Sitting of 9 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF HEALTH

    Dental Treatment, Coventry and South Warwickshire
    Miss Burtonasked the Minister of Health how many sessions in consultative dental surgery are available for the population of the Coventry and South Warwickshire area; whether he is aware of the dissatisfaction in this area over the inadequacy of the consulting dental service; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Consultants hold the equivalent of one half-day session a week and senior hospital dental officers the equivalent of 10 half-day sessions. My right hon. Friend is not aware of any dissatisfaction in the area or of any waiting list.
    Miss Burton: Is the hon. Lady aware that there is dissatisfaction in Coventry over the time that people have to wait for certain dental treatment? Is she
    2
    further aware that constituents have written to me saying that they can obtain this treatment more quickly if they go to private dental practitioners? Would the hon. Lady be prepared to look into the matter?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hospital management committees, on the advice of their medical advisory committees and of the hospital dental staff, have both recently stated that the present staffing arrangements for consultant dentistry are adequate and that they have no waiting list. However, if the hon. Lady has any particular cases in mind, I shall be only too happy to look into them.

    Local Government Reorganisation (Health Services)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health what consideration he has given, both in the interest of administrative efficiency and of encouraging borough council civic significance, to the possibility of transferring to borough councils with a local population of 40,000 or over certain public health services appropriate to such local administration; and what representations to this effect he has received.
    The Minister of Health (Mr. R. H. Turton): I assume that the hon. Member is referring to the transfer of certain services provided under the National Health Service Act. This is being considered as part of the general question of the reorganisation of local government, and I am not yet in a position to make any statement. Representations on behalf of borough councils have

    3
    been made by the Association of Municipal Corporations and by a number of individual councils.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the Minister say whether he is sympathetic to this proposal for the encouragement of local civic interest?
    Mr. Turton: Certainly, but I cannot prejudge the reconsideration that is at present taking place. The hon. Member will know that the Guillebaud Report has certain recommendations on this matter. I have received so far 19 letters protesting about that paragraph of the Report and 11 letters in support of it.
    Mr. K. Thompson: Is my right hon. Friend able to assure the House that he and his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government are working closely together in the present research into the reform of local government?
    Mr. Turton: I can give that assurance; that pressing question is being studied jointly by Ministers.

    War Disabled (Central Advisory Committee)
    Mr. Simmonsasked the Minister of Health if he will arrange with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance that a representative of the Ministry of Health, who is competent to deal with those problems of the war disabled which now come under his jurisdiction, attends the meetings of the Central Advisory Committee of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.
    Mr. Turton: I will consider this suggestion with my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Simmons: Is the Minister aware that our experience in the old Ministry of Pensions was that this Central Advisory Committee was of great assistance to the Minister, as it brought in the members of war pensions committees up and down the country? Is he aware that there is great dissatisfaction with certain aspects of the arrangements concerning tricycles and limbs at present, and will he give very sympathetic consideration to meeting the growing dissatisfaction by giving the pensioners some sense of real consultation?
    Mr. Turton: I am considering this question at the present time, but if any
    4
    representatives of war disabled men wish to come to see me about the position with regard to tricycles, I hope they will do so, for I shall be very ready to receive them at any time—in fact, I am receiving one deputation in a fortnight's time.
    Mr. J. Griffiths: When considering this question of providing for those who are interested in disablement pensions some voice in this Central Advisory Committee, will the Minister discuss with the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance the advisability of having representation of disabled persons on the local committees set up under the National Insurance Act?
    Mr. Turton: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put that question down to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance.

    Local Health Officers
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health what qualifications are necessary under his regulations for the post of duly authorised officer of a local health authority.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are no regulations on this matter.
    Dr. Johnson: While expressing proper appreciation of the work done by these estimable officers, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is satisfied that, in modern conditions, these duly authorised officers are sufficiently qualified for the responsibility they undertake, which involves, of course, deprivation of personal liberty in many instances, when also they have to act independently of medical advice and even have power in some cases to overrule medical advice?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Local health authorities generally appoint suitable persons with previous knowledge of local health or welfare work, who are then given training and experience on the job. This particular problem will link up with the Working Party on Social Workers, which is considering the function and training of mental health workers along with other social workers.
    Mr. K. Robinson: Is it not absolutely essential to have some form of national training and qualification for these officers who do such an extremely important job in the social field?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member will be aware that an investigation is going on into the whole sphere of mental welfare workers. I obviously could not anticipate its findings.

    X-ray Apparatus (Orders)
    Mrs. Butlerasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the practice of his Department in placing orders towards the end of the financial year with manufacturers of X-ray apparatus for completion prior to 31st March causes delays in the normal flow and prompt execution of export orders by private firms; and if he will ensure that such orders are in future placed by his Department earlier in the financial year.
    Mr. Turton: The greater part of the apparatus of which delivery is required during the financial year is ordered before the year commences. Some late orders are necessary but they should not interfere with exports.
    Mrs. Butler: Is the Minister aware that the late orders not only cause considerable delay to firms engaged in the export trade but add considerably to the cost to the taxpayer? When will the right hon. Gentleman investigate this matter, so that late orders are not placed when there is a means of placing them earlier in the year? It takes place every year.
    Mr. Torton: I have looked into this question, because the hon. Lady wrote to me in April. I am satisfied that the great bulk of the orders are placed well before the beginning of the financial year. There is no evidence of any harmful effect on exports. I am glad to say that the exports in the first quarter of this year were far higher, being more than 20 per cent. above the exports in the corresponding quarters of the two previous years.

    Invalid Tricycles and Motor Cars
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Health how many disabled persons have been supplied by his Department with invalid tricycles.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: In England and Wales there are now 14,679 invalid tricycles on issue, of which 10,777 are power-propelled.
    Dr. King: Is the hon. Lady aware that the figures represent a magnificent piece of social service for disabled persons, but
    6
    that the arrangements for the care and maintenance of these machines is far from satisfactory? Will she look into the matter to see whether something can be done about servicing the machines for disabled persons?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: We are constantly concerned about the problem of repairs. Having spent four hours with the Invalid Tricycle Association yesterday, I recall that the point was stressed then as it has been by the hon. Member.
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Health the comparative costs of a mechanically-propelled petrol or electric invalid tricycle and a two-seater small car, supplied by his Department.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Two-seater cars are not supplied, but it is estimated that to substitute them for the latest petrol-driven invalid tricycles would cost at least an additional £40 or £50 for each vehicle.
    Dr. King: Did the Minister learn when she met those estimable persons from the Invalid Tricycle Association yesterday that many disabled persons would be happier, and sometimes even safer, if they could have a companion with them on their machine? Will she look carefully into the representations made by the Invalid Tricycle Association and B.L.E.S.M.A. for the provision of two-seaters for disabled persons?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I understand that the associations are making representations and are meeting my right hon. Friend shortly, and that that is one of the points which will be under consideration.

    Water Supplies (Fluoridation)
    Mr. Grimondasked the Minister of Health the present policy of the Government over the introduction of fluorine in water supplies.
    Mr. Turton: The Government's policy continues to be that recommended by the United Kingdom Mission to the United States of America and announced in this House in December, 1953, namely, that studies should be made in some selected communities of the various aspects of the fluoridation of water supplies before a decision is made whether it should be generally adopted in this country.
    Mr. Grimond: Is there any doubt about the ultimate benefit or otherwise of

    7
    this policy? When does the Minister expect that the results of this investigation will be known and will be made known to the public?
    Mr. Turton: The local authorities which have already agreed to carry out study demonstrations are Anglesey, Andover and Watford in England and Wales, and Kilmarnock in Scotland. Fluoridation has started, except at Andover, where it is expected to begin very shortly. We shall have to wait until the study demonstrations have proceeded for a certain time before we can draw any conclusions.

    Doctors (Pay)
    Lieut.-Colonel Liptonasked the Minister of Health what claims for increased pay for doctors he has received from the British Medical Association and other bodies; and what action he is taking.
    Mr. Turton: A memorandum outlining a claim for increased remuneration for general practitioners and hospital staff has been submitted to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself. I am not yet in a position to make any statement about it.
    Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: What does the memorandum consist of? What are the doctors asking for? Will the Minister, to avoid trouble over this serious claim, come to a decision without delay? Is the right hon. Gentleman to use the argument that the general practitioner, with an average income of £2,300 a year, is already getting more pay than the right hon. Gentleman's Parliamentary Secretary, who has the whole service to look after?
    Mr. Turton: I think it would be ill-mannered and, indeed, unethical for me to answer that supplementary question before I had informed the medical profession about it.

    Infant Welfare Centre, Rowley Regis
    Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the need for an infant welfare centre in the Tividale area of Rowley Regis; and whether he will take steps to provide the necessary facilities.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Assessment of need is, in the first instance, a matter for the local health authority which, I understand, is considering it. Any proposal the authority may make will be carefully considered, but in present financial circumstances I cannot say when a loan sanction could be issued.
    Mr. Henderson: Has not this matter been under consideration for nearly two years? Would not the hon. Lady agree that, in view of the urgency of the requirement, something should be done to provide this important welfare service?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The authorities have not yet decided on a site.
    Mr. Henderson: I beg to give notice that, in view of the reply given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Dental Charges
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeauxasked the Minister of Health if he will substitute a percentage charge to the patient for all dental treatment, other than the provision of dentures, in place of the present system whereby the first £1, or total charge if less than £1, is borne by the patient.
    Mr. Turton: No, Sir.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would not my hon. Friend agree that, in present circumstances and under the present system, in the absence of acute toothache, people are encouraged to delay their visit to the dentist for far too long until the maximum amount of repair work is required? Is not that defeating the object of the National Health Service, which is to ensure the greatest possible and the best dental health?
    Mr. Turton: My hon. Friend's suggestion would also deter patients from trying to seek comprehensive treatment, because the percentage charge would be a very great deterrent.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that this is the most stupid of all the existing stupid charges of the National Health Service? Would he not accept the recommendation of the Guillebaud Report, which at least proposed an advance in this matter, so that patients are not deterred from seeking dental treatment?
    Mr. Turton: The Guillebaud Committee did not recommend a percentage charge.

    Car Parking Charges (Doctors)
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health whether he is aware that medical practitioners in the course of their work will be subject to payment when parking meters are installed; and what allowances will be made to National Health Service doctors to offset this charge.
    Mr. Turton: The remuneration of doctors providing general medical services under the National Health Service already takes account of practice expenses generally, and I do not propose any special action in respect of this particular matter.
    Dr. Stross: But practice expenses are not the sum total of the type of charge envisaged in this Question. Does not the Minister think it is rather unfair that men who have to visit frequently in specific areas should have to pay these charges?
    Mr. Turton: Practice expenses do take account of certain parking expenses, but I understand that the regulations concerning parking meters have not yet been formulated. I believe a Question is to be asked on Wednesday of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation dealing with that matter. I do not think it arises at the moment.
    Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Minister make representations to the Minister of Transport and ask him for some flexibility in this matter so that general practitioners waiting on patients shall not have to pay parking meter charges?
    Mr. Turton: I think it would be wiser if the hon. Member awaited the reply of my right hon. Friend next Wednesday.
    Dr. Stross: Is not the Minister aware that his right hon. Friend has written to me stating that he cannot make any change and that these charges will be made?
    Mr. Turton: I am not aware of the private communications between my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member.

    Elderly Persons (Accommodation)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health how many schemes for the building of accommodation for the elderly
    10
    and infirm are under the terms of his Department's Circular 3/55 have been submitted by local authorities; how many have been approved in principle by his Department; and how many have been granted and refused loan sanction.
    Mr. Turton: 81, 64, 22 and 11.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not absolutely clear that it is no use issuing a circular urging local authorities to go ahead with these schemes for the more infirm elderly if as many as eleven schemes are refused loan sanction? Is it not a case that very important schemes are being turned down by the Ministry at present?
    Mr. Turton: Actually, of the eleven, five have been postponed because the applications were premature. I should think the Question shows what a great amount of work is going on. At present more than 60 buildings are being constructed or adapted for this purpose. That is work going on at present.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Is it not the case, however, that many schemes being put forward by local authorities and not reaching the full stage are being discouraged by the Ministry?
    Mr. Turton: I have given the figures. So far eleven schemes have had loan sanction refused and, in the case of five, it was on the ground of premature application, as they were not ready to go forward.
    Dame Irene Ward: Could we have the names of the local authorities attached to the list of figures in order that I may see whether the North-East Coast is getting its fair share?
    Mr. Turton: If my hon. Friend puts down a Question, I will do my best to answer it.
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health, in view of his decision to reverse his refusal to authorise the Northumberland County Council to proceed with the plan to acquire Shortridge Hall for housing old people, if he will now consider the wishes of the old people in Whitley Bay, who do not desire to be sent far from their surroundings and friends, and proceed to make use of the Prudhoe Memorial Home, which he has already acquired, which is deteriorating through lack of occupation, and which he

    11
    refused to consider on the grounds that he was opposed to housing old people in large groups.
    Mr. Turton: Any proposal which the county council may submit to me to provide further accommodation for old people in need of care in Whitley Bay, including any proposal to use the Prudhoe Memorial Home for this purpose, would be given my most careful consideration.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, which is a great advance on the use of the Prudhoe Memorial Home, may I ask him to say whether he has now departed from his very human declaration that old people should be housed in small groups as that is much more friendly and human than being housed in large groups? Why has he retreated from his original very human approach to this problem?
    Mr. Turton: There has been no retreat. My policy and the policy of the Government is to encourage the provision of small homes with accommodation for not more than 50 or 60 residents. In the neighbourhood of the constituency of my hon. Friend, the county council is at present building a new home with 30 beds at Wallsend and intends later to build a new home of the same size at Blyth. Both places, I think, are near to the place of which my hon. Friend is speaking.
    Dame Irene Ward: They are not in my constituency.

  MEDICAL RESEARCH

    Nuclear Explosions (Biological Effects)
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research the Medical Research Council is conducting into the effects of atomic rain which has recently fallen after the atomic explosions in the Far East.
    Mr. Turton: The Medical Research Council is conducting research on the biological effects of exposure to increased levels of radiation. This would cover any effects arising from radioactivity deposited in rain.
    Mr. Hale: In view of the information that has now come forward of the very serious effects of strontium on bone structure, especially in children, and of the varied distribution which is now shown by its existence in animals, is it not extremely important that every possible method should be adopted for checking as soon as possible what are the possibilities in this matter?
    Mr. Turton: The Medical Research Council is at present supporting a substantial and increasing programme of research on the biological effects of radiation from various sources, and will continue to do so.
    Dr. Summerskill: In view of the very important Report of the Medical Research Council of the effect of nuclear radiation on man, is the Minister going to treat the matter seriously and make a statement before we adjourn for the Summer Recess?
    Mr. Turton: I have said that these researches are going on, and I hope that the right hon. Lady will not exaggerate the Report of the Medical Research Council, which shows that the present and foreseeable hazards from the very small increase in world-wide atmospheric radioactivity caused by the test explosions is negligible and would not be expected to produce any detectable ill effects.
    Dr. Summerskill: I apologise for intervening again, but the Minister has not read to the House that part of the Report to which my hon. Friend was referring—and I would like him to read it to the House—which says that, if bombs are dropped in the next 30 years at the same rate as they are now being dropped, the effects of strontium on the bone structure will be very serious. Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly read that part of the Report to the House?
    Mr. Turton: I have given the summary of the recommendation. It is quite true that the Report mentioned the danger from radioactive strontium if the explosions continued during the lifetime of those living at the present time, and that is being studied with other matters.
    Mr. Hale: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is aware that one of his own replies makes it clear that more recent information has shown that the distribution of

    13
    strontium in the air is not even and that in some cases there is evidence of 10 times the normal absorption of this very strong poison.
    Mr. Haleasked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what research body is specifically charged with the study of the genetic effects of nuclear and thermo-nuclear explosions; and what material was collected during the Allied occupation on the number of deformed and defective children born after the explosions at Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
    Mr. Turton: Research on the genetic effects of exposure to radiation from all sources is being undertaken by the Medical Research Council and studies are also in progress in various university and other research departments. The United States Atomic Bomb Casualty Commission has, since 1947, been collecting information on the subsequent history of persons exposed to the atomic bombs in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and a preliminary report has been published on the children born to such persons.
    Mr. Hale: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this information has not been made available to this House and that the information in the Report of the Medical Research Council, so far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki are concerned, dealt almost entirely with the question of leukæmia and not with the genetic effects?
    Mr. Turton: What has been made available to the House is what is available in this country. The second report of Dr. Neel and Dr. Schull has not yet been published, but the Medical Research Council was given a preview of certain parts of it, which are summarised in paragraphs 167 to 170 of the Medical Research Council's Report.

  HOSPITALS

    Mental Defectives (Admissions)
    Mr. Sorensenasked the Minister of Health what statistical records or estimates he has of the total number of mental deficients who are now awaiting admission into suitable institutions; whether this shows an increase or decrease during the past 10 years; to
    14
    what extent available beds have increased during that period; and what is the present prospect of reducing the average period of waiting before admission.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The number of mental defectives waiting for admission to hospital at the end of last year was 6,909. Comparable figures are not available for years before 1954 when the number was 7,033. In the past 10 years occupied beds have increased by about 8,000. The present building programme is designed to lead to reductions in the waiting time.
    Mr. Sorensen: Can the hon. Lady say whether, in her estimation, there will be a considerable reduction in the number of mental defectives who ought to be having institutional treatment and are not getting it, and whether she feels that progress is being made in coping with this very difficult problem?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: There are 8,000 more beds, and the waiting list has gone down. In the current programmes, there are 4,400 beds for mental defectives.

