? What happens on the banks of the Tweed on a dark, rainy night in the fishing season? Persons engaged in these expeditions go alone and unac-ompanied. To suggest that they should have a crowd of witnesses before they can be convicted is a preposterous idea that arises only the minds of Western Isles mystics or Clydeside proletarians.
We are dealing with a thing which is always done in the dark, and the presence of witnesses in order to obtain a conviction is quite impossible. This is a case

201
where two are company but one is a much more desirable agent for the public welfare than would be a crowd. I beg the Socialist supporters of the Government on this occasion, therefore, to be content with the unitarian doctrine and not the theory that there must be two in order that justice shall be done.
I should like to add my own question to one which has been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart). Subsection (3) states that:
"It shall he lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness."
My hon. Friend asked about the effect of the subsection. The Lord Advocate has expressed, surprisingly enough, a mild approval for the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) in preference to that of his hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston. I take it that the effect of the removal of the subsection would be, surely, that the courts would require what common law demands: that is, two witnesses. That, in effect, allows the hon. Member for Kilmarnock to achieve his purpose by means of a simple guise. That may suit the convenience of the Lord Advocate, but I must point out that if he accepts the deletion of the subsection he is surrendering to his own supporters. Perhaps the right hon. and learned Gentleman will make his position clear before the Debate finishes.
I stand by one witness—"Dare to be a Daniel, dare to stand alone." If there are other hon. Members who are pleading for the individual, I also am pleading for the individual, and the one for whom I am pleading is the one witness who is justified in Clause 7.
6.45 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: More and more as the Debate develops, I come to the conclusion that the River Tweed is related to the main object of the Bill. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) because, with all due respect to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who lives on the bank of the Tweed, the whole question of conviction in the area of the River Tweed is electrical in its effect. My constituents in Peebles assure me that it is far cheaper
202
and more economical to go and admit that they have been in default than to plead not guilty and go back a second day, because they are bound to be convicted on the evidence of one witness and will lose two days' work, which they can ill afford.
Sir W. Darling: How many constituents of the hon. Member have been in this precarious position?
Mr. Pryde: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, on Second Reading, said that a great number of my constituents were poachers, especially on his preserves. I resent and refute that suggestion because in my two counties we have the most expert anglers in Scotland. If any Member disputes that, I am quite willing to nominate six men—
Sir W. Darling: One witness would be be enough.
Mr. Pryde: We will put up one judge, who will not be the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, who is quite prepared to condemn even a gang of men on the evidence of one witness. There is no reference to gangs in subsection (3), which does, however, mention "a person." There can be no excuse, therefore, for refusing to accept the Amendment.
Brigadier Thorp: Does the subsection apply to England or is it not necessary because we have only one witness now? If it is correct, as I think, that we need only one witness now, surely the Bill is only bringing the Scottish law into line with that of England. I see no reason for giving any heed to the Amendment.
Mr. Hector Hughes: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not persist with the subsection, which has had only one apologist for it here tonight, namely, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), who put forward one of his usual diverting but perverting arguments in favour of the subsection.
Sir W. Darling: The hon. and learned Member said that there was only one apologist. May I remind him also of the Lord Advocate?
Mr. Hughes: I should have said, one apologist for the Lord Advocate. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will not be misled by that one apologist of his

203
into persisting with the subsection, which is thoroughly unethical, thoroughly wrong, and, indeed, juridically unacceptable.
There is no doubt that on general principles two witnesses are desirable in every criminal case. The object of having a second witness is to corroborate the first or to contradict him, to prevent mistakes and prejudice, or to prevent the accused being the victim of a plot. It may be said—indeed, it has been said—that the very nature of the case here provides corroboration for the prosecution. The corroboration suggested is that a person may be found in
"possession of salmon or trout or of any instrument, explosive, poison or other noxious substance…"
What is to prevent these things being "planted" on the simple fisherman? It has been said that the prosecution's witnesses in cases such as are envisaged here travel alone. What is to prevent their witness—the gamekeeper, the warden, or whoever he may be—travelling on his inspections in company? He would be safer, happier, and a more credible witness if he had corroboration. I hope that the subsection will be rejected as thoroughly bad and unethical.
Mr. Gage: This is one of the rare occasions when the Committee should support the Lord Advocate. Apart from the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) said, that this provision achieves the very desirable object of bringing the law of Scotland into line with the law of England and Northern Ireland, it is astonishing that no one has so far mentioned what is important about a witness—that he tells the truth. If one can get 20 people to tell a lie 20 times, the court will always accept it, but there is nothing magical in the number. Courts are there for the purpose of weighing evidence and of deciding whether they will accept the evidence of one person who is an honest person telling the truth or of 10 people who seem to be dishonest.
Mr. Pryde: This is Scotland, not Belfast. What would be the position if the witness were not an honest person?
Mr. Gage: It is just as easy to decide that if it is only one person as if it were more than one person. The effect of the
204
present law of Scotland is that the hands of authority are tied where it so happens that a bad case of poaching has been witnessed by only one person. All this Clause does is to enable a case to be brought in those circumstances. It does not by any means follow that there will be a conviction. There will be a conviction if the one witness is believed. It is doing violence to those who sit in sheriff courts in Scotland to say that they are incapable of judging the veracity of the witness when there is only one witness.
In some cases—and I imagine the law of Scotland is the same as that of England—it is desirable to have two witnesses or more, as in cases of violence or cases affecting young children, but one would have thought that if the person gives evidence on oath and appears to be telling the truth it would be perfectly proper for a case to be brought in such circumstances. For those reasons, I think the Clause should be supported.
The Lord Advocate: We have had a very full debate and I imagine that all the various representative views have been aired. I trust that after I have tried to answer the various points that have been raised, the Committee will feel in a position to come to a conclusion. I have the impression that anything more that may be added, in view of the very full argument, would be only dotting the i's and crossing the t's of the arguments already put forward.
I am sure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) never thought he would live to see the day—nor did I—when he would be described, however mistakenly, as the sole apologist for the Lord Advocate. In reply to the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), we are not—and I say this advisedly—trying to bring the law of Scotland into line with the law of England. It so happens that the net result of this is that for this particular purpose the law of Scotland will be the same as the law of England. But that is an entirely different matter, because one is merely the result of a certain necessary act and the other would be a most retrograde step. The House knows full well that in recent years the tendency has been for the law of England to adopt the law of Scotland, to the great benefit of the law of England.

205
The hon. Member for Fife, East (Mr. Stewart) wondered why I said that I preferred the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) to that of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin). The reason is that if the subsection were deleted, we would be left with the existing law of evidence to cover cases of this nature. If we adopted the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Tradeston and put in "on the evidence of two witnesses," from one point of view it would be quite unnecessary, and from the other point of view quite misleading, because in law we require the evidence either of two witnesses or one witness corroborated by facts and circumstances. Therefore, we need not have two direct witnesses speaking to the commission of the offence. If we had to choose between the two Amendments, it would be better to delete the subsection, leaving the existing law to apply rather than to put in something which from one point of view is unnecessary, and from the other may be misleading.
I must again ask the Committee to have regard to the factors which motivated us in making this exception to the general rule. It is not, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) said, a technical convenience to over-ride individual rights. The practical problem is whether or not we are to enforce the provisions of this particular Clause. If we want to carry out the provisions of this Clause, having regard to the factors to which I have referred, I am afraid we require this. If we do not want to do it, we may have what may be a gesture in the Bill, but something which will not be an effective remedy. That is the choice hon. Members must make, and I can assure them that, whether they divide on this or not, the position was not reached lightly, but only after careful and mature consideration.
Mr. M. MacMillan: My right hon. and learned Friend would agree that this would not only apply to organised gangs but also to individual persons?
The Lord Advocate: That is perfectly true, and there is nothing unusual about that, because whenever we are making a law we have to provide for a whole range of cases which come within a particular category. We do not have a tariff
206
according to each particular case. That is not the way we work our law—
Mr. Hector Hughes rose—
The Lord Advocate: Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend will let me finish what I am saying. Accordingly, while it is true that this law would apply to the individual as to the gang, the fact remains that it is equally difficult to bring a case against an individual as against a gang, and there we are in pari causa
The hon. Member for Belfast, South, probably did me less than credit when he said that no one had mentioned the fact that the essential thing in relation to this particular provision was that it should be the evidence of one credible witness. In an earlier speech I laid great emphasis on the point that the court must be prepared to accept the evidence of that witness. In a normal case that is not sufficient because there still has to be corroboration of that, as far as Scotland is concerned. But at the end of the day, if this Clause were passed, the court would have to be satisfied and—may I reiterate a principle which those of the profession South of the Border, who have more experience of the one witness case than I have, may substantiate?—when there is only one witness the court tends to look more particularly at the evidence of that one witness than it would at that of a multitude of witnesses all corroborating each other.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles suggested that there was always a danger of a frame-up and that we had to be careful and suspicious of those dangers, but he finished by asking me to frame up a new Clause. I think he has to realise that if we are to proceed on the basis that evidence might be perjured, it does not matter whether we provide for one witness or for 20 witnesses under the Bill. If we are to proceed on the basis that the evidence is to be perjured evidence, there is no chance at all of getting justice in the country.
I hope that in these circumstances we can come to a decision on this very difficult matter, but in the circumstances I ask my hon. Friends who have spoken against this provision to think very carefully again and to realise that we need it to make this an effective Measure.
7.0 p.m.
Mr. Manuel: I intend to speak briefly and to appeal to the Lord Advocate to consider one or two points which I do not think have been dealt with up to now. Incidentally, I was extremely sorry to see the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Gage), rather slipping from the attitude he took up on Second Reading, when he supported fairly generously some remarks which I made about trout fishing as against the taking of salmon. This provision applies equally to the small trout, the insignificant trout, as to the salmon which is so often caught for commercial and other purposes.
I have a fairly intimate knowledge of the Highlands, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. M. MacMillan) in the major part of the case he made out. But anyone who has an intimate knowledge of the Highlands will agree with me that it is completely wrong to think that we shall be in a better position, with one witness, in combating gangs who are raiding rivers and other waters to catch salmon for commercial purposes.
Having an intimate knowledge of the position, I am quite certain that if we are to combat and stop these gangs it will not be done by the one-witness procedure. If we are to combat them the persons employed by the estate owners or the owners of the fishing rights would all be able to offer evidence of the depredation when it occurred. Nor do I believe that it would be easier for one witness to deal with the question of identification, for example, in the case of five or six men in a gang, than it would be for two or more employees or gamekeepers or water bailiffs.
Above all, as one who has taken an active part in a small way in burgh police court work, I am certain that the majority of such courts in Scotland are completely against imposing fines in respect of prosecutions when only one witness is available. We have set our minds against that even when that one witness has been our local policeman. We knew that so much could come into the evidence that could be wrongly construed. I am aware of certain Highland villages where certain persons who are not too badly thought of members of the community have been fairly successful in getting a trout or a salmon for the pot despite the attempts
208
of a particular gamekeeper to apprehend them or secure a conviction against them. That was the position not because the gamekeeper was there alone, but because those he sought were more natural to the soil and to the taking of game or fish than the man who was acting for the landowner. I ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at this matter. I do not think that we shall be on strong ground if the principle of one witness is adopted.
Mr. Carmichael: I agree with the Lord Advocate that he did not introduce this Clause lightly. I am quite satisfied that no one with the great knowledge which he has of the law would deliberately try to frame a Bill which would make it easy to convict people without a fair and just trial. He has, however, to recognise that this is undoubtedly a very serious departure. There is nothing in the provision that indicates the need for corroborative evidence. It simply states:
"It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness."
I was associated with an Amendment which suggested the deletion of the subsection. That would not have hampered the Lord Advocate in proceeding with the Bill. One can see that if this principle is established in dealing with salmon it will be justifiable to argue the case for one witness without corroborative evidence in respect of every Bill brought forward dealing with Scotland. I could put up a stronger case in justification of the principle of one witness being applied against a person who might ill-treat a child or commit any number of criminal acts than could be made in the case of salmon poaching.
Let us revert to the first point made by, the Lord Advocate—that it is the gangs at which we are trying to aim. My right hon. and learned Friend admits that. I agree that if the law is applied it must be applied universally, that it must cover everybody, but because we are trying to get at the gangs we are, by this provision, curtailing the law. I remember that before the General Election the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson), who then represented an English constituency, drew attention to the gang poaching in the North of Scotland. I mention this point because it has been suggested today that all this poaching is done silently in the dead of night, and that it

209
is difficult to catch the people concerned. He told us on one occasion how people were actually loading the salmon into wagons are taking them in truckloads to London—
Mr. McGovern: With faked labels.
Mr. Carmichael: Yes, faked labels are all the rest of it. They did not do that in the silence of the night when no one was likely to catch them. That is organised gang poaching; it cannot be done by one person. If they are organised in this way how is it possible for people to go to the North of Scotlare are silently use nets? The Committee reporting on this matter said that the offenders used the nets in groups to gather in the salmon. If we are to believe that they are organised to that extent are the counties so denuded of population or people in authority that they can only furnish, on an odd occasion, one person who is likely to catch the offenders?
I am not prepared to accept that view. My greatest objection to this proposal is the departure in the law that it represents. It is a retrograde step that is being taken. It may be argued that the courts pay more attention to one witness than to two or three witnesses, although it is a slight reflection on the judge if it is suggested that he becomes more alert are more careful in such circumstances. That has been said in effect by some learned Members on the other side of the Committee, are that was a view—
The Lord Advocate: I do not wish to be misunderstood. What I intended to convey, whether I did so or not, so far as the evidence of the person is concerned, was that the court was likely to scrutinise perhaps much more carefully the evidence of one person than the evidence of a series of people, all of whom were more or less giving substantially the same evidence.
Mr. Carmichael: I will not pursue that point beyond a brief answer. The Lord Advocate has on many occasions acted for the defence in the courts of Scotlare. One of the strong endeavours, are rightly so, of defending counsel in a court is to try to refute the evidence of one witness for the prosecution with the evidence of another witness for the prosecution. That is a strong point. The person in the
210
dock must always try to prove that the evidence for the prosecution is not as sound as the prosecution is endeavouring to make it. But we are going to deny him that right. As has already been said in the debate today, it is the easiest thing in the world for a bailiff to take offence at somebody living in the area and because of it that person can be constantly prosecuted.
Some of us know from our own experience in the small courts of our cities that it is not uncommon even for two witnesses to get their knife into a person so that that person is then constantly before the courts. I do not think we should go much further than that, and I beg the Lord Advocate and the Secretary of State for Scotland to put their heads together on this matter. I do not think we could have two better heads for the purpose. Knowing the feeling of the Committee, knowing that this is a departure which can go right through the whole of the Scottish law, I beg of them to think it over and at least try to avoid any division; and recognise the position of at least one witness and corroborative evidence.
Mr. Ross: I rise merely to ask the Lord Advocate if he will have another look at this matter. I have listened to the debate, and despite the rather tautological verbal acrobatics of so smooth and skilled an individualist as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), and the more serious address on the subject by the Lord Advocate, I think that no Member of the Committee can be convinced of the absolute necessity for this departure from Scottish justice.
The Lord Advocate himself stated that if the Amendment in the name of myself and the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Tradeston (Mr. Rankin) were accepted it would mean that the evidence of one witness would have to be supported by corroborative evidence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Or another witness"]—or another witness. But leave aside the other witness for the moment. I think everyone realises that the case is not quite as serious as he originally made out. But this is very serious if we look at it from the point of view of the person in the dock. No other corroborative evidence needs to be brought forward, other than the plain statement of a witness that the person

211
in the dock is connected with this and has done that. That, and that alone, can bring down the penalty. The subsection says:
"It shall be lawful to convict a person charged under this section on the evidence of one witness."
It does not say anything else, and we cannot talk ourselves out of it.
We are introducing this principle into Scottish law, and just as the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. McKie) cited an 1804 law as a precedent for this, probably in a few years this will be cited as a precedent for a further extension of the principle. I would seriously ask the Lord Advocate—I know he has looked at it before—if he would have yet another look at the matter. I do not want to bring the Scottish law down to the level of the English law, no matter how high that level may be. I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to remember the date. This is 24th January. Probably tomorrow he will be going to a Burns supper. What would Burns have said about this kind of justice? I suggest in all seriousness that this matter requires more consideration. I hope the Lord Advocate will give us that assurance and obviate the necessity of forcing a Division.
7.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: Without giving any guarantees I would like to say—as I should not like to be misunderstood about this, or, at a later stage, be deemed to be going back on any promise I have given —that we shall look at this again, as we look at any serious matter in view of strong representations from either side of the Committee. We will look at this again between now and Report stage, but the difficulties to which I have already referred seem at the present date to favour having the Clause as it stands at present. We will see if there are any other circumstances or factors which might possibly enable us to take a more liberal view of the situation. I trust that that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
Mr. Ross: In view of that undertaking from the Lord Advocate I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Lord Dunglass: I notice that some Amendments have been put in the Second Schedule of the Act which deal with the Tweed, and that these Amendments have the effect of seriously reducing the possibility of prosecution for possession of nets. I think it must have been the intention of the Lord Advocate that the wording of Clause 7 should make up for the repeal of those particular sections of the 1859 and the 1857 Acts. I have hardly had time to look at this, but I think that the wording in Clause 7, dealing with the possession of illegal instruments, is not as strong as the wording in the 1857 and 1859 Tweed Fisheries Acts. Although I shall not ask him even to comment on this now unless he wishes to, I shall raise this matter again on Report stage. I would, therefore, be grateful if the Lord Advocate would look into this point with a view to seeing that these powers are not weakened, as I am sure that cannot be his intention.
Mr. Pryde: I regard this Clause as being dangerous in the extreme. It is most ambiguous. It says:
"If any person is found in possession of any salmon or trout…"
Well, any number of persons can be found in possession of salmon or trout.
"or any instrument."
The term "instrument" is not defined in Clause 22, nor in the Act of 1868 and we must therefore ask the Lord Advocate to define what is an instrument. The Clause also says:
"If any person is found in possession of any…explosive."
Peebles is a quarrying county and workmen there can be found to be carrying explosives. If they are so found in possession of explosives they will be liable under this Clause.
Subsection (2) says:
"Where the court is satisfied that a person charged under the last foregoing subsection obtained possession of salmon or trout—"
that is, if the court is satisfied on the evidence of one witness, then he shall be dealt with
"in a like manner as if he had been convicted of the same offence."
I would ask the Lord Advocate to clear up those points before we allow this Clause to stand part of the Bill.
The Lord Advocate: May I say to the hon. Member for Lanark (Lord Dunglass)

213
that we will have a look at the point he raised between now and the other stages of the Bill. The general purpose of the Bill is to bring within the framework of one code the procedure and penalties in respect of offences dealt with under the Bill instead of having them separated through different Acts of Parliament. Accordingly, we would much prefer to have one code throughout the Bill dealing with the various rivers in Scotland. But we will look at the point he has raised.
The reason why we did not attempt to define the term "instrument" in the interpretation Clause is because once we start defining certain instruments that may automatically exclude other forms of instruments. As soon as we debar one form of instrument, the wit and ingenuity of the people concerned in this industry—if I may call it that—would soon devise some other form of instrument not mentioned in the definition and would carry out their work by that means. Therefore, we concluded that it would be much better to define the legal method of fishing and designate everything else as an instrument which does not fall within the legal definition of the manner in which fishing can properly be done.
On the question of people such as the roadmen in the county of Peebles being found with explosives in their possession the court must be satisfied that they were in possession of the explosives or any other articles for the purpose of committing an offence. If the men said that they had the explosives because they were going to work further along the road, that would be a complete answer. In fact, I doubt whether there would be a prosecution. But if men have explosives which they are using for the purpose of taking salmon out of a river, that is a different matter. We must leave this question on the broad general basis, as we have done, rather than put into the Bill restrictive definitions which may completely defeat its purpose.
Lord Dunglass: We are only too happy to come within the scope of the new Bill. The point was that 80 per cent. of our convictions came under the appropriate subsection of the old Act.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(ATTEMPTS TO COMMIT OFFENCES.)
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Captain Duncan: I should like to make certain that Clause 8 covers everything that has been covered in the Clauses which we have discussed so far. Loitering with intent is mentioned in the 1828 Act, and that part of the 1828 Act is being repealed under the Second Schedule to this Bill. It has been part of our law for over 120 years and I do not see why we should alter the procedure in that respect. If my Amendment to this Clause had been called, it would have been moved with the object of keeping the law as it is rather than leaving out this reference to loitering with intent. It is possible that this might leave a loophole for the chap who watches for the police or the bailiff in order to give notice to the people who are catching the fish. I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to satisfy me that the new words in this Clause will cover what will be deleted under the Second Schedule.
The Lord Advocate: I can give the hon. and gallant Gentleman that assurance.
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(SAVING FOR ACTS DONE FOR SCIENTIFIC, &C., PURPOSES.)
Mr. McNeil: I beg to move, in page 3, line 25, after "of," to insert "protecting."
This is a simple Amendment which I think is understandable at sight. It will be remembered that this Clause is inserted so that acts apparently in conflict with the Bill but clearly designed for scientific purposes, such as the improvement or development of stock for which permission had been obtained from the Secretary of State or from a district board, would not be a contravention. When we looked at the matter again, it seemed to us that the provision of the Clause should apply for the purposes of the protection as well as the development of stock and, as this might be doubtful under the Clause as drafted, it was decided to move this Amendment.
Mr. Perkins: I do not fully understand what the Secretary of State for Scotland

215
means by protection. Does he mean the protection of stock and, if so, against what? Is it protection against pike? In that case will it be in order for a person to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to destroy pike with a gaff, with explosives, by shooting or by snaring?
Mr. McNeil: I suppose that, broadly speaking, the answer would be "Yes." However, I should like to say to the hon. Gentleman whose preoccupation with this subject I well understand—because pike in every walk of life are most unattractive creatures—that if I happened to be the Secretary of State to whom he applied, I should look with a little hesitation upon a proposal to license him to wander about with a gun along rivers looking for pike. I should not do that because I have any doubt about the hon. Gentleman's intentions, but I have explained that it is the practice for some attractive diversions to be employed by wrongdoers. I should not like to see this as a general occupation.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 3, line 29, at the end, to add:
"Provided that the Secretary of State or the district board shall not give permission in writing under this section to any person to enter on any land without the consent of the owner thereof."
This Amendment would make the operation of Clause 9 more simple. Our object is to prevent any possibility of friction. If these scientific experts have the authority of the Secretary of State to enter upon land for these purposes, to which we have no objection, it would be wise for the owner to be informed and his consent obtained. Otherwise, it might be unfortunate if scientific work was misunderstood and a little friction of a different sort arose on the river bank or even in the river.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Thomas Fraser): I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not feel disposed to press this Amendment. I should like to convince him that it is not necessary. This Clause does not give power to the Secretary of State to authorise entry on private land. The only effect of the permission given by the Secretary of State is to secure that the permitted operations do not constitute a contravention of the law.
216
If we did not have Clause 9, there are many actions which might reasonably and properly be taken to protect and improve stocks of fish in the rivers which would constitute offences under this Bill. We must avoid that and we do it by enabling the Secretary of State to give permission to secure that operations may be carried out which otherwise would be an offence. If he gives permission no offence will be committed; but no person given permission by the Secretary of State to do these things will have any right of entry on any private land against the wishes of the owner of the land. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Amendment is unnecessary and that no powers of entry are given under the Clause as drafted.
Lord Dunglass: I do not fully appreciate the point. The Secretary of State appoints someone to do this and the Joint Under-Secretary says that he cannot go on to a person's property against the owner's wish. What is to prevent it? Does the owner have to charge the man with trespass?
7.30 p.m.
Mr. Fraser: The noble Lord will appreciate that this Clause says that a person shall not be guilty of any contravention in respect of any act if he does the act for a scientific purpose and if he has the permission of the Secretary of State for so doing. It may very well be the owner of the land himself, or it may be the lessee of the land; or it may be a bailiff or a gamekeeper. It is the person who asks the Secretary of State for permission to do something which is otherwise not permitted under the terms of the Statute. He is given permission by the Secretary of State to do it, and he can then do it, always providing that he has asked the permission of the owner of the land or some other person who can give him power of entry. No authority is given in this Clause for anyone to enter upon land against the wishes of the owner of the land.
Mr. Stuart: In view of what has been said, and of the fact that the Government are quite satisfied that that is the case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(PowERS OF WATER BAILIFFS.)
Lord Dunglass: I beg to move, in page 3, line 36, to leave out from "which," to the end of line 38, and to insert:
"there is reasonable cause to suspect of being used in committing an offence against this Act."
At one time, we thought that it was not worth while moving this Amendment, but perhaps it suggests a wider form of words which might be acceptable to the Secretary of State. The Clause at present says:
"reasonable cause to suspect of containing salmon or trout";
and we suggest
"reasonable cause to suspect of being used in committing an offence."
It is a slightly wider form of words, and the Amendment has only been put down in case the Secretary of State should prefer it.
Mr. McNeil: Yes, I am in agreement. I have had a look at this, and while I want to follow very closely the wording of the previous Act—and I am not sure that we should not stick to it—all I want to say is that I can see there is a case for changing the wording after "reasonable cause to suspect." However, as the noble Lord inferred, there are places where a boat may be used in estuary fishing, and where it would be easy to establish whether there was reasonable cause to suspect that it did contain salmon. I hope hon. Gentlemen opposite, to whom I acknowledge my debt, will permit me to look at this point between now and the Report stage.
Mr. N. Macpherson: May I ask whether the Clause, as it will read when amended, will include the power to stop and search motor boats which are not actually used for fishing, though perhaps they may be? I would call attention to the Maconochie Report, in paragraph 31 of which it is stated:
"In this connection we wish to draw attention to the very prevalent use of motor boats by poachers, particularly on the north-west coast and in the Islands."
I would simply ask whether the revised wording would give this power.
Mr. McNeil: I am assured that the Clause as it stands would cover any boat suspected of carrying salmon or trout.
Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not know what is the question you are about to put, Mr. Mathers, and whether it relates to the Amendment in the names of my right hon. Friends or that in my own name.
The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Mathers): It is necessary for me to put the Amendment in this form in order to save the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Macpherson). The question is, "That the word 'is' stand part of the Clause."
Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move—
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Gentleman is not being asked to move anything. The Amendment which I am putting is that in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart).
Lord Dunglass: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, in view of the assurance given by the Secretary of State.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of order. As I understand, from what the Secretary of State has said, that the point of the Amendment standing in my name—in page 3, line 36, after "is," to insert, "or may be"—is fully covered already by this Amendment, I therefore do not propose to move it.
The Temporary Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman does not move the Amendment, I shall not, of course, put it. I pass on to the next Amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde).
Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, to leave out paragraph (c).
I should like to ask if it will be possible to discuss together all five of the Amendments standing in my name; that is, this Amendment and those in page 3, line 43, leave out paragraph (d); page 4, line 1, leave out subsection (2); page 4, line 4, leave out subsection (3); and to page 4, line 14, leave out subsection (5).
The Temporary Chairman: That is quite in order. I will put them separately if it is necessary.
Mr. Pryde: The question here concerns the powers of water bailiffs under this Bill, and I claim that they are out of all

219
proportion to the necessity of the situation. I think it is perfectly true to say that if any of our people are caught, they will smile and say "It's a fair cop by the police. There is no reason why I should not go and plead guilty." On the other hand, according to a circular which I think most Scottish Members have received, there is a tendency on the part of poachers to fight, and here I think that the whole set-up of the water bailiffs is unnecessary in this country.
I think it is absolutely necessary for every able-bodied man today to be engaged in industry. In Peebles, we are closing agricultural hostels and even bringing European Voluntary Workers into industry. I do not pretend that there is not a need for river watchers, but I consider that this job could be done by elderly men who are no longer fit for industry and who could be equipped with "walkie-talkie" apparatus in order to get into immediate communication with the police. The police force is the only civilian instrument that can be used in our country for the enforcement of the law.
Under paragraphs (c) and (d) and in lines 1, 4 and 14 on page 4, and under subsections (2), (3), and (5), on page 4, lines 2, 20 and 24, we find that these water bailiffs are given powers which I think are a reflection on this Committee and require some explanation. For instance, subsection (2) says:
"Any water bailiff may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such board."
That is giving a water bailiff carte blanche to leave the Tweed and to come into Midlothian, which is the district adjoining his board. I would point out that I have made no reference to subsection (4) because I think that is the only substantial part of the clause which is constructive and progressive. It says:
"Any constable may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of this section."
The right hon. Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. Stuart) mentioned some correspondence in "The Scotsman." I noted that correspondence, and I noted, too, that fools rush in where angels fear to tread. A 19-year-old apprentice engineer made butcher's meat of the fools who
220
rushed in, because he pointed out that water bailiffs were not the kindly considerate people that some tried to suggest.
I wonder whether my own experience of a water bailiff would be instructive or illuminating to this Committee? One summer day, two of us were fishing a tributary of the Tweed and we had 15 minutes to wait on the bus, having caught nothing, but having thoroughly enjoyed ourselves. It was a nice summer day, and we had been working all the week in bad air and gelignite fumes in the pit, and desired to get out into the country. As I say, we had 15 minutes to wait on the bus, and the man with me decided to go over to the plantation. He was a very good boxer in his day; he was the late Andrew Blake of the Black Watch, and he had fought all over the world. While I was waiting for him, along came a great big man. He said to me, "Been fishing?" I replied, "Yes." He asked where, and I told him, whereupon, with a lot of unnecessary adjectives, he told me that we were poachers. I protested and said that we had not been poaching, but fishing legally. By this time my friend had come back and he said to the man, "I am going to thump you up and down this road." That man made off down the road at a speed which would have beaten the recent Powderhall winner. I looked at Blake and said, "Do you know him, Andrew?" "Know him," he said, "I should think I do; he is the water bailiff." "But what caused him to take up an attitude like that," I asked. "Oh," my friend replied. "that is his stock in trade."
I am not going to say that all water bailiffs are like that, but, invested with the arbitrary and wide powers which this Bill will confer upon them, I do suggest that they are going to be a danger to the average angler. I would ask my right hon. Friend to have another look at this and not to divert local labour required in the national interest to the protection of salmon. According to the same correspondence in "The Scotsman," we find a new term in regard to riparian proprietors; we find them called "salmon proprietors." I have heard of hotel proprietors, but never before of salmon proprietors. "The Scotsman," of course, is a very instructive and thoroughly reliable journal, but I hope and trust that on this occasion my right hon. Friend will

221
review the powers with which it is proposed to invest water bailiffs under this Bill.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. McNeil: I quite understand, of course, my hon. Friend's anxiety about water bailiffs. The water bailiff is like the policeman, an object of scorn, suspicion and joke by every fellow who touches a rod, but very rarely, I am glad to say, of attack. My hon. Friend seems to be trying to persuade the Committee that if we turned the water bailiffs on to the fields and let the rivers look after themselves, we would find the purposes of this Bill greatly advanced.
Mr. Pryde: I think I made it perfectly clear that I recognised the need for river watchers, and suggested how it could be done.
Mr. McNeil: I am sorry to say that the speech which my hon. Friend thought fit to make on Second Reading has not found favour with either the Government or, indeed, with any section of the Committee, and I must address my remarks to the Bill as it stands. My hon. Friend suggests that we should strip the water bailiffs of their power, several examples of which he has given. In the speech he has just made in his usual reasonable and genial way he has suggested that we would be better without water bailiffs.
I would suggest, in passing, that the dispersal of the European voluntary workers is not due to any particular departure of policy by us, but to the simple fact, of which I think he is aware, that these men have finished the contract under which they came to our country. Some of them are going into industry and others are making contracts with the farmers in the normal labour fashion. But as we have the Bill, we must have the bailiffs, and, if the bailiffs are to do the job, we must give them the necessary powers.
This Bill does not confer upon them any great extension of their powers. Paragraphs (c) and (d), to which my hon. Friend objects, confirm the existing position. His next Amendment, in page 4, line 1, seeks to leave out subsection (2) which, as he says, reads:
"Any water bailiff may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such hoard"
222
I suggest that those words are eminently reasonable. If a group of men are poaching when the bailiff comes along, and if all they require to do is to step across the line, the road or the bridge into the area adjoining, and by that simple method escape all the consequences of the Bill, then we shall look very foolish indeed. It is reasonable to assume that the bailiff will sometimes try to pursue the people whom he has come upon in the act of poaching. I should think it was quite reasonable to expect, not that he could pursue them over the countryside, and not that he should be endowed with the powers of a policeman, but that he should be able to exert himself in the performance of his duty.
My hon. Friend was good enough and considerate enough to the Committee not to pursue in detail his other Amendments, and, therefore, I will not seek to tire the Committee by doing so. All I would say is that except in relation to the adjoining area and except in relation to vehicles which he suspects, the water bailiff is not endowed under the Bill with any new powers and neither is he endowed anywhere, I suggest, with any unreasonable powers. However, if anyone found a water bailiff exceeding his brief, using his powers unfairly, he would have the normal redress of any citizen. He could pursue that water bailiff in the civil courts, and it is reasonable to assume that those courts would not be untender towards such a person.
Mr. Pryde: Suppose he could not produce a witness?
Mr. McNeil: He would have to satisfy the court, as we all have to satisfy the court in sustaining a claim for damages. If he were badly used one would expect the court to listen to him fairly and patiently. I hope that my hon. Friend, who has already made plain his distaste of water bailiffs, will not pursue his Amendment, because no substitute for the water bailiff is suggested and unless a very substantial proportion of our police force is to be diverted the Bill would be endangered.
Amendment negatived.
Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 4, line 15, to leave out "any water," and to insert:
"such water or waters as may be specified in the instrument of his appointment purport-

223
ing to be signed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State."
Perhaps I might also discuss the next Amendment, in line 17, to leave out from "the" to "shall," in line 18, and to insert "said instrument." Will that be convenient?
The Temporary Chairman: Certainly.
Mr. Macpherson: The Committee will always want to look with great care at the creation of any new body of men armed with powers, which is what this subsection does, especially when these people are later described in the Bill as "officers"—although I am aware that it is proposed to try to change the term "officers" to "persons"—and especially when such a body appears from the wording to be given powers to go anywhere in the land. The Wording is quite clear:
"Any person appointed by the Secretary of State in that behalf may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers."
That follows
"Any constable may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers."
Just as any constable can go anywhere, so, obviously, can any person go anywhere.
The argument I wish to submit to the Committee is that it would certainly appear desirable that those powers should be limited to particular waters. I am not certain, but the wording may permit these appointments to be limited to particular waters, although it does not appear that that is so from the wording as it stands. I suggest it would plainly be undesirable to have a class of supernumary water bailiffs for the country as a whole ready to be despatched to any areas which seem to be particularly marauded for the time being by gangs of poachers. What would be the effect of that? Surely the effect would be that as soon as these new faces appeared the gangs of poachers would move out. The right course must be to appoint local people for a local job, men who will be able to supplement the work of water bailiffs, who will know the inhabitants of the place and will know when new faces appear.
It is generally agreed that the constables are too few for the job that has to be performed. It is also agreed that the
224
water bailiffs are not sufficiently numerous in the country as a whole; in some places they are almost non-existent. The best thing would be to arrange to have these special nominees or appointees of the Secretary of State added where these conditions exist, particularly as it is now being made so much more difficult for the district boards themselves to provide sufficient water bailiffs. The cost of employing water bailiffs has gone up remarkably. The revenues receivable by the water boards will be going down as a result of the Bill, as they will no longer be getting the fines, and so on. It is therefore important that whoever is appointed should be appointed for a particular job are should not be given powers to roam at large, both because it is undesirable in general to appoint a fresh class of people with powers to roam at large and because the job will be done much more efficiently by people appointed for the job to look after the particular locality.
Mr. T. Fraser: I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press his Amendment. He wants to be sure, I think, that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State will not wander all over Scotland but will confine their activities to particular rivers. In the first place, it is desirable that there should be a power given to the Secretary of State to appoint persons who may do the job normally done by water bailiffs, because there are some quite important rivers in Scotland with salmon in them, on which there are no water bailiffs at all, and for which there is no district board. So the desirability of the Secretary of State having the power to appoint is. I think, accepted by all.
On reflection the hon. Gentleman probably would not want the Secretary of State to be restricted in any way in his appointment of persons, and he would want those persons appointed by the Secretary of State to be of the greatest assistance in controlling crime or in assisting the responsible authorities where offences under this Bill are being committed on a large scale. As the subsection is drafted, the Secretary of State can restrict the area of operation of any person appointed by him, and I think that normally it would be desirable to do so.
There may, however, be exceptional circumstances, as there have been in recent years. In recent years there has been exceptional poaching in some parts

225
of the country, and if these powers had existed it might be that the Secretary of State could have assisted in some areas where the policing is less than is desirable, or found not able to deal with the extent of the offences. He would have sent persons to assist. It would frequently be helpful to have persons who would normally do this work, and we would not have to rely upon people appointed specially in the area to deal with such circumstances.
Under the subsection as drafted the Secretary of State has power to restrict the area of operation of any person appointed by him. We would prefer not to be pressed to accept this Amendment, which would mean that the person would necessarily have to have his area of operation expressly set out in the instrument of appointment, and that he would not be able to go beyond that area.
8.0 p.m.
Mr. N. Macpherson: Is it the intention, as a general rule, to make appointments for particular areas, or is it the intention to create a kind of river police, uniformed or otherwise?
Mr. Fraser: The normal procedure would be to appoint persons for a particular area and particular waters. Indeed, the subsection is made necessary chiefly because of the fact that we have important salmon rivers in Scotland with no fishery boards and no water bailiffs to look after them. The only person there to keep control would be the constable, if there was not this power of appointment by the Secretary of State, and it will be in these areas that the Secretary of State will normally appoint persons to operate within these areas alone. They would not be a sort of river police to be sent all over the country. They would be for particular areas, mainly where there are no water bailiffs at present.
Mr. Pryde: Would it not be desirable to augment the police to the extent necessary to do this work?
Mr. Fraser: I think that it would need very considerable augmentation of the police force to do this work. Think of the county of Sutherland, which covers many thousands of miles and has a population of 13,000 or 14,000. It has only a very small police force to do the police work of that county. and if the whole of
226
the work normally done by the river bailiffs was to be undertaken by the police force, very considerable augmentation of the police force would be necessary. I do not think that the local authority and the people who live in the county would be favourably disposed to such a proposition.
Mr. Pryde: I am thinking of the county of Peebles.
Mr. N. Macpherson: I do not necessarily object in any way to the procedure proposed under the Bill and on the lines indicated by the Under-Secretary of State, but before they presented and printed the Bill the Government must have had some idea in mind as to the extent of this new power and appointment of new people. In the Financial and Explanatory Memorandum at the beginning of the Bill it is stated that as a result of functions imposed upon the Secretary of State by the Bill the expense is likely to be very small.
Is it, therefore, intended only to appoint two or three of these people, or is it intended to have a regular staff? Are they to be in some form of rural uniform, or what is the intention lying behind it? I am asking for information and not by way of criticism. This new thing, which we did not understand when the Second Reading of the Bill was taking place, so far as we can make out is a good thing to experiment with, particularly in areas where, as the Under-Secretary has said, there are no district fishery boards and very few policemen available.
It may be that this extra addition to the defence forces against salmon poaching will be of very great use, but, at the same time, in the interests of the general public and of the liberty of the subjects in this country, I feel that the warrant which the official gets, whatever he is called, could be as clearly defined as possible. The Under-Secretary may not wish to have that written into the Bill, but the warrant should be quite clear and limit the powers given as much as possible, because we do not want the power of the State to interfere too much with the liberties of the subject.
Mr. Fraser: I hope that I shall be able to convince the Committee that we have no intention of appointing an army of

227
officials who might be described as river police or given some other designation. What we have in mind in particular—I repeat myself in saying this—are the rivers which are not supervised by the district fishery boards. We think that if the Bill, when it becomes an Act, is to be successfully operated, it will be necessary for the Secretary of State to appoint some small number of persons to do the job which would otherwise be beyond the capacity of the police to do.
These persons—I cannot anticipate the number but the number will certainly be small—will not, of course, be given a policeman's uniform, but they will be given a proper instrument of appointment. They will have to prove to any person they arrest or question that they are properly appointed persons. I do not think that there is anything more which I can say on this matter. I repeat that we cannot possibly anticipate how many will be required to be appointed. Within the areas of the district boards where there are water bailiffs at present it may be necessary to augment the number from time to time. Before we appoint any person in those areas there will be consultations with the district boards concerned. By and large, we think that the persons appointed by the Secretary of State will have their operations confined to those areas in which there are no district boards.
Mr. Pryde: In consultation with the local authorities?
Mr. Fraser: I thought that was taken for granted.
Mr. N. Macpherson: To whom would these people appointed be directly responsible? Presumably, there would be some intermediary authority. Would it be the district board or a higher board?
Mr. Fraser: Normally, they would operate'in areas where there was not a district board, so the only person to whom they would be responsible would be the Secretary of State and his Fishery Department.
Mr. Macpherson: In view of the explanation given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. Stuart: I beg to move, in page 4, line 19, at the end, to insert:
(6) Any person appointed by a Chief Constable in that behalf may exercise in relation to any water any of the powers specified in subsection (1) of this section, are the production of the instrument of his appointment purporting to be signed by a Chief Constable shall be a sufficient warrant for the exercise of any such power.
I realise that the discussion which has just taken place covers, to some extent, the ground of the Amendment which I are my hon. Friends have put down. Our Amendment, I hope, will be agreed by the Government as helping to achieve the objectives which the Bill has in mind are about which the Under-Secretary has been speaking. It is admitted that there are not river boards everywhere are, therefore, there are no water bailiffs working under those boards. It is admitted that poaching takes place as far as possible away from the places where the people concerned are likely to be caught.
It is also admitted that in some of the scattered districts one constable has a wide area to cover are his duties are not confined by any means to looking out for poachers. Therefore, what we suggest —are I think this is a sound Amendment are one upon which I lay considerable store—is that the chief constable who knows the area, should be in a position to appoint people who will be able to exercise the powers which, under the Bill, are to be given to police constables are water bailiffs.
There is very strong support for this Amendment. I might add that the Maconochie Committee deal with this in their Report. They refer to it on two occasions, are I shall read a few words from each paragraph. The Report, in paragraph 33, states:
"Any persons authorised for the purpose by the Chief Constables, such as, for instance, Superintendents or Inspectors in the employment of District Boards, or, where no Boards have been constituted, such persons as the Chief Constable may, in the exercise of his discretion, see fit to appoint."
Paragraph 68, dealing with seareh of suspected persons are vehicles, states:
"We further recommend that—
(iii) the powers of seareh which the Section meantime confers on any constable or peace officer should be amended are extended to any constable or any person authorised by a Chief Constable. He will, no doubt, be prepared to consider conferring

229
the powers of search on senior and responsible water bailiffs in districts where Boards exist; where they do not, we think it probable that he will be disposed to confer the powers on dependable persons who may be relied upon to assist the already over-worked police."
That is really the main case I have to make.
As I have said, we lay considerable store by this Amendment, because our object is to help in this matter and to see the Bill in a form in which it can operate satisfactorily. A chief constable must obviously be a responsible person, otherwise he would not be a chief constable. They can be depended upon to appoint people suitable to carry out these duties, which would relieve the Secretary of State to some extent. I do not mean that his powers would be curbed, but that he would be relieved to some degree if chief constables were authorised to do this.
My other particular reason for advocating this is that chief constables know the type of people who can be relied upon to carry out the work. They know a lot of the people who live in these comparatively scattered areas, and they can get the best advice as to the best persons to assist them in seeing that the provisions contained in the Bill and effectively carried out.
8.15 p.m.
The Lord Advocate: I appreciate the purpose behind the Amendment, but I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) to consider its scope. We and seeking here to extend the powers of search of certain persons. That is a power which is normally carried out by an authorised member of the police force in uniform. We and getting on to very difficult ground if we and to extend this power to private persons whose only authority is the badge or warrant of their appointment. I do not think either side would be anxious to extend the power of "lay search." I do not think the Committee would wish to give this power to too many lay persons.
It is true that the Committee suggested that this power should be given to persons nominated by chief constables. On the other hand, that was not extended to appointments made by the district boards. What we have done is to give
230
power to the district boards to make appointments, and where there and no boards the Secretary of State can make similar appointments. Moreover, the Secretary of State can make appointments, where there is a district board, if it is necessary to increase the existing force. As I said, I do not think the Committee would wish to give these rather extreme powers of search to too many lay appointees, and I ask the right hon. Gentleman to look at the matter from that point of view.
I presume that where there are district boards they will employ a number of bailiffs, and that if they find they are not sufficient for the purpose they will apply to the Secretary of State to exercise his powers and make further appointments. The Secretary of State will undoubtedly give full consideration to any representations, and in making appointments he will take into consultation the people in the area best able to give advice on the matter.
Lord Dunglass: These extra people appointed at the request of the boards will not, I take it, be under the direct authority of the Secretary of State but of the boards.
The Lord Advocate: If they are appointed by the Secretary of State they will be under his authority and will be responsible to him; but that is more academic than real, because, in practice. they will work in collaboration with the district board and these people will work as one large force. In other words, they will work in co-operation.
I urge the right hon. Gentleman to realise that we cannot give this power to appoint to too many people. We have substituted district boards for chief constables, as recommended by the Committee. In addition, we have added something which is not in the Report, the power to make additional appointments where necessary. Therefore, I think we and covering effectively the same ground and arriving at the same result. It should not go out from the Committee that we and prepared to extend to any large extent the right to appoint people to carry out the rather exceptional powers contained in the Clause.
Mr. J. Morrison: Would the Lord Advocate reconsider this, because I think it is an important proposal, and particu-

231
larly so in regard to the outlying areas of Scotland? The Lord Advocate was outside the Chamber when the Under-Secretary emphasised the fact that there and vast tracts of land in Sutherland—and, I would add, in Argyll, too—where there is a limited police force. The right hon. and learned Gentleman knows the part of the country with which I am connected, and I make no apology for intervening in the debate. But let us face the fact that in an island the only person who can be approached with regard to finding suitable people as water bailiffs is, as the Under-Secretary of State said in answer to the hon. Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde), the policeman.
There may be others, but I should have thought that the police would have been the most obvious chain of contact, and I do hope that, in cases where the appointment of water bailiffs is necessary, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will reconsider the matter, and make it possible for the chief constable to sanction the appointment of a water bailiff, or of a suitable person as a water bailiff, rather than that the whole set-up should go back to the Department of the Secretary of State himself, who, in the very outlying districts, does not have people who can advise him nearly so well as the police.
Lord Dunglass: We should like the Lord Advocate to look at this again, if he would, because it does seem surely an unnecessarily cumbersome procedure. Let us consider the large areas to which my hon. Friend has referred. They want a good many bailiffs. It may be that they want gamekeepers, bird watchers, and people of that kind appointed. They do not, perhaps, remain in their position as gamekeepers or bird watchers for a long time. They may want changes comparatively frequently, and that it should be necessary to have to go to the Department at Edinburgh every time a water bailiff is to be changed', or it is desired to appoint anyone in addition, does seem to me unnecessarily cumbersome, particularly as I should have thought that chief constables would very well have fitted into this picture.
Apprehension will be done by a water bailiff and policeman acting very closely together. The authority over the police is the chief constable. I should have thought that there we should have had the
232
appropriate link with the Scottish Office. We should like the Secretary of State to have the ultimate sanction, and appoint or even remove the water bailiff, but that he should have to come in on every occasion would seem unnecessarily cumbersome. I wonder if the Lord Advocate would look at this again with a view to simplification in the large areas.
The Lord Advocate: As I have said, we will always look at any representations that are made to us. My own view, however, is that this would not simplify the matter, but would merely multiply the number of people who would have the right of appointment. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mr. J. Stuart) will remember that it is clear from the paragraph of the Maconochie Report to which he referred, paragraph 33, that the Chief Constables' Association thought that the right of search should be restricted to constables and should not be extended to anyone else.
We sought to supplement the force, because of the widespread areas with which we and dealing, in two ways—through the district boards' bailiffs, and the Secretary of State, through the persons appointed by him. Well, of course, if we were considering it, and thought of adopting the suggestion contained in the Amendment, we should have to reconsider dropping one of the other means, such as the right of the water bailiff to do it, and leave it in the hands of the police force or of people appointed by the chief constables: because, if we and going to get away from multiplication to simplification, then if we have one body, and one body alone, we shall get ultimate simplification. We will certainly look at the matter again, but I would assure the right hon. Gentleman and the noble Lord that we have already given this very serious consideration and think that it is the best practicable way of doing it, without being cumbersome.
Mr. Stuart: I realise that the Lord Advocate has taken a great deal of trouble over this, and I am very grateful to him for his explanation, and for saying that he will look at it again. I think it would better serve our purpose at this stage if we all agreed to look at it again. I leave it at that for the moment, and beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.30 p.m.
Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 4, line 27, to leave out subsection (7).
I have always made it perfectly clear that I am bitterly opposed to water bailiffs having arbitrary powers invested in them under this Bill. It is no exaggeration to say that the present set-up has not tended to improve the preservation of salmon during the last 30 years. To appoint water bailiffs for the purpose of looking after private property is, in my opinion, a travesty at this time. We and asking the miners to work 12 days a fortnight and even 14 if they can.
Mr. N. Macpherson: On a point of order. I understood that you, Mr. Mathers, called the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member which he has just moved. He appears to be speaking to an earlier Amendment. Can we be told what is happening?
The Temporary Chairman: The hon. Member moved the Amendment to leave out subsection (7). I was about to point out to him that this is practically a definition subsection and that it did not seem to warrant the repetition of anything of the nature which he had already discussed on another Clause.
Mr. Pryde: I am in your hands Mr. Mathers, and if you decide that I cannot develop the point I am prepared to sit down.
Mr. T. Fraser: I doubt if my hon. Friend wishes to press this Amendment. As he will appreciate subsection (7,a) merely applies the provisions of the Clause to the special powers which the water bailiffs have under the Tweed Acts. There seems to be no reason to withhold the powers to be given for the protection of sections of the river from the water bailiffs. Generally, subsection (7,b) deals with the matter which should have the sympathy of my hon. Friend. It secures that the powers conferred on any person under Clause 10 do not include the power to search:
"a dwelling-house or any yard, garden, outhouses and pertinents belonging thereto, or usually enjoyed therewith."
I should have thought that my hon. Friend was not very anxious to delete that paragraph and, therefore, I hope he will not press his Amendment.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
Brigadier Thorp: May I again, very briefly, ask my usual question? Under subsection (2) a water bailiff
"may exercise in any district adjoining that of the district board by which he was appointed any power which he may lawfully exercise in the district of such board."
Does that apply to England, and what is a district adjoining a district on the River Tweed?
Mr. T. Fraser: Yes, it would apply in any area of the Tweed. What we have in mind is that a water bailiff might very well be in hot pursuit of some people illegally taking salmon. If the water bailiff came to the end of his district and discovered that the miscreants had got across the fence he could go no further. They could turn round and, putting their fingers to their noses at the water bailiff, say, "You cannot catch us because we and now out of your district." That would be just too bad. We and here providing powers for the water bailiff to go beyond his own jurisdiction to apprehend in another area. That is a problem which runs throughout the country—
Brigadier Thorp: Which country?
Mr. Fraser: Throughout Scotland, and inasmuch as part of the north of England is brought into this Bill, the water bailiff will have the power to follow a miscreant into an adjoining area. That is how I am advised, and it would be quite ludicrous if a water bailiff on the Tweed, in hot pursuit of poachers, could not follow them across because he would be out of his jurisdiction.
Mr. N. Macpherson: With regard to that explanation, I see that Clause 24 (2) says:
"Save as in this Act otherwise expressly provided this Act shall extend only to Scotland."
It does not seem to me to be expressly provided here that an adjoining area in England shall be covered by this particular Clause.
The Lord Advocate: This is a very technical point, and perhaps I should deal with the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Brigadier Thorp). He knows from Clause 20 of the Bill that any part of that river in England is deemed to be a Scottish river for the purposes of this Bill, and accordingly, a water bailiff may exercise in any adjoin-