    Capital Development Schemes
    Mr. K. Robinsonasked the Minister of Health how many hospital capital development schemes of £30,000 and over he submitted to the Treasury for approval during the last 12 months' period for which figures are available; how many were approved; how many were modified or disapproved; and how many decisions are still pending.
    Mr. Turton: Sixty-nine during the year ended 31st May, 1956. Sixty-four have been wholly approved and two in part, pending further inquiries; one has been modified; and two are outstanding.
    Mr. Robinson: Can the Minister give any indication of the average delay in the detailed consideration of development schemes, and does he not agree that this requirement is not only an irritation to hospital boards, but also a subtle manner of cutting down the capital expenditure on hospital services?
    Mr. Turton: In regard to the first part of the question, I do not think I had better anticipate the Question which the hon. Gentleman has put down to one of my right hon. Friends next Thursday, which is almost exactly in those terms. In regard to the second part, I do not

    15
    agree and, indeed, resent any suggestion that this is used to postpone schemes. Actually, I have given figures in my Answer, which themselves show that this has not been the effect at all.
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health what hospital capital development schemes have been approved in Stoke-on-Trent in the past 12 months; what is the total sum involved; and how many have been rejected, modified or suspended.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: During the year ended 31st March, 1956, four schemes totalling £13,479. My right hon. Friend has been unable to accept one scheme for central financing. No other schemes have been rejected, modified or suspended.
    Dr. Stross: Does not the hon. Lady agree that the sum involved is not very high and that Stoke-on-Trent is a working-class city whose citizens are exposed specifically to all types of industrial disease? In view of the fact that the number of beds allotted to the city as a whole is smaller than the national average, will she see to it that any schemes put forward in future are passed?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The schemes which will provide additional beds are, in fact, the three schemes approved.
    Dr. Summerskill: Is it not a fact that the announcement of the hon. Lady is directly opposed to the Guillebaud Report? Could she tell us why, in this particular area which needs special attention from her Department, these four schemes have been refused?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sorry, but the right hon. Lady has got it the wrong way round. It is four schemes which have been approved.

    Consultants
    Dame Irene Wardasked the Minister of Health if he is satisfied with the machinery for reviewing the establishments of hospital consultants at each stage of the proceedings; what steps are taken to avoid unfairness and to pay regard to local conditions; and what action is taken by regional boards to find alternative employment for consultants declared redundant and to preserve their pension rights; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Turton: Yes, Sir. The hospital boards pay full regard to local conditions. In the rare case of redundancy a moral obligation rests on them to give the consultant the greatest possible assistance in finding another post. A consultant who considers that his appointment is being terminated unfairly has a right to have the board's decision reviewed by me.
    Dame Irene Ward: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that statement, may I ask him if he accepts the findings of the Bradbeer Committee?
    Mr. Turton: Certainly I have looked at the findings of the Bradbeer Committee, but I do not think I can give one answer fully covering that point. I think that this is one of the questions which the Committee did, in fact, examine.

    Regional Boards and Management Committees (Appointments)
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health on what principles appointments are made to regional hospital boards and to group hospital management committees.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend's aim is to appoint as members of regional hospital boards those who can, in a personal capacity, make an effective contribution to the planning and administration of the hospital and specialist services. Boards have been asked to follow the same principle in their appointments to hospital management committees.
    Mr. Iremonger: Can my hon. Friend give an assurance that special consideration will be given to the desirability of seeing that local authorities are adequately represented on these boards?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: I do not think we can depart from the principle of choosing the people whom we think can give the best service on these boards and committees. To allow direct representation from the local authorities would create considerable difficulties, because some areas have many small authorities in them and others possibly only one.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Will the hon. Lady keep in mind the recommendations of the Guillebaud Report, which were to the effect that there should be no overlapping

    17
    of specialist representation on the regional boards or hospital management committees?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: We have that in mind.
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health what is the limit to the number of members who may serve on the North East Metropolitan Regional Hospital Board; how many members are at present serving on that board; which of the serving members was nominated by the Ilford Borough Council; and how many nominees of the Ilford Borough Council have been appointed since the foundation of the board.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The maximum number is 22 (including the chairman), and 22 are serving at present. No nominee of the Ilford Borough Council has been appointed since the formation of the board.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that there is very great dissatisfaction in the Borough of Ilford at the consistent and persistent disregard of the borough council's recommendations; and at the neglect which has been shown to provide that this most important borough should be adequately represented?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: The regional hospital board, under the terms of the Act, is required to consult local health authorities, but, as my hon. Friend knows, the borough of Ilford does not come into that category.
    Mr. Iremongerasked the Minister of Health how many persons nominated by the Ilford Borough Council have been appointed to the Ilford and Barking Group Hospital Management Committee in the years 1948, 1949, 1950, 1951, 1952, 1953, 1954, 1955 and 1956, respectively.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: One in 1948 and one in 1952.
    Mr. Iremonger: Will my hon. Friend take note of the fact that the dissatisfaction which I expressed in my supplementary question on the previous Question applies with equal force to this Question?

    Personal Case
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the independent medical examination of Mrs. Harriet Thornton who has been detained in a mental home for over three years.
    Mr. Turton: It is for the relative who applied for an independent medical examination to arrange with the selected doctors for this examination.
    Mr. Dodds: When the examination has taken place, will the Minister do his best to expedite a decision, which I am certain will set Mrs. Thornton free? Will he bear in mind that, when this has been achieved, I shall be asking for a thorough investigation as to how she got into a mental home in the first place, and what justification there is for depriving her of her liberty for over three years?
    Mr. Turton: This is a matter for the Board of Control and not for me. When the report on the examination is received, it has to be sent to the Board of Control consideration. It is within the power of the board to order the patient to be discharged at the expiration of ten days.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement giving the reasons why Mr. Alan W. Cripps, 25, Clive Avenue, Crayford, in writing to the Board of Control on 24th April, 1956, in respect of the case of his niece, Miss Harriet Thornton, did not receive a reply until 13th June, 1956, details of which have been given to him by the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford.
    Mr. Turton: I have written to the hon. Member on 4th July, and again today, explaining the reasons for this regrettable delay.
    Mr. Dodds: While thanking the Minister for the splendid way in which he dealt with this case when it was brought to his attention, may I ask whether he is aware that this is not an isolated case of delay and that there is deep concern that the Board of Control is not doing the job for which it was set up, namely, to look after the interests of the individual, because more and more it seems to be moving as a machine? Not only does it lock people up, but it keeps them locked up. Will the Minister look at this matter to se whether the process cannot be humanised?
    Mr. Turton: I will certainly have a look at it. This delay was most unfortunate. It was an instance where the machine broke down. Steps have been taken to guard against a recurrence of such a breakdown.

    Air Conditioning
    Dr. Strossasked the Minister of Health whether he will give consideration to the need for air conditioning of individual wards in general and other hospitals, where it is proposed to treat bronchitis and its complications during periods of fog; and whether he will give an estimate of the cost of air conditioning for one normal sized ward.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is ready to consider any such proposal submitted by a hospital board, but it would, of course, have to take its place among the many other urgent proposals in hospital capital programmes. The cost of installation would vary with a number of factors, but might be of the order of £2,000 with running costs of 5s. an hour.
    Dr. Stross: Whilst thanking the hon. Lady for the information, may I ask her to bear in mind that, at the cost of £2,000, there would be the most incredible benefit to those who suffer great distress from acute forms of bronchitis at times of fog in the winter? Will she give this question as high priority as possible?
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: As the hon. Member knows, we are advised by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on this matter. We have not had any recommendations on that basis.

    Neglected Persons (Review)
    Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Minister of Health how many people were detained under the Mental Deficiency Acts on 31st December, 1955, in whose cases the circumstances rendering them subject to be dealt with were that they were found neglected; and how many of these cases have been reviewed by the Board of Control since the judgment in the case of Regina v. Board of Control, ex-parte Ruthy.
    Mr. Turton: The information is not available in the form requested. In response to inquiries made in February and March of this year by the Board of Control, 5,732 mentally defective patients
    20
    were reported as having been found neglected by a judicial authority and dealt with under the Mental Deficiency Acts whilst in the care of public or charitable bodies. About 2,000 cases have been reviewed to date.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is a serious position in which it appears that detention has in fact been illegal? If on review these cases are to be released, is any provision to be made of alternative accommodation for them?
    Mr. Turton: Whether they were properly found neglected is a legal matter in which I cannot interfere. They have been brought to me or to my predecessors on justices' orders as found neglected, and it is my duty to take care of them. I am making a review of the cases, especially those out on licence. Of the 536 licensed cases, 330 have been discharged to date.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is urgently necessary, in view of the comments of the Lord Chief Justice on the comparable case, that they should be as quickly reviewed as possible and that alternative accommodation should be provided for these cases?
    Mr. Turton: I think the hon. Member is confusing two issues. I cannot look into the legal question. What I think is important is that the Board of Control should review all these cases as quickly as possible, particularly those on licence In fact, it has already reviewed 2,000 cases and I have given the results of the review.

    Board of Control
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware of the confusion in the public mind created by the fact that the Board of Control, previously located independently, has now an identical address with the Ministry of Health; and if he will arrange for adequate recognition of the separate existence of the board as an independent body.
    Mr. Turton: I think that the separate existence of the board as an independent body is widely recognised. It is convenient for administration that the Ministry and the board should be in the same building.
    Dr. Johnson: May I, none the less, ask my right hon. Friend if he can make it quite clear that the functions of the Board of Control are to protect the liberty of the subject and—at the risk of repeating what the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) has already said this afternoon—whether he is aware that, admirably intentioned though the board may be, it has in fact given the impression in recent times that it is both lethargic and inefficient in dealing with matters related to the individual and in reply to individual communications addressed to it?
    Mr. Turton: I can assure my hon. Friend that proximity to me does not induce lethargy or inefficiency.
    Dr. D. Johnsonasked the Minister of Health if he is aware that the telephone number of the Board of Control is not in the London Telephone Directory; and if he will make arrangements for the appropriate insertion to be made.
    Miss Hornsby-Smith: Yes, Sir.
    Dr. Johnson: May I thank my hon. Friend for removing at least one obstacle to the normal access to the Board of Control?

CHINA (RELATIONS WITH HONG KONG)
Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply has been given to the proposal of the Government of the Chinese People's Republic that official relations should be established with the Government of Hong Kong.
The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Younger) on the 6th of June.
Mr. Brockway: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that on 6th June he replied that this matter was being considered? Cannot it be hastened? Would it not be to the benefit of Hong Kong and China and for peace in Asia if this matter were settled?
Mr. Lloyd: What has to be thought about very carefully is whether it would improve our relations with the Chinese People's Republic or otherwise.

BIKINI POPULATION (UNITED NATIONS' MISSION)
Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what instructions Her Majesty's Government have given to their representative in regard to the debate on the report of the visiting mission of the United Nations Trusteeship Council on the plight of the exiles evacuated from Bikini for atomic tests.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Lord John Hope): It is not the practice of Her Majesty's Government to reveal instructions given to Her Majesty's Representatives on international bodies.
Mr. Brockway: Would the hon. Member bear in mind that it is the last conceivable irony that the people of an island which has been placed in the trust of a great Power should be removed from that island and should have to petition that Power against the operation of hydrogen or atom bombs there?
Lord John Hope: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member says, but I think he will find that things are not going so badly in this direction as he appears to fear.
Mr. Robens: Can we rely on that latter statement? Did not the hon. Member say that about Jordan, that the thing would be all right if only left alone?
Lord John Hope: That is an entirely different question. On that occasion, as the right hon. Gentleman remembers, he was asking about riots which occurred on 14th or 15th December. I said that the thing would pass, and, indeed, martial law was cancelled in a few hours.

UNITED NATIONS REFUGEE FUND
Mr. Blenkinsopasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will increase the grant made to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in view of the need for the rapid completion of resettlement work.
Mr. N. Nicolsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Her Majesty's Government will add £1 to every £1 raised from the general public

23
by the United Nations Association appeal on behalf of the United Nations Refugee Fund.
Lord John Hope: Before I answer these Questions, I believe that the House would like me to convey its sense of deep and sincere grief at the news of the sudden death yesterday of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. He was a devoted servant of the cause to which he had dedicated himself with so much enthusiasm and ability.
Her Majesty's Government agree about the need for the rapid completion of resettlement work on behalf of refugees. We have already contributed £80,000 this year to the High Commissioner's Fund, and have promised to contribute a further £20,000 if contributions in 1956 reach the sum of 3·25 million dollars. Her Majesty's Government are considering whether the state of the Fund as set out in the High Commissioner's Annual Report warrants any alteration being made to the latter arrangement.
Mr. Blenkinsop: I should first say that we associate ourselves with the expression of very deep regret at the death of someone whom many of us knew and the value of whose work we also knew. It has come as a great shock to many of us to hear of this announcement.
In view of the very small contributions we are making, particularly at this moment, could we not, as some expression of our feelings, agree to make a much larger contribution to try to get this matter cleared up, a matter which was so much the life work of the High Commissioner?
Lord John Hope: Of course we shall do all we can, but I should like the hon. Gentleman to note that I myself saw Dr. Goedhart not many days ago and he fully appreciated our difficulties, just as we fully appreciated what he wanted done. We shall do what we can.
Mr. Nicolson: It is a well-known fact that this fund is seriously short of money for the job which it has undertaken. As the Treasury must have allowed for the extra £20,000 to which my noble Friend has referred, can he not make that £20,000 contribution to the fund which has been established on a national scale by the United Nations Association?
Lord John Hope: With respect to my hon. Friend, I do not think that that is
24
quite a realistic way of looking at it, but we shall do what we can, and we are considering the matter of the £20,000 now.
Mr. Younger: In associating my right hon. and hon. Friends with the deep regret which we all feel at the loss of Dr. Goedhart, whom many of us knew as a resistance leader in the war and as a delegate of the Netherlands before his United Nations post, cannot the hon. Gentleman in some sense regard the £20,000 as a tribute to Dr. Goedhart, as my hon. Friend suggested, to speed up the liquidation of this war-time problem—because that is what it really is—which is nearing its end and which relatively only a small amount of money could put right quite quickly?
Lord John Hope: I appreciate what the right hon. Gentleman has said, but, if I may put it like this, it is not necessary for some sort of tragedy like this to happen for us to do all we can to help in this matter, and we shall do so.
Captain Waterhouse: While appreciating the value of this particular activity, will my noble Friend bear in mind that this country cannot do all the paying and that we do a great deal of paying in many directions in this part of the world already?
Mr. Blenkinsop: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.
Mr. N. Nicolsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will instruct Her Majesty's representative on the United Nations to support the proposal of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees that the interest on the unused capital sum voted by the United Nations for the permanent settlement of Arab refugees from Palestine shall be diverted to the United Nations Refugee Fund.
Lord John Hope: No, Sir. There is no unused capital sum voted by the United Nations for the permanent settlement of Arab refugees. According to a recent estimate of the Director-General, the balance of all funds in the hands of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency now stands at approximately $13 million, all of which will be required for operations within the next few months.

BAHAMAS PROVING GROUND (ANGLO-U.S.A. AGREEMENT)
Mrs. Castleasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will now publish the details of the agreement reached with the United States Government for the extension of their guided missile range in the Bahamas to Ascension Island.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Agreement for the extension of the Bahamas Long Range Proving Ground to Ascension Island was signed in Washington on 25th June. It will be published as a White Paper.
Mrs. Castle: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell the House when the White Paper will be published, in view of the fact that some time has elapsed? Will he undertake to include in the White Paper the details of the terms and conditions of employment of local personnel at the base? Will he also say whether, if there are any future constitutional developments in the Caribbean area, the right to abrogate the Agreement will be left open?
Mr. Lloyd: The White Paper will be published as soon as the printers can get it out, I hope within a few days. I will bear in mind the hon. Lady's second point.
Mrs. Castle: Can I have an answer to the third question?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady asked a supplementary question—quite a long one.
Mrs. Castle: I thought that it was commendably brief, but it had three points and I did not have an answer to the third.
Mr. Speaker: I am sorry about that. Perhaps the hon. Lady will put down another Question.

N.A.T.O. OFFICERS (STATEMENTS)
Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will propose to the North Atlantic Council that no speeches on political matters should be made by the military or civil servants of North Atlantic Treaty Organisation without the prior approval of the Council.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir.
Mr. Warbey: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, on 27th June, in an interview with the New York Times, General Gruenther expressed considerable scepticism about the prospects of disarmament and added these words:
"The Soviets make it clear that they won't stand for control or inspection in any form"?
In view of the fact that those utterly mendacious statements are calculated to discourage public belief in the prospects of disarmament, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman take steps in the North Atlantic Council to bring these loquacious generals into line?
Mr. Lloyd: So far as the question of control and international disarmament is concerned, I have yet to learn that the Soviet Union are prepared to accept any satisfactory form of control. On the other matter, I do not think it is desirable that speeches by those servants of N.A.T.O. should be cleared by all the fifteen Governments concerned. I think that they have done very good service by the speeches they have made. The Government are not responsible for what an individual speech contains.

CYPRUS (SITUATION)
Sir R. Boothbyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will keep the Council of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation fully informed of any proposals he may put forward, and any developments that may take place, with regard to the situation in Cyprus.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I will bear my hon. Friend's point in mind.
Mr. J. Griffiths: When is the House likely to receive a statement from the Government on Cyprus?
Mr. Lloyd: That is a very different point.

ISRAEL-JORDAN FRONTIER (INCIDENTS)
Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what further action he proposes to take at the United Nations in regard to the recent incidents on the Israel-Jordan frontier.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I think we must leave this matter to the United Nations Truce Supervision Organisation for the present.
Mr. Henderson: As the situation in the Middle East will become more and more dangerous so long as the Arab States are being supplied with great quantities of modern armaments while the Government of Israel—according to their statement—are being denied comparable qualitative armaments, is it not urgent that some action should be taken to stabilise the position in the Middle East?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that questions of the balance of supply of arms arise out of this Question. It looks as though the situation is quietening down again, and I hope that nothing will be said today to hinder that.
Mr. Robens: Last week the right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he thought that the balance of arms was in favour of the State of Israel. Can he say on what he based that thought?
Mr. Lloyd: I will, if the right hon. Gentleman puts down that Question, but it does not arise out of the Question on the Order Paper.