235
ing district, if there be any such district, all the rights which he enjoys in a district under this Clause.
When we come to consider what is a district the interpretation Clause defines it as:
"all inland waters within the limits of the district as defined by the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, and for three miles seaward beyond low-water mark, and the River Tweed shall he deemed to be a district; and."
He can apply the powers contained in the Clause in that district and in an adjoining district if there be an adjoining district to satisfy the conditions of that definition. If the adjoining district does not satisfy the conditions of that district it would not be an adjoining definition for the purposes of the subsection and he could not exercise his powers therein. I am sure that that makes it perfectly clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman.
Brigadier Thorp: It does not. As I gather from what has been said, if there is not a district a water bailiff cannot do anything. As I see it there is no power in this Bill to commit part of England outside the district of the River Tweed to Scotland.
Mr. Pryde: Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us if he means that a water bailiff appointed by the Tweed Commissioners can come down into Lanarkshire and exercise his authority on the River Clyde?
Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(POWERS OF SEARCH.)
Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 4, line 42, to leave out "officer," and to insert "person."
It is desirable that Clauses 10 and 11 should be consistent in their wording. In Clause 10 (5), it will be seen that reference is made to
"any person appointed by the Secretary of State"
whereas in Clause 11 we refer to
"any…officer appointed by the Secretary of State."
It is desirable to make the wording consistent, and therefore we propose to continue the word "person" throughout.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 5, line 15, to leave out subsection (4).
The subsection reads:
"Where a water bailiff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence against section three or section four of this Act has been committed.…"
I wonder whether the Lord Advocate would explain just how far it will be possible to estimate what the water bailiff considers to be "reasonable grounds."
The Lord Advocate: The expression "reasonable grounds for suspecting" is in common form. We must allow discretion to a person who is exercising powers of this nature. If a person who is given such powers uses the powers wrongly and invades the property of a third party, he will become liable in the civil courts for damages for that invasion of the property rights. Therefore, at the end of the day it might be a question for the courts to determine whether he had exercised his powers reasonably and whether he had reasonable grounds for suspecting, but unless we give a person latitude which is in common form, such as we have used in this Clause, it is completely impracticable for him to carry out the powers.
We say that if he has reasonable grounds he may do these things, albeit as a result of the search it is found that there is no evidence to justify a subsequent charge; but those and just the sort of powers the police have at the present time. Therefore, we must allow such a man the latitude of having reasonable grounds for suspicion. On the other hand, if he carried out a search and the person aggrieved could satisfy the court that no reasonable individual could have had grounds for suspecting him and that the man had abused his powers under the subsection to inflict damage on him by the invasion of his property, he would be able to obtain a civil remedy and damages. It must be left on that basis. To try to make it any more restrictive would make the Clause quite inoperable.
The Deputy-Chairman: Does the hon. Gentleman the Member for Midlothian and Peebles (Mr. Pryde) seek to withdraw his Amendment?
Mr. Pryde: I do not wish to press the Amendment, though I would remind my hon. and learned Friend that he is creating a section of society comparable to the

237
Ogpu in Russia. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Mr. N. Macpherson: I beg to move, in page 5, line 18, to leave out "private."
The subsection reads:
"…evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found in any vehicle on any private land adjoining any water within his district.
As I understand the Clause as drafted, a water bailiff may search a vehicle parked on private land and stop, if he can, and search a vehicle moving on private land, including, I presume, a private road; but what he cannot do is search a vehicle parked on a public road or on public land and far less stop a suspected vehicle on a public road. This seems to be an open invitation to anyone taking active preparatory steps for any kind of large-scale expedition to avoid parking a vehicle on private land.
Considering, first, that the vehicle is in any case most likely to be parked on a public road so that it can get away quickly, if need be, without calling excessive attention to itself; second, that in remote parts the water bailiff would have the greatest difficulty in conveying a description of the vehicle to the police in time to be of any use at all; and third, that even if he could do so the evidence would by that time almost certainly have been destroyed, there seems to be a strong case for allowing a water bailiff powers to search vehicles parked on the highway or on public land—that is, just off the highway. I suggest that the Lord Advocate should look into this to see whether words can be devised to make that possible. I cannot see how any abuse could arise therefrom.
Mr. T. Fraser: This Amendment goes a little too far. After all, we and giving the water bailiffs considerable powers in giving them the power to search a vehicle which happens to be parked on private land. The vehicle in most cases would be there without any authority or right. They and given here the power to search that vehicle, but to give them the right to search a car on the public highway really seems to me to run a serious risk. I should have thought that no private citizen who has occasion to be driving along a country road which happens to run alongside a river in which there is
238
salmon or trout being poached should be in a position to be held up and to have the vehicle searched by someone who is not a uniformed constable, someone who has not normally the authority of the law to search.
Mr. N. Macpherson rose—
Mr. Fraser: The hon.…Gentleman talked about the power—
Mr. Macpherson: Even as the Amendment is proposed there is no power to stop the vehicle, and someone even in uniform would have difficulty in doing so.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, but if we accepted the Amendment, it would give the water bailiffs power to search a vehicle on any land. The hon. Gentleman surely has in mind that they would have the power to search a vehicle standing on the public highway.
Mr. Macpherson: Or adjoining any waters.
Mr. Fraser: Or adjoining any waters. We have said "on any private land" because we believe that the vehicle which the bailiff might properly be given the right to examine and to search would be one which would be found on private land in the vicinity of waters that were being poached. To give that person the right to search vehicles on the public highway seems to me to be a different thing. Whether or not he could successfully stop the motorist driving along the highway, I do not know, but if he accosted the motorist who was parked on the public highway, I think as often as not the driver of the vehicle would resent this non-uniformed person demanding the right to search his vehicle and there would in many cases be a serious altercation between the non-uniformed person who is a water bailiff and the owner or driver of a car.
We have gone so far in this Bill that we run the risk of serious abuse of motorists being troubled unnecessarily, and we would be accused of being irresponsible if we gave the water bailiff the right to search a vehicle on the public highway. Therefore, I beg the hon. Gentleman not to press his Amendment.
Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: This is not a great matter, but the Joint Under-Secretary of State has made rather a point about the public highway. One envisages

239
a large arterial road, but what happens in so many places in Scotland is that a farm road of secondary importance runs down to a river. It is a public road, but it is on private property. Of course, no water bailiff would have a power of search unless the terms set out in the subsection were complied with, namely, that he had reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence had been committed. He must have those reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence before he exercises the power of search.
8.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend who framed the Amendment suggested, very reasonably, that he was not entirely wedded to the particular words of his Amendment, and he asked the Government to look at this matter and see whether some such words could not be incorporated in the Bill. That seems a reasonable request, bearing in mind that so many of these small secondary roads which run down to rivers in Scotland and not private roads but and roads which belong to the inhabitants at large. It is on exactly that kind of road that a car would be parked, and we think it reasonable to give to water bailiffs the power of search if they have reason to suspect that an offence has been commit-ted in respect of that car or vehicle. I support the Amendment.
Sir D. Robertson: My hon. Friend the Member for Angus, North, and Mearns (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley), did less than justice to the Amendment when he said that access roads, like farm roads, running down to the river, and those which and mainly concerned. The public highway, which has been built up throughout the ages invariably follows the course of a river through the valley; that applies all over Scotland, and I could give countless instances.
Mr. T. Fraser Mr. T. Fraser indicated assent.
Sir D. Robertson: I see that the Ministers on the Front Bench agree with me. This question is worthy of a little further thought for that reason. The power of search is qualified by the fact that the bailiff must have reasonable grounds for suspecting an offence and that the search must be on land adjoining the river where the offence is suspected to have taken place.
240
As one who took some minor part in locating a consignment of stolen salmon, I should inform hon. Members that that salmon was detected, not on the public highway, but on the railway. I had some little difficulty in persuading the railway authorities to meet my request to open the suspected packages, which contained, not white fish, as had been supposed, but salmon. For those reasons, I appeal to the Government Front Bench to give this matter further thought before making a final decision.
The Lord Advocate: In view of the success of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir D. Robertson) in tracing lost property some time ago, we might invoke his assistance in relation to some more recent lost property: Hon. Members will appreciate that there and difficulties in this matter. As the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland pointed out, many of the roads concerned and main roads which follow a river. An instance which leaps to my mind immediately in connection with a salmon river is the road from Ballater to Braemar, which is a very popular road and more or less follows the river the whole way between those places.
If, however, people using that road by car, and who stopped to look at Balmoral or other beauty spots, were liable to have their cars searched by a water bailiff who had no uniform but merely produced something which might look like either a warrant of authority or a season ticket for a football ground, there might arise a great deal of difficulty and not a few breaches of the peace. That is our great difficulty in the matter.
On the other hand, we quite appreciate that cars may be available adjoining the part of the river where the poaching has taken place and be accessible as a means of quick getaway. It is difficult to reconcile the two points of view. We will certainly look at the matter before the Report stage, but I impress upon those who have spoken that by giving in, as it were, to one side we should be taking away rights which should be enjoyed, not by the other side, namely, the poacher, but by the side which is represented by the members of the public, who and not concerned in poaching or even, perhaps, its discovery. The proposal might mean too much of an invasion of the normal rights of the normal individual when,

241
although the bailiff may have reasonable grounds, it still creates a certain amount of inconvenience, although the person who is inconvenienced may not want to go to court to assert his civil rights, even though he has been inconvenienced and annoyed. The position must be looked at from this point of view also. I cannot guarantee that we will give effect to this Amendment, or even anything like it, but we will certainly look at it again between now and the Report stage.
Mr. N. Macpherson: In view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said—and we all appreciate the difficulties he has pointed out—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Captain Duncan: 1 beg to move, in page 5, line 19, to leave out "adjoining any water" and to insert:
"in the ownership of a riparian proprietor."
If hon. Members will look at the Clause with this Amendment they will see that it reads:
"Where a water bailiff has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence…has been committed and that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found in any vehicle on any private land in the ownership of a riparian proprietor within his district or any district adjoining thereon the said water bailiff may search that vehicle."
I am no lawyer but it is thought by those who have some legal experience that the word "adjoining" may be too restrictive and may be interpreted in a court of law as the bank of a river and nothing else. I have tried to draft a form of words which would be less restrictive but not so wide as to include the public highway and public paths. This is a little wider but not unduly wider because it has to be in the water bailiff's district and, therefore, cannot be on a riparian owner's land at the top of a hill 10 miles away.
It has to be within the district and also on private land and it seems to me that within those restrictions it meets what I should have thought was the purpose of the Bill, namely, to give the water bailiff power over private land near the river—appandntly the word "near" is not a good legal expression, but he would have power to search vehicles where there is reasonable cause to suspect that an offence has been committed.
Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. and gallant Member said he had tried to find words which were less restrictive than "adjoining any water" and that he thought he had found words less restrictive. We think the words open far too wide a field. Although the hon. and gallant Member says there is a restriction in the words he has used, nevertheless I am inclined to think that in some parts of the country there would be the right of search over a very wide area. One has only to think of some of the large estates of some of the landowners in Scotland, one thinks, for instance, of the Duke of Buccleuch—
Captain Duncan: It has to be within the district.
Mr. Fraser: Yes, but one would find that in the district the water bailiff would exercise his authority over far too wide an area, extending for many miles from his normal area of operation from the riverside. It would be within his district, but many miles from the riverside and we think this much too risky. I think the land on which the vehicle is found, and which the water bailiff has a right to search, must be reasonably near water and must not be five or 10 miles away from the water. I am not sure that it could not be at a much greater distance yet still on the private land of a riparian proprietor.
What I have said of an owner in the south of Scotland could equally be said of an owner in the north of Scotland, where some own very large estates. To say that within his district, and within the land owned by the riparian owner, the water bailiff shall be given power to search vehicles many miles from the water's edge is going too far, and we had better stick to the words "adjoining any water."
Captain 'Duncan: I should like to ask the Lord Advocate to have another look at this point. It has been suggested to me by persons with legal knowledge that the words "adjoining any water" mean a river bank and nothing else. That is the whole point of my Amendment, to try to avoid that point arising in a court case and the prosecution losing the case on a technical point about the meaning of a bank of a river or what "adjoining any water" means. My attempt to provide against that may not be a good way. I think it is quite a good way, but if it does not meet with the approbation of

243
Members of the Committee I am quite prepared to accept other words, if they can be found. I want an assurance from the Lord Advocate that he will look into this point and see that the words "adjoining any water" and not too restricted in that they mean only the river bank.
Mr. T. Fraser: We think that our words will be better than those of the hon. and gallant Member. He has, however, expressed an opinion held by some persons who and knowledgeable in the law that "adjoining any water" means only the river bank.
Captain Duncan: Might mean.
Mr. Fraser: That would seem to make nonsense of an earlier Amendment. If the land "adjoining any water" included only the river bank I should not have thought that there was any need to amend, as the previous Amendment proposed, by the deletion of "private," the power to search land. The Lord Advocate has given an undertaking that we will have another look at this Clause from the point of view of the land in respect of which water bailiffs and to be given the power to search a vehicle. In making that examination we will, if the hon. and gallant Member will agree to withdraw his Amendment, also take into account the proposition he has put forward in moving his Amendment.
Captain Duncan: In view of that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move, in page 5, line 20, at the end, to insert:
(5) Any person appointed by the Secretary of State in pursuance of the last foregoing section may exercise in relation to any water the powers conferred upon a water bailiff by virtue of this section.
This is, in a way, a formal Amendment. We feel sure that the Committee will accept the point that a person who has been appointed by the Secretary of State to exercise powers equivalent to those of a water bailiff under Clause 10 should have similar powers to those conferred on a water bailiff by Clause 11, namely, the right to search vehicles on private land when he suspects, or has reasonable ground for suspecting, that an offence under Clauses 3 or 4 has taken
244
place. Unless we make provision for that, no person other than a police constable could have those powers in an area where there is no district board.
Amendment agreed to.
The Lord Advocate: I beg to move. in page 5, line 21, to leave out "warrant issued under," and to insert "search authorised by."
At present the requirements of Clause 11 (5) that a female shall be searched by a female—
The Deputy-Chairman: I would draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Amendment I called was that standing in the name of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in page 5, line 21.
The Lord Advocate: Yes, that is the one with which I was intending to deal.
Brigadier Thorp: On a point of order. Is not the mistake due to the fact that a new subsection has been inserted and that therefore the subsection we and talking about should now be subsection (6)?
9.0 p.m.
The Deputy-Chairman: I thought that the Amendment I called was in line 21, to leave out, "warrant issued under," and to insert. "search authorised by."
The Lord Advocate: And I thought I was dealing with that. I am afraid it was just the preamble to my remarks which led to the misapprehension.
At present, subsection (5) provides that a female shall be searched only by a female, but that applies only to a search carried out under the authority of a warrant under subsection (1) of Clause 11. But a search of a person may be made by a constable without a warrant under Clause 11 where it is impracticable for him to apply for one. This Amendment secures that a female will not be searched except by a female in such a case. If we do not make provision for this, what would happen would be that under the Bill a female could only be searched by a female in a case where a warrant had been issued; but a female could be searched by a male in a case where a warrant had not been issued. In those circumstances we feel that is too dangerous a power, and therefore we and seeking this authority in order to protect the rights and interests of the poacheress.
Brigadier Thorp: I wish to make my usual probe. Does this subsection apply to England, and if so, is it an alteration of the English law?
The Lord: The point is that if the offence takes place in an area which is covered by the provisions of this Bill, then this Clause will attach. Search will be available provided that the conditions set out in the Clause have been observed. I quite understand that there is a certain amount of disquiet in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member about restrictions, but I am sure that on reflection he will think they and well observed.
Brigadier Thorp: Is this an alteration of the English law as applied to the district outwith Scotland?
The Lord Advocate: As the hon. and gallant Member knows, the River Tweed has always been regarded in its entirety as in Scotland for fishing purposes—
Brigadier Thorp: Yes, but not for searching females.
The Lord Advocate: It is because I have a heart that we have inserted this Amendment.
Brigadier Thorp: Is it a new law?
The Lord Advocate: Of course it is a new law so far as the whole Bill is concerned. That is the purpose of our being here tonight.
Brigadier Thorp: The Lord Advocate is not being quite fair. A short time ago he referred to the question of one instead of two witnesses and admitted that that was an alteration of the Scottish law. Now I am asking him, quite simply, whether this Clause or subsection alters the English law?
The Lord Advocate: It is enacting new law—
Brigadier Thorp: For England. in a Scottish Bill?
The Lord Advocate: For the purposes of this Bill; and this Bill, like all other Bills, embraces—if that is the appropriate word—that part of the Tweed in England.
Mr. C. Williams: Then we really have on interesting submission. Here we have a Bill which apparently is to affect the law with regard to certain English females who and not under Scottish law in other
246
circumstances. I think my hon. and gallant Friend is quite right in drawing attention to this. I would say right away that, as we have this interference in English law and the customs of English life, I hope we shall not have to take it further and set up a real measure of Home Rule for England to prevent encroachments on English law.
Mr. Pryde: I wish to appeal to my right hon. and learned Friend to take women out of this Bill altogether. I am sure that no one can visualise the girls from the Peebles weaving mills going on poaching expeditions. While it may be true to say that up in the North of Scotland the people do not lead such a cultured life as those in Midlothian and Peebles, I do not see why it is necessary to go to the expense of appointing female searchers simply because there is a likelihood that women may be caught salmon poaching. Is it not possible to cut women out of this Bill completely? It is bad enough to make war on the men of Scotland, but surely a Labour Government should not make war on the women.
Amendment agreed to.
Mr. Pryde: I beg to move, in page 5, line 22, to leave out "except by a female."
This Amendment would have the effect of making it impossible for a woman to be searched in pursuance of any warrant issued under this Clause. However, the Lord Advocate has pointed out that it would be possible for a woman to be searched without a warrant. I have already appealed to him to try to cut women out of the Bill completely. I hope that he will consider my suggestion and not make us the laughing stock of the whole country.
Amendment negatived.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
Mr. Carmichael: I am rather uneasy about the procedure to be adopted under this Clause, which allows any justice of the peace to grant a warrant authorising any bailiff, constable or officer appointed by the Secretary of State to make a search. I am disturbed by the fact that a week may elapse before this is done. If we allow that time to pass, surely the bailiff, if he has any evidence, will have

247
time to go to the appropriate authority, which is the police, to lodge his complaint. They have the power to make the necessary representations to the sheriff. It is bad at any time to give power to anybody other than the authorised body. the police, to make a search.
While I recognise that the sheriff would be careful before he granted a warrant, there is power here for a justice of the peace to grant a warrant. I do not hold anything against justices of the peace. I am one myself. But I do not think that in many country places a justice of the peace is an appropriate person to have this power.
Mr. McKie: Why not?
Mr. Carmichael: I will try to explain. This may be an exaggeration, but a landlord who has a bailiff who wants a warrant may well be the justice of the peace. I do not think that anyone would like the law of Scotland to get into such a state that the landlord would be able to grant a warrant to his own bailiff to make a search. I ask the Lord Advocate to give us guidance. I consider that, as a period of one week is permitted, it would be wise to lay down that the bailiff should go to the appropriate police authority and let the police make representations to the sheriff. Then the process of issuing a warrant could be carried out under the well-established practice in Scotland—through the police authority.
The Lord Advocate: My hon. Friend has expressed the view that we would not like to make it part of our legislation that a landlord or landowner who was a justice of the peace had a right of giving a search warrant to a water bailiff. In the first place. I do not think that a landlord would exercise that power if he had an interest in the matter. I think it would be contrary to his judicial duties, but, in so far as a justice of the peace may give a warrant to a water bailiff. there is nothing new in that, because, according to my computation, that has been going on in Scotland for 82 years It just shows that our educational process is continuous.
We and not altering the law, but. substantially, merely re-enacting the law to extend the rights contained in the warrant to cover the new conditions which we find
248
in this Bill. Since the Salmon Fisheries (Scotland) Act, 1868, there has been power for a sheriff or justice of the peace to issue a warrant to a water bailiff or constable to enter premises and seize gear or fish illegally taken.
In the Clause we and extending this power further in one respect, because we and covering the various circumstances provided for by Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. The reason why we give the right to a water bailiff is simply because he may be the person best able to get the evidence before it disappears. My hon. Friend points out that a warrant will have a life of up to one week and that it can be exercised within that period. The reason for that is that we must make it run for a certain period, because it may not be possible to ingather immediately all the evidence desirable under the warrant.
It may be that the premises and not accessible, and that some time is taken before we can get to the vehicle or store which we wish to search. In those circumstances, the warrant obviously has to have a period of life, and we think that a period of one week is the proper period in those circumstances. In the normal case, one wants to get the evidence as soon as possible, and, therefore, the warrant would be exercised at the very first available opportunity.
My hon. Friend asks why we do not leave it to the police constable, but, in these cases, and particularly in the scattered areas, it may not always be possible to find the constable available at the time to exercise the warrant efficaciously, and if one had to wait for the arrival of a police constable the available evidence might disappear and be lost. In these circumstances, following the precedent which has existed since 1868, we feel that it is perfectly justifiable that the power should be given to people other than constables.
Mr. McKie: I want to say how very glad I am that the Lord Advocate resisted what I might presume to call the preposterous suggestion of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Carmichael) in seeking to impugn the good faith of a justice of the peace in Scotland, who may be called upon to give a search warrant in this respect. I declare that I have no interest in this matter. The hon. Member for Bridgeton said he was a justice

249
of the peace. I am not, so perhaps I can be relied upon to give a more unbiased point of view than the hon. Gentleman. I think it is a very sad state of affairs when a Scottish hon. Member comes here and suggests that a fellow justice of the peace, in certain circumstances, could not be relied upon to discharge his duties without any motive of self-interest, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take these words to heart, because he must reflect that such a suggestion may very likely prove to be a boomerang. He is at once calling down similar criticisms upon other justices of the peace in Scotland, and perhaps elsewhere.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Manuel: There is one short point with which I ask my right hon. and learned Friend to deal. While it is quite true that he has said that the provision he mentioned is a re-enactment, it is also true to say that there is a completely new departure from what we have hitherto known, that is, the giving of the power of search to bailiffs as such. That is something completely new, and it is a great extension of their powers. I want my right hon. and learned Friend to consider for a moment this aspect of it.
I think there will be at any rate a possibility of more prosecutions, and perhaps more serious prosecutions, arising from the fact that the bailiffs have this power of search. We know that the village constable or a member of the police force has a certain respect paid to him. The uniform is recognised, and there is no dubiety about it. But I can well imagine some of our Ayrshire miners, for instance, resenting very seriously being searched by water bailiffs, and I cannot imagine them being at all amenable to being subjected to search by these civilians. While it is quite true to say that these people are appointed and have certain powers, I feel that it would be much safer and that we should be in a much stronger position if this power of search were confined to police constables.
Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

HOUSES, ACCRINGTON(RE-ASSESSMENT)
Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."— [Mr. Popplewell.]
10.11 p.m.
Mr. H. Hynd: As this is the first occasion when my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary is appearing at the Box in his expanded capacity, that is, covering local government, may I take the opportunity of congratulating him on the extension of his responsibilities, and also congratulating the Department on having such a suitable Minister so readily at hand? With his magnificent experience of local government on the Welwyn Garden City Urban District Council, the Hertfordshire County Council and in the wider spheres of local government, I can think of no hon. Member of the House who could so well fill that important office.
The subject I wish to bring before the House may appear at first sight of local application only—though it has tremendous importance to a large number of my constituents—but I think hon. Members will find it of general interest, and possibly with much wider implications, particularly if it is looked at in the light of the fact that there is this hiatus between now and the general reassessment of property which, according to the latest announcement, is due to take place in 1953.
The question with which I am concerned affects 659 post-war houses in Accrington, at three sites at Willows Lane, Richmond Road and Fern Gore Estates. Those post-war houses were assessed by
266
the Accrington Corporation in the normal way in 1948. Unfortunately, Accrington is not yet a county borough, and in this and similar respects they are always subject to the overriding authority of the Lancashire County Council. About 12 months later the Lancashire County Council said, "These assessments are not high enough", and they tabled proposals for higher assessments.
I do not complain that the county valuation officer, in so doing, exceeded his right and, indeed, his duty to seek more uniformity as between the different rating areas of the county, but I ask the House to note the date on which this action was taken. The county valuation officer tabled those new proposals on 25th March, 1949, which means, that under the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act, those proposals had a retrospective effect automatically until the beginning of that financial year. In other words, they would take effect from 1st April, 1948.
It may be considered as very smart work on the part of the county valuation officer to get an extra year at the higher rateable value. I would describe it as slick. I object straight away to what I regard as sharp practice on the part of the county valuation officer in coming along, in the last week of the financial year, and making proposals which back date for 12 months.
Hon. Members can imagine what the effect was on the tenants concerned. I wish to emphasise that this action was taken under the 1925 Rating and Valuation Act and not, as certain people locally have been suggesting, under the 1948 Local Government Act. It was the 1925 Act which had this retrospective effect and which has caused all the trouble. Alarm and despondency was caused not only among the tenants, but also among the local authorities affected. It was not the tenants but the local authorities which lodged objections in the first place to the higher assessments.