PASSPORTS (RENEWAL)
Mr. Peytonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, under his regulations, a person born of British parents in a territory at that time under British sovereignty is required, having already held a British passport, to produce not only his own birth certificate but the birth certificate and/or passport of his father and the marriage certificate of his parents in order to obtain a new British passport on the expiry of the previous one.
Lord John Hope: By the British Nationality Act, 1948, a person, who was a British subject immediately before the commencement of the Act and who was born outside the United Kingdom and Colonies, is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies if his father was a British subject and possessed certain qualifications specified in Section 12 of the Act. In these cases, the claim to citizenship depends upon legitimate descent from a father possessing the required qualifications. It is, therefore,
28
necessary to produce evidence in the form of the documents mentioned by the honourable Member.
Mr. Peyton: Does not my noble Friend think that there is something very wrong when someone who has once held a British passport should have that right arbitrarily removed from him? Will he please show no inhibitions whatever about introducing legislation to amend what seems to be yet another lamentable Act for which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite are responsible?
Lord John Hope: I hope that I shall show no inhibitions about anything reasonable, but if the hon. Gentleman will read the Answer, he will see that it is not quite as easy as it looks. I wish that we could do something.
Mr. Younger: Am I right in thinking that if a person of the type mentioned failed to get a United Kingdom passport he would automatically get the passport of another self-governing member of the Commonwealth, and is that really so very humiliating?
Mr. Peyton: Is my hon. Friend aware that if someone has once held a United Kingdom passport he not unnaturally wishes to continue to hold it? It is neither here nor there for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that the individual concerned should satisfy himself with an Indian passport.
Lord John Hope: I do not think that, in fact, I can be expected to be responsible for opinions in this matter. I have tried to answer the Question as far as my Department is responsible.

STATELESS PERSONS (CONVENTION)
Mr. N. Nicolsonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs when Her Majesty's Government intend to deposit the Instrument of ratification for the Convention Relating to the Status of Stateless Persons which was signed by the United Kingdom Plenipotentiary on 28th September, 1954.
Lord John Hope: The question of ratification is still under discussion with the Departments concerned, but I hope that it will not be long delayed.
Mr. Nicolson: Is it not a fact that, of the 22 nations which made this Convention, none has so far ratified it, although it was made in September, 1954, and since, as our own representative said at the time, there is no administrative difficulty so far as we are concerned, could not we set an example in ratification to the other 21 countries?
Lord John Hope: I hope that we can. As a matter of fact, Denmark has ratified the Convention, and did so in January, 1956.

DISARMAMENT
Mr. Hunterasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give details of progress made at the talks now taking place in the United Nations Disarmament Commission.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The meetings of the Disarmament Commission began on 3rd July in New York. They are held in public. There were no meetings on 4th July because it was a national holiday. Further meetings were held on 5th July, and we expect them to go on for some days.
On the first day, my right honourable Friend the Minister of State tabled a draft resolution in the names of Canada, France, the United States of America and the United Kingdom. This suggested that the Commission should ask the Disarmament Sub-Committee to pursue its search for an agreement on the basis of the declaration of principles tabled in the sub-Committee on 4th May by these same four Powers. The declaration is reproduced as Annex 10 to the Report on the proceedings of the Sub-Committee, Command 9770.
Mr. Hunter: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him if he realises that, in view of the far better international situation in the world today and of the action of the Soviet Union in reducing her armed forces by 1¼ million men, this is the time to achieve general agreement on disarmament, and will he, in the interests of humanity, report progress to the House as soon as possible?
Mr. Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government will certainly do everything they can, as they have tried to do in the past, towards
30
getting a comprehensive international agreement. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the present time does not seem an inopportune time to press forward.
Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct the British representative at the United Nations Disarmament Commission to press for a substantial arms reduction without waiting for further improvement in international relations.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The Anglo-French Disarmament Plan of 19th March does provide for a significant reduction of armed forces and conventional armaments without waiting for any further improvement in international relations. The first stage of this plan is designed to be carried out in the world as it is today. Her Majesty's Government stand by that plan which my right hon. Friend the Minister of State has been expounding in the Disarmament Commission.
Mr. Allaun: Does not the Minister feel that an arms cut itself will further relax world tension, as the British spokesman himself argued last year when the Russians appeared to seek a prior political settlement? Does he not also think that the British Government's attitude is creating the feeling that they do not really want to get on with disarmament?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that anything like enough credit has been given to Her Majesty's Government for the action taken. In the five years from March, 1953, to March, 1958, it is planned to reduce our forces by over 170,000, which, having regard to the totals involved, is a very considerable gesture.
Mr. Beswick: But is not the Foreign Secretary aware that he is now playing with words; that what he described as a substantial reduction a short time ago is precisely the figure which the Soviet Union has since put forward, and which has been rejected by Her Majesty's Government until such time as there is a political settlement.
Mr. Lloyd: No, I think that the hon. Member is wrong. I think that the figure put forward by the United States with the support of the United Kingdom is some 400,000 at least below the present figure, even if the cuts are carried out by the Soviet Union.
Mr. Warbey: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman say by exactly how much the British forces will be reduced under this first stage of the new disarmament plan?
Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member will put down a Question, I will consider it.

ALGERIA

  British Consul (Speech)
  Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the speech made by Mr. Irving Mill, the British Consul in Algiers, in which he pledged the full support of Her Majesty's Government and the British people for French policy in Algeria, was made with his authority.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No, Sir. It is not customary for Foreign Service officers to submit to me in advance the text of all the speeches which they may be called upon to make in the course of their duties.
  Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary satisfied that one of his consuls should, in front of the Diplomatic Corps at Algiers on the occasion of the Queen's Birthday party, have pledged the full support of Her Majesty's Government and of the British people to the French policy in Algeria, and should have expressed the hope that France would resume her civilising action? If he is not satisfied, would he take disciplinary action against the officer concerned?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have stated that it is not customary for the texts of speeches to be cleared. I think that on this matter the position of Her Majesty's Government is well known, and I would refer the hon. Member to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 15th March.
  Mr. Younger: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman either circulate in HANSARD what was actually said by the British representative, or put a copy in the Library?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Captain Waterhouse: Is it not right and proper that Her Majesty's representative should give moral support to our Allies and friends, the French?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that that is right. If I may refer to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, he stated:
  "… Algeria is part of the Metropolitan France and that Her Majesty's Government can have nothing but sympathy with the efforts of the French Government to improve conditions and preserve peace in Algeria."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th March, 1956; Vol. 550, c. 559.]
  Mr. Benn: In view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Gentleman told me on 20th March that no direct or indirect help was to be given to the French in Algeria, does not the consul concerned seem to have gone way beyond his authorisation?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not draw that conclusion at all.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British helicopters have been supplied to the French Government for use in Algeria to the last convenient date; how many are still on order from his Department; and what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government towards the supply of these aircraft for this purpose.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose details of military equipment sold to foreign Governments. As hon. Members will be aware, the French Government have the full sympathy of Her Majesty's Government in their efforts to re-establish peaceful conditions in Algeria.
  Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that American, French and British newspapers have reported a supply of helicopters by Britain to France, including eight from the R.A.F.? If the Foreign Secretary only intended to give that reply, why were my Questions transferred to him by the other Departments to which they were originally addressed?
  Mr. Lloyd: As far as the latter part of the supplementary question is concerned, I do not know. But even if what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting is correct, I do not think there is anything frightfully lethal in the supply of helicopters.

TUNISIA (RECOGNITION OF INDEPENDENCE)
Mr. Bennasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why Her Majesty's Government's recognition of the new Tunisian Government was forwarded through the British Consul in Tunis and the French High Commissioner; and what explanation or apology has now been offered to the Tunisian Government for this procedure.
Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The hon. Gentleman appears to have been misinformed. Her Majesty's Government's recognition of Tunisian independence was conveyed by Her Majesty's Consul-General at Tunis direct to the Tunisian Government.
Mr. Benn: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that reports have reached me that the consul in Algiers forwarded a note through the French High Commissioner in Tunisia and that Mr. Bourguiba refused to accept it? If I send him details of this, will he please look at it again?
Mr. Lloyd: I do not think that I am responsible for what reports reach the hon. Gentleman. I have stated the facts as they are known to me.

OVERSEAS INFORMATION SERVICES
Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs which overseas information services are to be curtailed as a result of the proposed reduction in Government expenditure.
Lord John Hope: No cuts have so far been made in information services for which the Foreign Office is responsible, but I cannot exclude this possibility.
Mr. Ernest Davies: Will the Joint Under-Secretary of State give an indication of what cuts are likely to take place, and will he give an assurance that no cuts will take place in the overseas information services? In view of the necessity of making known the British case abroad, would it not be false economy to make such cuts—or has the Government abandoned all hope of making known abroad the present British policy?
Lord John Hope: The answer to the last part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary is "No, Sir." I think that as far as the rest of his supplementary was concerned, he was trying to get me to unsay something which I have already said, which I cannot do.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
Mr. Chetwyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement of Government policy relating to the establishment of Parliamentary links with the Common Assembly of the European Coal and Steel Community, as proposed by the Common Assembly.
Lord John Hope: Consultation between British Parliamentarians and those of the Common Assembly already takes place through the medium of joint meetings of the Common Assembly and the Consultative Assembly of the Council of Europe. These arrangements have been found to be satisfactory, and it does not seem necessary, at the present moment, to change them.
Mr. Chetwynd: Is the Joint Under-Secretary of State not aware that, both on the Continent and here, there is need for closer collaboration, particularly with regard to the Coal and Steel Community and the High Authority, and could he not look at the matter again?
Lord John Hope: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not think that there is that need. There may be some on the Continent and some here who think that there is, but I certainly do not think that the High Authority believes that there is any need, nor do Her Majesty's Government. Consultation is complete at the moment, and I do not think that there is anything that can be done at present to improve it.

EUROPEAN COAL AND STEEL COMMUNITY
  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  Proceedings of the Committee on Finance (Savings Banks) exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLY
  [19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1956–57
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That a further sum not exceeding £20, be granted to Her Majesty, towards defraying the charges for the year ending on 31st March, 1957, for the following services connected with New Towns and Overspill in England and Wales, namely:

  Civil Estimates, 1956–57

  £

  Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) (Revised Estimate)

  10

  Class V, Vote 2, (Housing, England and Wales)

  10

  Total

  £20

  NEW TOWNS AND OVERSPILL
  3.31 p.m.
  Mr. G. R. Mitchison: There are a good many aspects of what we commonly call the housing problem. One is the better use, repair and improvement of existing houses; another is the building of new houses by local authorities in their areas; and another is the question of clearance and redevelopment. What I should like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Housing and Local Government about today is another matter, and I think it is best put in his own Ministry's Report for 1950–51 to 1954.
  In page 69 of that Report I find these words:
  "In the continuous built-up areas of London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester, and others of the great provincial cities, there is insufficient room to house the existing population. In making their development plans the authorities of these cities have all estimated the amount of 'overspill' likely during the twenty-year period; and, although there is an element of speculation in the figures, there is no doubt that very large numbers of people will have to be re-housed outside the existing conurbations."
  That was, no doubt, true a year ago. It is even more true now. In what are commonly called the conurbations, the type of place that has been mentioned in
  36
  that passage, the need to export is growing, greater and more urgent, and by that I mean to export people whom a local authority cannot house within its own area.
  In 1951, the London County Council estimated that it had 380,000 people to house, who would have to be, in that sense of the word, exported. The right hon. Gentleman agreed with that authority in substance and put the figure at well over a quarter of a million. Its housing list today is about 165,000 people, of whom 53,000 are in urgent need of a house and stand on the general need list—List A, as this part of it is called.
  If we turn from that to look at another aspect of the problem, in England and Wales there are nearly 850,000 slum houses, and during the five years for which a slum clearance programme has been submitted by the local authorities it is proposed to demolish about 375,000 of those, to patch up 90,000 and to leave nearly 375,000 untouched. In some of the big towns the figures are staggeringly bad. Birmingham has 50,000 slum houses. In five years it is proposed to demolish only 6,000 of them. Liverpool has 88,000, of which it is proposed to demolish only 7,000. Manchester has 68,000 and it is proposed to demolish only 7,500 of them.
  A large part of the reason is simply that there is no room to rehouse these people. London, of course, with its large resources can do better by way of demolishing—but at what a price! Next year, out of that housing list of 165,000 it is hoped to rehouse only 600 or 700 people on what I may call the £10 list—that is to say, the general need list. Just outside London one finds the same sort of problem. East Ham, for instance, with 2,580 slum houses, in the course of five years will be able to demolish only 300 of them. The fact is that the rehousing and the slum clearance programme at present is unsatisfactory largely because there is no room in these big towns.
  This is a very old problem. It has been with us for a long time. In one form or another it has been the subject of many commissions and inquiries, and it was in order to make one effort to meet it, and to combine with that effort a magnificent social experiment, that in 1946 the New Towns Act was passed. In 1946, for the special relief of the difficulties of greater London, one new town was started; in

  37
  1947, three more; in 1948, two; in 1949 two, making eight in all. Four others in England and Wales have been started in other places, and the last of them actually was Corby, in my own constituency, in 1950, making twelve new towns. The outstanding fact upon which I shall have to comment in a moment is that no new towns have been started since 1949 to relieve the difficulties of Greater London, and none at all since 1950.
  What is the present position? We had on 15th April, 1954—and I am referring to column 1395 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—an estimate from the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government of what could be done by moving people out of the big towns, not only by way of new town population but also by way of what is called overspill. Overspill, of course, refers to the arangements made under the Town Development Act, 1952, of which, some little time ago, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) claimed paternity, and the process of midwifery was carried out under the present Government. There is no doubt that the Town Development Act, if it worked, would make a very useful supplement to what has been done already and can still be done by way of new towns.
  Taking those two Measures together, this is what we have. The then Parliamentary Secretary said:
  "… over the next three or four years, the total number of houses that may be built to meet overspill requirements for both London and the Provinces, including the new towns, is not likely, at a rough estimate, to exceed a maximum of 14,000 or 15,000 houses in any one year."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1954; Vol. 526, c. 1395.]
  Out of those figures, we must first take the right hon. Gentleman's own estimate of 26th June this year, which one finds in column 255 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, that the number of houses likely to be built in that way specifically to meet the needs of London—:I mean Greater London—would be about 10,000 in a year. Sure enough, if we look at the last reports of the development corporations, the total number of new houses there was between 10,000 and 11,000.
  At the moment, London alone is looking for room for about 47,000 Londoners, apart from the particular schemes in progress under the Town Development Act. Middlesex has a waiting list of 100,000,
  38
  when all the sites in Middlesex will be filled after that. The Manchester deficiency to the end of 1960—and I mean the deficiency of people whom one cannot house in the area because there is not room to house them—will be 4,000, and another 10,000 some ten years after that.
  Looking at the total problem, we can, from this same Ministry's Report, take the figures of the average residential density in the county boroughs all over the country, not including London, many of them boroughs where this problem is not nearly so acute as it is in some of the ones I have specifically mentioned. Translating persons into houses—not a difficult thing to do—the ratio at present is about 19 houses to the acre, and their development plans propose to reduce that very high figure to 15½ houses to the acre, and to do it by moving out of their areas one-fifth of their total population of about 14 million during the course of the next 20 years.
  That gives a figure of about 200,000 houses outside their areas needed by the county boroughs, not including London, each year. That is a staggering figure, the more staggering when one looks at the greatness of the need in the larger places. Proposals which at present envisage about 10,000 houses a year in relief of London, and which at the most, because this was a maximum figure, will provide 14,000 or 15,000 houses in a year, are totally and pitifully inadequate.
  I say at once that I do not believe that this is a question of lack of machinery. There is plenty of machinery here under the Town Development Act and under the New Towns Act, but the latter has not been used under any Tory Government, and the Town Development Act is breaking down at present for reasons which are mainly financial.
  Let us, first, consider London, which has been particularly active in this respect. There are town development schemes going on at present in Swindon and in Bletchley. The London County Council has been all round the country and it has tried, I should think, in very many places; I can deal with only some of them, but I think it is a fairly full list. Ashford turned down the proposals of the London County Council. Kettering and Wellingborough were turned down by the Ministry. Aylesbury, Basingstoke, Letchworth and Peterborough asked for more money.

  39
  Bury St. Edmunds, Haverhill, Huntingdon and Thetford have not yet reached the stage when they can ask for more money; I venture a bet with the right hon. Gentleman that unless some new arrangements are made, they will either fall out of the schemes or ask for more money. I do not know about two others. I have heard of Grantham and of Luton/Dunstable. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us how those two schemes are progressing, and the others I have mentioned.
  Now I turn to Birmingham, which has not been idle either. Inquiries have been made, and I think I cannot do better, in order to give the Committee a proper picture, than to read what the right hon. Gentleman said on 12th June:
  "I have had many discussions with Birmingham and the county councils of the surrounding counties about this problem. There are many difficulties, but I am hopeful that they will be overcome. I am certainly doing everything in my power, not only in regard to Birmingham but in regard to the other big cities with overspill problems, to try to bring about agreement between the export cities and the receiving authorities.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 12th June, 1956; Vol. 358, c. 244.]
  Manchester presents much the same sort of story. On 5th June, 1956, in what appears as a Written Answer, the right hon. Gentleman said that he was, of course,
  "well aware of Manchester's serious housing shortage. Apart from the slum areas which are to be cleared, the city will before long run out of land for new house building within and around its boundaries. The excess population will, therefore, have to be accommodated further afield."
  I may say that I entirely agree, and so, I imagine, does the Manchester Corporation.
  "Unfortunately, Manchester Cororation has (despite many discussions over a long period) been unable to agree with the councils of the adjoining counties on enough suitable sites to match the city's housebuilding programme. In view of this prolonged deadlock, I am now considering what action should be taken; and I will make a further statement in due course."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th June, 1956; Vol. 357, c. 40.]
  The right hon. Gentleman is treating these local authorities with somewhat excessive kindness. I am not saying that he should be hard on them, but this problem was here long before a Tory Government came in in 1951, and it
  40
  has been getting no better since they came in. It has, in the nature of the case, been getting worse.
  I agree with what the Manchester Guardian said in a leader this morning on overspill:
  "The time has surely come for the Minister to overcome his modesty and take the initiative."
  I am not sure that that is quite the word I would have chosen. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman is modest, but this goes beyond modesty. Something ought to have been done about the question of the Town Development Act long ago by a Government who have conspicuously failed to use the New Towns Act. Their failure to do anything about it or to take any action whatever, under either the one Act or the other, results—I must be blunt to the right hon. Gentleman—in making a very large number of families in London, Manchester, Birmingham and suchlike places a great deal more uncomfortable and miserable than they need be if they had a more active Government to look after them.
  I do not believe that the difficulty lies with the larger corporations. On 19th May this year, the representatives of London, Birmingham, Bristol, Glasgow, Liverpool, Newcastle and Sheffield met and agreed to ask for something to be done. They asked for a more satisfactory financial basis. The Government go one way and another. At times, usually Election times, the country is bursting with prosperity and going from strength to strength. We have had a General Election some little time ago and not quite enough by-elections yet to shake the Government's confidence in their ability to deal with the financial difficulties which came to their notice so soon after the General Election. That is the position.
  Let us see what is happening. First, there is no doubt that under the Town Development Act the Government can make a much larger contribution to these schemes than they are doing now. They are, in fact, making a supplementary contribution in one of the only two cases at present where there is any scheme at all, and that is in Bletchley. The Government's general rule is that they go underground and provide 50 per cent. of the sewerage and water services, leaving the other 50 per cent. to be met by the local authorities.