267
Certain assessments at Bacup were taken to quarter sessions. The decision went against the Bacup Corporation and the Bacup assessments were confirmed. The local assessment committee concerned which is the Hastinglea local assessment committee which covers the towns of Accrington, Bacup, Haslingden and Rawtenstall, had postponed the hearing of the objections to the original proposals pending a settlement of the quarter sessions case on the Bacup assessments. That was a perfectly natural thing to do, but it meant that there was delay in deciding what these new assessments were to be.
There was further delay caused by the operation of the 1948 Act involving the change over to the new procedure under which the valuation officer of the Inland Revenue Department comes into the picture. He automatically had to take ever the functions of the county valuation officer. These delays meant that the matter was dragging on, and if the assessments were to be confirmed the arrears were piling up. There was further delay until eventually, on 16th October, 1950, the local valuation court heard seven test cases, representing various types of houses.
Therefore, we had that time from the first proposals on 25th March, 1949—one and a half years ago and, with retrospective effect, a total of two and a half years—during which arrears were piling up. It is obvious that this delay was vexatious. It was unfortunate and it meant a further burden if the assessments were to be confirmed; but this delay was in no way the fault of those tenants. That point is most important when we consider the validity of their complaint. At the local valuation court the case was handled on behalf of Accrington Corporation by the borough treasurer acting, in effect, in the interests of the tenants. In my opinion, he put up a splendid case on their behalf.
The net result of the deliberations of the local valuation court, added to subsequent negotiations, was that of 464 cases involved. 310 had £1 taken off the proposed new assessment; 357 had decreased gross assessments which does not affect their actual payments but does affect the assessment of their water rates; and in the other cases the assessments
268
were confirmed. In most cases there were increases ranging up to Is. 10d. a week in the inclusive rent—that is, rent plus rates —and the arrears amount in most cases to about £12 for each tenant. It will be agreed that £12 is a considerable amount for a working-class family to find in these days. It will cause considerable hardship if it is enforced.
The local council, who have been acting all the way through up to now in the interests of the tenants, have tried to ease the position by offering them a spread-over of 18 months, during which this debt can be wiped out, but, even spread over 18 months, £12 is still a considerable sum. I think the tenants are justified in feeling that they have had rather a raw deal over the whole business. It is perfectly true that the tenants did have the right to appeal to the lands tribunal within 21 days after the hearing by the local valuation court, and it may be put up against them that they did not exercise that right. I am given to understand that they did not do so because they had decided, through their tenants' association, that the time had come when these cases could no longer be looked at individually, but that the matter had become one of principle which should -be decided as a collective matter of principle and not by taking individual cases to the lands tribunals.
This is where I come back to the peculiar position of the Accrington Town Council. They put up their borough treasurer to make a very good defence of the lower assessments, acting in the interests of the tenants. As a result of this decision, the council find themselves in the position of being forced to collect the increased rates from the tenants whom they have been defending up to now. The local council do not want to take this action and do not want to have the assessments of the houses increased, but they are bound, as agents of the county council, to take this action. Therefore, it is very unfortunate indeed, both from their point of view and that of the tenants affected, that they now find themselves faced with a collective protest from the tenants, who, under legal advice, are now refusing, I understand, to pay the increased amounts, as the only possible protest left to them.
The position is one which the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. De la Bère), would describe as

269
"thoroughly unsatisfactory." I am not certain what the Minister can do about it. I make no complaint at all about the attitude of his Department, or, rather, of the Ministry of Health, so far, and I acknowledge the very helpful letter which I received from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health some time ago about this matter, but it does seem to me that, in the first place, these new proposals should not have been tabled so far on in the financial year. Indeed, I think that, having got to that stage, it would have been far better to leave the re-assessment of that property until the general re-assessment that will take place all over the country, which was originally fixed for 1952 but has now been postponed to 1953.
If that postponement cannot take place, I suggest that, perhaps, either the whole or part of these arrears might very well be waived. I suppose that that would have to be done by the county council, but, anyway, I think there is a case for consideration either by the Ministry or by some sort of local arbitration, for the whole or part of the arrears to be waived. It may be that the Minister may have some other solution to propose.
The final question which I wish to put to the Parliamentary Secretary is whether this is an isolated case or whether similar action has been taken in other parts of the country; whether this is a widespread action on the part of valuation officers, or whether this is something peculiar to my own constituency and the surrounding districts, because, if it is, it emphasises all the more the injustice which I have been attempting to explain.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: I am well aware that the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) has put forward a very detailed case that calls for a very careful reply from the Parliamentary Secretary, and therefore I shall not trespass for more than a minute or two on the time available to the hon. Gentleman. I think it is not a bad thing to add our hope from this side that the new Department responsible for housing is going to show some results that were lamentably lacking when it was under the hon. Gentleman's predecessor. It is rather a case of King Midas adjudicating in a case between two flautists; he heard the first, and gave the prize to the second.
270
The hon. Gentleman's results likewise cannot be worse.
The hon. Member for Accrington seemed concerned about the dangers of retrospective legislation he showed how it had worked to the detriment of tenants and councils in this particular instance, and I hope he will have a satisfactory reply from the Parliamentary Secretary. The other point I wish to place on record is that assessments are dependent on the value of property, and I believe that, next to the shortage of houses, which is obviously the outstanding social evil of today, the cost of houses and the consequent rents are the next greatest evil. I hope that the new Department will bear in mind that great efforts are needed to keep down the cost of houses so that these assessments which are the subject of tonight's debate are not going to be too high.
I think this is not an inappropriate moment to reinforce our plea for more houses to meet the ever-growing lists by having slightly smaller houses. I do not want to trespass on the time which the Parliamentary Secretary ought to take in answering the very detailed point put to him by the hon. Member for Accrington, but I hope that when this debate is over he will keep the two propositions that I have presumed to underline well in his mind and in that of his right hon.Friend.
10.27 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Town and Country Planning (Mr. Lindgren): I hope the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) will forgive me if I do not follow him too closely, but I would like to say how glad I am to hear from him that his policy for reducing housing costs is to reduce housing standards.
Mr. Nicholls: Sizes, not standards.
Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is not going to get me away from the point raised by my hon. Friend through that interjection.
I am sure that my hon. Friend, whom I thank for his kind remarks at the begin, ping of his speech, will not expect me to deal with the question of the merits or otherwise of a particular assessment. All I can deal with is the machinery for arriving at these assessments, and the

271
machinery used in this particular case was the Rating and Valuation Act, 1925, the valuation principles of which remain in operation right up to the time that the 1948 Act becomes fully effective in 1953. The machinery which was in operation when this first arose, consisted of the local rating authority—the borough council—and the county valuation committee and had the responsibility throughout the whole period to see that there was uniformity of assessment in order that there should be fairness as 'between one ratepayer and another.
In the opinion of the Lancashire County Council rating valuation committee, Accrington had been unfair to other ratepayers in the county by assessing these council houses at too low a rate. Therefore, inasmuch as these people were thereby not only paying less for their own local rate in Accrington, but also a lower proportion of the county rate for the services over the whole county, it was their duty to call attention to this lower assessment, and to give to the body who had the right to determine whether it was correct or not—then the local assessment committee—the opportunity to decide whether the local rating valuation committee—the borough council—or the county council were in fact right in their assessment.
That was put to the assessment committee, as my hon. Friend said, in March, 1949. When it got to the assessment committee for hearing, the committee appreciated that there was another case for the Bacup area in which a similar set of circumstances arose. There the matter had been taken to what was the appeal court for the assessment committee, the Quarter Sessions. Quite rightly, the local assessment committee said that as there was then a similar case or set of cases before the Quarter Sessions which would in fact be a test case, it would defer the hearing until the decision of the Quarter Sessions was made, and that in the light of that decision these appeals would fail or succeed.
Then came the Quarter Sessions hearing and the county valuation committee's opinion of values in the Bacup case was upheld by the Quarter Sessions. That, in the opinion of the local assessment committee determined
272
the line of action likely to be taken in these cases from Accrington. But in the meantime the machinery of valuation had changed. I make this point—just the machinery of valuation had changed. The machinery of the 1948 Act came into operation on 1st February, 1950. That machinery provides that the old county valuation committee goes out, and in fact the valuation officer of the Board of Inland Revenue takes responsibility for valuations throughout the area. Instead of the assessment committee, there is set up the local valuation court to hear questions of differences of opinion.
As in fact the assessment committee's hearing in this case had been deferred, then it was the plain duty of the Board of Inland Revenue's valuation officer to take the case to the new court for decision. That procedure did not take place until 16th October, 1950, when in fact the decision was made that the county valuation committee's original valuation, which was the subject of the appeal, was fair and reasonable, generally speaking. Certain variations were made in the proposals, but in the main they were upheld.
Now I arrive at the point to which my hon. Friend referred, that of taking the re-assessment back to 1st April, 1948. Surely that is right, because what, in fact, had the Lancashire County Council's valuation committee said? It said that these assessments were too low, and because of that these people were paying less than their fair share towards the cost of local government services throughout the county. For one reason or another, the hearing of the county's claim had to be deferred. My hon. Friend said that that is not the fault of the tenants; I agree, but I must point out that it is also not the fault of the county. The delay could have been the fault of the tenants, because, if they had not appealed, the new valuations would automatically have come into force when the assessment was made.
Mr. H. Hynd: The council appealed.
Mr. Lindgren: Yes, but in fairness it should be pointed out that, it having been decided that the assessment was wrong, it was right that it should go back to the time that the proposal to alter it was made. Under the Act of 1925, the

273
new assessment applies, irrespective of the time the actual appeal is made, back to the commencement of the financial year in which the proposal is made.
Mr. Harmar Nicholls: Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us whether the council have the power to remit the accumulated reserves?
Mr. Lindgren: It amounts to this; some people are paying too much or too little in relation to other people, and if one remits to some, one is placing an unfair burden on other persons in the particular locality. This rule of taking back the coming into effect of the new assessment to the commencement of the financial year applied in the 1925 Act, and applies in the 1948 Act, and it applies whether there are increases or decreases. If people have had a decrease in rateable value, then there will be a refund and this principle must equally apply if the assessment goes up. In such cases where, in fact, one had block decisions in the main going before the assessment court prior to the war or during the war years, these were mostly appeals by individual ratepayers against too high assessments and seldom was there an appeal by a local authority for a general re-assessment.
I think that was a correct thing to do. My hon. Friend asked if this was an isolated case or whether it was one which could be found generally over the whole country. Let us be quite clear. It has been the responsibility of the local authorities to apply the 1925 Act; it was the responsibility with the old county valuation officer and it is the responsibility of the valuation officer of the Board of Inland Revenue. To suggest that until the new Act comes into operation no one should be concerned about the fairness
274
of one ratepayer's case compared with another in the incidence of valuation is, I submit, taking things a little far. Counties had in the old days, and the Board of Inland Revenue inspectors have now, to apply the Acts as they exist and where there is unfairness, then the applicants are met. It is not altogether usual to get group cases such as this but they do arise because of differences of opinion between a minor authority and the county council over what is considered to be the proper valuation.
To the hon. Gentleman the Member for Peterborough (Mr. H. Nicholls) I would make the point that this is not a question of retrospective legislation. It is, in fact, a question of the operation of an Act of Parliament which does say that where there is a change in value it should date back to the commencement of the financial year, unless a change in value arises involving a physical change in the condition of the property such as an additional room or garage. In such cases the altered assessment takes effect from the date of the physical change.
I am afraid I have not been able to give my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) much change in reply to the excellent case he put on behalf of his constituents, but I have tried to make it clear that in fact the Lancashire County Council and the valuation department of the Inland Revenue have, in so far as it is within their power, applied the Acts of Parliament in fairness to all ratepayers within the county of Lancashire.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Twenty Minutes to Eleven o'Clock.

ROYAL NAVY
  Volunteer Reserve
  Volunteer Reserve
  National Service Intake
  National Service Intake
  Chatham Dockyard
  Chatham Dockyard
  Regular Recruitment
  Regular Recruitment
  Re-engagements
  Re-engagements
  TELEVISION (SITE, ST. LYTHAN'S)
  TELEVISION (SITE, ST. LYTHAN'S)
POST OFFICE
  Airmail (Conveyance Rates)
  Airmail (Conveyance Rates)
  Telephones (Schools, Wales)
  Telephones (Schools, Wales)
  Employees' Pensions
  Employees' Pensions
FOOD SUPPLIES
  Canadian Apples
  Canadian Apples
  Canning Industry (Tinplate Allocation)
  Canning Industry (Tinplate Allocation)
  Russian Crab Meat
  Russian Crab Meat
  Catering Establishments (Meat Allocation)
  Catering Establishments (Meat Allocation)
  Meat Ration
  Meat Ration
  Rabbit and Fish Prices
  Rabbit and Fish Prices
  Flour Subsidy
  Flour Subsidy
  Meat and Poultry (Cold Storage)
  Meat and Poultry (Cold Storage)
  Butchers (Rebate)
  Butchers (Rebate)
  Home-Grown Apples
  Home-Grown Apples
  Fat Stock (Purchase and Sale)
  Fat Stock (Purchase and Sale)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Training Facilities, Canada
  Training Facilities, Canada
  Pilot Officers (Pay)
  Pilot Officers (Pay)
  Regular Recruitment
  Regular Recruitment
  Re-engagements
  Re-engagements
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS (INQUIRIES)
  AIRCRAFT ACCIDENTS (INQUIRIES)
  KOREA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  KOREA (BRITISH SUBJECTS)
  YUGOSLAVIA (USE OF MATERIALS)
  YUGOSLAVIA (USE OF MATERIALS)
  EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
  EX-PRISONERS OF WAR, FAR EAST
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE STATUTE (PROTOCOL)
  COUNCIL OF EUROPE STATUTE (PROTOCOL)
  TRIESTE (OFFICIAL LANGUAGES)
  TRIESTE (OFFICIAL LANGUAGES)
  JAMAICA (UNEMPLOYMENT)
  JAMAICA (UNEMPLOYMENT)
MALAYA AND SINGAPORE
  Tin and Rubber Exports
  Tin and Rubber Exports
  Civil Servants
  Civil Servants
  Disorders, Singapore (Commission of Inquiry)
  Disorders, Singapore (Commission of Inquiry)
  Bandit Attacks
  Bandit Attacks
  Peking Radio Statement
  Peking Radio Statement
  TURKS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  TURKS ISLANDS (SALT INDUSTRY)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (EARTHQUAKES)
  LEEWARD ISLANDS (EARTHQUAKES)
AGRICULTURE
  Fowl Pest (Imported Poultry)
  Fowl Pest (Imported Poultry)
  Dried Sugar Beet Pulp (Price Increase)
  Dried Sugar Beet Pulp (Price Increase)
  GUN EMPLACEMENTS, KENT COAST
  GUN EMPLACEMENTS, KENT COAST
  SERVICE EQUIPMENT (AUCTION)
  SERVICE EQUIPMENT (AUCTION)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (DECLARATION)
  COMMONWEALTH PRIME MINISTERS (DECLARATION)
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON (REPORT)
  TRAFFIC CONGESTION, LONDON (REPORT)
NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE
  Tuberculosis
  Tuberculosis
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  Prescriptions (Cost)
  NATIONAL FINANCE (DOLLAR EARNINGS)
  NATIONAL FINANCE (DOLLAR EARNINGS)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE STAFF)
  CIVIL SERVICE (EXECUTIVE STAFF)
  PLASTERBOARD SUPPLIES
  PLASTERBOARD SUPPLIES
  COKE SUPPLIES, YORK
  COKE SUPPLIES, YORK
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
  HOUSE OF COMMONS CATERING
Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  EASTERN EUROPE: EXPULSIONS OF BRITISH SUBJECTS
  2.35 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government how many British representatives and British subjects have been expelled from, or asked to leave, Poland, Hungary and Roumania respectively in the last two years, and whether it is a fact that, as stated by Warsaw Radio at the turn of the year, five British representatives were asked to leave Poland alone following the trial of Captain Turner.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (LORD HENDERSON): My Lords, the numbers of British subjects, official and unofficial, who have been expelled from or asked to leave Poland, Hungary and Roumania in the last two years are eight, fourteen and four respectively. With regard to the second part of the Question, in connection with the trial of Group Captain Turner the Polish Government declared two officials persona non gratœ and intimated that two more officials would have been similarly declared persona non gratœ if they had not already been on the point of leaving in accordance with routine arrangements.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, as these exchanges have already gone pretty far, would it not be possible to consider intimating that in future, in the case of unfounded charges against members of our staff, we would "crack down" altogether on the Mission of the offending country here?
  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, the position of His Majesty's Government is as I think I stated on November 14 last —namely, that His Majesty's Government
  1100
  consider each individual case on its merits as it arises. But perhaps I ought to inform the noble Lord that in this particular case the Polish Government were recently requested to withdraw within three days two members of the Polish Mission in London.
  LORD VANSITTART: Of course, what I had in mind in asking this Question was to try and stop altogether this rather foolish and humiliating procedure.

  ACCESS TO WARSHIPS AND DOCKYARDS
  2.37 p.m.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I beg to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether it may now be assumed that adequate steps have been taken to correct the apparent facility with which unauthorised persons have been able to have repeated access to warships and dockyards in this country.]
  THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (VISCOUNT HALL): My Lords, the noble Lord will appreciate that complete control of access to His Majesty's Dockyards and to His Majesty's ships within them cannot be carried out without reverting to the full war-time system of control. This I do not consider practicable because of the very large numbers of naval and civilian personnel which would be required. I am at present, however, once more reviewing the arrangements in force with a view to deciding what further safeguards would be justifiable.
  LORD VANSITTART: My Lords, I quite appreciate the difficulties in applying absolute safeguards, but in common with a great many other people I think I may say that I have been rather shaken at the apparent facility with which un-due access was obtained in the past. I am glad that this matter is receiving proper attention from the authorities. I appreciate their difficulties, but I hope some more drastic means will be sought as a safeguard for the future.
  VISCOUNT HALL: The noble Lord will realise, of course, that there are very

  1101
  large numbers of people employed in the dockyards; in one there are 20,000 people who have to enter and leave every day. I can assure the noble Lord that, as a result of an inquiry which has been held by a distinguished police officer (I now have his report before me), we are considering what further steps can be taken.
  EARL HOWE: Could the noble Lord say whether any laxity was disclosed as a result of the explosion at Priddy's Hard?
  VISCOUNT HALL: That, of course, is an entirely different question.

  COMMUNIST TRIALS OF BRITISH PRISONERS
  2.39 p.m.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: My Lords. I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government—

  (a) Whether any information has been obtained as to the composition and procedure of North Korean military courts for the trial of any British or Commonwealth members of the Armed Forces who may become prisoners of war, and subsequently be charged by the North Korean authorities with "war crimes";

  (b) Whether they are fully satisfied that such trials, or those of any other Communist courts, will be conducted "sensibly" and with a due regard for justice.]

  LORD HENDERSON: My Lords, neither His Majesty's Government nor the Unified Command have any information that any such courts are being set up.
  THE EARL OF CORK AND ORRERY: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I would remind him of a quotation— namely, "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise." If you do not know what is going on you will not have pricks of conscience in regard to having swept away the one protection our men had if brought before a court conducted by hooligans.

  CIVIL DEFENCE AND THE HOME GUARD
  2.40 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY rose to call attention to the organisation of the Home Guard and Civil Defence Services with special regard to the need for co-ordinating these services; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper to-day. For the purpose of my argument I shall assume that there is general agreement that this country, in common with its Western Allies, has to meet the great problem of how, in the face of continual aggressive pressure by the powerfully armed group of nations led by Soviet Russia, general war is to be prevented. Of course, there are some in this country (I hope not in this House), who on ideological grounds wish to see the triumph of those forces; and there are others, it stems to me, who are under what appears to be the illusion that you can cure a tiger of its carnivorous tastes by stroking it under the chin, on the theory that they have a special insight into the habits of the whole genus cat, based on their love of the domestic tabby. Some of those people are inclined to avert their gaze from the habits of cats with mice and small birds.
  To those whose supreme desire is to see such preparations made as will prevent a world war—and it is idle to pretend that the Western nations, or some of them, are not now at war in Korea, in Malaya and in Indo-China— home defence in Great Britain is a vital part of the whole defence problem. Modern air attack, whether by bombing aeroplanes or by guided missiles, can now be developed with such intensity that in our crowded and highly industrialised Island the whole of our production, our military effort and, indeed, our very national life, must be in the gravest peril. It is not only a very important problem; it is an extremely urgent one. It is no secret that the scale and pace of Russian preparations for military and industrial mobilisation, the size of her army and her air force and its general development, have rendered necessary an entirely new appreciation of her state of readiness for war It was said in this House not

  1103
  long ago—and I should like to endorse it—that "it is later than we thought." Besides this, it has become known that Russian developments in the field of nuclear fission have made some progress: how much it is difficult for the outsider to know, but the fact that that progress has been made does increase our peril enormously.
  I should have thought that in circles where these problems of defence are considered, studied and pondered, these menacing developments—menacing alike in their scale and pace—would have had this one message: that we, like other Western nations who have lagged behind, must now strain every nerve and sinew to catch up by developing as rapidly as possible our share of that vast potential which is available to the West, particularly through the material support afforded from the other side of the Atlantic. I should have thought that informed persons—indeed, all people of common sense—would have regarded it as a truism that aggressors always have the great advantage of surprise. There-fore, it seems to me strange that the Secretary of State for War should apparently know when war will break out, for he tells us that it "would have been foolish to build up armaments until now." Does he envisage an international situation like a kind of super field-day, in which the battle begins only when both sides have got into position, and the directing staff has a pretty good idea who is going to win? I must confess that I read observations of that kind with feelings akin to despair. How can we make this nation of ours realise its deadly peril; how can we furnish an example to the rest of Western Europe, if Ministers, and above all Service Ministers, speak in terms which seem to be so complacent?
  Therefore, I begin by stressing the urgency of pressing forward with this part, as with all other parts, of our defence preparations. At best, we have a bare minimum of time in which to develop our defences. Our Islands have not only to be defended in their own right, but have to be defended as a place of arms in the general strategic scheme for the Western Nations. Home Defence is therefore a part of. and must be fitted into, the overall strategic concept. This base must be defended, and defended by the most
  1104
  economical use possible of the resources available in men and material. These. as we know, are limited, and particularly limited in the realm of man-power: therefore, uneconomical use of our resources, especially man-power, will mean that Home Defence, production, supply or our Field Forces will suffer. I am far from believing that these Islands can by any means be rendered immune or even relatively safe from the consequences of air attack. A policy of attempting this would absorb all our resources, and our safety would not be thereby increased but, in my estimation, would be even more at risk. In order to prevent war and to encourage the nations of Western Europe to combine to resist aggression, it is our national duty to prepare to put into the common pool very considerable air and land forces. We cannot play the snail and retire for safety beneath a shell. We must have a carapace but we need very large claws as well.
  So far, I have, without, I hope, straining the rules of order too far, referred not specifically to the Home Guard and to Civil Defence but, generally, to Home Defence. I have done this because I am persuaded that it is into the mould of a well-planned scheme of Home Defence arrangements that we must pour our available resources of part-time man-power and, I must add, woman-power, from which very large Home Guard and Civil Defence Services must be recruited. Home Defence is. of course, part of the larger problem, and must include the use of full-time military formations. It seems to me that we must prepare ourselves to meet attack on a scale very much heavier than any-thing that was directed against these Islands during the last war. Further, we must face the possibility that at some stage—possibly not at the start—we shall be exposed to the considerable risk of large-scale airborne invasion. So, to me, it seems that we should not allow our minds to fall back into the ruts of last-war organisation, but should prepare our-selves instead for the next. It is a matter of great regret that my noble friend Viscount Bridgeman, who has great know-ledge of these matters, based upon practical experience, cannot be here to-day. He is on his way to Australia, flying, I understand, in one of the aircraft belonging to the Corporations coming

  1105
  under the charge of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, I have not yet heard if Lord Bridgemar has arrived. On previous occasions, he has expressed with emphasis and clarity his view, based, as I say, on practical experience, that in war the allocation of part-time man-power, as well as of full-time man-power, should become the responsibility of the Ministry of Labour. Both are faced with the same problems. May I quote from a speech made by my noble friend, Lord Bridgeman, in December, 1948, in which he said:
  "… it appears to me that this Bill will have the effect of perpetuating departmental divisions and, therefore, of perpetuating private armies."
  The noble Viscount went on to mention three or four services—the police, the wardens' service, the fire service and the fire watchers; and to these I would add, although the list may still not be exhaustive, the rescue service and the Royal Observer Corps.
  I am afraid that in the event of actual war we shall not be able to rely on volunteers to supply the numbers necessary to fill these services. Disagreeable though it is, we shall have to face the fact that there must be some direction. Surely then, with all the means of regional and local advice and knowledge enlisted, the final responsibility for allocating man-power must rest with the Ministry of Labour if waste is to be reduced to a minimum. Of course the cadres for all those necessary services must be formed now. I should have thought that those who volunteer now ought to receive guidance about where they are expected to be most needed in an actual emergency, and should have some assurance that, having volunteered early, they will be regarded as being in "on the ground floor." A great many specialists and instructors will be required, and I suggest that those who have the keenness and patriotism—to which I should here like to pay tribute—to come forward now, will provide a large number of those fitted for these key posts.
  If I am right, as I believe I am, it will be a most difficult job to fit the right people into the right part-time service, and I urge that officials of the Ministry of Labour should be appointed now to plan this natter well in advance, in co-
  1106
  operation, of course, with the local authorities. I hope that all Home Defence will be founded on a common doctrine, and that such a common doctrine will be formed at the highest level, on a Chiefs of Staff appreciation, and, what is more, that it will be kept up to date by constant contact at this level. I am sure that the institution of the Civil Defence Staff College was an admirable move, and I am equally certain that the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff, which includes representatives from all Departments, including the Service Departments, is an essential piece of machinery. I find it difficult to believe that it is possible to integrate all aspects of defence, and in particular to keep Home Defence properly in line with the overall military problem, unless there is responsible for this side of National Security someone in close and constant contact with the Chiefs of Staff—possibly a very high-level representative of the Home Department. I should have thought, and here I am speaking in the presence of those who have far greater experience than I have, that contact through the Cabinet Defence Committee is apt to be rather too remote and too cumbrous.
  I make these two points: that Home Defence, which ought to depend to a very high degree on part-time man-power, must be as closely as possible integrated with the general scheme of military defence, and that the Government should plan on the basis that this part of our National Defence, like the Armed Forces, should rely on the Ministry of Labour to sort out the man-power problem. And certainly this man-power problem does need some sorting out: it must be done in detail, and the job must be started now. There is the Regular Reserve of the Forces; there is the Class Z Reserve, which is enormous; and there are the reserved occupations, which should be defined. On top of these there are a large number of people who come into none of these categories. The Home Guard and the Civil Defence Services may be able to rely for a time on the large section of what I may call (I hope without too much violation of the English language) the uncategorised, but they cannot go on for long. I doubt the wisdom of the Home Secretary in keeping his head so firmly in the sand