  41
  Here comes one of those somewhat difficult promises, difficult from the point of view of a local authority which has to meet its own financial difficulties and face its own ratepayers; for the other Government contribution is that they will consider the receiving authority's position at the end of ten years, that being the time when the contribution usually made by the exporting authority will cease. If the Government find it too difficult they may, or they may not, do something about it.
  That is what these small receiving authorities, of whom I have read out a list of the kind of place concerned—and I speak with knowledge of one of them and a fairly good guess about the others—have to face, and they must face it in the light of certain facts. Even their half of the sewerage and water services has risen in cost with the rise in the cost of building operations generally.
  Then comes something far more difficult. Those receiving authorities are bound to have to borrow. They are bound to have to wait for their rateable value and when they borrow they will have to borrow now, under the present Government, at 5½ per cent. That means, among other things, that when they build their houses and have to fix the economic rents, which appear to be the beau ideal of a Tory Government, they will have to fix, for instance, on a £1,800 house, allowing for the £10 subsidy and allowing for the costs of maintenance, repairs and the rest, a rent which today is 41s. 6d. and which, 15 months ago, when the rate of interest was only 4 per cent., was 32s. 6d.
  They will have to build these houses, charge what may be in most of these places phenomenally high rents for them, and make their peace as best they can, both with the ratepayers who are already there and with those who come into a new town. That kind of difficulty presents to a receiving authority trouble which will be not only financial, but also social. At that rate, they just will not accept these additions of population.
  Moreover, it is they who take the risk. If anything rises in cost, those who are lending or contributing to them, whether the Government or the exporting authority, will, but for the doubtful 10-year provision, be quite comfortable. It is the receiving authority who will have to carry any increases.
  42
  Among the Estimates which we are considering today is one which I have not mentioned and which is, perhaps, not very germane to the subject I am immediately talking about. I notice, however, that among the queer things that the Minister does is to give special assistance to a local authority towards the cost of works to stabilise a mountainside, in Wales. If the Minister can stabilise a mountainside, no doubt he can also stabilise prices, but he is very cautious about it and the mountainside has not been stabilised yet, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's plateau has not been stabilised yet. I am not at all surprised to see that local authorities, in those circumstances, are not willing to carry the risk, particularly when they are the smallish local authorities of whom I have been speaking.
  I noticed in the Town and Country Planning Journal the other day that there was a merry meeting in Bletchley. A good lunch was had by all and at the end of it an experienced person was impelled to say:
  "Town expansion is a fine thing, but not at 5½ per cent."
  He hit the nail on the head.
  In those circumstances, one asks oneself what is happening about new towns. The prospect is thoroughly discouraging. Not only have successive Tory Ministers done nothing about it, but when the right hon. Gentleman was asked the other day
  "whether, in view of the financial difficulties in developing expanded towns, he will designate further sites for new towns",
  all he produced was the somewhat dusty answer:
  "Not at present."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 1232.]
  I happened to notice that the same cautious words have been used by his Scottish colleague. The Minister then had his attention called to the fact that the leader of the Conservative Party in the London County Council had called for a large expansion in the new towns programme as the only way of dealing with the overspill problem of London. The right hon. Gentleman was invited by my hon. Friend the Member for Widnes (Mr. MacColl) to take advice from such a knowledgeable quarter, but he simply said that he was going to receive a deputation.

  43
  It is the new towns we want, and we have been waiting for them now for many years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) pointed out just that. The right hon. Gentleman's answer was as disappointing in its spirit as it was in its substance. He was told 14 new towns had been started between 1946 and 1950, and asked how he explained that there had not been a single one since, and his reply was:
  "If fewer new towns had been started earlier there would have been a bigger case for starting more now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 1232.]
  That may be justifiable but it is not the sort of answer I should expect from the right hon. Gentleman to a question as real and as urgent as the new towns one.
  Let us see what is happening to these new towns. I am not going into the picture in detail. The last reports are up to the end only of March of this year, and the others usually come out just before the House rises, towards the end of July, and we did not think it necessary to wait for them. It is abundantly clear that these new towns are being a great success, and that from two points of view. First, broadly speaking, they are being a great success as the social experiments they were intended to be. They were not intended to be just housing estates, and, to do the right hon. Gentleman justice, I do not think I need tell him so. Indeed, I see that he is nodding—
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): But not in sleep.
  Mr. Mitchison: Not in sleep. The right hon. Gentleman is awake as usual. He has been wide awake, but I wish he had been a bit more wide awake to this problem during the past five years or so.
  They are doing exactly what was claimed for them, and more than was claimed for them. They are full of young people; they are vigorous: they are lively; and they are providing, so far as they go, a real contribution towards the solution of the problem we are dealing with today. If they are doing more than that, if they are being a fine Socialist experiment, too, so much the better.
  They have one characteristic which the right hon. Gentleman may say, if he chooses, is not common to all adven-
  44
  tures; they pay; and they pay remarkably well. More than that, they will pay more in the future. The best financial people are tumbling to this. I have two cases I want to put to the Minister. If the first I take refers to Scotland it is not because I imagine that the right hon. Gentleman has any Scottish responsibility or that we are discussing any Scottish Estimates today. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman has, I notice, a little valuable Scottish support on one side of him will not, I think he will know, deter me from saying what I propose to say.
  In a letter from one of the Joint Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Craigton (Mr. J. N. Browne), sitting beside the right hon. Gentleman, the answer was given to some inquiries about the town centre of East Kilbride. I summarise the contents of that letter, and I am sure that I shall be corrected if I do so wrongly. The contents come to this, that the development corporation at East Kilbride had at the time of this letter, 5th June this year, reached an advanced stage in its negotiations with a company which was going to take over the town centre for the purposes of developing it, which would charge rents for the shops and what not in the town centre.
  The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland could not say what rents the company was likely to charge and said:
  "No doubt these will be the best they can obtain on a competitive basis."
  He hoped that they would be substantial since the ground rent which the company would, in turn, pay to the development corporation would, subject to a minimum figure, be based on 20 per cent. of the net rents the company would get from the shopkeepers.
  It may be said that that very curious transaction concerns only Scotland. Not so, for the letter says that the firm with which the corporation
  "are at present negotiating have done this kind of work successfully, and to the advantage of the controlling bodies in other new towns."
  Notice the plural. There is only one other new town in Scotland and, unless somebody has made a mistake—and I feel certain that the hon. Gentleman who wrote the letter about a new town knows what a new town is—something of the same sort must apparently be going on in England. I have heard the most odd

  45
  rumours about what is being negotiated at the moment at one new town, and that is Peterlee. This may be a matter of rumour only. This may be a Scottish idiosyncrasy which the right hon. Gentleman would not countenance, and which has no parallel in England, but certainly the matter requires some explanation.
  For what is the effect of it? The effect of it is this. If we come back to our old friend "betterment", the town centre is going to become an exceedingly profitable place, and that profit will go over a term of years—I do not know how long—to a private company instead of to the development corporation, which was, I submit, the body clearly intended by the Statute to get any advantage of that sort. It is not as if the company were going to wait all the time without getting any money, for in the interval it will pocket four-fifths of the rents, while one-fifth goes to the development corporation. I earnestly hope that either I have misread the letter or that this is a purely Scottish affair with which the Scots will, no doubt, be able to deal in their own way, but for the moment it is unsatisfying.
  The character of the company does not really reassure me. It is called the Ravenseft Properties, Ltd., and it seems to be one of the numerous subsidiaries of a company called Land Securities Investment Trust, Ltd., of which the Chairman and Managing Director is Mr. Harold Samuel, who recently had some dealings, I think, about hotels in London. This really is big business. Land Securities Investment Trust has £4½ million ordinary capital, £2¼ million preference capital, and over £10 million debentures. Two of its subsidiaries have, each of them, £4 million of debentures.
  Anything it may get out of whatever the other new towns may be doing will no doubt be welcome, but will not represent all the money it receives in the year. But, seriously—and I speak very seriously about this—it really is wrong that private enterprise should be allowed to step in to take the benefit of the advantages which will accrue to the place by reason of a common effort and by reason of public enterprise.
  Now I turn, not quite in the same critical spirit, to one other matter. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that Sir Richard Costain, who was until fairly recently the chairman of the
  46
  development corporation at Harlow, in conjunction with Mr. Adams, who was the general manager, Sir Howard Roberts, who was former Clerk to the London County Council, with the technical assistance of the gentleman who did the planning at Harlow, Mr. Frederick Gibberd, is now starting what I may call a private enterprise new town at a place appropriately called All Hallows-on-the-Sea, in Kent. I have had this from one or two sources and the Town and Country Planning Journal has pointed out that
  "special emphasis is laid on home ownership, the provision of social facilities and a diversified community."
  There is some industry there, and all is going to be perfectly well.
  I am not prepared to criticise these gentlemen for making an effort of that sort, but I am prepared to say that they are using the know-how that they acquired at Harlow, are using their business experience and the administrative experience which they acquired both at Harlow and, in the case of the three I have mentioned, previously I do not deny that they acquired it in doing valuable public service, but I come to the conclusion that these gentlemen know perfectly well that more new towns are needed and more new towns will pay and, if the Minister and the Government will not build them, they will build them themselves.
  I am not content to accept that reliance on private enterprise as a sufficient discharge of the grave responsibility that this whole problem of overcrowded conurbations, with no room to build in, presents to the Minister and to anyone who holds his office. I take All Hallows not as something bad but as something which ought to have been done by the Government and done by the people who have the know-how and have the experience and who were doing it under the New Towns Act, as they had done it before, for the Government.
  It apparently required a Labour Government to start Harlow and these other places, to take the risks of starting and to see the adventure succeed and then, a Tory Government having come into office, to see some of the fruits of that experience and knowledge picked by those who, quite properly from their point of view, want to make money out of it. I do not

  47
  regard that as a satisfactory basis. I tell the right hon. Gentleman that I do not in general like this use of public know-how for private purposes. I do not like the whole position, but I know that the right hon. Gentleman has not yet had this particular proposal before him, that it still has to be considered by the planning authority, the county council.
  I am not on that side of the matter, but what I am on and what I repeat is that it is the clearest possible evidence of two things. It shows that the present Government and their Tory predecessors have failed in the discharge of their responsibility under the New Towns Act and that if they did discharge them they would not only be doing good to the community at large but also would be doing something which, to judge from what has happened, would pay them very well. And if a little less time were spent in cheeseparing and a little more on what ought to be a successful venture both financial and social, all the better.
  I turn to a minor point which I will not take in detail. I am under the impression that there are two things mainly wrong with the administration of the present new towns. One is that there is a very great lack of amenities. There are complaints about it. There are complaints about the hall at Basildon where Sir Humphrey Gale, now advising the Minister, was chairman. There are complaints about garages at Stevenage and about swimming baths at Corby.
  I should like to hand the right hon. Gentleman one bouquet, though a somewhat malodorous one. I had to remonstrate with him about turning down a proposal for public conveniences in Corby. I asked him whether that was a disinflationary measure and questions of that sort, but I hand it to him that they are now being allowed. There are limits even to a Tory Government. Corby is remarkably well trained and obedient apparently, because the corporation does not mention them in its Report. I hear of these things otherwise.
  The Minister will be glad to know that my second question leads to what I have to say at the end of this rather long contribution. It is that these chairmen and members of development corporations are appointed at the Minister's discretion as to the time of their appoint-
  48
  ment. I have an uneasy feeling that arrangements are being made at present, either expressly in the terms of appointment or by some understanding that runs alongside the terms of appointment, that none of them shall be there too long. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman looking puzzled. If he can tell me that there is nothing of that sort and no attempt is being made to keep these members of corporations on short tenure I shall be genuinely reassured.
  I will tell the Committee why this matter troubles me. It was no doubt the intention of those who brought in and passed the New Towns Act that as soon as the new towns were ready, in whole or in part, they should go to the local authorities. There is not the least doubt about it. The reason for it was very well given from the Tory Front Bench at the time, when the Government spokesman said:
  "On this side of the Committee"—
  that is, the Tory side—
  "we are anxious—and I believe many hon. Members on the other side sympathise with us—that, when the purposes of these development corporations have been achieved, as little time as possible shall elapse in the handing over of the new community to a properly constituted democratic government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th July, 1946; Vol. 424, c. 2376.]
  I should have agreed with that at the time and I agree with it now.
  Those were the words of the right hon. Gentleman who is now Mr. Speaker on 4th July, 1946. That is what we are anxious about. The local authorities have been continually expecting that these new towns would be handed back to them and they are gravely disturbed now by rumours that the Minister does not intend that to happen. I will not go into detail on the terms of the Act but there is no doubt, first, that that was the obvious intention of the Act and, secondly, that the right hon. Gentleman, without further legislation, has power to do something quite different—to wind up the development corporations and to hand over the new towns constituted by them to some other body.
  The Tory Government have such a passion for making things pay, running them on commercial lines—private enterprise and the rest of it—that the mere existence of these rumours disturbs me profoundly. I want the spirit of what was then said from the Tory Front

  49
  Bench, that is, a properly constituted democratic government, to be carried out as it was intended to be under the Act.
  When the time comes, and the local authorities have to accept these new towns, they will be getting something valuable, but the value will depend upon the terms upon which they receive them. Those terms are somewhat at large in the Act. It seems that the choice will lie between treating the Treasury advances which have been made to these development corporations as what they are—loans—or, on the other hand, asking for the new towns to be taken over at a valuation. It would be a very great pity if, for Treasury or other reasons, the increased value of these new towns, due to the growth which has taken place, were to be made the subject of a windfall to the Central Government instead of being what it should be, the means of bringing new hope and new enterprise to the local authorities who receive the new towns.
  I have already quoted the leader from this morning's Manchester Guardian. I quoted a passage about the Minister overcoming his modesty. The leader went on to mention bigger financial inducements to build for overspill; I have dealt with that. It then talked about the reorganisation of local government—we are not discussing that today—and concluded with the third way, as it called it, namely, of designating more new towns. If, in this vitally important matter, the Minister wishes to face squarely the human responsibilities which lie upon him of preventing unnecessary hardship and misery to people living in these crowded, bunged up, conurbations which constitute such a large part of our country, he must act by making the business of overspill work, and that means giving more financial help to the receiving authorities.
  Above all, the Minister must act by continuing this magnificent venture of new towns. Both from the point of view of the problem which remains to be solved and the magnificent success which these enterprises have been, it is a disgrace that they should now be allowed to stay as they are, and that the Minister should say, "No more new towns for the present." I earnestly hope that he will be able to reassure us at long, long last upon these points.
  4.23 p.m.
  The Minister of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Duncan Sandys): First, let me say that I am also prepared to hand a bouquet to the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), who spoke on behalf of the Opposition; they have rendered a service in choosing this subject for debate today. Whatever slight criticisms the hon. and learned Member has thought fit to make, I have no hesitation in saying that I welcome the debate, because urban congestion, or overspill, as it is often called, is one of the most difficult planning problems. Incidentally, I wish that some hon. Member could find a decent name for this problem, because it is really not one of overspill; if we could get it to spill over the problem would be solved.
  I am very glad to have this opportunity of giving the Committee and the country some report upon the progress which has been made. I am not in the least ashamed of that progress; I regard it as something with which we can be well pleased, although anybody who cares about this subject—and I believe that I care about it as much as any hon. Member opposite—would naturally like to see everything going a great deal quicker still.
  The hon. and learned Member raised a number of points, and I shall try to answer as many as I can, leaving the others to be dealt with by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. The evil effects of the over-concentration of population, industry and commerce in certain limited areas is clear for everyone to see. It results in overcrowding; slums; longer journeys to and from work every day; traffic jams; rush hours; waste of time and effort; strain upon health and nerves, and a general lowering of efficiency all round.
  It is difficult to measure precisely the size of this problem; it is a matter of opinion and of the standards adopted. But I do not think that the precise measurement of the problem really matters. We all know that it is a big problem, and that we have still a long way to go before we have dealt with it.
  Mr. J. A. Sparks: What about the London Plan and the Greater London Plan?
  Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Member will allow me to make my own speech.
  Mr. Sparks: I thought that the right hon. Gentleman was saying that there was no plan, and that it was very difficult to evolve one. Surely he is aware of the Greater London Plan and the London Plan, which deal precisely with this problem, and offer a remedy.
  Mr. Sandys: The hon. Member will have an opportunity to make his point later on, no doubt. I am saying that it is a matter of opinion, and of the standard one adopts. Nevertheless, that is not of very great importance, having regard to the fact that we all recognise that there is a big problem to be dealt with.
  However—and this may deal with the hon. Member's point—the estimates which have been made for planning purposes between local authorities and my Department give some indication of the magnitude of the task. I made that reservation beforehand only because I am not prepared to defend the precise figures. They give some indication of the size of the problem. It has been agreed to plan upon the basis that the excess population or overspill in Birmingham is about 200,000; in Manchester, rather more; in Liverpool, 150,000, in Leeds, up to 70,000, and in Sheffield, about the same. It is specially difficult to measure the overspill problem of London, but for planning purposes over the next 15 years the excess population for which provision must be made has been reckoned to be rather over 400,000.
  The hon. and learned Member spoke about the shortage of land in connection with the long housing lists and slum clearance programmes. The shortage of land is the practical problem of congestion. The big cities are bursting at the seams. They are short of land for almost everything—housing, schools, and recreation, as well as the necessary expansion of industry and commerce. The question arises, where can the land which they need be found? Should we enlarge the cities by building out further into the countryside? I think we are all agreed that that would only make matters worse. The journey to and from work would become longer still. I am sure that we are all determined to prevent the unrestricted sprawl of urban areas.
  52
  That is the purpose behind the idea of the green belts.
  In my opinion, the establishment of green belts is an absolutely essential precondition for the pursuit of any large-scale policy of dispersal or overspill. The whole area must first be confined before it can be decided where the population is to overspill. But while most people have paid lip service to the idea of green belts for a long time, little had really been done, except round London, to make it a reality. A year ago, apart from the Metropolitan Green Belt, there was no formally defined green belt around any other city in the country. That is why I decided to send a circular to local authorities expressly asking them to establish green belts wherever appropriate. I am greatly encouraged by the response. Preliminary plans for green belts have already been submitted for Birmingham, Coventry, Manchester and the south-east Lancashire conurbation, Merseyside, Derby, Nottingham, Oxford, South Tyneside and the Hertfordshire towns; and other proposals will be reaching me very shortly. I think that is a big advance.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Surely, the right hon. Gentleman is not proposing to take too much credit for that? He is leaving the responsibility and the financial cost to the local authorities.
  Mr. Sandys: We on this side of the Committee believe in local government being run by the local authorities.
  Mr. Lindgren: So do the local authorities, but they like some financial help for non-productive services.
  Mr. Sandys: I am talking of the demarcation of green belts round great cities. I do not know to what services the hon. Gentleman refers. All I am saying is that in these past few months we have, for the first time, received plans for green belts round most of the important urban areas of the country; and I have no doubt that the proposals for remaining areas of that kind will be reaching me very shortly.
  The precise demarcation of these green belts will take time to settle. But I am determined that in the interval further encroachment shall be prevented. Therefore, I have advised local authorities that pending confirmation of their proposals, they shall act on those proposals exactly as though the proposals had already been