  1107
  as to refuse, as he has said in another place, to
  "understand the idea that people should be reluctant to come forward because after they have been trained they might not be required."
  That view assumes that people have all the time in the world, and that they are looking for some way to spend their evenings and week-ends. We are also told by the Minister of Defence (to quote his own words) that the Home Guard is not to be enrolled until "the actual emergency arises." I think this statement is an automatic brake on recruitment. People who are keen to join the Home Guard do not believe in the feasibility of the Minister's further statement, that when the time arises those who wish will be able to transfer from the Civil Defence back into the Home Guard. Neither, I must confess, do I.
  I believe that the scale of modern air attack, and the need for the greatest economy in the use of man-power, may blur what in the last war was regarded as the clear-cut distinction between the rôles of the Home Guard and the Civil Defence services. I think there may have to be a very considerable overlapping. I believe that the Home Guard will also have to be called on duty in air attack. Furthermore, under the threat of, and certainly in the event of, airborne invasion, and even of very heavy air attack, it may well be impossible to have a distinction between active and passive defence. Therefore, for the reasons given. I urge that arrangements should be made to start the enrolment of the Home Guard as early as possible.
  There is another practical reason why enrolment should start as soon as possible, and should start before the actual emergency. In replying to a supplementary question in your Lordships' House, the noble Viscount, Lord Hall, said that "anti-aircraft duties would certainly be included" in the rôle of at least some of the Home Guard, and this was confirmed yesterday, I notice, by the Secretary of State for War, in his reply to a Question in another place. I ask: Is it contemplated that in a state of emergency such Forces as may be provided by the Territorial Army or the Regular Army will be sufficient to provide anti-aircraft protection at all key-points and factories? Or is the decision to put off enrolment of the
  1108
  Home Guard due not so much to deli-berate policy as to delay caused by-administrative problems? If the latter, then it seems to me that the remedy is a greater sense of urgency in the whole field of defence. But in the meanwhile, surely the Home Guard can start training for the rôle which they will certainly be required to play—that is, certain Civil Defence duties in the event of an air attack. I feel certain that, if this matter were explained to them, the people who are keen on the Home Guard would join even before adequate equipment and instructors were available for a primary, active military rôle, and would willingly undertake Civil Defence training, with the knowledge that they were the cadre of the Home Guard on which a later expansion would be founded. Of one thing I am sure: that to wait for "the actual emergency" once again (to quote the Minister's words) would lead to the maxi-mum of confusion and the minimum of defence.
  So far I have tried to speak about the Home Guard and Civil Defence in the wider context of the whole defence problem. There are, however, one or two more detailed points, but still very important ones, which I should like to raise in this debate. I understand—and here I am open to correction on fact—that the Territorial associations have so far received from above no instructions, or no very clear instructions, on Home Guard policy. From my information, I believe that this is worrying a good deal of those responsible in the Territorial associations. The Territorial associations have experienced and have overcome a great many difficulties. Do not leave them in the dark, hampered by the fear that their organisation may be over-loaded and perhaps almost disrupted by sudden demands made upon them at the last moment.
  A second question is how far local Civil Defence plans have been co-ordinated, and how far responsibilities have been defined and standardised? Under the Civil Defence Act, 1948, Designation Orders have so far been made by the Ministers of Health and Food, and according to a Parliamentary Reply further Orders from the Ministers of Works, Transport and Fuel and Power may be expected "soon." Those are the words of the Minister responsible. It is also

  1109
  understood that later further Orders may be required. As I understand it, the structure of Civil Defence depends on the regulations made by the Ministers under these Designation Orders. I ask whether delay in issuing regulations under those Orders may not hamper a great deal of planning at lower levels. The speed with which the Orders and the regulations under them are produced will clearly depend on the priority given to this task by the Ministers concerned. I ask that they should give them very high priority, and that in this context the expenditure of necessary money should be given equally high priority.
  My next question is also a Civil De-fence point: What progress has been made with the formation of mobile columns which are to be the second echelon of the Civil Defence Corps? I ask this because military planning demands that the commitments of the Armed Forces in Civil Defence should be reduced to a minimum. I think that must be perfectly clear. It is a dangerous pretence to count your Armed Forces twice, once in their primary military rôle and again as supporters of the Civil De-fence services. Therefore, the formation of mobile columns, or at least the cadres of the mobile columns, is important, not only in the rôle of Civil Defence but in the wider rôle of National Defence. So I ask at what date it can be expected that mobile and trained Civil Defence columns will be ready in each region. Then, as always in all these problems, there is the question of finance. I do not intend to go into this in detail, as I am sure noble Lords will be relieved to hear. The general rule is that the local authorities are reimbursed 75 per cent. of their expenditure. I do not question the propriety of that rule, but is their planning and equipment being held up by lack of definition in detail and delays in classification? Questions of that kind sometimes lead to long and perhaps unnecessary de-lays and obstructions. I ask the Minister, in no critical spirit, whether he can give us some assurance on that point.
  Another important matter is that of the chain of command. The region where the civil and military powers meet is also particularly difficult and inherently difficult country, but in the sort of emergency which we may well have to face in this
  1110
  country the chain of command must be adaptable and it must not be hampered by a framework or body of law which was drawn up in times which were easier and less exacting. I have tried to insist upon the need for a high degree of planning and, possibly, in certain eventualities, of direction. No one has a greater distaste than I have for compulsion and the interference with private lives and liberties which is implied by any such nation-wide direction and preparation. But we must, if we have to give account of our-selves, give the best account we can. Once more we must look at things as they are. We must not be guilty of averting our gaze if the prospect is grim and road rough and uphill. We must hope that well-considered plans made now for the effective mobilisation of all our resources in the event of war, and the instruction now, if not necessarily the use, of an effective machine, will go a long way to prevent their ever having to be used.
  I emphasise once again that our first task is to strain all our energies to deter aggression by our strength and prepared-ness. So may I once again call for a greater spirit of urgency in this, as in all matters of national defence. Do not let the Government disguise from the people that possibly they must once again be ready to stand upon the ramparts. The greatest safeguard against surprise is alertness, and the greatest protection against an unprovoked attack is the knowledge by the aggressor of your strength. At this hour, as I see it, our greatest need is not for more determination on the part of the people, but for far greater leadership from those charged with the government of this country. I beg to move for Papers.
  3.8 p.m.
  THE MINISTER OF CIVIL AVIATION (LORD PAKENHAM): My Lords, I believe that it will be the wish of the House that I should speak immediately, and that the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, should wind up the debate on this side. If I fail to reply to some of the points made by the noble Lord who has initiated this debate, I am sure that he will allow the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, to deal with them. The noble Lord, Lord De L'IsIe and Dudley, has impressed the House, as he always does, if I may say so. We cannot, of course, agree with

  1111
  everything that he has said, but we agree with a good deal that has fallen from him, and we sympathise entirely with the spirit of his remarks. The Government share entirely his sense of urgency, and his insistence that this sense of urgency should be far more widely disseminated throughout the country. We in this House to-day are all concerned with one thing only: the right steps to take, and to take now, for the defence of our country, in view of the very serious and threatening international situation. The Government agree further with the great emphasis placed by the noble Lord on the importance of Civil Defence and the Home Guard, and we certainly welcome this debate with all our hearts. We agree with his stress on the importance of Civil Defence and the Home Guard in the event of war, and, may I add?—and the noble Lord himself made this point very strongly—as a deterrent to the aggressor and, therefore, as a bulwark of peace. The Civil Defence Forces and the Home Guard did great work last time. In the considered view of the Government, their task would be still more vital on another occasion.
  The Motion calls attention to the organisation of Civil Defence and the Home Guard, and in particular to the need for coordinating these Services. The organ-isation of Civil Defence in peace and war is fairly well known and. therefore, was not laboured by the noble Lord. It has been explained on various occasions and most recently in this House, by the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, on October 25, when the whole matter was fully debated. No doubt we shall return to it on many occasions, and I hope that I shall be complying with your Lordships' wishes, and not be failing in respect to an essential service, if I do no more to-day than recapitulate in a few words the main features of its organisation. Before doing so, I should like to echo most cordially the tribute paid by the noble Lord to those who set up the Civil Defence Staff College, and to the Staff College itself. I recently paid a visit to the College, and I found it a most inspiring place in which to spend a day. I venture to suggest to noble Lords that they and I could spend many days there with great profit to ourselves.
  As your Lordships know, when we are talking about Civil Defence there are four
  1112
  Services—namely, the Civil Defence Corps, the Auxiliary Fire Service, the National Hospital Service Reserve, and the Special Constabulary. Your Lord-ships will be aware that these four Ser-vices are not only all essentially civil in character, but that, except in the case of the National Hospital Service Reserve, they are normally organised and administered by and through the existing local government machinery of the country. It may none the less be useful to consider for one moment how far it has been thought necessary to modify the general organisation of the Civil Defence Services in the light of changed circumstances— that is, circumstances which have changed since the war—and also of the experience of the war itself. Let me stress particularly that although, broadly speaking, the structure is the same as during the war, there have been many changes in detail, and one or two changes of real significance. For example, the Civil Defence Corps now includes a welfare section (which was not one of the Civil Defence general services in the last war), but it does not include any first aid ser-vice. In the Second World War the first aid service was maintained by local authorities quite separately from the hospitals, whereas in future responsibility for first aid posts and units will be placed on the regional hospital boards. A further change, and one of a more fundamental character, would have to be introduced in time of war—and here I return to what the noble Lord touched on with consider-able emphasis. In addition to the local divisions of the Civil Defence Corps, it is proposed to make the arrangements referred to for the mobilisation in war of Civil Defence mobile reserves available to reinforce areas subjected to widespread attack. These mobile reserves, which would be organised by the Central Government and controlled through Civil Defence regions, would operate over areas larger than that of any single corps authority.
  The noble Lord asked me some detailed questions, including one about dates. I am not in a position to answer all those points this afternoon. I would mention, however, that the column establishment has now been worked out, but it will have to be put to severe practical tests. With this end in view, arrangements are now proceeding for the actual formation of an experimental column. At the moment a

  1113
  headquarters is being sought, and as soon as this has been found steps will be taken to appoint a permanent instructional staff around which the column will be formed. If the House so desires it, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, will be able to supply further details. I mention these facts only to join the noble Lord in emphasising the importance of these columns.
  I agree with the noble Lord that it is all-important to fit the plans for Civil Defence (I believe this was his own expression) into the overall strategic-concept. The Government have the benefit of detailed advice from the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff, under the chairmanship of Major-General S. F. Irwin. I know how difficult it is to follow these details of interlocking committees. but I feel sure that the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton, who is to speak later, will be particularly interested in these points. The Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff contains representatives of all Government Departments concerned in the formu-lation and execution of Civil Defence plans, and is able, through a system of composite Working Parties, to obtain the assistance of experts in the world of local government and other spheres of special knowledge. A further point—and this is one I should like to stress strongly to your Lordships—is that the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff not only has representatives from all three Service Departments, but is in the closest and most continuous contact with those Departments, and has at its disposal the guidance of the Chiefs of Staff as to the overall strategic situation in relation to Civil Defence. Therefore, the advice of the Chiefs of Staff in one way or another isreadily avail-able to the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff. That is one aspect of the matter. In addition to all this, the Chairman of the Civil Defence Joint Planning Staff personally attends meetings of the Chiefs of Staff which involve the discussion of matters bearing on the development of Civil Defence policy; and the Home Office is also represented on various inter-Service committees whose duty it is to advise the Chiefs of Staff. I never claim for any machinery that it is perfect, be-cause one can always find ways to im-prove it, but I feel that the House will agree that great pains have been taken to realise the objectives which the noble
  1114
  Lord, Lord De L'Isie and Dudley, so clearly has in mind.
  I will now pass to the Home Guard and its relationship with Civil Defence. All these subjects are interrelated, but for purposes of exposition one must divide them up, and I will take first the Home Guard in war or emergency, and then the Home Guard in peace. Under the first heading we have obviously to consider first its organisation and then its rôle. I should hope that on both these subjects —leaving out for the moment their relationships with Civil Defence—what I have to say, which is already fairly well known, will be generally accepted and welcomed. The organisation proposed for a future Home Guard closely resembles that adopted in the last war. Broadly speaking, it will be administered by the War Office and will be raised and run on a territorial basis, through the local Territorial and Auxiliary Forces Associations. I know that when this was expounded to the House on a previous occasion the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, expressed his pleasure concerning that last arrangement. It will be under the control of the Commander-in-Chief, United Kingdom Land Forces, in war for operations and training, control being exercised through normal channels of command—namely, command, district and sub-district headquarters, down to battalions. So much for organisation. which I do not think is a matter of controversy between us.
  Now for the rôle. The primary rôle of the Home Guard is to relieve Army units of some of their military tasks, thereby releasing such units for their primary rôle; in performing such a rôle the Home Guard will be carrying out tasks of the first importance. The particular functions which can, if required, be performed by Horns Guard units will include defence against invasion, defence against parachutists, defence against small-scale raids on particular points, and the provision of guards on particular points. The primary rôle of the Home Guard in support of Civil Defence would be that of relieving Regular Army units of Civil Defence duties. Clearly, one can-not limit oneself in defence, but the tasks in which the Home Guard are likely to be most useful to Civil Defence are at present thought to be as follows: assistance in the care and control of the homeless, first aid (particularly stretcher

  1115
  bearing), and also assistance with communications. I would add that it is hoped that, in order to improve their usefulness in discharging their Civil Defence duties, it will be possible to give the Home Guard the normal training in Civil Defence that is now given to Army units. There is every recognition of the importance of seeing that this objective is realised.
  If the Home Guard is to succeed in war, a great deal must clearly be done in peace. I am sure there is no dispute between us on that. We must get on with the job now. It seems to me that here we must take recruitment first and then the question of planning. This issue of recruitment brings me to what is, in my own view at least, the most difficult issue in this field. When should the Home Guard be formed? Should it, when it is formed, be called upon for part-time ser-vice, or should it merely be enrolled in the first instance, as I think the noble Lord envisaged? On what scale should this be done in the first place? On these and related questions I submit that it would be very dangerous to dogmatise; so much depends, both in a material and a psychological sense, on unforeseeable elements in a very fluid situation. Up to the present, as has been stated more than once, the Government have not in-tended to raise or train any Home Guard, even in cadre form, before an actual emergency arises. I am sure that the House will accept it from me that this view has not been formed on political, but solely on practical grounds.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Neither raised nor trained?
  LORD PAKENHAM: That is the view held up to the present time. The truth is that the raising of any substantial part of the Home Guard now would create military problems greater than those it would solve. The Home Guard is essentially a military force which can be raised, accommodated, trained and equipped only by the Army. Also, a step such as that suggested would make considerable demands on Army resources, on training staffs, accommodation, equipment and so on, which would represent a diversion from the present urgent rearmament needs. The House will, of course, wish to form its own view on all this, but I shall perhaps be forgiven for repeating what I
  1116
  have just said in a slightly different way. The tasks which face the Army can be graded according to priorities. The first priority is the building up of the Regular units; the second priority is the building up of the Territorial Army, and the third priority is the Home Guard. The building up of the Home Guard at this juncture —I stress the words "at this juncture"— would place on the Army a task which it would wish to avoid if that is at all possible.
  It may be urged—indeed, the noble Lord has urged it in his speech—that even if one accepts what I have just said, it would still be sound policy to enrol the Home Guard now, and, even if they could not be equipped or trained (and this, I think, is the argument of the noble Lord) in a military sense in the first in-stance, they could be given at any rate Civil Defence training, and in any case they would be ready and waiting when military facilities became available. I think I am representing the view of the noble Lord correctly. It may well be felt that such a step would be additionally valuable as helping to rouse the country to the true facts of the position. The last thing I wish to do is to underestimate such an argument, or to attempt to brush it aside lightly. But we are dealing here with imponderable factors, upon which honest and well-informed people may hold two, or more than two, opinions. In my view any such proposal would have to be considered in the light of two things: first, the military facilities that would in fact be available, and, secondly, the psychology of the newly-formed force-in the light of the situation at the moment. Obviously, neither element is stable, and the second is bound to be conjectural. But in the light of their assessment of those factors the Government must make up their mind.
  Briefly, it has hitherto been felt that such a scheme would start off the Home Guard on the wrong foot; that it would damp enthusiasm just when it was hoped to create it. The whole thing, it is felt, would go off at half-cock. I must add, in candour, that once the Home Guard had been formed—even if the avowed intention were simply to enrol it without training or other activity—there would surely be incessant pressure on the Army to accommodate, train and equip it for its Home Guard duties. One is bound to

  1117
  feel that a virtually unarmed Home Guard, and a virtually untrained Home Guard, would not long remain a possibility. If that is so, it would mean either finishing up with wide-spread discontentment or placing on the Army in the immediate future a strain which at the moment, as I explained earlier, it would be against our military interests to impose. I repeat —and I say this in a considered fashion— that I do not wish the House to suppose that the Government have slammed the door. The material situation in respect of facilities may alter and, indeed, in some degree is bound to alter. Psychological conditions may be transformed. The whole issue remains under review and consideration. I assure the House that no prejudice or fixity of posture will be allowed to interfere with the most careful weighing and measuring of all that has been said, and may yet be said in the future.
  Whatever may be the view taken about the timing of the scale of recruitment, there will surely be no difference of opinion at all about the necessity for planning in advance. Here the attitude of the Government is perfectly unambiguous and perfectly firm. We intend that planning and preparation in peace should be such as will enable the Home Guard to be legally and effectively raised, organised and armed very rapidly when the order is given during an emergency or on the outbreak of war. That planning, of course, as I indicated earlier, has to be fitted not only into the rest of our military plans but into the whole of the defence picture. That is now being done.
  Perhaps I might break off here to deal with one particular point which the noble Lord raised concerning the designation of Ministers. Possibly he would like me to answer that now.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Yes, I should.
  LORD PAKENHAM: The fact is that Designation Orders are not made until planning has been carried to a point where designation is needed to facilitate some action—for instance, where a Minister has to make regulations. So far, for example, the Minister of Health has been designated as the Minister responsible for a wide range of functions. The Minister of Food has been designated, while the question of designating several others, including the
  1118
  Minister of Works, the Minister of Trans-port and the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, is under consideration.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Could the noble Lord deal with the further point? I understand that, after these Designation Orders have been made, regulations are to be issued defining the responsibility. Perhaps that point will be answered at the end of the debate.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I will leave my noble friend Lord Shepherd to pursue that subject, if I may.
  Present plans are being worked out to ensure that a substantial force—I stress those words, because it does not necessarily mean the whole. Home Guard at its maximum potential—can be enrolled, organised and armed within a few weeks of the order to proceed—that is, in an emergency or during the first month of war. This force has been divided as between the Army Commands, and fore-cast strengths for enrolment are being forwarded to Army Commanders. Commands will prepare their Orders of Battle based on their allocation within the overall figure. Thereafter, although planning will be put in hand for further expansion, the expansion will, in practice, turn on how the war develops—for example, how the relative priorities of Civil Defence and she Home Guard reveal themselves.
  The planning of the Home Guard in peace will therefore rest primarily on the Regular Army. In addition, however, there will be a Home Guard adviser attached to the Staff of each Army Command Headquarters, to assist in peace-time planning. These advisers will be nominated by the General Officers Commanding-in-Chief, in consultation (I stress this point) with the Chairmen of Territorial and Auxiliary Forces associations, and many will have had experience of the Home Guard in the last war. I have been specially warned—and I am sure rightly warned—not to suggest that these Home Guard advisers will necessarily have had experience of the Home Guard in war; they may be very fine soldiers, or ideal men for a hundred reasons, but they may in some instances have been on active service overseas. At present, the intention is that battalion commanders, suitable and willing to take up appointments at the time battalions are raised, will be nominated in peace time as soon

  1119
  as plans have been prepared. The next category, of course, is company Commanders, with whom I have a great deal of personal sympathy, having been one of them; but whether they will be enrolled or merely earmarked by battalion Commanders is something that I cannot say this afternoon. I break off, in somewhat lighter vein, to say that I hope they will not share my fate when I was a company commander, because I was shot in the foot by one of the men I had trained in musketry.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: At which part of the noble Lord was he aiming?
  LORD PAKENHAM: I hasten to add that this musketeer laid low three university dons with one bullet.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: Oxford, of course!
  LORD PAKENHAM: Oxford, of course! He could have accounted for twice that number from the other place.
  I now turn to the crucial problem which is in the minds of noble Lords, that of co-ordination between Civil Defence and the Home Guard, both in war and peace. The simplest division here seems to be between war-time operational control, on the one hand, and the planning of establishments, which begins in peace and which would have to continue, if the worst occurred, through an emergency into war. As regards operational co-ordination, the greatest trouble will be taken—if possible even greater trouble than last time, when a good deal of trouble was taken—to harmonise the activities of a military force, the Home Guard, trained in Civil Defence duties, and no doubt called upon to perform them, with the Civil Defence bodies who will ultimately be under civil control. That at once raises a problem, as the noble Lord was the first to point out, but the greatest trouble will be taken to deal with it. The assistance given by the Home Guard to Civil Defence would be on the same lines as that given by the Regular Forces to civil authorities, but, owing to the local nature of the rôle of the Home Guard, their liaison with the local authorities would be particularly intimate.
  The Government, however, are quite clear—I do not wish here in any way to misrepresent the noble Lord, but I wish
  1120
  to deal with a possible implication that could be drawn from his remarks—that it would be the greatest possible mistake to think in terms of amalgamating the two Forces. The Home Guard clearly cannot be civilianised, so that amalgamation could be achieved only by militarising Civil Defence. In our view, that would be equally disastrous, alike from the civil and the military points of view. Even supposing that the police, fire and health services were excluded from this amalgamation, as they would certainly have to be, the proposal would mean that the military machinery of administration, command and control, would have to be imposed in some way on the civil local authority structure within which the Civil Defence Corps is at present organised. To take only one illustration, all the local committees—the war emergency Committees, for example—the town clerks and all the other senior officials, would either have to take their orders from a military source or disappear from the scene. The whole proposition would surely be violently repugnant to the local authorities and, with the greatest respect to any noble Lords who are turning it over in their minds, I question whether many of us would seriously consider it once its implications have been pointed out.
  What I have just said applies to any circumstances we can foresee but, even in a certain kind of extreme case, it would be a much more natural course to transfer Civil Defence members to the Home Guard than to attempt to militarise a civilian force. I would stress, however, that the military view is equally opposed to such an amalgamation. From the military point of view the primary duty is to fight, and not to act on the defensive in aid of the Civil Defence services. The more planning proceeds on the basis of the military being committed to assist the Civil Defence services at every turn, the more impossible it will be for the Army to carry out its proper rôle. It is recognised, of course, that when the situation demands it, the Army, including the Home Guard, must be prepared to go to the aid of the Civil Defence services. That is what is in the mind of the noble Lord. Such aid, however, will be for the mini-mum period necessary, and certainly there can be no idea of the military taking over control, except in the most exceptional circumstances and for the minimum of

  1121
  time. Any development which resulted in an amalgamation under the Army between the Home Guard and the Civil Defence services would be to the detriment of the proper function of the Army.
  Now I come to the co-ordination of plans, especially plans for the establishments of the Home Guard and Civil Defence. The noble Lord, Lord De L'IsIe and Dudley, following remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on an earlier occasion, spoke at some length —and clearly it is an important subject— on the need for coordinating man-power and making the best use possible of our man-power resources in the event of war. It would obviously save a great deal of trouble and be a very attractive solution from the planners' end if we could decide here and now what every one of us should do in the form of part-time service in the event of a war, or even if we could reach some broad conclusions of that kind. I am afraid there can be no question of such an easy solution. To take only one very big point, in this particular field that we are discussing to-day the respective man-power needs in war of the Home Guard and Civil Defence would inevitably depend upon the way in which hostilities developed. In the light of such developments there would have to be a periodical review of the man-power to be allotted to the Home Guard and the Civil Defence services.
  But that does not mean that a great deal cannot be done—indeed it is beginning to be done—to reconcile in advance the respective drains on man-power of the respective services. The Civil Defence Departments and the War Office are in full agreement that there must be the closest co-ordination between the military and civil authorities in the planning of establishments, and that establishments, whether peace time or war time, will be finally fixed in the case of these forces only as the result of mutual agreements. The need for co-ordination has already been notified to local authorities, to whom the statement by the Minister of Defence in another place on November 15 has been circulated, together with a Home Office circular which lays this down, among other things:
  "The instructions to be issued to the Home Guard Advisers in Army Commands will pro-vide, among other things, for the closest contact at regional level with the Home Office in planning Home Guard units, their strength,
  1122
  sources of recruitment, et cetera. Generally speaking, the object will be to secure that recruiting for Civil Defence is given priority in the big industrial areas and centres of population while in rural areas priority will be given to the potential needs of the Hone Guard."
  I should add that the War Office will be issuing a similar directive.
  Machinery for consultation is not perhaps very easy to follow on paper, and still less easy in a speech, if my own experience is any guide. May I put the programme as shortly and concretely as I can? In the first place, local authorities have already been given a provisional peace-time establishment for Civil Defence which they are now seeking to fill, together with a rough indication of what their war-time requirements are likely to be. Secondly, as between Civil Defence and the Home Guard, the initial task of co-ordination will be assumed between military districts and Civil Defence regions which have an approximate geographical correspondence. Of course, there will be reference upwards if necessary in case of dispute. When the initial discussions take place between Civil Defence regions and Army districts, the representatives of the two sides will have before them a break-down of the Home Guard substantial force—that is, the force to be raised at once in an emergency, They will also have a preliminary estimate of the war-time requirements of the Civil Defence Corps. These estimates would be compared end adjusted if they were likely to place too great a strain on the part-time man-power of the area.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: May I ask the noble Lord whether that comprehends all the available man-power?
  LORD PAKENHAM: It would not necessarily comprehend all the available man-power, because on the one side you will have the Home Guard you wish to raise immediately, and on the other the Home Guard formations and Civil Defence, and probably other people, who will be dealt with as the requirements reveal themselves.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I mean would the arrangements involved in the Civil Defence regions have in the pool all the available man-power and woman-power, and would they together be comprehensive?
  LORD PAKENHAM: NO. It could not be said that anybody of any age would be covered. In the first place, a target would be fixed according to the number of Civil Defence people required and the number of Home Guard people of whom effective use could be made. There would obviously be a further pool of people who would be dealt with in what seemed to be the best fashion. I know this is rather complicated, but in each area, by reason of this method, we shall possess in peace time adjusted and harmonised figures of the numbers of Civil Defence workers and Home Guards required immediately in the event of an emergency. That will be worked out and adjusted as to the number you will require and the number who are to be made use of at once. That is really the second stage. Thirdly, in the event of an emergency developing, and a fortiori if and when a war actually breaks out, there will have to be further consultations and, it may be, further adjustments. Of course all these strengths will have to be constantly reviewed during the progress of a war; there can be no question of either the Civil Defence or the Home Guard maintaining a prescriptive right to given strengths for the duration of hostilities.
  Before leaving that subject, in case I have not quite covered one part of the noble Lord's argument, may I turn to the question of making the fullest use of man-power in the event of a war in fact breaking out, as we all of course hope it will not? In the last war standing arrangements existed at headquarters, regional and local levels, for coordinating demands for part-time man-power by consultation between the Government Departments and the Services concerned. It is intended that similar arrangements should be made in any future war. These arrangements would probably come under a Committee of Ministers who would decide relative priorities, although I can-not give any guarantee of that in advance. If I followed the noble Lord aright, I do not think that what he suggested in this regard is practicable. I am not quite sure whether he laid down his view without qualification, but certainly an individual Minister—whether the Minister of Labour or anybody else—could not be made entirely responsible for deciding relative priorities in this field. I say that on advice after careful discussion. But
  1124
  I would say also that, subject to what I have just said, to the effect that no indi-vidual Minister can be given an over-riding power of decision where so many other Ministers are concerned, any general co-ordination of man-power would be a function, as the noble Lord would hope, of the Minister of Labour. I should add, too, that that Minister has under review continuously at the present time the whole problem of making the fullest use of labour. I am not saying that these arrangements, any more than any other human arrangements, are so perfect that they cannot be improved in any respect at any stage, but I would submit with confidence that they would strike most people as sensible and well-designed at this stage to preserve a proper balance between the global requirements of Civil Defence and the Home Guard.
  It is not these plans for co-ordination that I have just described, perfect or imperfect, but it is the decision to push ahead now with recruiting for Civil Defence and not to push ahead for the moment with recruiting for the Home Guard that creates one special problem which is very much in your Lordships' minds, although I do not think that the noble Lord dwelt upon it. It has given rise to a good deal of discussion and some confusion in the country—I refer to the position of the man who means to join the Home Guard when it is formed but is otherwise available for work in the Civil Defence Services or the Special Constabulary. That, I believe, is a problem which is giving rise to some uncertainty in various parts of the country, and it comes into existence because one is recruiting for one force and not, at the moment, for the other. There are pros and cons in this matter, as in most others, but the Government are unhesitatingly of the opinion expressed by the Minister of Defence on November 15, an opinion which I think so far has won general acceptance among those of all Parties who are most concerned. He said:
  "The Government desire to make it plain that no one should refrain from volunteering now for part-time work in the Civil Defence services or in the Special Constabulary on the ground that he might more suitably serve later on in the Home Guard. The training which potential Home Guard members would receive by joining Civil Defence ser-vices or the Special Constabulary would be of considerable value if they should later wish to join, and can be accepted for, the Home Guard on its formation."

  1125
  In short, my Lords—and I hope these words will carry fairly widely—while no guarantee can be given that there will be room for any particular man in his local Home Guard (one cannot guarantee that to anybody, because it depends upon establishments and when he offers him-self), no obstacle whatever will be placed in the way of his joining by virtue of his having been a member of the Civil Defence services. May I add that, in the view of the Government—and here I repeat even more strongly what the Minister said on November 15-his utility to the Home Guard would have been very much increased by his training and experience in the Civil Defence. I believe that at the moment a good many people are in fact hanging back and not joining Civil Defence because they feel that if they did they would be precluded from joining the Home Guard later, or would be at some disadvantage in doing so. I hope that what I have said to-day will free them from any such anxiety and that they will join forthwith.
  My Lords, I have spoken for some time and there are one or two points that the noble Lord put to me that I have not answered. Unless Lord De L'Isle and Dudley wishes, me to deal with them now, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, may cover them when he comes to his speech. As I conclude, I say, in a very solemn and certainly in no conventional sense, that the Government arc grateful to the noble Lord for initiating this discussion and for helping to bring these issues in all their stark urgency before our countrymen. I have been at special pains to-day to concentrate on our ideas in relation to the Home Guard, but since recruitment for that Force is not yet open let me end by reiterating, with the utmost emphasis, the appeal already made by the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary for recruits for Civil Defence. At the end of 1950 the number of volunteers enrolled in Great Britain was as follows: Civil Defence Corps, 105,000; Auxiliary Fire Service, 8,000; National Hospital Service Reserve, 12,000—
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Are these all men?
  LORD PAKENHAM: No; these num-bers include women.
  LORD WOOLTON: Could the figures be separated, or not?
  LORD PAKENHAM: It may or may not be possible before the end of the debate. I am not equipped with separate figures at the moment. Before the end of the debate we will see what can be done. Then for the Special Constabulary the figure is 74,000. The House may re-member that in your Lordships' last de-bate on Civil Defence on October 25, Lord Shepherd gave a total of 71,000, related to England and Wales, for the first three services I have just mentioned. Leaving out the Special Constabulary, the figure to-day for those three services is 125,000, including 8,000 in Scotland. If the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, would permit me to leave out Scotland for the moment, I would point out that that brings us down to 117,000 for the first three categories —Civil Defence Corps, Auxiliary Fire Service and National Hospital Service Reserve—at the end of 1950, as against 71,000 when the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, spoke towards the end of October.
  Apart from the Auxiliary Fire Service, where progress has hitherto been dis-appointing—and I say that quite candidly —it could conceivably be argued that the rate of increase has not been too bad. That may be so, my Lords: but surely we are at one in insisting that it must be very much better in the future, and in the immediate future, at that. Surely we arc also at one in scrutinising our own consciences as to whether we ourselves have done enough to spread the message. Surely we are at one, also, in our determination to go forth to-day resolved to redouble our exertions in the cause of our national survival and, we must all hope, with the result of sustaining peace. May we not feel that this debate should contribute markedly to the achievement of these national and, I venture to add, international and Christian purposes? I should like to think so. I do think so. On behalf of the Government, I have much pleasure in accepting the Motion of the noble Lord.
  3.50 p.m.
  LORD STRATHCARRON: My Lords, although I have attended your Lordships' House for some time, this is the first occasion on which I have risen to speak. I therefore crave your indulgence for the few words which I have to say on this important subject of Civil Defence. In particular, I should like to speak about the Fire Service. No service played a more vital part in the last war, and by

  1127
  their efforts they were able to minimise the damage to our cities. It is a significant fact that 80 per cent. of the bomb damage was caused by fire, rather than by blast. Far more terrible weapons are being developed now than were known then, and every precaution must be taken to diminish the effect of fire should such weapons ever be used against us.
  There are several ways in which we can prepare for an emergency. Water is the fireman's ammunition. In fact, during the raids on London, the London Fire Brigade used three days' supply of water in one night. Water can be stored by the building of artificial ponds which would have such peace-time uses as swimming pools, boating lakes and paddling pools, and it would be possible, in many instances, to recover the cost of their construction by charging a small fee for their use. These reservoirs should be placed near potential industrial targets, such as large factories, as well as in the middle of towns. In many cases it was found that piped water supplies, which in any case are very expensive to lay, were made useless during the blitz by the large number of broken service connections. The average width of roads in our big cities is only about forty feet. That is not sufficient to prevent the rapid spreading of fire. Wider roads, where-ever they are possible, lessen the risk of fire spreading, and help to prevent bottlenecks and traffic congestion, both in war time and in peace time.
  I had hoped that sub-surface shelters could be incorporated in all new buildings. So far as large blocks of buildings are concerned, these could be sub-divided by means of fire walls; these in themselves would prevent fire spreading within the particular block. If shelters can be built with inter-connecting passages, then of course these provide the maximum number of exits. Many of the existing fire brigade buildings and workshops are very old, and are too small for the expansion that would be necessary in an emergency. I would urge that suitable premises should be selected now for use by the Auxiliary Fire Service in an emergency, and that these premises should, if possible, be on the fringe of built-up areas, so that the base from which the firemen operate has a better chance of escaping damage.
  1128
  Owing to difficult circumstances, the modernisation of equipment is proceeding very slowly. As an example of this I should mention the two-way very high frequency radio; it has proved invaluable, and is a very great aid to mobility, but deliveries of these sets are very slow. With regard to the fire-fighting appliances themselves, the position is not good. Before the war the average life of an appliance was taken to be fifteen years, but many in use to-day are over twenty years' old. and the majority are war-time appliances which were never built to last as long as their peace time counterparts. No fewer than 3,000 appliances were used in one night in London during the blitz, but there are under 2,000 in use throughout the country to-day. Manufacturers of fire-fighting equipment are having the greatest difficulty in obtaining raw materials, and I would urge that these manufacturers may be given priority, so that brigades can be brought up to their required strength and standard of efficiency. I hope, also, that it will soon be possible to provide protective clothing for Civil Defence workers against possible radio-activity, and to give the public general information on the subject of radio-activity.
  Under the Civil Defence Act of 1948. the Auxiliary Fire Service was re-formed to augment the existing fire brigades. Both men and women are required, but I am afraid that the result of the extensive recruiting campaign has been disappointing. I am sure that large numbers would volunteer if the international situation were to deteriorate, but at the moment recruiting has been handicapped because the position of the reserved occupations has not been clarified. Men and women cannot be expected to give up their spare time for work that they may never be called upon to perform. While on the subject of volunteers. I should like to mention the very fine work done by members of the volunteer retained service. These men are part-time firemen who turn out with the regular brigades day or night throughout the year. They receive only £15 a year—which, I am told, is subject to income-tax—and ten shillings for each fire they attend, but these men do a magnificent job. Finally I would again stress the importance of providing the Fire Service with the latest equipment, and of providing the manufacturers of

  1129
  such equipment with the raw materials which are necessary. I should like an assurance from the Government that the fire services will be given the appliances and the equipment to tackle efficiently whatever tasks they may be called upon to undertake.
  4.0 p.m.
  LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, the pleasant duty falls to me of congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, on his maiden speech in this House, and to say genuinely and sincerely how much I appreciated his careful concentration on the question of fire prevention. In an air attack there is no greater danger than that of fire, as any of us who was in London during the last war had occasion to see. I hope that we shall have the pleasure of hearing the noble Lord on many future occasions.
  With regard to the general debate, I shall not attempt to follow in detail the extensive surveys made by the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, or by my noble friend Lord Pakenham in his reply from this side of the House. I would concentrate on one or two points with regard to the preparation for the possibility of large-scale air attack on this country and the necessity for Civil Defence. I agree with the Government decision in not raising a Home Guard at the present time. No doubt the experience of other noble Lords during the last war was much the same as my own. I was in Essex at the time of Dunkirk, following a visit to General Headquarters at Arras at the time when the Germans had started bombing it. Within one month after the Home Guard was formed, following the speech by Mr. Anthony Eden, a large Home Guard was raised in Essex, with, incidentally, a complete medical service. In that emergency, men and women entered the organisation without hesitation. I have no doubt whatever that in a grave national emergency the Home Guard would have no reason to fear not getting the necessary number of recruits. But there is one thing we can-not secure in an emergency, or by being willing to do our job and, if necessary, expose ourselves to danger: we cannot get knowledge of the needs of Civil Defence. And without that knowledge the Home Guard, the members of the Armed Forces and the civil population
  1130
  will in any future war be much handicapped.
  May I remind your Lordships that in any future war, if by grave misfortune we should become involved in one, this country may be attacked not only by what is called conventional weapons— that is to say, by all the weapons used in the last war—but also by the so-called "improved" weapons—rocket-firing and other weapons which I will not try to specify in detail. There may also be attacks by chemical warfare, including gas, atomic warfare and biological warfare. Although it is probable that some of these will never be used (for instance, there are good military reasons why atomic weapons are not likely to be used, because there is too much "come-back" on those who use them), there must be an extensive know-ledge of all these methods of attack on a civil population if we are to be able to feel secure about defending ourselves. Before the time for defence actually arises there should be an extensive teaching of Civil Defence methods. I think the Government's intention of starting instruction in Civil Defence on a large scale is the best method of approaching this problem. The knowledge of the methods of Civil Defence against all weapons which may be used is one of the most valuable means of protecting the country.
  It may be necessary, in an emergency, to raise a Home Guard, but a Home Guard which does not know the basic necessities of Civil Defence would be very much handicapped in carrying out its work. In my view it is a primary necessity that everyone in the Home Guard, and in the military, naval and air forces, should be fully equipped with a know-ledge of the methods of protection necessary to stave off the effects of the forms of attack which I have mentioned. I believe that the best way to do this would be by adopting something on the lines of what was done at he beginning of the last war. The country was divided into twelve Civil Defence regions, and a medical officer was appointed in every-one. I was one of these officers, and I gave lectures on all forms of Civil Defence to doctors and nurses, and to police and others in London and the surrounding counties. In that way a large number of people gained accurate know-

  1131
  ledge of what we had to guard against. I am not suggesting that exactly the same procedure should be followed now, but something on these lines should be done.
  It is desirable that all those who wish to join the Home Guard, and who are physically suitable for Home Guard duties, that is to say, who are physically fit, with good eyesight, and are fully mobile, should be noted as possible recruits who can be called up when it is necessary for a Home Guard to be called into existence. A Home Guard called up from people already fully in-formed in Civil Defence duties would be immediately and immensely valuable. People who did not know the rudiments of Civil Defence would face us with a tremendous task in case of an emergency. It is not only that instruction in Civil Defence should be widespread, but it should be possible for a list of people, who could be called up for Home Guard duties if necessary, to be compiled.
  We must remember that an emergency may come rapidly upon us, and we should not delay too long in making our preparations. In any future war, conditions would by no means be the same as they were on the last occasion. I doubt whether we should escape from attack without more civilian casualties than we had last time, and in that event we should have forced upon us the need for a much bigger organisation. It may be necessary not only to have a Home Guard and Civil Defence Force but to have a widespread dissemination of information on Civil Defence among the general population, because in certain places we may need something like a mass movement of the population to deal with a local emergency. I repeat that it is necessary for us to get the maximum amount of instruction into the largest number of people, especially doctors and nurses, and all those concerned with engineering and the large industries. We must "tab" the people among those instructed who might be called upon to serve in the Home Guard when it is decided to call it into existence, and we should leave the question of recruiting the Home Guard itself to a later date, when a real and urgent emergency makes it necessary to call it into being.
  4.10 p.m.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: My Lords, I am sure that your Lordships will all be grateful to my noble friend for raising this most important subject, and to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for his thoughtful reply in which he fully accepted the need for a sense of urgency in relation to matters of defence, those particularly under discussion to-day being the Home Guard and Civil Defence. But I confess that up-to-date the situation is not very reassuring; this sense of urgency would seem to be lacking.
  Your Lordships will recollect that on November 16 last the Minister of Defence made a statement which was repeated in this House by the noble Viscount, Lord Hall. I would first of all remind your Lordships of the text of that announcement. The noble Viscount said:
  "The Home Guard will not be enrolled before an actual emergency arises, but planning measures arc being put in hand at once, including the appointment of a Home Guard Adviser in each Army Command at home, which will ensure that a substantial force can be enrolled, organised and armed within a few weeks of the order to proceed."
  That was two months ago and yet I, along with many other chairmen of Territorial Associations, have been expecting to hear of the appointment of the Command Adviser. So far as I know, no steps have yet been taken to appoint these Advisers; at any rate none has been notified to the Territorial Associations, who will be charged with the administration of this force. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, spoke of planning, but that planning does not seem to have taken place at lower levels than the Command, and I would suggest to your Lordships that there is a great deal of preliminary work to be done at lower levels which ought to be started as soon as possible.
  I accept what the noble Lord said, that there must be priority for the Regular Army and for the Territorial Army, and that the Home Guard must be the third in that list of priorities. I think your Lordships will all accept that. But the fixing of these priorities must not be allowed to be a reason for nothing being done for those in the third category. There are administrative difficulties which have been faced in this debate. For example, the Government may be concerned about the amount of work which the raising of the Home Guard will undoubtedly entail

  1133
  for the Territorial Army and Air Force Associations. These Associations are very busy just now, especially with the building programme, which it is vital should be completed as soon as possible. In the initial stages of the planning of the Home Guard, however, I do not think a heavy burden need be cast upon them before the force is raised, because much preliminary work has to be done in regard to such points as the selection of battalion Commanders, delimitation of the zones of units, coordinating arrangements for the future issue of arms, a preliminary survey of accommodation that might be required, and so on. I shall speak later of whether or not the force should be enrolled now, but short of enrolment there is still a great deal of planning to be done, at the level of the county, which has not so far been commenced. Your Lordships will recollect that in the last war the Home Guard was organised mainly on a county basis, and it seems to me that an organiser or some such officer will be necessary in each county to assist the Command Adviser in the early stages.
  As regards finance, I do not suppose that that will be a serious point. Probably the Government are more worried about other matters, but they will inevitably have to face some payment to these officers, at least for out-of-pocket expenses, if such work is to proceed. The Government cannot expect to get work done all over the country without some outlay, but I do not imagine that is the issue which is causing delay. I think it is clear that it is a question of man-power and equipment rather than one of finance. There is a very proper fear that instructors, who are now instructing the Regular Army and the Territorial Army, and who may have to deal with Class Z reservists, will be called on for additional work instructing the Home Guard, thereby taking them away from their essential duties. Whilst agreeing wholeheartedly with the priorities I have already named, it seems to me that in the first stages of the raising of a Home Guard a good deal could be done by giving refresher courses to a limited num-ber of selected Home Guard volunteers, both officers and men. They would be men with recent war service, and they could soon be fitted to train a larger cadre of instructors who would be ready to instruct the Home Guard proper when it came up. So I would put out the sugges-
  1134
  tion that, even at this stage, a limited number of volunteers could be taken for short refresher courses to enable them to train others without calling on more than a very limited number of the Regular instructors.
  Then there is the question of accommodation. The headquarters of Home Guard battalions in the last war were mainly in Territorial drill halls, rendered vacant because the Territorial units were on active service. This, of course, will not be possible, so long as the Territorial Army is not mobilised. It is true to say that accommodation is a serious problem just now for the Territorial Army because of their more expanded condition, with many vehicles and so on. So I recognise that accommodation must be a real difficulty. But I feel that at this stage a survey should be mace of the accommodation that would be required for Home Guard units if they were suddenly called into being and that we should not have to face the difficulties of the last occasion. Much preliminary work like that is needed, and I see no evidence of its being done at the present time. There is also the question of the issue of arms. At the end of the last war there must have been a very large number of rifles and light automatics available. The Home Guard alone had a strength of between one and two million, and by the time the Home Guard stood down all ranks were armed in one way or another. So presumably, unless there is some reason which the Government cannot disclose, there is a considerable stock of weapons available in this country. I hope that plans are being made now for the ready issue of such arms when required and that we shall not experience the trouble which we had in the early stages of the Home Guard during the last war regarding weapons.
  My Lords, I say a word or two now on Civil Defence. What I am saying now relates particularly to Scotland. When Civil Defence was under discussion in the autumn, I venture to express a view. I understand that in the scheme—I am speaking of the higher organisation of the Civil Defence scheme—it is not proposed to appoint a Commissioner for Civil Defence in Scotland similar to those to be appointed in England, but that the work will rest with the Secretary of State himself. I ventured last autumn to ex-press some concern over that matter, for

  1135
  the Secretary of State is an extremely busy Minister, with four main departments to handle, as well as many other duties. There is also this fact, that in the event of war he is compelled to be much at Westminster, in the early stages at any rate, for the passage of emergency legislation. I recollect—I speak from memory here—that I was not able to get to Scotland for several months after the beginning of the last war, except on hurried visits, which would have been insufficient to handle the question of Civil Defence. I do not think I could possibly have dealt with the Civil Defence organisation as well as with the duties of the Scottish Office. As your Lordships will remember, they were most ably handled by Mr. Tom Johnston.
  If the Secretary of State is to be responsible, he will have to delegate the work to somebody else—possibly to the head of one of his main departments. But there, again, it seems to me that the heads of the main Scottish departments are also very busy men, and they will have difficulty in devoting the necessary time, either in peace or in war, to these duties. I feel that the lessons learned from the last occasion point to the selection by the Secretary of State now, in peace time, of a shadow Commissioner—someone who would spend his whole time on the job if the emergency arose, and that he should now work in the closest relationship with the Secretary of State and the departments concerned. I still think that in the event of mobilisation an almost impossible burden will be laid on the Secretary of State, unless he can effectively devolve it. What I have said in this respect, however, does not mean that I do not know of the useful work being done at the moment in Scotland for Civil Defence. I know that the Secretary of State has been most active, and in his contact with local authorities has made a considerable measure of progress, and that an important Civil Defence College has been opened. I do not wish to detract in any way from what has been done, but I am concerned about the organisation in the event of mobilisation.
  Coming back to the question of the Home Guard and Civil Defence in the country as a whole, I am inclined to think that the best form of ensuring that the Home Guard would be able to assist the
  1136
  Civil Defence authorities would be that the men of the Home Guard should, as soon as practicable, receive instruction from the Civil Defence authorities, because there is no lack of instructors—in fact, I understand that there are enough at present to train many more people than are now being enrolled in Civil Defence. There are many people in this country who would willingly join the Home Guard, and who again want to put on their old khaki uniforms. If it is thought right—and I believe, on balance, that it is right—that they should enrol at an early date, they could receive instruction in Civil Defence duties from Civil Defence instructors. That part of their training would, of course, avoid the necessity of calling Army instructors and taking them away from other duties. I well recognise the administrative difficulties which the Government face in regard to this problem. I repeat that I think that the priorities—Regular Army, Territorials and Home Guard—are right and inevitable but I am concerned in that two months have elapsed and there is no sign of movement in the planning of the Home Guard. No doubt planning has gone on in the War Office, but at the level of counties nothing seems to have taken place. I hope that this debate will serve a useful purpose in stimulating action in the matter.
  4.25 p.m.
  LORD BLACKFORD: My Lords, it fell to my lot in 1940 to organise the Central London Home Guard and subsequently to command them throughout the rest of the war. Therefore I put my name down to speak in this debate in case it should prove possible for me to say a useful word or two in the light of that experience. I well remember the first meeting at which I addressed the Local Defence Volunteers, as they were then called. I thought that their duties in Central London would be almost confined to assisting the Civil Defence. I addressed the meeting from that point of view, and wry unpopular I found it: they were quite determined that they were there to be soldiers and not to be assistants of the civil power. I thought then, and still think, that they were wrong in their conception, but one had to bow to that conception and I quickly had to cry down and assure them that they were going to be real soldiers. As it turned out, of course, they were called upon on