  53
  approved. The position is, therefore, being held in most places where the threat of urban sprawl exists.
  I think hon. Members will feel that, compared with a year ago when, as I say, there was not a single green belt round any town in the country, apart from London, we are making progress in an important aspect of town and country planning, and one essential to the success of any policy of overspill. Once the green belts have been established they must, of course, be vigilantly guarded against encroachment and erosion. That means that, apart from infilling on the fringes of the cities, any movement of overspill population must leap-frog beyond the green belt.
  We are all agreed on the policy of overspill or dispersal. It is supported by the Government, the Opposition and local authorities. But often it is easier to agree on a general policy than to carry it out in practice and detail. As we go forward fresh practical problems of all kinds arise, to which solutions must be found. Solutions to practical problems of administration are not always simple and straightforward issues in black and white, especially matters relating to local authorities and planning. It is often a matter of trying to reach a compromise between two different interests, both of which are of public importance.
  We are seeking to achieve dispersal by two methods, and they formed the main subjects of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, namely, new towns and town expansion. Let me first deal with the question of new towns. Parliament passed the New Towns Act in 1946 with the support of all parties. I do not think that new towns are a party issue. We all believe in new towns and wish to see them a success.
  Mr. Ede: The right hon. Gentleman never started them.
  Mr. Sandys: I will come to that point in a moment.
  In all, Parliament has voted about £250 million for new towns to date. In view of some of the remarks of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering, I would point out that £200 million of that sum has been voted by Parliament since the present Government took office. I think that a relevant point to mention. The hon. and learned Gentleman complained
  54
  that while the Labour Government started 12 new towns in England and Wales, the Conservative Government have started none. That is quite a legitimate debating point, and I will endeavour to answer it. I can assure the Committee that the Government are not opposed in principle to the creation of more new towns, where they are satisfied that new towns are desirable. I think that is proved by the decision of the Government to start the new town at Cumbernauld for the overspill of Glasgow.
  Mr. Lindgren: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will say why he cancelled the designation of Congleton as a new town? It was started by the Labour Government to deal with the overspill from the Potteries and Manchester.
  Mr. Sandys: I am not prepared to deal with that issue at the moment, but I will explain our general attitude towards new towns.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering quoted me as saying something to the effect that if fewer new towns had been started earlier, there would be a bigger case for starting more new towns now. That is sufficiently near to what I said, and I will not trouble the hon. and learned Gentleman for the precise quotation. I think that is a reasonable point of view, and I said it on the spur of the moment in answer to a question. If the hon. and learned Gentleman insists on indicating to me the actual quotation, it is:
  "If fewer new towns had been started earlier there would have been a bigger case for starting more now."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th June, 1956; Vol. 554, c. 1232.]
  That is pretty well what I said.
  Mr. Ede: A great thought.
  Mr. Sandys: I do not say that it was a great thought, but it is pertinent to the practical consideration of the problem.
  Having inherited 14 new town projects from our predecessors, 12 of them in England and Wales, and some still in the embryo stage, we felt it right to concentrate first upon translating these already existing plans into bricks and mortar rather than start a lot of new plans. Here I come back to the point I made in the answer which has been quoted. If hon. Members opposite had not started any new towns, I do not think

  55
  that they can suggest that we should not have started any. But having inherited 14 schemes of this kind, some of them little more than paper plans, we thought that the practical thing to do was to carry them through and bring them to fruition. That is what we have been doing during the last four and a half years. As I shall show, a very great deal of progress has been made.
  In November, 1951, only about 2,700 houses had been completed. I am not criticising; I am just stating what the figures were when we inherited the job. Today there are over 40,000 houses completed. In November, 1951, when the change of Government took place, 27 factories had been built. Today there are about 220 factories already employing nearly 30,000 people, and a further 50 factories are under construction, which will employ another 7,000. In addition, there are now some 70 new schools, 25 churches, over 500 shops, not to mention 23 public houses, and many other amenities which go to make up the pattern of a self-contained township.
  Last year the new towns completed about 8,900 houses. This year we are expecting to build 10,000 and perhaps more. I mention these figures just to show the progress that is being made. The important thing is that houses should be going up and that we should be making arrangements to accommodate people from the big cities, London in particular. Whether they are accommodated in the new towns that were planned and projected by the Labour Party, or in additional new towns planned and projected by the Conservative Party, is really not very important so far as the people are concerned.
  Mr. Mitchison: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman upon having shed his modesty very successfully. The question that I ask him was not whether he was following in the footsteps of my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) about green belts, nor whether he was assassinating the new towns which the Labour Party had started, but why he had not designated any new ones. I hope that he will come to that point soon.
  Mr. Sandys: I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for
  56
  Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) did about green belts. [HON. MEMBERS: "What about London?"] So far as London is concerned I have already said that. That was the exception. I will not go into all that again. I have explained it to the Committee. It is all very well for the hon. Gentleman the Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) to laugh.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: Stop squabbling.
  Mr. Sandys: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison).
  I have explained that we felt that the right thing to do was to make as rapid progress as we could with the task already in hand, and 14 new towns constitute quite a task.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman has annexed Scotland.
  Mr. Sandys: Very well, 12 new towns if the hon. and learned Gentleman is so parochially minded.
  Mr. Mitchison: The right hon. Gentleman must not say that. I am considering the Estimates that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Sandys: Twelve new towns represent quite a big job, and we are getting on with it, as I have indicated. It has been asked: how long will this rate of house building be kept up? Will it not slow down as the new towns reach completion? Eventually, of course, it will slow down. I do not know whether by that time new schemes will be under way, whether town expansion schemes or new towns, but of course eventually the rate will slow down.
  I want to make it quite clear to the Committee that we have still a very long way to go with what we have already in hand. Despite the good progress already made, we have not yet built half the new houses that have been planned, and even more may be needed. The combined target population of all the 12 new towns in England and Wales is 550,000, and it may not stop there. I am at present considering whether the planned target figures for these towns should not in certain places be increased. In some cases, the geographical position and other local reasons make that undesirable, but I can

  57
  inform the Committee that the corporations of several of the new towns have expressed to me the view that the town centres, industrial facilities water supply and other services which they are providing, would be capable of catering for a larger population than is at present proposed.
  Lord Balniel: Would my right hon. Friend specify the new towns which he has in mind?
  Mr. Sandys: I think I should not do so, for various reasons. First, I am still engaged in discussions with the corporations concerned, and before making any announcement I think that it would be a good thing for me to consult the local authorities which might be affected. All I would say is that if without upsetting the balance of the town plan and after making allowances for the natural increase, we find a somewhat bigger population could be supported, then undoubtedly a good deal of time and also expenditure on overheads could be saved. I am looking into this, and when I have consulted the local authorities concerned I shall, in due course, make a statement to the House.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked me about the chairmen and members of the corporations and their terms of appointment. I can assure him that there is no intention on my part to ensure that they shall serve only for a short period. So far as I can remember, I have only changed one chairman since I have held my present office, and while I think that in important offices of that kind it is my duty and responsibility to keep those appointments under regular review, it is not my intention to chop and change the members all the time. I have introduced a certain number of new members because I think that after a period of years some new blood is a good thing for every board and, so far as I know, the appointments that I have made have been generally welcomed by all concerned.
  Mr. Lindgren: There are two points which I should like to ask. First, in reply to a Parliamentary Question a little time ago, the right hon. Gentleman rather contradicted an assertion which I had made that chairmen of corporations are being given a term of appointment which virtually amounts to their being on a basis of a month's notice. That the right hon.
  58
  Gentleman denied. I have been assured since then that the terms of appointment are on that basis. Secondly, why does the right hon. Gentleman, in his new appointments—and one does not agree about the new appointments—seem to be taking the step of nibbling away any local representation?
  Mr. Sandys: I have not the exact terms of appointment with me. I did not know that this point would be raised but I shall be glad to go into it in detail with the hon. Gentleman. So far as local representation is concerned, I know of no reasons whatever for the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman that I am nibbling away at local authority representation. I am not aware that local authority representation has been reduced—
  Mr. Lindgren: What about Welwyn Garden City?
  Mr. Sandys: —during my term of office. I will look at the point; but I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will find that it is so. The hon. Gentleman may know of one corporation where there is one fewer representative of some local authority on the board, but it is certainly not my policy or intention, and I do not believe that it is my practice, to reduce the representation of local authorities on these boards. I will have the matter looked up before my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary winds up the debate tonight.
  The second part of the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech was devoted to the Town Development Act. He said that his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) claimed to be the father of that Act. It is always a doubtful thing to claim paternity in political matters. So far as I know, the right hon. Gentleman was really responsible for two things in the field with which I am concerned. One was the "People's House" of which he now denies paternity. The right hon. Gentleman is very choosey about which of his offspring he is later prepared to recognise, but the "People's House", though it did not have that popular name at the time, was publicised in a circular which the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland sent to all local authorities. As for his paternity of the Town Development Act, he never breathed a word about it while in office, but claimed paternity for it

  59
  afterwards. We do not deny his share in the matter. It is no doubt another case of virgin birth.
  Mr. Mitchison: My right hon. Friend is not here, but I understand his line to be that he deposited the other baby, the "People's House," on the doorstep, but that he was not its father.
  Mr. Sandys: I know nothing about those processes, but we are prepared to give the right hon. Gentleman credit for any of those schemes for which he claims paternity, for the simple reason that I do not regard these as party issues. We are all trying to pursue, by steady stages, a policy which is supported on all sides of the Committee. The Town Development Act was, in effect, a Measure designed to do much the same as I was talking about a moment ago when I said that we might consider the expansion of the target figures for the new towns because that gave us the opportunity of building more around an existing centre. The Town Development Act was inspired by that same idea of building more neighbourhoods around a town which already existed.
  Mr. Sparks: Will the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Sandys: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman, and he made a point which was not a very valid one.
  The complaint, again, has been made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not making sufficiently good progress with the Town Development Act. I think the hon. and learned Gentleman will recognise that it was always clear from the beginning that it was going to take time to get these expansion schemes under the Town Development Act under way.
  One essential feature of the Act was that the expansion schemes were to be carried out, not by the Government, but by local authorities. To do that, of course, the local authorities concerned—and there are always several of them concerned in all these schemes—have to reach agreement among themselves. That always takes time. Triangular negotiations have to be entered into between the exporting cities, the councils of the small towns to be expanded and with the county councils in their capacity as planning
  60
  authorities for the receiving areas. These negotiations are by no means always plain sailing.
  We have come up against two main difficulties. The first is the natural hesitation of the receiving town, which has to be convinced that to be expanded is really to its advantage. It is not always easy for the authorities of big cities like the London County Council and the Manchester and Birmingham Corporations to sell the idea of expansion to the council of a small town. That is why I decided to appoint Sir Humphrey Gale, the Chairman of the Basildon New Town Corporation, to help where necessary in the negotiations. His appointment was universally welcomed as a sign that the Government were really in earnest in their desire to make headway with town expansions, and his advice and experience have proved most valuable.
  The second obstacle is the reluctance of both exporting and receiving authorities to take on undefined financial commitments for the future, and, furthermore, their difficulty in reaching agreement among themselves as to how this financial burden should be shared. To remove that uncertainty, I informed the local authorities a year ago that in all approved schemes they could definitely count on a 50 per cent. Government grant for the expansion of water and sewerage services, which represent the biggest item of capital expenditure involved in these schemes.
  At the same time, I recommended that the exporting authority should normally accept responsibility for paying the rate contribution for housing during the first 10 years. I said that if, after that time the receiving authority could show that it was not able to take over this commitment, Exchequer assistance would be made available. That clarification of the financial position was welcomed by the local authorities, and has undoubtedly simplified the further negotiations. Later, under the Housing Subsidies Act, a special increased subsidy of £24 was provided for houses built under the Town Development Act.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred to the question of rents being unreasonable in these areas of town expansion. Of course, the rents will be above the average. But I would say to the hon. and learned Gentleman that,

  61
  assuming there is no pooling, because we do not expect the local authorities in these areas to raise the rents of their existing houses for their local residents for the sake of the new schemes which may be out of all proportion, in size, to the house building programme which they normally undertake for themselves, the rents which can be charged for these houses should not be out of line with the rents being charged in the new towns. There is no shortage of applicants for houses in the new towns, and it is with the new towns that these schemes must be compared.
  It has been pointed out, of course, that the interest rates have been going up. Nobody denies that. They have gone up ½ per cent. since the introduction of the Housing Subsidies Bill about nine months ago, when we discussed this whole matter. It would be quite absurd for me to pretend that the rise in the interest rates has not made these negotiations more difficult. Of course it has. Town expansion, like any other capital project, is obviously easier when money is cheap. All I would say to hon. Members is that the high rates have not been introduced just for fun. They are part of the Government's measure to curb inflation. If we failed to take vigorous action to deal with inflation a lot of worse things than this would be happening to us.
  At the same time, it would be quite wrong for anyone to have the impression that financial difficulties have brought the policy of town expansion to a standstill. It is quite untrue. Schemes already approved are rolling forward, and quite a number of new schemes are in an advanced stage of negotiation. It is, of course, the progress of negotiations which is the test of whether the financial conditions have made these schemes impossible.
  Mr. Mitchison: Let there be no misunderstanding. That is exactly what I meant to say; that, since the Town Development Act was passed in 1952—and we are now in 1956—the existence of two not very large schemes in operation is not enough to justify the claim that the operation of the Act is satisfactory. It has in fact broken down because of the lack of Government assistance, and, before the right hon. Gentleman leaves this question, may I ask him why, if he is really encouraging these matters,
  62
  he killed the proposed agreement between Kettering and Wellingborough on the one hand and the L.C.C. on the other?
  Mr. Sandys: I will give the hon. and learned Gentleman some account of what is going on, but I absolutely deny and refute the suggestion that everything is now at a standstill as a result of this increase in interest rates. That is the story that is being put around, and it is not true. It has made things more difficult, and I have admitted that; of course it has. If money were very much cheaper, things would be very much easier so far as these negotiations are concerned. All I am saying is that promising negotiations, some of them in a very advanced stage, are going forward, despite the higher interest rates.
  I am dealing now with schemes already in being. Apart from the scheme for overspill at Worsley, for people from Salford, schemes to accommodate overspill from Manchester have been approved under the Town Development Act at Hollingsworth, 1,000 houses; at Whitefield, 1,150 houses; at Heywood, 1,715 houses; and at Hattersley 4,000 houses. Manchester Corporation has also informed me that it is ready to engage in expansion schemes at Macclesfield and Glossop, and that it will be willing to pay the rates contributions on any houses occupied by Manchester families at other places further afield, such as Crewe, Leyland and Chorley.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman talked about Birmingham. The Birmingham Corporation has been negotiating overspill schemes with the neighbouring counties, such as Staffordshire, Warwickshire and Worcestershire, and to some extent also Herefordshire. I expect that before very long agreement will be concluded involving as many as 7,000 houses in Staffordshire, and I am hopeful that agreements with the other counties will follow later. I am only mentioning these points to show that negotiations are not at a standstill. A number of other cities, including Liverpool, are having similar discussions with neighbouring authorities.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman also spoke about the London County Council. Parallel with all this, the London County Council is negotiating town expansion schemes with authorities in most of the Home Counties, and in some cases even

  63
  further afield. I do not wish to anticipate the decisions of the L.C.C. I can do a lot of harm to negotiations if I start talking about them before the cat is in the bag, but I would say that I shall be very disappointed and surprised if satisfactory agreements in a number of places are not concluded in the near future.
  Meantime, the scheme to accommodate 10,000 people is going forward at Bletchley, and about a quarter of these people have already moved in. There is a big project going forward at Swindon to accommodate 20,000 people, and I opened the house for the thousandth family from London only the other day.
  Ultimately, the success of any policy of large-scale dispersal depends upon our ability to export industry as well as population. After initial hesitations, manufacturing concerns of various kinds are setting up in the new towns as fast as they can be absorbed. In the case of town expansion schemes, there may be already, in some places, an unsatisfied local demand for labour, but even so, in almost all cases, there will be a need for additional industry to provide employment for the newcomers. I have been at some pains to convince the councils of the big congested cities that if they want a small neighbouring town to accept this overspill population, they must be prepared actively to encourage a certain amount of industry to move out also.
  Mr. C. W. Gibson: What can they do about that?
  Mr. Sandys: They can do a great deal to encourage industry to move out. Otherwise they will merely find that, when people move out, they are replaced by others who come in from elsewhere to fill the jobs which they have left behind.
  With this point in mind, I will tell the House of some of the action which I have taken, with the co-operation of certain local authorities. I have made certain important amendments to the development plans of the London County Council and the Middlesex County Council, and in those of some of the other big cities. In particular, I have asked them to restrict the amount of additional land allocated to industry, and to ensure that that land is not made available for industries coming in from outside. I have also encouraged local
  64
  authorities to buy wrongly placed factory premises when they become vacant. That is one of the things the local authorities can do, and I am glad that this year the London County Council has decided to double the amount which it can allocate for that purpose.
  I am also very glad that the Manchester Corporation has now formally adopted the principle that as population is exported from Manchester, employment in the city must be reduced by a corresponding export of industry. The other great industrial centres, though perhaps rather more reluctantly, are likewise coming gradually to accept the idea.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: Will the Minister tell us how that can be done? I have in mind an area in North Wales—the Nantlle Valley—where everybody was of the opinion that industry ought to go there, because of the high incidence of unemployment. No industry at all has yet gone there. Will the Minister tell us how it can be done?
  Mr. Sandys: There are areas where we all know it is not easy to persuade industry to go, and that is why we have to be so extraordinarily careful in the choice of the places where these expansion schemes are to be carried out. As the hon. Member for Openshaw (Mr. W. R. Williams) has rightly pointed out, it does not follow that because we build a large housing estate somewhere industry will go there and provide employment for those people, and that is one of the reasons why these expansion schemes take so long to work out. I assure the hon. Member that he is on a very sound point there, and that we have it very much in mind. I hope he will convince certain of his hon. Friends that care must be taken in the choice of the right places, and that it does involve careful planning, and very often, I am afraid, rather long and tedious negotiations.
  London, of course, presents our most intractable problem of all, but I hope that now, if we steadily persevere in the policy of dispersal, we shall make an appreciable impression upon it. Apart from the town expansion schemes, the new towns in the Home Counties have already absorbed more than 100,000 people from greater London, and by the

  65
  time these new towns are completed, they may be expected to take some 200,000 more people.
  Mr. A. E. Hunter: Are these new towns allocated solely to people from London and Middlesex, or do the people come in from anywhere else, from the North, from Wales or Scotland?
  Mr. Sandys: No. The purpose of the new towns is to provide an outlet for the excess population of greater London. I am talking about the eight new towns for greater London. There are instances where key-men who are necessary to keep industry going come in from elsewhere, but, by and large, the new towns are being used for the purposes for which they were created.
  Mr. Albert Evans rose—
  Mr. Sandys: I would rather get on with my speech than give way to the hon. Member.
  Congestion in London is as much a traffic problem as a housing problem. During the last three years, the resident population of greater London decreased by more than 70,000, but in the last two years for which figures are available, 1953 and 1954, the number of insured workers increased by more than 100,000. It seems, therefore, that while the population moves out, the number of jobs in London continues to increase.
  I thought it right to bring these figures to the notice of the Committee. If this trend continues, the results will be that still more people will have to make still longer journeys to their work and home again each day, and that the evils of the rush hours and of traffic jams will be worsened and not lessened. It is, therefore, of paramount importance that as people move out of London, the volume of employment, particularly at the centre, shall be correspondingly reduced. More than 1 million people work in the business areas of the City and West End. Half of them travel in daily from the suburbs and beyond.
  In London, office employment and not industrial work is the crux of the problem. In the City of London, 6 million more square feet of office space are at present under construction, and planning permission has been given for a further
  66
  4 million square feet. I want to bring these figures out. I think that people should face up to the issue. This additional 10 million square feet will accommodate nearly 70,000 office workers in the City of London alone. The London County Council recently carried out a survey of the rest of central London. The indications are that the position there is equally disturbing.
  Without paying heavy compensation for revoking planning permissions there are limits to the action that can be taken. Within those limits, I claim, with all modesty, that I have done as much as is possible to check the growth of offices in London. Last year I amended the County of London Development Plan so as to forbid, except in very special circumstances, residential property from being turned ito offices. I also added a provision that temporary permissions to use dwelling-houses as offices should not be renewed when they expire in a few years' time. That will ensure that a considerable number of buildings in Mayfair and elsewhere, now being used as offices, will revert to residential use. I know that these measures are a severe disappointment to the owners of the land, and I am grateful to them for the very responsible manner in which they have accepted the necessity for them.
  In addition to these restrictions, I am doing what I can actively to encourage the dispersal of London offices over a wider area. It is the great concentration of office employment in the City and the West End which makes the traffic difficulties particularly acute. London is one of the greatest commercial centres of the world; the headquarters of many businesses have to be in London. On the other hand, I do not believe that it follows that they have all to be concentrated in one very small area. Even a move to the South Bank or anywhere else away from the City and the West End will help to relieve the congestion at the centre.
  I hope that the lead given by the Shell Company in deciding to move its headquarters offices to the South Bank will be followed by other prominent firms. For the same reason, I welcome the decision of the London County Council to redevelop the area around the Elephant and Castle as a district for high-class Offices.

  67
  The principle of spreading office employment in London more widely applies also, though in a different way, to housing. It is not really desirable from any point of view that certain areas should be entirely denuded of resident population. The City of London is a characteristic example; and parts of the West End are tending to develop increasingly in the same direction.
  I hope that in any new scheme of office blocks in central London, the possibility of including a few floors of flats on top will be considered, especially in the City of London. I cannot believe that it is good for the City to be choked by day and deserted by night. A better balance between commercial and residential use would benefit everybody, in the long run.
  That leads me to express the view that we should not rely solely upon new towns and town expansions to solve the problem of congestion. Delightful as the new towns are, we must accept that the big city has an undeniable attraction not only for business firms but for countless individual families. It is a very major decision for a family to decide to move out. Habits and outlook do not change overnight. Old associations, the circle of friends, amusements, cultural facilities, the accustomed place of work, all play an important part in deciding people where they wish to live. A house with a garden at Crawley or Hemel Hempstead may be the ideal, but there are undoubtedly many Londoners who would much prefer to live in a twelve-storey block of L.C.C. flats overlooking Wimbledon Common.
  While we must vigorously press ahead by all practical means with the policy of dispersal beyond the green belt, we have to ask ourselves whether we ought not to provide modern living conditions for rather more people within our cities. That might involve building rather higher and in certain places at a somewhat greater density. In districts where that is appropriate, local authorities will no doubt consider building rather more well-sited high blocks of flats, particularly on the inner fringe of the green belt, where people can get out into the country without difficulty. This is a matter of policy which each local authority will have to decide for itself in the light of its local circumstances.
  68
  The problems of overcrowding, slums and general congestion in our cities involves something much more than town planning. Important social, psychological and economic factors play their part. No one who has been privileged to take a hand in the creation of the new towns can help feeling thrilled. There is an element of idealism in this whole project which I find most inspiring. At the same time, we must constantly remember that we are engaged on an essentially practical and urgent task.
  I know full well that this same spirit animates the members of the new town corporations, whom, on behalf of us all, I should like to thank for the devoted and skilful manner in which they are discharging the important responsibilities placed upon them by Parliament. Those, like myself, who have for many years been actively interested in these ideas will also, I am sure, recognise the debt we owe to the early thinkers and pioneers who have pointed the way which we are now following. The policy of new towns and decentralisation, a revolutionary idea in the past, is now universally accepted, and all of us are sincerely trying to carry it out.
  It is true that the party opposite say that the Government ought to go more quickly. That is about the mildest form of criticism which a self-respecting Opposition can make.
  Mr. Mitchison: I must correct the right hon. Gentleman. We do not say that he should go quicker, but we say that he ought to move. We do not expect him to move fast.
  Mr. Sandys: I think I have given sufficient indication to the Committee of the progress already made. We do not at all resent the prods of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering; we are glad to be spurred on by all men of good will who believe in this policy.
  Nevertheless, having regard to the many practical difficulties, I honestly feel that in these last few years we have made pretty good progress. I doubt very much whether a Labour Government would have done better; it is even just conceivable that they might not have done so well. Be that as it may, hon. Members may be sure that we shall continue ceaselessly to press on with this job, knowing, as we do, how much it means for the health and well-being of so many people.
  5.23 p.m.
  Mr. Wilfred Fienburgh: At the outset I must say that I am absolutely appalled by the complacency with which the Minister has approached the problem. His soppy and pappy peroration on the principles of town planning did not discuss the fact that he has done practically nothing about the urgent problem of rehousing people in the larger conurbations.
  We can amuse ourselves by discussing the aesthetics of town planning as such, the desirability of green belts, and the pleasantness of having open vistas. All that is relevant, but I am not concerned with it today. We can discuss the aspect of efficiency and amenity, the need to avoid long journeys to and from work, and the need for dispersal of industry. All that is relevant and important, but I do not want to discuss that today. I want to discuss the human problem of the people of London who are getting an appallingly raw deal over rehousing compared with their relatives in the length and breadth of the country.
  Make no doubt about it, there are two nations in this country in rehousing. There are those who live in the larger conurbations, of which London is the largest, where the land has been used and further internal development is not possible. There are also the people who live in smaller provincial towns who are streets of houses better off and are happier in their housing in every possible way. Every Friday evening I attend the "surgery," as we call our meetings with constituents, in Islington, which is an area with a population of more than 200,000 without a single half acre of open space. Friday night after Friday night I hear of the housing cases of my constituents—thirty or forty every Friday evening. These are people who have been on the housing list for ten years and more, people living four and five to a room in this day and age.
  At weekends, as all politicians do, I go to address meetings, trying to convert the more prosperous country towns to Socialism. I find that many of those areas can say they have no housing problem for the larger families. In some areas—let us be frank—they have broken the back of the problem. That is why I say there are two nations, the residents in the larger conurbations who at present
  70
  have very little prospect of being rehoused in the foreseeable future and those in the smaller provincial country towns who at least have hope. In London people have neither homes nor hope at the moment.
  This problem is beyond local government. Its magnitude is so great that neither London County Council nor the Metropolitan Boroughs in London—or indeed the authorities of the other large conurbations—can possibly cope with it. This is a national, not a local, problem. The country as a whole draws great wealth and prestige from the work of the people of London and the work of the people of Birmingham, Sheffield and other large towns. It is a national responsibility to ensure that those people have at least as fair a deal in the matter of rehousing as do the residents of other parts of the country.
  We have been given the figures about London's problem, but I will state them again. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) gave 160,000 as the total figure of housing needs. Let us break down that figure—52,000 odd are cases of extreme urgency. Cases are not labelled as extremely urgent—the appellation is not given easily—unless there is real urgency. There are cases of dire and distressing overcrowding, of tubercular families crowded in semi-tenement houses with every danger of spreading tuberculosis, people who have been on the housing list for a considerable time hoping all the time, but no hope ever seems to fructify. There are 52,000 of them. How many will be rehoused in the next year? Not through any fault of London County Council, the number is 1,000—1,000 out of 52,000 cases of extreme urgency.
  In part that is because the Minister himself has imposed a value judgment on London. He has practically forced London to concern itself primarily with slum clearance. Admittedly, slum clearance has to be done, but the real value judgment should have been left to the people of London themselves to decide whether slum clearance was of greater priority than the provision of homes for people on the general housing lists. The Minister has exacerbated the problem by imposing on London authorities the need to rehouse people at present in requisitioned property. In the result only 1,000 out of 52,000 cases of extreme urgency

  71
  are likely to be rehoused in the forthcoming year.
  This is not a problem which may be dealt with by rehousing in London. Over the period of the development plan, 160,000 houses will be needed outside London and that problem is being made more and more serious year by year by the possibly very desirable—certainly very desirable—programmes of slum clearance, because slum clearance programmes on site do not cater for the people who are displaced. Only about 60 per cent. of the people who live in the original slums can be rehoused on site.
  Taking London's figures, the problem is that during the present programme of slum clearance about 19,500 houses are to be demolished and only 10,000 to 12,000 families will be rehoused on the sites. In terms of actual figures, London alone will need one complete new town to rehouse overspill, not from the normal accretion of London's population, not to deal with existing housing lists, but to rehouse overspill from slum clearance alone in the five-year programme which London County Council has launched.
  What can be done about London's problem? The Minister has just indicated the possibility of increasing densities in some areas in London. There may be areas in London where that is possible, but as a general policy it is most undesirable. The Minister should know that merely by increasing densities one does not get a directly proportionate increase in the number of people housed. By increasing densities in a certain area, one has to increase the provision of schools and open spaces. Therefore, to increase densities is not only a retrograde step from the general sociological aspect; it is not even an economic step from the point of view of dealing with the housing of large numbers of people.
  The Minister suggested building London higher still. That is a most uneconomic way of setting about the problem. It is an extremely expensive way. The figures for Birmingham show that the newer and higher blocks of flats cost about £4,000 per flat, whereas to build a cottage house with a garden costs £2,000 or £1,700. From a Government interested in economising in the use of the nation's resources the suggestion that we should build ever higher is a most
  72
  wasteful, expensive and uneconomic proposition.
  The real answer—and surely it should be clear by now—lies in the provision of new towns. All that the Minister had to say on that topic was that he has been carrying on, chugging along with the steam generated by the last Labour Government. All he has done is, with two exceptions, to continue—
  Mr. Græme Finlay: The hon. Member spoke of steam generated by the Labour Government. Is he aware that practically no houses whatsoever, only paper plans, were produced under the Labour Government.
  Mr. Sparks: What absolute nonsense.
  Mr. Fienburgh: That is a most stupid interjection, and if the hon. Gentleman thinks about it he will agree. That is an issue to which I shall return later. The plans, proposals, initiation and generation of the scheme for the provision of the new towns took place under the period of the Labour Government.
  The right hon. Gentleman has done nothing at all, as it were, to stoke up the fires for the next operation which is now becoming necessary. These things take time. Perhaps it could be argued that in this period of economic stringency the large programme of capital investment involved in the building of new towns cannot be faced by the nation. But surely it will be understood that if new towns were designated now—if the Minister were so to energise himself that within the next month, two months or six months, he were to designate new towns around the periphery of London and other large conurbations—it would be at least two years before any actual measure of capital investment were needed.
  Does the Minister say that he dare not, in the economic circumstances of the nation, designate new towns now, because he does not feel that after a further two years of the present administration capital investment resources will be available to fulfil his plans? The new town propramme—and we all admit this—has been going ahead with a reasonable degree of speed during the last few years. We are concerned that the speed should be maintained in the future. We are all agreed that there is no possibility of rehousing the enormous London waiting

  73
  lists and coping with the increase in London's population which may be expected, without the designation of new towns now, so that in two or three years' time the first bricks can be laid and the process of continuing the expansion of new towns can be maintained.
  One of the feeblest arguments which the Minister put forward was his suggestion that it might be possible in a few years' time further to expand the existing new towns, that the new towns at present designated and in course of expansion could be further expanded. He has forgotten that the natural processes of procreation go on in new towns just as much as anywhere else and even more. The populations of the new towns are very young populations. Within five, ten or fifteen years there will be the problem of housing the children who went to the towns as youngsters, and five or ten years after that there will be the problem of housing the children now being born in the new towns.
  It is ridiculous for the Minister to assume that he can continue his programme of dealing with London's overspill by continuing to expand the existing new towns. In their terrific fecundity, the new towns are creating their own problems of expansion. The areas around the new towns will have to be developed for the next generation and nothing will be left in the areas around the new towns for further export from the London area.
  The real answer is that at least four new towns should be designated now. Preparatory work should be going on over the next two or three years, and after that the continuing process of capital investment for the new towns should be undertaken. If the Minister is not prepared to do that, he is in a very sorry state. We are not asking him to go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and ask for an extra penny. We are not asking him to make a further claim on the capital resources of the community, but to have faith in his own Government that in three or four years' time resources will be available for further building.
  All we are asking him to do at the moment is to plan and designate new town areas so that, should an unlikely miracle happen and this country reach a fairly viable and economic position under the present Government in two or three years' time, they will be able to go ahead.
  74
  We are not asking for a penny piece, or that the Minister should involve himself in inter-Cabinet rows over priorities. All that we say is that he should try to plan ahead because long-term planning is needed.
  Finally, I want to refer to the problem of town development in the expanded towns. There are many reasons why the programme under this head has failed. One is snob resistance on the part of the towns which could have been designated as receiving areas and which did not want to be bothered with receiving large numbers of Londoners. The main reason is not that it is difficult to conduct tripartite discussions, not that there has been excessive difficulty in bringing together the different points of view, the counties, the receiving and exporting areas. The real problem is that the financial provision which the Government are prepared to make in assisting the expended town programme is totally and absolutely inadequate.
  The Government can point, roughly speaking, to two possibly successful schemes. The Minister himself mentioned Swindon. As a result of the rise in the interest rate and the increased rents which that has dictated in Swindon, I have people in my constituency who, after waiting for a long time, have finally been offered the chance of a house there. They have had to turn down the chance because the high rates of interest have forced the rents to a level which they simply cannot afford to pay. Surely, this is the final irony; that after all this long wait the spark of hope suddenly appears in the form of a letter from the London County Council, but when the economics of the Government are translated into the economics of the family purse and are finally worked out, it becomes clear that the family cannot afford the increased rent. It is, therefore, going very far to suggest that this scheme is being successful. The main reason for the fact that it is failing is that the Government are not prepared to put in enough money from national resources.
  As I said earlier, this is not a local problem. It is not London's problem, or Birmingham's, Sheffield's or Clydeside's. It is the problem of the nation as a whole, and it is the responsibility of the Minister, representing the nation in this field, to ensure that the nation as a whole