  1137
  countless occasions throughout the bombing to assist the civil power—and very useful indeed they were. But such training in Civil Defence as we were able to give them was very much subordinate to the military duties upon which they were so keen.
  I thought that I detected in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and also in that of the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, a sort of axiomatic conception that Home Guards would naturally be trained in Civil Defence. I feel it is highly desirable that they should be so trained, but that is an idea which will have to be imbued in them, as distinct from what happened in the previous war. There seem to me to be two definite rôles for Home Guards in great cities, and particularly in such a huge metropolis as London. The actual opportunity or necessity for any military duty on the part of the Home Guard in the centre of a metropolis like this is extremely limited. I should say that it would be confined to the guarding of specific buildings, such as this one, vital Government offices or vital tunnels, and things of that sort, which might be subject to sabotage attack, or-to guarding one or two places where it is just conceivable that parachutists might land—in Regents Park there is a space where possibly parachutists might land. If that is so, then a Home Guard unit should, in my submission, be allocated specifically to deal with that danger and nothing else, and should be recruited from men who live in the area. I am strongly in favour of Home Guards being recruited from the district in which they live and not from the district in which they work.
  I submit that whereas it is not necessary to have Home Guards, as such, in the centre of great cities, they are most valuable en the outskirts. I have never been able to visualise the enemy appearing in the centre of London, and have never taken seriously pillboxes designed to cover Blackfriars and Westminster Bridges, because I do not believe that an enemy would be so tactically foolish as to commit himself to the endless intricacies of the streets of the metropolis. Surely, his strategy must be the destruction of our field armies, after which it will be easy to reduce any cities which may still need reduction. In any event, such a metropolis as this can be rendered uninhabitable in about a week by seizing the
  1138
  various water supplies which lie on its outskirts. Therefore I feel that those who live towards the centre of cities should be recruited solely for Civil Defence. If it becomes necessary as the war develops for places to be specifically guarded, then they can be turned into Home Guards for that purpose. I can well visualise active and important fighting taking place on the outskirts of great cities, where the Home Guard (in their capacity as soldiers) would be much more important than Civil Defence services, and accordingly emphasis should be laid on their importance in that rôle in such areas.
  The only other point I want to make is to follow my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir in deploring that there seems to be still a lack of urgency on this question in the minds of the Government. It seems to me that service for Civil Defence should be made conpulsory on both sexes. We should all understand what rôle we will be expected to fulfil in the event of war. It may be that no rôle would fall upon many of us, but the people of the nation should at any rate understand what each would be expected to do in the event of war. What we always suffer from when we start our wars is that nobody knows what he is going to do. Everybody rushes and volunteers—or, at least, many people rush and volunteer; all the best do and the worst do not. People are rather apt to volunteer for the things to which they are inclined, and the consequence is that there are too many volunteers for some services and too few for others which people have no mind to. Therefore, there is a lack of co-ordination, and there is some confusion and overlapping which ought to be avoided. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Haden-Guest, who said that whereas in our former wars we have had time to prepare for the worst, in the next war we must expect that the worst will occur rather sooner than we thought. Therefore, it is necessary to prepare beforehand. I was sorry to hear from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, not much emphasis upon preparation beforehand. He says straight away that he is not going to do anything about the Home Guard beforehand.
  LORD PAKENHAM: With great respect, I must say that I feel that perhaps the noble Lord is summarising my re-marks so concisely that their main point is lost. I do not think that anything in

  1139
  my speech would suggest that nothing ought to be done about the Home Guard beforehand. I said precisely the opposite in terms.
  LORD BLACKFORD: What fell from the noble Lord was that he could not start organising the Home Guard until hostilities broke out. He was definite on that point. I think I am quite right in saying that he said he was going ahead with Civil Defence, but he rather pushed the Home Guard into the background. I do not object to that, so long as he does get on with Civil Defence.
  LORD PAKENHAM: I do not want to keep on interrupting, but I cannot accept that as even a crude parody of my remarks.
  LORD BLACKFORD: Well, we must await Hansard in the morning, as usual. I do not wish to detain the House any longer. The main point that I want to make in conclusion is that I think Civil Defence service of some sort should be compulsory. No question of conscientious objection enters into that. We can all be useful in some way in mitigating the effect of enemy attack, and so far as possible, we should all be made to under-stand, before the outbreak of hostilities, what rôle we shall be expected to play, and we should have some instruction and preparation to enable us to play it.
  4.34 p.m.
  THE EARL OF LIMERICK: My Lords, first of all I owe to the House and to my noble friend, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, a personal apology, because I could not be present when he raised the subject of to-day's debate in your Lord-ships' House. Secondly, I crave indulgence because, for the very reason that I could not be here at the start, certain points will have been made of which I cannot be fully aware, though one or two noble Lords have been good enough to pass me the main lines of thought of the discussion.
  There are a few general points I wish to make, and I will eschew all detail. May I start by taking up the point about the sense of urgency mentioned by my noble friend Lord Blackford? He and I were both concerned rather closely during the war with a somewhat similar chain of events in London, and he and
  1140
  I are concerned—as is my noble friend Lord Clydesmuir—currently with doing what we can to promote the civil organisational side of the Auxiliary Forces of the Crown. We therefore have no bias in favour of this or that method of supporting all those measures which are thought desirable and necessary for the country's welfare in defence, whether military or civil. I feel, and those with whom I am in constant touch feel, that the sense of urgency is lacking. The sense of logically explained causation of events, without which the sense of urgency merely as an exhortation is extremely hollow, is still rather lacking. There is always an enormous field of good will in this nation; but merely to adopt an exhortation, in somewhat schoolboy terms, to "Come along, and let's all get together, boys," is no good.
  In these last years the idea has been prevalent that butter is very nice, and that it can be and should be and will be forthcoming; but there has been very little emphasis on guns. That has led many of our people falsely to assume that at all periods of history guns and butter can be provided at the same time. We feel that there resides in this nation a large untapped source of energy which, if directed from the top aright, can result in enormously increased civil and military production. Therefore, for myself, I would never accept the view that it is beyond our powers, either materially or personally, to make a vast improvement in our present form of production for defence and in the doing of those things which are possible (as distinct from those which are merely desirable) for the maintenance of our standard of living. That point takes us a little wide and would, if I pursued it, become contentious; therefore I will drop it at that stage.
  The prayer of the noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, I believe, was primarily for co-ordination. May I add my small support most earnestly to that prayer? If, however, as may have been the case, a rider was added in favour of proceeding now with the enrolment of the Home Guard, then my own prayer to the almighty Government would be rather in the sense of praying that first things should come first. We are limited in men, money and material. Many of us are greatly disturbed, not only that, according to published facts, our Regular

  1141
  Forces, on whom all other things depend for defence, fall far short of what had been hoped and planned, but that the Auxiliary Forces, for which alone I am competent to express a view, are even more greatly behind, not only in any schedule but in any reality which we can accept with the slightest degree of confidence. I speak of the Territorial Army and of the Auxiliary Air Force.
  Therefore, I would view with grave concern any dispersal of effort on behalf of a present enrolment of the Home Guard. Having said that, I would add, of course, that on the other hand I would learn with the greatest pleasure that full planning for the future was taking place, and that full co-ordination of plans with all the other civil services which go to the safeguarding of a nation's life in time of war was taking place. But, again, may I utter a prayer? I would pray this time that the call for a limited advance, with any such planning, should not form an additional strain on those very hard-worked officers who are at present doing their utmost to bring to fruition the existing plans to make a success of the Auxiliary Forces. In that body, of course, I mean specifically those working directly for the Government; I do not mean the Territorial Forces associations which, as other noble Lords have said, would be naturally invited to undertake the organisation. We have had experience of that: we can do it and we would do it again.
  To me there is something repugnant in the present form of thought which surrounds this business of service to the nation, because it is so highly specialised. I happen to detest the National Service Act, though I am doing my best to make it work, because equality of sacrifice is not inherent in its terms. I should very much prefer, if it were possible, that something more general in the spread of sacrifice and effort among all young men of the nation could be thought out and put into practice. That may be an ideal but, behind it all and before it all, I have a hope that, before the Government publicise their wishes and intentions on this matter, they will be quite clear about and publish the latest informed opinions which, if I were working in a private capacity, I should certainly require. I refer to the opinions, for instance, of our leading scientists—one of whom, if I may
  1142
  say so, is sitting not far from where I stand—and, of course, from our warriors. By that means we should be able to ensure that in the future the situation which we had to meet was clearly denned in the light of the best and latest know-ledge. We know that history is written backwards. I would ask that the results of a new survey should be published, so that those of us who may be concerned with the future of any protective service, by whatever name, should understand more clearly than we do now what is likely to be the world in which we shall operate. I think that covers the specific points that I feel justified in making. If I have traversed old ground touched upon by previous noble Lords, then I ask your Lordships' forgiveness.
  4.42 p.m.
  LORD GREENHILL: My Lords, it was not my intention to enter into this debate this afternoon, but while I associate my-self wholly with a desire to impress upon the general public the need for a greater interest in Civil Defence, I felt that under-lying a good deal of what has been said this afternoon by noble Lords opposite there was an unwarranted note of criticism. My only reason for speaking this evening is that, as a member of a civil defence committee which has been in continuous session since 1937, I can say that in Glasgow at least constant attention has been paid to the needs of Civil Defence and that, so far as I am aware, there is no suggestion of neglect in our minds where Civil Defence requirements are concerned.
  It will also be known to noble Lords that in Glasgow we have bad exhibitions devised for the purpose of arousing interest in the minds of the general public and of attracting volunteers into the Civil Defence services. It will also be known to many noble Lords that fairly recently there was a rehearsal of a very large Civil Defence exercise, in which the heads of department; in the Glasgow Corporation showed that they were well alive to the requirements of Civil Defence needs in the event of anything arising. I think, too, that I am in a position to say, from my personal knowledge, that during the whole of the time from 1945 onwards the Scottish Office have been concerned with the planning of Civil Defence requirements so far as Scotland is concerned. I know of consultations that

  1143
  have taken place between local authorities and the Scottish Office, but what I should like 10 emphasise is a point touched upon by my noble friend Lord Haden-Guest. It is this. It is true that, for understand-able reasons, there has not been the response on the part of the general public to come into the Civil Defence services that we should have liked to see. What I think is necessary and obvious is not that every man and woman has a duty to perform in the event of an emergency arising, but that he or she cannot possibly be an effective unit in the assistance that is necessary unless he or she undergoes a period of training in those branches of Civil Defence in which a good deal of knowledge has been gained.
  We can speculate here as to whether attack will come, in the form of atomic bombs, in the form of bacteriological war-fare, or whatever it may be. Those are mere speculations, it is true, but, nevertheless, they demand a certain amount of attention and preparation, in case any or all of those methods should be used. Therefore, I should like to associate my-self with my noble friends who say that, while a great deal of work is at the moment being done in anticipation of any-thing happening, yet there is still a great need that the general public should take an even greater part in the Civil Defence services than they are taking at the moment, so that they may be effective units should their services be required.
  4.48 p.m.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, certainly this has been a most valuable debate. Every noble Lord who has taken part has spoken with deep knowledge of the organisation of government, or governmental administration, of the Fighting Services or of the active or passive Defence Services, or with a specialised knowledge of details such as we saw so agreeably displayed by the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, in his maiden speech to the House. I am sure I carry your Lordships with me when I say that we shall always hear him with pleasure, both for his father's sake and for his own.
  In winding up the debate, I will certainly try to eschew any polemical issues. I come to this subject with a very open mind, and though looking (we have to face it) at the war of the future and not at the wars of the past, I base myself en-
  1144
  tirely on what has been my experience in administration in these subjects in two wars. I think there is agreement on certain matters. There is general agreement that there will not be enough man-power to go round. Nobody denies that there will not be enough man-power to go round at the start, and there certainly will not be enough to go round if the terrible thing does start. Therefore it must be axiomatic that we need—and need in our plans and in our actions from the start—the most economical and effective use of man-power. The Home Guard, the Civil Defence services, the constabulary, the hospital services, the fire services and fire-watching are some but not all of the auxiliary services which are necessary to us in time of war.
  We shall certainly need a number of highly-trained specialists, but I hope we shall not become too specialist-minded. While highly trained specialists will be needed, I am sure we shall also want a great many of what I might call general-purpose recruits. The general purpose animal is really the most valuable creature when it comes to civil or active defence. Many of us who might not make too bad Ministers or too bad soldiers could do our fire-watching and our other duties as well. We are really quite adaptable creatures. The ideal, as it seems to me. would be that recruiting should be under one statutory authority, with obligations to serve as required. I know that that is not practicable, although we need to get as near as possible to the results which would be achieved if that sort of totalitarianism were possible. Above all, we want to avoid the delay and overlapping which, to be quite frank, did occur in and through the last war—it is no good burking it for it is true— because of the separate authorities, the separate orders and the separate conditions. I am going to say a word about the authority Ministers in a moment, but I am sure we want conditions to be such that the priority authority, who I presume would be the Minister of Labour, can allocate men and women where they are needed. I am sure that that is not going to block recruiting.
  I entirely agree with the noble Lords who have spoken and who said that they felt the sentiment to-day was that people wanted to be told what to do and how they could best serve. I hope we shall

  1145
  plan and recruit now on that assumption, that people will he only too ready to play their part in whatever way they can best play it. Having said that, I should like to add that I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for having spoken early in the debate, and with characteristic clarity and with great frankness about the plans of the Government and the way in which they are approaching these matters. I would assure him that I came here to-day with an entirely unbiased mind, but, having studied the matter as far as I can and having listened to all he had to say to us, I do not think that what he has told us is really right or adequate, either in the field or general planning and organisation or on the equally necessary but human side of how we are to get the ordinary men and women best to do what they want to do. In fact, I do not believe that it is organisationally satisfactory or humanly satisfactory. I know the importance of not overloading the machine, a matter to which Lord Limerick referred, and I will come to it in a little more detail later, but I think that the load which would be placed upon the Army and the Territorial Force Association in the enrolment of the Home Guard now would be much less than we have been led to suppose in the course of this debate. These things are always a balance of risks.
  I do not think—although this would not be true of Lord Pakenham's speech —that the sense of urgency has been adequately appreciated, or at any rate has not been adequately transmitted to the country. I think that the plans as I have heard them adumbrated to-day completely misconceive what a war is going to be like if it breaks out. We have heard of all the things that are going to be done when the emergency arises, such as the transfer of people from Civil Defence into the Home Guard and the enrolment of the Home Guard. But, my Lords, there is not going to be an interval for all that. There is not going to be an "emergency period"—at least, I very much doubt it. If a modern war comes, its impact is going to be immediate and devastating, and it seems to me that all your planning should be conditioned on that assumption, and that if you have to choose between the risk of overloading the machine now, while we are at peace, or overloading it in the emergency when war breaks out, then
  1146
  every time you must proceed to overload the machine now. I just do not believe that in the chaotic conditions which will prevail on the outbreak of war, you will have a chance to do the things you plan to do. What is more. I am sure that the more ready you are now, the greater will be the deterrent to an aggressor. There-fore I say, for heaven's sake leave as little as possible to be done when war breaks out!
  I must say that I come down entirely on the side of enrolling the Home Guard now. First of all, I believe that what is said about the call the Home Guard is going to make upon the technical assistance of the War Office, the military formations in the country or the machine of government, is greatly exaggerated. After all, the men who will be enrolled will very largely be trained men, men who were in the Home Guard and who were, perhaps, active commanding officers of battalions and possibly of brigades in the last war. They are people who do not want much training and who know the job. Indeed, probably they know the job a great deal better than some of the people who will be sent to train them. I should like to ask where all the equipment has gone. I know the difficulty we had last time, when we had no rifles, and how welcome they were when they came. How many rifles had we when the war ended? There were the rifles of the whole of the Regular Forces and the whole of the Home Guard. Everybody in the Home Guard had a rifle. There must have been millions of rifles at the end of the war and an enormous quantity of machine guns and sub-machine guns. Those are the things the Home Guard wants and knows how to use. He does not want any training with them. We can all fire those things.
  I go further than that: I think that the rifles and the sub-machine guns would be much better looked after if they were put into the hands of the Home Guard. The Home Guard cares for his weapon and cleans it and has it ready for use. I would much rather have it kept like that than have it kept somewhere in some odd store or other of the Ministry of Supply, situated very likely in some place which will be un-get-at-able when the time comes. I believe that the Government greatly exaggerate the problem of the equipping and training that would be required for the Home Guard.

  1147
  I am sure a tremendous lot of help will be forthcoming from the people in the Home Guard themselves. We used to run the Home Guard ourselves. These are competent people who are capable of running their own battalions, quite apart from such ordinary matters as caring for the equipment. The paper work, I am sure, can be reduced.
  And may I say this? Need everything be completely uniform and sealed pattern? I do not see why it should. Circumstances in country and town are entirely different. In the country, the immediate need, I imagine, is for the Home Guard. They will be wanted to guard places, and they may be needed to take action against fifth column activities —I will say a word about that latter point in a minute. But these men would be primarily Home Guard, who would also do some Civil Defence work. Why do the Government not enlist these people in the Home Guard now—at any rate, in the country districts? In the large towns, the emphasis and the great need, no doubt, is much more on Civil Defence, but it would be possible to have enrolment of the Home Guard in the rural or semi-rural areas now. If the Government think it right to do so, let them post-pone the enrolment of the Home Guard in the very large cities. But do not for-get this. There is a great deal of sentiment about the Home Guard. I do not think I am wrong about this; I feel in my bones that large numbers of men who have not enrolled for Civil Defence would join the Home Guard; and in the Home Guard they would train for Civil Defence and. generally speaking, do whatever job they were told to do, whether civil or military, always provided that they can go into their old regiment, don their uniforms and put on their medals once more. That is one reason why I say that I do not think the Government are tack-ling this problem properly on the human side, apart from the organisation being at fault.
  The way this has been tackled is very odd. As I understand it, what the Government are saying is: "We will not enrol the Home Guard now; we urge everyone to enlist for Civil Defence. On the other hand, if you enlist for Civil Defence to-day you shall have the absolute right to go away and join the Home Guard as soon as the Home Guard is
  1148
  enrolled." Is that not a duplicate way of doing things? Surely it will mean that many people will enlist for Civil Defence and, when the Home Guard is started, will leave Civil Defence and go into the Home Guard. I think that is making the worst of both worlds, from the point of view of Civil Defence and the Home Guard alike. I would urge the Government to reconsider this matter, and to allow the Home Guard to go forward, on the understanding that they are not given more help from the War Office and the military formations than can conveniently be given having regard to existing circumstances. I am sure they will do whatever is necessary when war comes. As the noble Lord has said, one of the great functions of the Home Guard is to relieve the Army—the Regular Army or the Territorial Army—o of military duties which the Home Guard are able to undertake. The time when the Army most needs relieving is on the outbreak of war. But it will not be possible to relieve the Army if the Home Guard has not been enrolled beforehand. Moreover, a good part of your military machine will be cumbered up with the enrolment of the Home Guard, which is a pretty big operation, at a time when it will be most urgently needed for other purposes. For all these reasons it seems to me that the Government will be well advised to go ahead with the enrolment of the Home Guard now.
  I would add this. Part of the Home Guard is to be used for anti-aircraft defence on airfields and, I suppose, at other vulnerable points. Surely one of the things we are most anxious about to-day, when we are waiting to know how the Government are going to deal with the Class Z Reservists, is the defence of these aerodromes and vulnerable points of which I have spoken. If it is necessary to call up Z Reservists—as it may be—on some scale or another, surely, if the Home Guard are to be an integral part of the defence of these airfields and these vulnerable points, the Government should now enrol and train, so far as possible, the men who are to do that job. As I have intimated—and I say it quite impartially—I think the Government have taken the wrong decision, and I beg them to reconsider it.
  Turning to quite a different point, I do not disagree at all with what the Minister said about the need for co-ordination and

  1149
  agreement, both in the framing and in the execution of policy. But I am anxious that agreement should be at a high level, and should be in the formative stage of policy, when policy is being decided and before policy issues in action. I think the Minister was very mealy-mouthed about the functions and powers of a coordinating Minister. He said—and I do not think I am misrepresenting him: "Of course, this thing has got to be done by agreement. You will have your committees of Ministers, and your committees of officials; but you could not give a co-ordinating Minister power to order other Ministers about." With great respect, that statement is absolute nonsense. That is what a co-ordinating Minister is there for. It is his job to secure the agreement of his colleagues, if he can, and, if not, to impose agreement upon them. That is what a co-ordinating Minister has to do. I myself have had to do it and, believe me, I know what it means. I have been both a co-ordinator and one of the co-ordinated on a number of occasions. Of course a Minister has the right of appeal to the War Cabinet if he feels that something vital is going wrong and that he cannot accept a decision. But if he goes to the War Cabinet unnecessarily, and makes himself a nuisance, he will not go there very often; in fact, it may well be that he will cease to hold his Ministerial job. He will be co-ordinated in that way.
  A NOBLE LORD: De-co-ordinated.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Yes, that is it —en disponibilité. Ministers should not be so polite to one another. Really, I do not know how things go on in these Socialist Ministries. Apparently, there is plenty of disagreement, but no one can co-ordinate. Give someone that power, and let him use it, and in that way you will get agreement. If there is a Committee, everybody comes briefed by his Department. All the Generals get at the War Minister; the Marshals get at the Air Minister; the doctors get at the Health Minister, and the Treasury get at the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Every private army is mobilised behind its leader; everybody fights for his own corner; and nothing is done. That is not the spirit. If, on the other hand, we start by saying that "If we do not agree we are going to have this imposed upon
  1150
  us," I am certain that we shall get action and probably the right action.
  I have said that the impact of war, if it came, would be devastating. I believe that there would be this other effect: that in the time of emergency the fifth column would become active. I did not think very much of the German fifth column or of the Russian one (it was there) in the last war. I do not think either was very effective, though they were more effective elsewhere. Perhaps they will try to be much more effective this time, particularly in the actual time of emergency. I do not ask for details, but I ask for an assurance that in case the emergence into activity—not only the enrolment, but the embodiment and action—of a fifth column takes place, it will be met with measures, both active and passive, made in advance; because certainly we shall not be able to plan for that after the emergency has taken place. I have only one other thing to say. I am sure it is vital that we should have this whole conception and plan right at the start; and the more right it is, and the more ready we are, the less likely, please God! will it be that we shall ever have to use it. All we can do, however, is only the second or third line of defence. The first line of defence lies far outside this country. It does not even lie alone with our defence of frontiers far beyond our boundaries. It lies superlatively in the counter-offensive which would be launched the second that the disaster came. And so that, which is at once the defence and the deterrent, all other things must be subordinated. Nothing must detract from the effort we make in that direction.
  5.14 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, that we have had an extremely useful debate. I think it ha; been useful, not only to ourselves but to the country as a whole. If we carry on our discussions in good temper, and do one another the justice of believing that we are all imbued with the right spirit, I believe that we can give to the people of our country a leadership that will be valuable in days to come. If we try to rouse passions, however, there is the danger that we shall finish by creating panic. We must do what we car to be sober in our language, though on all occasions

  1151
  we have to be truthful. One of the greatest dangers we have to avoid is giving the impression to the people of the Continent of Europe that we are infinitely more concerned about our own protection than we are about the job that may have to be done at some time in the near future. Therefore, it would not do for either the Government or the Opposition to be boastful or panicky, and to give that impression to people who certainly need all the encouragement we can give them at this stage.
  I agree with the noble Viscount about the sort of men who ought to enrol in our Defence Forces, civil and otherwise. I have an admiration for the expert, but I think the expert is the sort of person at whose proposals we should look more keenly than those of the ordinary man. If we can get the general purpose recruit, so eloquently described by the noble Viscount, we shall be doing a really good thing. I should like to ask the noble Viscount a question, and I am sure he will be willing to give me a reply to it. As I understand him, he is anxious that there should be a single Minister appointed to look after recruitment, and he mentioned the Minister of Labour. I gathered—the noble Viscount will put me right if I am wrong—that the Minister of Labour was to have authority to direct people into the channels where their services would be most valuable to the community. The question I should like to put to the noble Viscount is this: Does that mean that the Minister of Labour would have compulsory powers?
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: No; there are two phases. In war, obviously, everybody will be directed wherever he is wanted. I said that I should make an appeal for general purpose recruits in Civil Defence and Home Guard in that spirit. I think that in war everybody would accept the idea that he should do what he can best do. But my suggestion deals with the powers of the Minister of Labour over other Ministers. The Government will find it necessary in war time to have a Minister who, in matters of man-power, will sit as chairman of a committee of Ministers and give them direction. I would give him real power in that committee, so that where Ministers failed to reach agreement he would be able to impose agreement upon them which they would
  1152
  accept, subject, of course, to the right of appeal to the Cabinet which every Cabinet Minister has if dissatisfied.
  LORD SHEPHERD: I understand then that the Minister of Labour is to be arbitrator, the person to give a decision where differences of opinion may have arisen between Ministers, or where there is overlapping and there are debates about that among the Ministers.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: He would be a co-ordinating Minister, and I assume that the Minister for the job would be the Minister of Labour.
  LORD SHEPHERD: Under the Civil Defence Act of 1948 the Minister of co-ordination is the Secretary of State for Home Affairs. In addition to the Secretary of State for Home Affairs, there are a number of designated Ministers, such as the Minister of Health, the Minister of Food, the Minister of Transport and the like.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: Not for the whole field of man-power: these deal with specific matters under the Civil Defence Act. My thesis is that man-power is going to be lamentably short, and that therefore we must make the most economical use of it. A co-ordinating Minister is a Cabinet arrangement. We do not need an Act of Parliament for that. The Prime Minister can impose it on the Cabinet by agreement. We need one Minister as a co-ordinating, directing Minister over all other Ministers who are concerned with the employment of man-power.
  LORD SHEPHERD: As I was saying, the power is at present vested in the Secretary of State for Home Affairs; it is his business to see that there is proper co-ordination between the Ministers in all issues, including that of man-power. Under the 1948 Act, and under the various Regulations approved by Parliament, the local authorities now have the duty of get-ting recruitment in so far as Civil Defence is concerned. I understand that the noble-Viscount is suggesting that there should be an alteration to that. Obviously I cannot discuss that proposal to-night.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: With great respect, if the noble Lord will read it in Hansard to-morrow—and I am in the recollection of the House—he will find that what I said about the supreme co-