  75
  fulfils its rôle in housing those people in the less fortunate areas of the country—these monster conurbations where the people have no hope of being rehoused within their own boundaries, but whose hope lies only in a positive policy in the designation of new towns and the extension of the existing ones. Our charge against the Minister is that he has shown by his speech not only that he is singularly unaware of the tragic need of the people in these areas but that he has no plans at all for taking care of this need in the future.
  5.41 p.m.
  Lord Balniel: Like the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh), I should like to look at this national problem from the point of view of the London overspill, and, in particular, that of the new towns in Hertfordshire. The Hertford constituency is, I think, unique in that it contains within its borders two of the new towns which we are now discussing—Hatfield, and Welwyn Garden City, which was commenced before the war but was taken over by a development corporation after the war. Also, running right up to its borders is a third of Hertfordshire's new towns—Stevenage. I think this fact of the close proximity of the various new towns in central Hertfordshire—and there is, of course, Hemel Hempstead, which makes four—emphasises the point which I want to make.
  Under the New Towns Act, 1946, these new towns were specifically designed to help the overspill problem in London and in this respect are different from others such as Corby, Peterlee, Newton Aycliffe, and Glenroathes in Scotland, which have been designed specifically to assist certain industries, such as coal and steel. The idea was that these new towns should be developed as balanced communities, that decent accommodation and fine living conditions should be provided in very large numbers for Londoners, that industry should be attracted to the area and encouraged to establish itself in the new towns and grow up within them, and also that amenities which anyone living in a town has a right to expect should be provided concurrently with the building of the houses.
  I think it is fair to say that the rate of house building in central Hertfordshire
  76
  is today keeping pace with expectation. There are, of course, criticisms about specific hold-ups and projects, about densities, and about the quality of some of the houses that have been built in the past, but, undoubtedly, the rate of house building can be regarded as a very considerable achievement indeed. I confess that I was surprised by the remarks of the hon. Member for Islington, North, who said that practically nothing had been done. At the end of 1951—five years after the New Towns Act was passed—only 51 houses had been built in the new town of Hatfield.
  Mr. Lindgren rose—
  Lord Balniel: For instance, in Welwyn Garden City, where the hon. Gentleman lives, five years after the passing of the Act only 123 houses had been built, yet this year alone 740 have been erected.
  Mr. Lindgren: I do not wish to interrupt the noble Lord too much, but surely he is not so simple as not to appreciate that from the designation of a town to the actual commencement of building takes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said, at least three years. He talks of 1951, and the Act was passed in 1946. It takes three years to do the survey, to make the master plan, to enter into negotiations with all the owners, etc.
  Lord Balniel: As a matter of fact, the hon. Member for Islington, North gave the period as two years. Even so, I should have thought that five years from the passing of the Act to the building of any houses was an excessive period, and I should imagine that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. G. Lindgren), who is interested in new towns, would also think it excessive.
  We can be satisfied, I think, to a certain extent with the rate of building. In addition, in the new towns of central Hertfordshire we have been reasonably successful—or, perhaps, fortunate—in attracting industry, not only in adequate numbers but also of the kind which we want. The success of the policy can be gauged from the fact that in this area there are at the employment exchanges 11 vacancies for every unemployed person in that area.
  When we consider the provision of amenities, however, I would echo the words of the hon. and learned Member

  77
  for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I agree that they have lagged behind the provision of houses rather excessively. This is probably due to the fact that at the Ministry it is still not appreciated how extraordinarily difficult life is in the new towns unless these amenties are provided very early on.
  The problem in the new towns is in no way similar to that which is faced in extending already established towns. In the new town areas there is not even a skeleton service. It is not a question of attaching telephones to telephonic communications already existing, or of temporarily overcrowding existing classrooms. In the new towns, nothing exists at first, and if we are to create in any way a sense of community feeling, and to develop a sense of civic awareness and of civic pride, these amenities must be provided at an early stage in the life of a new town.
  For example, in Hatfield new town, where there is already a population of about 14,500, we are still without a new town centre and shopping facilities which are anything like adequate. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend has this question of the Hatfield town centre under very urgent consideration, but I should like to emphasise yet once again how incredibly important it is to the persons living in Hatfield that the new town centre should be built at the very earliest opportunity.
  I should like to look at the general problem from a rather different angle in relation to the Greater London Plan. Under that plan, as my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, it was intended that the Metropolis of London should be surrounded by a green rural and agricultural belt. I think that it is reasonable to say that perhaps that the most important part of the green belt is situated in Hertfordshire. That is not said purely from a parochial point of view, but from one with which I think that the London County Council would agree.
  It was also intended that around each of the new towns which are going up there should be local green belts. I feel that the chances of maintaining these local green belts, or indeed, so far as Hertfordshire is concerned, the chance of maintaining even the larger green belt for the Metropolis of London, are
  78
  perhaps nothing like so good as is generally thought. Only a few weeks ago, for instance, planning approval was given for the building of houses covering an area of 40 acres within half a mile of the designated boundaries of a new town—in fact, slap in the local green belt of Welwyn Garden City.
  There is an even greater danger, and that is that the industrial expansion of central Hertfordshire is proceeding at such a pace that unless we are very careful it will outstrip even the planned housing development. We shall find that industrial development and advance is so fast that when, for instance, the development plan period comes to an end in 1973, industry will be demanding houses for a greater number of employees than can be housed under the plan. Either we shall have to be prepared to see people commuting to the new towns from London, or they will have to be housed in the green belts.
  An indication of how great has been the expansion of industry in this area can be obtained from the fact that before 1948 there were about 7 million sq. ft. of factory space in central Hertfordshire. Since 1948 a further 1,500,000 sq. ft. have been developed and have come into use, a further 2 million sq. ft. are under construction, and the development of a further 1,500,000 sq. ft. has been approved but not yet been started. The position is that during the past seven years industrial expansion in central Hertfordshire has increased by 70 per cent. In spite of that very rapid expansion by industry, there are large areas which are allocated in the new towns for industry but which have not yet been taken up.
  If we consider the industry which is already established in central Hertfordshire and do not even include the industry for which approval has been given, or even industry which is planned for inclusion in the area, then we can estimate that the natural growth of that industry by 1973 will need the employment of more than the total planned population of central Hertfordshire. If, on the other hand, we take the new industry which is planned in the development plans, then a still greater demand for houses will fall on the area, and the local planning authority—the county council—has estimated that by 1973 the

  79
  new towns in the area will need an increase of two-thirds in their residential areas.
  I am afraid that, unless we are very careful in limiting the amount of industry coming into that area, we shall see new towns gradually merging into each other. Hatfield will be merging into Welwyn Garden City, and Welwyn Garden City will be merging into Stevenage. In fact, I have stated the case rather modestly, because the local planning authority, which is the Hertfordshire County Council, puts the matter this way, in its Report "The Industrial Future of Central Hertfordshire":
  "The labour demand that could eventually arise … from the full development of all land now held or zoned for manufacturing industry … is 220,000 workers—equivalent to a population five times the planned 1973 population."
  In the view of the Hertfordshire County Council, if all the land which is zoned for industry is in fact used for industry in central Hertfordshire, the planned population will be exceeded by five times.
  In view of my right hon. Friend's very active interest in the new towns and in the green belts in particular, I would ask him to look most carefully into this question of industrial expansion in central Hertfordshire. If the estimate of the county council is correct, it would be most tragic and indeed disastrous if we failed to learn the lesson of Middlesex, and allowed the elimination of the rural background of Hertfordshire. In our case, there would be no possible excuse to advance. In the case of Middlesex it was the result of haphazard speculative building. In the case of Hertfordshire it will be the result of deliberate planning.
  It is not only a local passionate desire that we should keep what remains of our countryside free of building. It is extremely good farming land—
  Mr. R. J. Mellish: It is politically unwise for the Tory Party to support the extension of new towns.
  Lord Balniel: Not at all. These views are held by the local planning authority and I believe also by the new town development corporations themselves.
  In addition, from the point of view of finance, immense sums of money have already been spent on the new towns—
  80
  for instance, on the trunk sewerage schemes—on the assumption that the population will only reach a planned level. If, in fact, the population should reach a level five times greater than is planned, that money which has been spent by both Governments will be largely wasted. Also the whole concept of a new town would disappear, and in its place would be what I should have thought all hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would regret, namely, a suffocating sprawling suburb which everyone abominates.
  I trust that my right hon. Friend will maintain a firm policy to preserve the green belts. I should like to put in a plea on behalf of those who live in the green belts. The designation of an area as a green belt means that very often the local authority in the area finds it impossible to do any building at all. All that the local authority can undertake at the most is the infilling of its villages. The people living in a green belt are often only a few yards away from a new town, and they are naturally resentful if they cannot be housed in the new town—especially if they work there. Their own chances of receiving a house from the local authority are considerably diminished by the preservation of the green belt. I suggest that my right hon. Friend should authorise the development corporations to allocate, as a regular practice, some of their houses to those who have been living in the green belt area.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Elwyn Jones: The hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has made some interesting comments on the effect on the new town areas and the rural areas of industrial development. I fear that my approach to that problem is entirely opposite to his, because we happen to represent different types of areas. I represent an industrial area where there is too much industry, and my plea to the Minister will be the exact opposite to the plea of the hon. Gentleman in that I beseech the Minister to put an end to the present trend in industrial development.
  I should like to direct the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a matter of considerable concern in the London area, and in the West Ham area in particular. This is the nature of the problem. When a firm moves from the London area to a factory in a new town,

  81
  usually the premises which are vacated are immediately reoccupied by another firm, generally from the London area itself.
  There is nothing illegal about this re-occupation of industrial premises in these overcrowded areas, because usually the land concerned had an established industrial user when planning control came into force and, accordingly, the landowner is entitled to continue that industrial user. But, of course, this "Box and Cox" arrangement, where premises are vacated by a firm going out and a new firm comes in, is quite contrary to the aims of good planning. After all, the purpose and intention of the new towns was to relieve the pressure on the great centres of population like London. I personally find the word "conurbation" extremely unattractive. I prefer to say that the purpose was to relieve pressure upon the big centres of population. Part of that conception was that industry should be created in the new towns to attract the dwellers in the crowded centres of population to those new places of habitation, relieving the pressure in that way. Reasons of health and amenity also require the cutting down of the number of industrial premises in crowded areas like West Ham, where it is the fate of generations to be brought up in the shadow of factory chimneys.
  That intention of good planning is not operating at the moment. I am glad to see that hon. Gentlemen opposite agree with what I am seeking to say. May I give an illustration from West Ham? Recently, the firm of Mitchell Bros. manufacturers of steel structural members for prefabricated premises, moved out to the Debden Estate. The industrial user of their premises did not end, but, on the contrary, a new company moved in straight away. The same thing happened when a company moved out to the Hainault Estate, and when another moved out to Harold Hill, the premises in each case being taken over straight away by other companies which used them for the purpose of industrial undertakings.
  At present, local authorities are quite powerless to deal with the situation. It would seem that the only effective method of control of such premises is by purchase, either compulsorily or, preferably, by agreement. I appreciate that
  82
  this would be a rather expensive business, especially in the London area where I understand that an acre of this type of land may cost as much as £100,000. If we are to be realistic about the intelligent planning of decent conditions in which the populations of our great cities may grow up, we must pay this price, the community indirectly and the Treasury directly. The time has come to give local authorities powers compulsorily to purchase in circumstances such as I have outlined, and to give them grants from Treasury funds to meet the cost.
  I hope that the Minister will say what is being done about this problem. It is not a new one. I know that it has been under consideration for a long time, and I should like him to say what action the Ministry is taking. I hope that he will remember, in any scheme which is contemplated, that it will be essential to include provisions requiring a firm intending removal to give adequate advance notice to the local authority, for obvious reasons, and for compulsory purchase to become effective as from the date when the premises are vacated. I do not wish to wander at large through the fascinating issues of new town development. This is a limited point, but one of very great importance to my constituency, where the whole purpose and idea of new town development is being frustrated at every stage.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Græme Finlay: It is a pleasure for me to follow the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones), for some of his constituents, if not in the course of becoming my constituents, have already become such. I am entirely at one with him, as I suppose most hon. Members are, in condemning the perfectly awful jargon used by town and country planning people. It is about time somebody thought of new words, if possible, for "conurbation", "overspill" and "decanting". These things simply ought not to happen to human beings, and something should be done to describe these processes in better English.
  The hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South has raised a point which I have often raised on the Floor of the House, namely, this problem of the "Box and Cox" arrangement. It is the primary objective of the new towns to effect decongestion. I did discuss this matter when

  83
  the Slum Clearance Compensation Bill was being considered by the House, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government was able to give a reply to which I shall later refer.
  If we look at the matter as objectively and judicially as we can, what is the result of totting up the credit and debit sides of the new towns' account? On the credit side, we have, on the whole, decent, good-looking, even handsome, houses going up, with well-thought-out architectural layouts devised by some of the most distinguished architectural thinkers in the country. We have better working conditions, so much so that industrialists in the new town areas say that they are reflected in increased production, which in itself is a substantial matter. There is less tiring travelling, often practically none at all, and there are no expensive fares.
  There is also that matter to which the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) referred, the financial success of the new towns. This latter item applies only to a majority of them, not to all; some new towns, such as Cwmbran, cannot be included in that category.
  On the debit side, we have, first, the loss of agricultural land. It is one of the primary objectives of good planning to preserve first-class agricultural land, but there is no doubt that much land has been lost in that way. Secondly, there has been a number of expropriations which, no matter how some hon. Gentlemen opposite may try to describe them, are of a harsh character. It is not a question of some snobbish country area resenting these schemes, but the fact is that these people are genuinely hurt; no matter how one may seek to compensate them, it cannot be done.
  Then there is the sharp impact—because new towns do make a sharp impact—upon the country areas, the old story of the "town mouse" and the "country mouse". We should not seek to disguise from ourselves the realities of the situation. Having said that, however, I do come, on a judicial balance, to the view that the new towns are going on reasonably well, and that we should proceed.
  The important question, which was touched on by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South is this question
  84
  of whether the process of decongestion is really working. It would be largely futile if a kind of merry-go-round were to go on, so that as soon as one business went out another one went in, or if there were in the result more people commuting for longer journeys, as happens in London, as I understand.
  London, for which eight of the new towns are designed to cater, is in a rather special category, as the Minister has said. Each city, be it Manchester, Liverpool, or Glasgow, must be considered in its own special circumstances and on its own special merits. I raised this matter during the Committee stage of the Housing Subsidies Bill last February, and my right hon. Friend was able to assure me that various measures were being taken to tighten up the arrangements to stop this process of one business moving out and another moving in in its place. He said that energetic efforts were being made by local authorities and himself to stop new industries coming into the greater London area.
  My right hon. Friend went on to say that he had struck out many acres of land which the London County Council, in its development plan, had proposed to allot to industry. He said, furthermore, that he had taken steps to prevent the conversion of residential property to industrial or commercial use, and he added that the London County Council was sterilising industrial property by buying it up in increasing measure.
  Since I received those assurances, however, I have learned some facts which were rather startling to me. In The Times of 18th June, 1956, I read the conclusions of Mrs. Ruth Glass, who said—this is impressive—that the whole of the dispersal policy was initiated, not upon the basis of statistical evidence, but simply upon impressions of London's growing congestion. Mrs. Glass now relies for her case on statistical evidence published in a report on the 1951 Census of Greater London and five other conurbations, and she finds some extraordinary facts.
  In the first place, there is still the same concentration of employment in the central London area as in 1921. In 1951, 1¼ million men and women went to work there daily. The county of London has lost many residents but has kept up its

  85
  employment level, and a considerable increase in the daily migration has become inevitable. Commuting has become more widespread and journeys to work have become longer.
  Mr. Gibson: What is commuting?
  Mr. Finlay: Commuting is travelling from a place on the outer perimeter of London to work in the centre of London and back again at the end of the day, thereby bogging down the transport arrangements of the Metropolis.
  After considering this statistical evidence, which was not available when the new towns programme was initiated in 1946, shortly after the war, Mrs. Glass has come to the conclusion that decentralisation, whether planned or spontaneous,
  "has so far made matters far worse than they were before"
  and that London needs more homes, not fewer jobs. I take it that Mrs. Glass is writing about conditions in the light of evidence tendered in 1951, which became known only in 1956. It leaves out of account the fact that the new towns did not really start to be built until the present Government got into their stride.
  As I see the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) back in his place, I am delighted to take up what he said. He said that I had made a stupid intervention. Had he known a little more about things, he would not have said that. I happen to remember the physical facts in 1951 of the constituency I now represent. Had the hon Member been listening to my right hon. Friend's speech, he would have heard him make the position quite clear. The 1946 Act was a Measure common to and accepted by both parties. When the Socialist Government left office in 1951, however, only 2,700 houses had been built. There are now 40,000 houses. Therefore, it is true—
  Mr. Lindgren: The Act was not passed until 1946. We then had to enter into negotiations for the acquisition of land, designate the area and hold a public inquiry. It took three years before we could start to do anything at Harlow. In addition, of course, water supplies and sewerage had to be planned and provided. I issue this challenge to the hon. Member. I will come with him to Harlow and show him with pride what the Labour Government did there, but he will have shame
  86
  at what is happening there now in regard to standards of housing and density.
  Mr. Finlay: I know my constituency far better than the hon. Member knows it, and he had better be a little careful before issuing challenges of that kind. Of course, the initial surveys and plans had to be carried out—everybody accepts that; they are matters of course. The hon. Member for Islington, North, however, was saying that the Government should get up a bit of steam. In fact, this Government were building 300,000 houses a year within a year and a half of being returned to office, when, apparently, the best that could be done by the party opposite, had they been returned to power, was 200,000 houses.
  Mr. Percy Shurmer: The same old story.
  Mr. Finlay: It is the same old story, but it was of great importance to the inhabitants of Harlow that so many more houses were completed there.
  I come now to some of the outstanding problems in the new towns which cater for the London area. First, there is attraction of offices, to which my right hon. Friend referred. It is quite apparent that the new towns are not getting sufficient offices. Crawley has the Lloyd's Register of Shipping, but it is one of the very few towns which is attracting any of the central London offices. In view of what Mrs. Glass has written in The Times, the movement of offices to the new towns is obviously something which should be encouraged.
  Daily journeys and movements over long distances cannot be appreciably reduced without reducing employment in the central area. Mrs. Glass suggests that something like 600,000 jobs would need to be taken out of the central area to afford any appreciable relief.
  Places like Whitehall, the Stock Exchange, Oxford Street, Piccadilly, the theatres and London University are part of the prestige of London. They are so closely connected with London that it is difficult to export them. It might, however, be possible to move some of the more routine work which is done in Whitehall out to the new towns, which would be a good thing—
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Member will, no doubt, be interested to know the history. The Labour Government arranged