  1153
  ordination and direction of Ministers concerned with man-power was perfectly clear. It really has nothing to do with altering that Act of Parliament.
  LORD SHEPHERD: As I say, I do not want to take the point further than that. I will certainly read the noble Viscount's speech to-morrow, and I will make sure that the Ministers concerned are seized with the suggestion he has made.
  I do not want to debate the speech of the noble Viscount further, nor do I wish to debate the various questions that have been raised to-night, because we are so much in agreement and we on these Benches have agreed to accept the resolution. I therefore propose to confine my remarks to giving information, as already mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pakenham, arising out of the speeches that we have heard. I ought perhaps to proceed by saying how pleased we were with the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Strathcarron, the first he has made in this House. A good deal of what he said during that speech is true, and we can be quite candid about it. I would assure him that what he has had to say will not be missed, and that we shall be delighted to hear him on many future occasions.
  The first information I should like to give arises out of the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Woolton, When my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, was making his speech he gave some figures about recruitment in the Civil Defence services, and the noble Lord wanted to know whether figures were available indicating which were men and which were women. I have the figures for England and Wales only in that sense, and they are as follows. The Civil Defence Corps has 60,700 men and 38,000 women; a total of 98,000. Scotland makes up the difference between that and the original total mentioned. The Auxiliary Fire Service has 5,300 men and 2,400 women, a total of 7,800. In the National Hos-pital Service Reserve, one in ten of the new recruits are men.
  LORD WOOLTON: Can the noble Lord tell me how many there were altogether? I am only interested because I want to help.
  LORD SHEPHERD: There were 10,400 members enrolled, and one in ten of those are men.
  1154
  I come now to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir. There are one or two points to which I should reply in connection with the questions he has raised. First, there is that of training. He suggested that we should make an endeavour to train people who themselves can be instructors, and thus spread their knowledge rapidly through the whole country. As your Lordships know, we have three training colleges for technical workers, and those cslleges have turned out 1.165 trainees. We have a college for the training of officers in the Civil Defence services and that institution has turned out 332 officers. In addition to those results, we have set in motion a. scheme of training by the local authorities. When the trainees go through their examinations, such examinations are treated as being of a preliminary character and trainees who pass are given a green certificate. The number already turned out by the local movements is 5,353. We are hoping to develop those services, in order to increase the momentum, and we shall be very glad if those who read the reports of this debate and see the sense of urgency that has pervaded it to-night will make sure that the work is speeded up in the localities.
  The noble Lord, Lord Clydesmuir, also asked a question about the directions which are to go to the Army Commands respecting the appointment of Home Guard Advisers. These latter have not been appointed because the policy for the Home Guard is not yet complete. The War Office have been examining what instructions should be given to General Officers-in-Command about the Home Guard, and the advisers cannot usefully be appointed until this matter has been settled. It is hoped, however, that this will be completed and the necessary steps taken at no distant date. In reply to the noble Lord's question about the appointment of a Civil Commissioner in Scot-land, I should like to say this. The appointment of Commissioners has been adopted for the purpose of bringing distant places within touch of authority, and moreover, in cases of danger or of breakdown, to place within the regions men who can act on behalf either of the Secretary of State or of any other person to whom he may be answerable.
  In Scotland the situation is somewhat different, because already in Scotland,

  1155
  before the appointment of the Commissioner, there exists a great Ministry, with three Ministers attached to it, and there is a large establishment of civil servants. So the question had to be decided whether, in addition to all this responsible machinery, there should be the appointment of a Civil Commissioner. The decision not to appoint a Civil Commissioner for Scotland did not arise in any British institution governing the whole country. It certainly has not figured in the imagination of any English Minister. It is a proposal that has emanated from the Scottish Office itself, and it is put forward, through the Minister, by men who had very great experience in the last war. They are of opinion that, instead of appointing a Commissioner for Scot-land, a Minister (not necessarily the Secretary of State) should always be on duty at St. Andrew's House, or whatever the place may be, to take responsibility for Civil Defence machinery and organisation north of the Border.
  LORD CLYDESMUIR: Does that mean the appointment of a new Minister, of a rank higher than Under-Secretary; because at present there is one Secretary of State, and the rest are Under-Secretaries?
  Lord SHEPHERD: Obviously, if a Junior Minister is appointed, he will be responsible to the Minister. So finally the Minister will be responsible, but the actual day-to-day detailed work will not be carried out by that very busy man, but by somebody owing responsibility to him.
  The noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, asked a question during his speech about the necessary regulations and Orders, and wondered if there would be, or whether there is, some delay about their issue. As the noble Lord will re-member, the Civil Defence Act was placed upon the Statute Book in December, 1948. In the year 1949 the following regulations went through: The General Regulations, the Defence Corps Regulations, the Public Protection Regulations, the Regulations which apply to London, the Fire Service Regulations, and the Ambulance, Burial, Evacuation, Sewerage, Water Supplies, Hospital Services and Demolition Regulations. The only set of regulations that had to be passed through
  1156
  during the year 1950 was that which related to police training. At the present moment, so far as I am personally aware, we are awaiting regulations for food and the protection of food, and regulations concerning finance, which will relate to business premises and to local authorities. If that be an accurate description of the activities of the Ministries concerned and of Parliament, there has been no delay in providing the necessary authority and guidance for local authorities throughout the country.
  My noble friend Lord Pakenham, during his eloquent speech, made some reference to the figures which had been achieved in recruiting for the various ser-vices, and perhaps your Lordships will permit me to quote one or two other figures which may be considered of importance. The Civil Defence Corps has a strength of approximately 124,000 at this moment. If noble Lords measured that by the total strength of the Corps during war time, which was 1,200,000, it would seem that we had not got very far on the road; but the Ministry are of opinion that under purely voluntary conditions no near approach will be made to that figure of 1,200,000 men. How-ever, a target has been set for the authorities to aim at and with which they can be fairly satisfied in peace conditions— namely, one-third of that number. Therefore, the target at which the local authorities are aiming at this moment is 400,000 men and women, and the recruitment already achieved amounts to 124,000. The Auxiliary Fire Service in England and Wales amounts to 60,000 men, and in Scotland to 7,000, giving a total of 67,000. The recruitment for the special members of the fire brigades for war ser-vice is only 8,000, so we have a great distance to travel in that direction. No limit has been set for the hospital ser-vices, but in the case of the special police a target has been set. The present strength of the constabulary of the country is 70,000, and the target to be aimed at is that for every regular police-man in county districts there should be three times that number and in the boroughs that there should be twice the number. We are hoping that we may make progress on that line, but I have not been given the figures to show how far we have proceeded.

  1157
  I would have said a word about direction and command, but I feel that that subject has been sufficiently debated. However, perhaps your Lordships will permit me to read an extract from a circular that has been sent out to the local authorities because it has a bearing on the relationship of the Home Guard with the Civil Defence work. It is as follows:
  "… the closest contact at regional level with the Home Office in planning Home Guard units, their strength, sources of recruitment, etc. Generally speaking, the object will be to secure that recruiting for Civil Defence is . given priority in the big industrial areas … while in rural areas priority will be given to the potential needs of the Home Guard."
  That bears out something that was said by the noble Lord, Lord Blackford. It is, I think, true that the number of Home Guard people who will be required will be larger in the country than in the towns. But it is also true that, taking Civil De-fence work in general, certain categories will be required more in the country districts than in the towns. Directives have been given to that effect, and they are being followed. I have some figures respecting the allocations that ought to be made, but perhaps they will keep for another time.
  The noble Lord, Lord De L'Isle and Dudley, asked a question about the de-fence of industrial establishments in this country, and I am happy to say that the matters in relation thereto are proceeding. When I made my speech in October I indicated that a committee representative of certain organisations had been established. That committee has had meetings since then, and some committees of that body are now at work on the details, first, respecting shelters for the protection of workmen, and secondly, in relation to finance. As to finance, perhaps I should add that certain matters respecting organisation and training will involve expenditure for business concerns. This expenditure will be treated by the income tax people as revenue expenditure and, therefore, will have the benefit of tax relaxation. The difficulties with respect to finance which we experienced at one time with local government authorities are on the way to settlement. Discussion is proceeding about the use of certain words and their meaning, and it is our hope that when agreement has been reached thereon, the question of finance to these bodies will be settled.
  1158
  In view of the circumstances, even though I have a great deal more information that I could give to your Lordships, I do not think I should pursue the discussion further. Therefore, I will wind up by again saying how pleased the Government are with the suggestions that have been made, and I will promise that every possible attention shall be given to the points placed before us for our consideration and future discussion.
  5.39 p.m.
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: My Lords, I was very glad indeed to hear the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, say that he and his colleagues would study this debate and the points raised therein. Certainly, a large number have been discussed, and I do not intend to cantor over the ground again. I should like to thank both noble Lords, and in particular the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. for the careful attention and study he has given to this problem, and for the courteous way in which he dealt with this Motion to-day.
  A good deal of attention has been concentrated upon the problem of enrolling the Home Guard, and a lot was said, in particular by my noble friend Lord Swinton, which I felt was very pertinent to the question. This problem is at once important in itself and as an illustration of other problems. It is important because the Home Guard must form a very substantial part of our Home Defence. It is important as an illustration because, if you use the word "priority," you get all your ideas wrong. Of course, there must be a priority in preparation. You must allot different priorities in the equipment and training you give the Regular Army, the Territorial Army and the Home Guard. But unless there is a Home Guard when there is a war, neither the Regular Army nor the Territorial Army will be able to fulfil their proper function. It is because we are up against shortage of time, as well as shortage of man-power, and because we have to measure what is going on, not by the good will or the pertinacity of Ministers and officials, but in the compass of the scale of events and the power of those forces opposed to us, that we stress again the urgency of the problem. I understand that there are procedural difficulties involved in the noble Lord's

  1159
  accepting my Motion for Papers. I am in-formed that in so doing he committed the Secretary of State to an Address to the King.
  LORD PAKENHAM: May I say that that was the last thing I intended?
  LORD DE L'ISLE AND DUDLEY: I am very grateful to the noble Lord for accepting my Motion, but I do not want to embarrass him and his colleagues. If he will agree, I should like, with the leave of the House, to withdraw my Motion for Papers, and to move a Resolution in the following terms:
  "To resolve That this House is of opinion that the organisation of the Home Guard and Civil Defence Services, with special regard to the need for their co-ordination, is a matter of the greatest importance."
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.
  Moved to resolve, That this House is of opinion that the organisation of the Home Guard and Civil Defence Services, with special regard to the need for their co-ordination, is a matter of the greatest importance. — (Lord De L'Isle and Dudley.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  WELFARE FACILITIES IN KOREA
  5.43 p.m.
  VISCOUNT LONG VISCOUNT LONG rose to ask His Majesty's Government whether the Welfare Department in the War Office has been re-formed; whether there are Welfare Departments in existence in the Air Ministry and the Admiralty; further to detail the steps that have been taken to ensure that welfare arrangements for British Forces in Korea and other Far Eastern theatres are on at least the same scale of efficiency as in the last war; and whether such welfare facilities are available without restriction or qualification to other British Commonwealth Forces in the same area. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I do not propose to detain your Lordships for long, but arising out of the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper I should like to ask the noble Viscount the First Lord of the Admiralty to accept my apology for not giving him sufficient notice with regard to the first question which arises out of the main question—namely, can the noble Viscount
  1160
  tell us what is happening to our prisoners-of-war and our missing? I appreciate that China does not recognise the Red Cross, but I am one of those parents who, in the last war, had to go through eighteen months of waiting for a result one way or the other. Perhaps I was put out of my misery earlier than many others, who had to wait sometimes for years before getting the inevitable answer. I agree that the notice given the noble Viscount is very short, and he may say that it has been too short. If that is the case, I shall understand; but this is probably the greatest problem of all affecting the parents and wives of those who have been unfortunate enough to fall by the roadside or to be taken prisoner in Korea.
  May I now turn to the questions arising out of the main question, which affects all three Services in one way or another? First of all, I wish to deal with Korea. As I understand it, our Service men, whether of the Royal Navy, the Royal Air Force or the Army, can-not go into an American canteen and change their money into dollars. There-fore they cannot buy goods in an American canteen. If that is so—and I am sure the noble Viscount will tell us frankly if it is so—I can imagine nothing more likely to engender irritation among our men out there. Can the First Lord give us any statement with regard to that matter? Next with regard to rations. Is it a fact that the scale of rations to-day for all three Services is less than the scale given in the 1939–45 war? If so, can the noble Viscount tell us why that is so or whether there is any idea that they should be increased? There is a great deal of anxiety in this country about the troops having to pay for their Christmas dinner. Many of us served in two World Wars, and we know that sometimes you have to put your hands in your pockets. But here we are told that the regimental funds of the Regular regiments had to be raided to a considerable extent, and that beer, however bad—and it was almost unobtainable—was at an exorbitant price. Indeed, our troops had to "pay through the nose "for their Christmas dinners out there. Can the noble Viscount give us an assurance that if another occasion arises when our troops are out there, such a state of affairs will not happen again, and, above all, that

  1161
  Regimental funds will not be raided to that extent?
  Now I come to the question of clothing. I must say that I am somewhat surprised that the War Office issued a letter, dated January 13, in which they invited the wives and the women of this country to knit balaclava helmets and accessories of that sort. May I ask the First Lord whether that letter has been sent to the British Legion? Has it been sent to the Women's Institutes? Has there been broadcast on the wireless how these comforts are to be made and sent, and, furthermore, is a special wool to be issued at a reasonable price to the women to make these balaclava helmets? I am informed that one brigade went to fight in berets and another in balaclava helmets because there were not enough balaclava helmets to go round. So far as I am concerned, this is the first notification there has been about balaclava helmets and other clothing.
  I now turn to the question of boots. Can the noble Viscount tell us whether our men have the right boots? One brigade had the right boots for the fighting, and another brigade had a totally different kind of boots. It seems absolutely staggering to me that when we had the advice that war might break out at any moment in Korea, somebody in some office in this country should not have seen to clothing and to advising that there should be a supply of various things. After all, it was only for two Brigades. With regard to leave, I am delighted to have read yesterday in the Press that there is a system—presumably the air transit system —now in operation which is flying our men into Japan for their leave. Still more was I delighted to know that Brigadier Coad, who commanded our Wiltshire Regiment, was one of those gallant fellows who had been allowed at long last a rest in a peaceful country. I should like to know whether the leave arrangements are now satisfactory. Turning to general comforts, may I ask whether the Government are taking any steps to ensure, through the Welfare Department, that wireless sets are supplied? With regard to recreational equipment, I may say that in November last year there were no "soccer" footballs at all to be bought in Hong Kong. There were no "rugger"
  1162
  footballs to be had. There were no foot-ball boots, no football shorts and no foot-ball vests. What steps have His Majesty's Government taken to ensure that the recreational equipment is there?
  It was announced in the papers that newspapers are being sent out there. Have the British Legion been informed, because they can play a tremendous part there? In Wiltshire, the British Legion have undertaken to send cut every week all the local papers throughout the county. Not only are they sending out all the local papers (owing to the group system, they are sending out all the local papers for twelve months to the county regiments, because they were not getting any) but they are also sending out weekly periodicals with pictures, and so on. Can the. noble Viscount tell me whether these are arriving regularly? I come for a moment to the postal question, and I ask the noble Viscount: Does he know that in the case of the fellows out in Korea or Japan, there was some frightful muddle? I am not criticising anybody, but how much was lost by the men sending their telegrams or cables home, to their parents, at exorbitant rates, to say that they were well?
  With regard to the welfare services, I hope the noble Viscount can assure me that the information we have received is incorrect, because, if it is correct, then I say quite frankly in your Lordships' House that this treatment of the father and mother of a private undergoing court-martial for the so-called murder of a Korean is inhuman. How on earth any-body is to tell the difference between a North Korean and a South Korean I fail to understand. It rather takes me back to peace-time manoeuvres when we had white cap bands for "Southland" and red cap bands for "Northland." I am told that the first news that the father and mother had that their son was being courtmartialled came from the newspapers in this country. What has happened to our welfare services? Have we welfare officers in every Command? Are they keeping in close touch with the Argyll and Sutherland Regiments in Scotland, with the Middlesex Regiment in our own midst, with the Ulster Rifles, with the Fleet and with the small personnel of the Royal Air Force? Have we our welfare officers in this country working at the present time, keeping in touch with these people?
  Then I ask this question about the padres. Have we sufficient padres out there? Can the noble Viscount assure us that not only Church of England padres but padres of all denominations of faith in this country are out there? Finally, I should like to ask this main question—I do not ask it in any critical sense. I believe that noble Lords in all parts of your Lordships' House have the greatest admiration for the wonderful way in which our troops, together with our American Allies and other troops of the United Nations, have stood up to conditions. Nevertheless, I believe that there is the greatest anxiety amongst the people in this country that all is not well. So perhaps the noble Viscount, in replying, will be able to make some reference that will help to cheer on those who have their men serving out in Korea. By the practical work of the welfare services which we have, and which were working so well at the end of the last war (perhaps they could be revived in that form), I am confident that these fathers, mothers and wives who have suffered in this war will at least receive practical sympathy. I beg to ask the Question standing in my name.
  5.56 p.m.
  VISCOUNT HALL: My Lords, I am sure that all your Lordships will agree with me that we are very pleased that the noble Viscount has raised these important questions. He said rightly that all your Lordships, irrespective of where you sit, and indeed all members of the public generally, are most anxious to see that these gallant men are treated in the way in which they should be treated. I hope that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Viscount upon most of the points which he has put to me. If I cannot satisfy him in respect of all of them, then I will take up those matters with my Service colleagues to see what the situation is and, if there are difficulties, they will be dealt with.
  One question which was put by the noble Viscount was in relation to the Welfare Directorate of the War Office and the other two Services. I should say at once that the Welfare Directorate of the War Office has not been reconstituted. In the War Office and the Air Ministry, welfare matters are dealt with by the Directors of Personal Services; the Admiralty
  1164
  have a Welfare Department under a Director of Welfare and Service Conditions. The War Office and Air Ministry Welfare Directorates were set up to deal with war-time conditions and war-time numbers. Their abolition does not signify in any way any reduction in the scope of welfare activities in those two Services. Responsibility for the welfare of the Forces in a particular area rests with the Commanders-in-Chief. The responsible authorities in the Far East have been asked about welfare arrangements there, and they have replied that these are satisfactory, and that present standards are considered to be comparable with those which obtained in the last war. All the welfare facilities arranged for the United Kingdom Forces are at the disposal, with-out restriction, of other Commonwealth Forces in the same area. Similarly, Commonwealth facilities are available for our Forces.
  The noble Viscount has put to me a number of questions. There was one in relation to prisoners of war and those who are missing. I will deal with that before I conclude my remarks. The noble Viscount also asked whether there are difficulties about our troops being able to change their money in United States can-teens. The position is this: that N.A.A.F.I. provides a mobile canteen ser-vice for all the troops in Korea, including Commonwealth Forces, and the ser-vice given by N.A.A.F.I. is comparable with that provided in active theatres of operation in the last war. When British troops are integrated with American units, arrangements have been made for them to draw United States military permit certificates for use in American canteens, so that would, of course, serve the purpose of the changing of any money, and they ought not to be placed at any disadvantage on that score.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Long, referred to the question of comforts. Per-haps I can take that in my stride in relation to the points upon which I have notes. He dealt fully with the question of rations, and asked whether the rations of our Forces in Korea are satisfactory. I can assure him that, so far as we have been able to ascertain, they are satisfactory, and are not below the scale which was in force in the South-East Asia Command during the period of the last war. In relation to clothing, the Royal

  1165
  Navy has always been provided with suit-able winter clothing when operating on the North China Station. So far as I know, there has been no complaint in the Royal Navy in relation to clothing. The Royal Air Force is based on Japan, where special winter clothing is not required, but special electrically-heated flying equipment was sent out for use by air crews operating further north, particularly in Korea. The 27th Brigade and the Royal Marine Commandos were supplied with full United Stales winter clothing, and the 29th Brigade Group is equipped with full winter clothing of British type.
  The noble Viscount also raised the question of woollen balaclavas and helmets, and of whether letters were sent to various people. I am informed that letters were sent to all voluntary organisations in connection with this matter, with a view to assisting, and that there has been a remarkable response. It is not that the Service itself had neglected its duty, for 12,000 woollen helmets and 700 fur caps were sent to Korea as a Service issue. In addition, as a result of the volunlary appeal, large numbers of socks, balaclava helmets, scarves, gloves and mittens, amounting in all to nearly 20,000 articles, have been sent by the War Office, on behalf of the women's voluntary organisations. I do want to indicate, not only to your Lordships but also to these voluntary organisations, how much their very splendid effort has been appreciated.
  My Lords, in regard to leave, leave centres and rest camps are situated in Japan, and arrangements have been made for troops to proceed on leave from Korea to a leave hostel near Tokio; and these facilities are already in use. Leave centres and rest camps are also in use in Hong Kong, Singapore and Malaya. In relation to canteens, N.A.A.F.I. provides a mobile canteen service for all troops, including Commonwealth troops operating in Korea. As I have already mentioned, where British troops or Royal Marines are integrated, then they are taken into the American canteens. Voluntary organisations such as S.S.A.F.A. and the Forces' Help Society each have a representative in Singapore, and the Council of Voluntary Welfare Work has centres in Singapore and Hong Kong. The Australian Young Men's Christian Associatior centre in Japan is open to United Kingdom troops. The Command
  1166
  in Korea have been asked whether they need any canteens from voluntary organi-sations—I assume that voluntary organisations have offered canteens if there is a need for them.
  The noble Viscount also raised the question of chaplains There is a full Army establishment of chaplains of all denominations in Korea. In relation to the difficulty of communications, British personnel employed under the United Nations can send lightweight air letters free of charge, and concession rates are available for parcels to and from families resident in Hong Kong and Singapore. Forces' lightweight letters can be sent from this country to troops in Korea for 2½d. A special cable rate has just been reintroduced for troops in Korea and Japan, who can send E..F.M. cables to this country at a flat rate of 2s. 6d. The same rate for outward cables from this country to Korea will be introduced shortly. On the question of general comforts, I am advised that sports gear is provided through N.A.A.F.I. from welfare funds. I will certainly look into the points which he put to me in relation to the lack at Hong Kong of Association and Rugby footballs, and also of recreational equipment of all kinds, and I will communicate with him. Wireless sets are available for the troops in Korea and special programmes have been arranged by the B.B.C. in the Overseas Service.
  With regard to the question of news-papers and magazines, I can assure the noble Viscount that there is a reasonable supply of newspapers and magazines, which are supplied free, while 20,000 books have already been sent out, and another 10,000 will follow as soon as possible. The noble Viscount did not raise this question, but I would inform him that the Services in Malaya and Korea receive fifty free cigarettes or two ounces of tobacco a week. The noble Viscount raised the question of boots. If there is any complaint in relation to that matter I will certainly look into it. The clothing issue which was given to each member of the Forces who left this country included quite a number of articles, how-ever, and in order not to take up the time of your Lordships' House I am pre-pared to give the noble Viscount a copy of the complete list of the clothing issued when the troops left this country. The general welfare of the Commonwealth

  1167
  ground Forces in Korea is the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief, and I have no doubt that he will do what he can, not only for United Kingdom troops, but also for all troops, from whatever part of the Commonwealth they come. There are very few R.A.F. personnel in Korea; they are mainly in Japan. The War Office have, therefore, assumed responsibility for all special welfare arrangements for those troops. These welfare facilities will, of course, become available for the R.A.F. if airmen are moved to this theatre.
  As regards the Royal Navy, the welfare position in the Far East is generally very good, since the ports we are using are well established, and such facilities as education, sport and entertainment have been extensively developed. The rating taking his family abroad for the first time finds, in most of the well-established naval stations, that the conditions awaiting him generally compare very favourably with anything in the United Kingdom. The result is that most of the naval welfare problems which arise do not concern general conditions but specific cases, such as domestic strife or severe cases of illness. On these occasions it has been found that naval organisations have been particularly effective in helping the families concerned. We are receiving few complaints—indeed, very few or none—from Korea or the Far East as to the welfare services, and altogether I think we can assume that in the main they are satisfactory and that the Services have done a good job in bringing the facilities generally up to war-time standards within the very short period of about six months.
  The noble Viscount gave me notice of his question concerning prisoners-of-war. I wish that in reply I could say something which would give greater comfort to parents than they will be able to derive from the statement I have to make. I very much regret that His Majesty's Government have little information about the fate of our prisoners-of-war. As my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for War said in another place yesterday, the North Korean Government did inform the United Nations in July last that their Army was observing the principles of the Geneva Convention, but they have not permitted any Red Cross representatives to see what is
  1168
  happening. They started by giving two lists containing 110 names of United States prisoners-of-war last September, but nothing more has been received since. The Chinese Communist Government, in answer to questions about United Nations prisoners-of-war, have said that the Chinese troops in Korea are volunteers and, therefore, the question is nothing to do with the Chinese Government. That is a very strange attitude to adopt. The International Red Cross Committee have been making repeated efforts to obtain permission from the Chinese and North Korean Governments for one of their representatives to be allowed to enter their territories, but so far without success, although one of their men was allowed in Peking for a short time. They are also doing everything they can to see whether arrangements can be made for getting Red Cross supplies to United Nations prisoners-of-war. The United Nations Forces in Korea are sending lists of prisoners-of-war through the International Red Cross at Geneva, in accordance with the 1949 Prisoners-of-War Convention. We are hoping, as the result of representations which are being made, that the situation as it has been described by me will soon be greatly improved.
  VISCOUNT LONG: I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord whether in this connection any effort has been made to enlist the services of Pandit Nehru, as he seems to be very friendly towards the Chinese people. Has he been called into consultation?
  VISCOUNT HALL: There have been some consultations. I am afraid I can-not say anything more than that at the moment. I can assure the noble Viscount that His Majesty's Government are deeply concerned as to the present situation in relation to this problem. May I repeat that I will certainly look into some of the other points raised by the noble Viscount which I have not dealt with to-day, and will communicate with the noble Viscount upon them later. I am sure it is true that all your Lord-ships welcome the opportunity which has been given me to deal with the situation by the noble Viscount's act in putting his Question.
  VISCOUNT LONG: My Lords, may I thank the noble Viscount very much indeed for the full answer which he has given to my Question?

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; and to be printed.

  BAPTIST AND CONGREGATIONAL TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
  BRIGHTON EXTENSION BILL [H.L.] BRISTOL CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
  CANTERBURY EXTENSION BILL [H..L.]
  CITY OF LONDON (CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT) BILL [H.L.]
  DARTMOUTH HARBOUR BILL [H..L.]
  DEE AND CLWYD RIVER BOARD BILL [H.L.]
  FAVERSHAM NAVIGATION BILL [H..L.
  LANCASHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
  Presented, and read 1a
  House adjourned at sixteen minutes past six o'clock.