  87
  for Government Departments to go to new towns—the Ministry of Civil Aviation, for example, was to go to Hemel Hempstead—but it is the Tory Government who have cancelled that.
  Mr. Finlay: I do not know anything about that. I was saying that in principle it might be a good idea to consider the possibility and that perhaps certain sections from Whitehall could go to the new towns. In the same way, possibly part of the University of London could go there. That should not be beyond the educational compass. After all, Wye College, which is part of the University of London, is in the heart of the country. Why should not one of the colleges of London University be moved out? It might even gain something in the process. At any rate, one would like to see more of the Lloyd's Register type of thing going out to the new towns.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: I had not interrupted my hon. Friend before because I wanted to dwell on this matter if I had the luck to catch your eye, Sir Rhys. That part of Lloyd's Register which has moved to Crawley is merely the printing press section.
  Mr. Finlay: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention. In that case, it is all the more desirable that some of the administrative aspects of Lloyd's Register should be moved out to Crawley or elsewhere.
  I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister say that he recognises not only the need for considering an increased population in the new towns, but that it will be necessary to cater for more homes in London, which he envisages in terms of blocks of flats going up to a height of 15 storeys, situated near the green belt, rather on the lines of some of the flats which are now to be seen near Putney Heath. I know the arguments about expense which were used by the hon. Member for Islington, North and the social arguments also. I appreciate the hon. Member's sincerity and the force with which he spoke for his constituents who are living in bad housing conditions but, when weighing all these things, we must remember that certain kinds of development take up valuable agricultural land which, once it
  88
  is taken, can never be replaced. It has been taken out of agricultural production for ever. A Parliamentary Question of 1953 elicited the fact that there had been a loss of some 89,000 acres of agricultural land then, and the process has been going on since.
  Mr. Fienburgh: There was an interesting series of figures issued some time ago relevant to this matter. They showed that the value of produce per acre from people's gardens in a new town exceeds the value of the produce per acre of that same land when it was agricultural land.
  Mr. Finlay: I am aware of that argument, but, of course, there are many postulates, such as that house owners in a new town cultivate their little gardens with the best possible husbandry.
  Mr. Fienburgh: That was a fact, not theory.
  Mr. Finlay: There are, as I said, many postulates, and this could become a long argument, for which I have not now the time.
  There is the saving of transport to be considered. Just think of the tremendous amount of money which has to be spent by these commuting millions in travelling to and across London by train. Hon. Members are incessantly calling on the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to provide better facilities on the Central London line, on the Northern line, and on other Underground lines, and to provide better bus services. This is an extremely expensive business. We have to consider the best and most economical use of the land in the centre of London and upon its outskirts.
  There is the social aspect of the matter. It is said that everybody likes to live in a house with a garden, and I can quite understand that, but have we exhausted all the efforts of our imagination? In America all sorts of things are done to make life amenable for families, and I do not think that we in this country have done as much as we could. I am not asking for anything in the nature of High Paddington, but that more imagination be used in considering this problem.
  Mr. B. T. Parkin: Would the hon. Member say what he has against High Paddington?
  Mr. Finlay: I am not saying anything against it. I agree with the hon. Member that somebody has to take some action in this matter. In some circles where an interest is taken in it, it is accepted as a tradition that one must live in a house with a garden, and that is one way of dealing with the problem, but I agree with the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) that we should, perhaps, think more in terms of High Paddington, although that is an expensive way of solving the problem, very expensive, and beyond our economy at the present time. Perhaps it is a little too ambitious for the present, but that is not to say we should, so to speak, sit back and do absolutely nothing about it. What about our attempting one or two less ambitious schemes? I was trying to indicate pilot schemes of a smaller, less ambitious kind than that of High Paddington.
  The acquisition of agricultural land has gone very far, and we have to weigh very seriously indeed the question of acquiring any more. We have also to consider that local authorities have become very big estate owners. For example, London County Council alone has acquired compulsorily some 9,900 acres since 1945 at a cost of nearly £40 million. It now owns about 27,000 acres, and of those approximately 11,000 are in the county and 16,000 are in out-county estates. They comprise a formidable estate to own, and we have to weigh very carefully the question of how far this business of the acquisition of agricultural land is to go, when we are deciding whether to build high or out in the new towns or in any town development schemes.
  There is the question of the destination of assets. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering expressed some views on this, and called in aid a passage from a speech of Mr. Speaker in a debate on, I think, the Second Reading of the New Towns Act of 1946. They were words to the effect that the apparatus of democracy should proceed in these new towns as soon as possible. So it has. Since I have sat for my present constituency we have had a new urban district council created there, and it exercises the full franchise of local discretion. In the same way my hon. Friend the Member for
  90
  Horsham (Mr. Gough) has, I think, seen the emergence of a new urban district council in his constituency.
  To accept that is one thing, but I am sure that the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) will not expect me to accept his view of the matter, which is that local authorities should own all the houses. I regard that as a measure of sovietisation.
  Mr. Lindgren: I should not worry about that at all, but the hon. Member and his hon. Friend to whom he referred are very worried, because those authorities are Labour authorities.
  Mr. Finlay: Despite the hon. Member's glee, I sit here today, and that is the answer to him, and I sit here long after the time the Labour council was created in the urban district of Harlow. One can never tell. The hon. Member ought to be a little more careful, because one cannot be too sure.
  We do not want to see the local authorities owning all the houses. That would be a step backwards.
  Another consideration is that we have not yet seen a completed new town. We must remember that when we are considering whether to build more new towns. My own new town is the most advanced of them all, but it is still at most only half built. The new towns have not yet town centres, and we cannot properly see what they will look like from the aesthetic point of view. We have not yet been able to decide what lessons there are to be learned from building new towns. We have not yet a complete result. It is, therefore, wise to consider, as my right hon. Friend is considering, whether, instead of adding to their number, we should complete the existing ones, or extend them, before building new ones.
  We have not yet realised all the objects of the new towns. One object of a new town was to obtain a completely composite social structure within it. The figures available make the position clear. There is not in any new town as yet a balance of the professional and the clerical and all the other classes of society which go to make the leavening of the whole society, the composite society which it was one of the initial intentions the new towns should comprise.

  91
  The new towns development corporations have made steady progress, and it is desirable they should make more. It may be thought that we should increase the number of the new towns, but I think that to start upon more new towns before we have finished one and learned the proper way of making a composite whole would be premature.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mrs. Freda Corbet: I would start by paying a tribute to the Minister, because I think that probably no one has given more thought to the problems which beset us when dealing with this question of overspill. If he has not given the thought to the matter I credit him with, then he certainly ought to have done, because he is in a central position from which to deal with it. He is, of course, beleaguered by all the large authorities with overspill problems. He has been approached by them many times. I know of deputations which have gone to the Minister, and gone repeatedly, and those deputations have always said that he was fully seized of the problems facing the local authorities.
  When the Minister claims that he is as interested in solving this problem as any of us, I think he is sincere. However, he has struck a very bad patch. Things were proceeding rather satisfactorily, at least so far as my local authority could see. We were in process of concluding a number of satisfactory arrangements with receiving authorities. We were quite excited at the prospects, and then, as everybody knows, along came a crisis and a restriction of capital expenditure, coupled with the rise in interest rates to a very high level. The receiving authorities who had been quite prepared to have Londoners began to hesitate, and their hesitation finally became a complete refusal in some cases.
  Ashford, where we had great expectations of being able to put up many thousands of people in the course of the years, has completely refused to carry out the arrangement. Other local authorities have talked the matter over with the London County Council and the county council has offered every incentive that it can offer. It has gone as far as to say to the receiving authorities, "We will provide the capital moneys for you to start your scheme free of interest until you
  92
  are actually receiving rents from the tenants and subsidies from the Ministry".
  We in the London County Council have also discussed with these authorities the possibility of asking the Minister for further financial assistance. We are discussing that possibility with Sir Humphrey Gale and the Ministry. However, the local authorities fear that, having embarked on schemes the costs of which will be excessive because of the high rate of interest, they will not be able to recoup themselves adequately from the rents paid by tenants from London. Negotiations apparently are going on in a number of cases, and I was glad to hear the Minister say that he hoped they would be fruitful. Nevertheless, the delays that arise because of these negotiations are very serious indeed. We have had matters held in abeyance since as long ago as last November. They are matters which we should have liked to have settled so that we could have proceeded quickly with our schemes.
  Many other matters worry us on the London County Council. We are very anxious that things should be speeded up because of our enormous housing problems. These have been mentioned in so much detail in debates today that there is no need for me to discuss them further. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) has referred to our slum clearance programme. He was not quite correct in one respect. The London County Council owes nothing to any Minister in the matter of beginning its slum clearance programme. That was something which it started long before anybody else had thought it was necessary. Thousands of houses were to be cleared when the war broke out, and the L.C.C. was ready to start a programme as soon as possible after the war.
  Like the authorities of many other big cities, the London County Council, however, has come to the end of its available sites, and it has to clear slum property to make way for new houses. London County Council is not an authority that would allow its housing programme to be held up because of high costs. It is a comparatively wealthy authority—though I must be careful in saying that, because some of my colleagues might not agree. The council does not have to abandon its programme, as is the case with many other smaller authorities, because of the stringencies of Governmental policy.

  93
  Apart from the question of slum clearance. London County Council has also the responsibility of being an authority in the capital city. Hon. Members frequently ask how road programmes are progressing. They may think that all that matters in connection with a number of major schemes in London is money, but I assure them that that is not so. For instance, 1,104 families are involved in the Cromwell Road extension programme. They must be removed elsewhere and rehoused in new properties. In every road improvement scheme a large rehousing programme is involved, and London County Council has to solve that problem.
  The same applies to opening up congested areas in the city. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North said that there was not a single acre of open space in the whole of his borough. I might have reminded him that on the northern outskirts there is Finsbury Park, which belongs to London County Council Areas like that, however, involve serious rehousing obligations. In addition, new standards for schools and an increase in transferred population make it necessary for London County Council to find new sites for public buildings. All these problems are in addition to the problem of providing people with fresh air, open spaces, and a glimpse of greenery where they live.
  The Minister has given a great deal of thought to these matters. I was pleased to hear him say that it may be that he will not be able to send all the overspill out of London. We might be able to accommodate some of our overspill population in flats on the tops of offices in the centre of London. London County Council has the notion of opening up congested areas by erecting taller buildings. This would allow for the provision of open spaces between them. It could transform the appearance of central London and make it a pleasanter place to live in.
  At the moment there is great need for new housing, and it cannot be provided within the County of London. Therefore, it must be provided outside. I hope that the Minister will do his utmost to expedite negotiations, as I am sure he will, and that he will not abandon the idea of expanding existing towns. During my travels through the small country towns I have frequently thought
  94
  how much better it would be if those towns were expanded to such a size that their populations would be content with the amenities that could be provided for them in a larger community. How much better it would be to keep them in the country than for them to be attracted interminably to the vast area of London. The continued flow of immigrants to our city is another of our problems. I hope that the Minister will continue with this expanding town programme with that fact in mind.
  I should be pleased if he could be induced to give very serious consideration to a proposal which is not unheard of by him, namely, that the London County Council—which has built not 40,000 houses in five years but over 100,000 in the 10 years since the war; and one really should not count the first two of those years—should be given the necessary financial and Ministerial consents to enable it to proceed with the building of a new town in which Londoners might be housed. If he agreed to that proposal we might find a reasonable solution to the terrible problem of London housing.
  We have collected a piece of land at Edenbridge, and during the debate upon the Housing Subsidies Bill we asked the Minister whether he could make available for us the same subsidies as were available in the case of new town development and expanding town development. He was not able to see his way to do that. If he will not assist us in that respect, we shall go on with the scheme as it is. We shall not allow him to stand in the way. If he could find it in his heart to entrust to the London County Council an operation which a private body is apparently now about to begin we should be able to do a very good job.
  Naturally, we must have industry. Industry can be persuaded to go out of London. One of my hon. Friends, or it may have been the Minister, mentioned how much a little suggestion can do with some firms. They are not averse to the idea of going away from London. If they want to expand, it is rather difficult to do so in London anyway, owing to the town planning requirements, and many feel that a good place to expand might be in one of the new towns. Those that have gone out have been very successful. Only if the local authority forces a firm out does

  95
  that authority have to pay. Therefore, we do not want to buy anything compulsorily if we can find another way of getting what we want. Millions of pounds are involved in decentralising industry and taking it away from residential areas. We always want to use persuasion if we can.
  At this moment, however, with financial restrictions and interest rates as they are, not only the receiving towns but the industrialist are boggling at any such change. This is slowing up our prospects of moving industry out of London. I hope that the Minister will do all he can about the financial restrictions and interest rates in relation to this aspect of the problem. I remember hearing a very thoughtful speech by an hon. Member opposite, who is also a member of the L.C.C. He pointed out that these high interest rates did not have to be imposed in the case of local authorities because the Minister was always in a position to say "Yes" or "No", just as he did the other day in the case of my borough council, which wants to build a new convenience in the place of some temporary ones in a little park. I have written to him upon the subject, and I hope that he will agree to the proposal after he has heard my speech.
  The hon. Member to whom I have just referred then said that high interest rates were not needed in regard to local authorities, nationalised industries and various public bodies, because they all had to receive sanction for their proposals. Perhaps the Minister will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine this question, and let him know that we do not want high interest rates any longer than is necessary.
  At the same time, the Minister might also realise that we have landed ourselves in trouble with regard to excess office accommodation in London largely because building restrictions were removed. There was nothing which the L.C.C. could have done once those restrictions were removed. It possesses only certain town planning powers, and it could not say, "Oh no, you cannot build any more office accommodation because there is already enough", in an area designated for office accommodation. So long as plans conform to requirements in respect of such matters as garage
  96
  space, light and air, and height, we must give planning permission.
  The work of the London County Council Town Planning Committee is never over. The number of documents with which it has to deal makes a very thick pile. Constant work is being given to the authority. If there is no case for the granting of building licences for anything else, there is surely one in respect of office building in the centre of London. I know that the Minister is greatly concerned with this question. If anybody has thought more about it than he, I should like to know that person.
  The town planning committee of the county council has also given the matter very much thought, and I am sure that its mind is running in a similar direction to that of the Minister's. We cannot exercise a very effective control because we cannot pay the millions of pounds necessary in order not to have to give planning permission—which is the only way in which we could have control. I would impress upon the Minister that this interruption of our programme; all these long waits and protracted procedure; the waiting for months to settle such matters as a sewerage grant scheme, is very disturbing to us. We hope that the Minister will give the problem very serious thought.
  6.48 p.m.
  Mr. Eric Johnson: I feel sure that the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) will forgive me if I do not refer to much of what she has said, because she has been dealing with the problem of London, upon which she is such an authority, while I want to say something about Manchester.
  It is not necessary for me to stress the gravity of the subject which we are now discussing. It would be quite true to say that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee would be generally agreed that if conditions were favourable and we had plenty of room in which to move about—I stress that point—we should like to see the creation of new towns or the expansion of existing ones in order to provide full amenities and so enable people to lead happy lives. At the same time, we should all probably feel that industry should accompany the movement of populations to the new towns.

  97
  It is very important that such industries should be varied and relatively small. We do not want to see new towns springing up which are wholly dependent on one industry, and, of course, we do not wish to see this great sprawl of our cities over the countryside. We do not want to build new dormitory areas from which our people will have to travel day by day to their work; and we would all agree with what has been said by my right hon. Friend about Green Belts.
  Although we may agree about these things, in dealing with such matters we at once come up against some fairly considerable problems. The first and, I think, by far the most important is the desperate shortage of building sites. Secondly, there is the problem of persuading people to move out to the new towns and of persuading industries to move as well. Probably it is easier to persuade people to move, provided that houses are found for them. Moving industries is a little more difficult.
  If, for example, I had a factory in Manchester where I employed a few hundred people, I should be very reluctant to move out 20 or 30 miles away to provide work in a new town. I should feel that I was providing work where my factory was in Manchester, and that I might lose some of my own employees. I should need fairly considerable inducements to persuade me to move. I think that there is a great deal in what was said by my right hon. Friend, and I was glad to hear what he had to say about Manchester agreeing that, when people move out of the city, the number employed in the city is to be reduced. If one industry goes out, another one cannot come in to take its place.
  Here I wish to raise a point, although perhaps it relates more to the general housing policy, about the mobility of labour. That is a problem very much before us now, in view of what has been happening in Coventry about the motor industry. It is not a new problem. If people are losing jobs in Coventry, they can find other jobs in and around Manchester, but they cannot find houses. I am wondering whether we ought to try to produce a pool of unoccupied or under-occupied houses, so that people might move about more easily. I realise that that is looking a long way ahead and
  98
  that we could not keep houses unoccupied at present with the housing situation as it is. But in all this development, it would be as well to bear in mind the possibility of building more hostels where people could stay during the week while they were working and move back to their own homes at the weekend.
  I realise that that is an unpopular idea, but a great many people, including Members of Parliament, have to spend the week away from their homes. It should be borne in mind that it is surely better to have to go away for a week to a job and come back home at the weekend than to stay at home all the week and have no job. It is not an ideal solution, but in my opinion it is one worth bearing in mind. There are bound to be fluctuations in trade and consequent demands for mobility of labour.
  It is all very well to discuss these theories and what we would like to do, but in practice we are faced with the problem of lack of sites. That is the trouble. I believe that to some extent it is a financial trouble. I do not propose to go into detail about it, but I believe it is largely a physical problem and not a political one. In Manchester we are as much aware of this problem as any other part of the country. I do not want to quote a lot of figures, but at the beginning of the year we needed between 83,000 and 84,000 houses. We have 68,000 houses which are unfit for human habitation, so that it will be appreciated that we have a big problem, and to show how urgent it is I would point out that the average rate at which houses in Manchester fall down, or have to be demolished, because they are dangerous, is 700 a year.
  The Manchester City Council has comprehensive plans for dealing with this matter. We hope to plan for the building of 17,000 houses and that programme, which was started in 1955, is to continue until 1961. Then there are 31,500 more houses planned to be built up to the middle of 1971, which is a total of 48,500 for which we have plans. But I ask the Committee to bear in mind that even though that plan is carried out, there will still be, in 1971, about 19,500 people living in houses which have been condemned as unfit, and we are making no provision for the estimated growth of about 7,000, nor for the 13,000 people

  99
  who are now living in lodgings and desire houses.
  That is one side of the picture. On the other side is the question of sites. We found at the end of last year that, in the city itself, there were sites available for only 2,480 homes, and we have a further 2,000 available outside on the Langley Housing Estate in the borough of Middleton. We want to build on all the available sites which result from slum clearance, but this depends entirely on being able to obtain sites outside, because we must have somewhere to put the people when we move them before we start rebuilding. We have had the offer of sites. I do not intend to go into detail about them, but the fact remains that, even though we use all the sites which have been offered and which would become available, we should still he short of 4,000—I think the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) gave that figure—for the period up to 1960 and a further 14,000—I am taking a rather longer period—up to 1971.
  Manchester has been criticised in some quarters for not making use of enough sites in the city. It has been said that we should look round and build here and there in twos and threes. That may be so. I dare say that there are some sites which could be used. But I do not accept that as a valid criticism, because it is merely playing with the problem. We have been told that we ought to build more flats. A great deal has already been said about flats. My right hon. Friend referred to them, as did the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fienburgh) and other hon. Members. I am not sufficiently well informed on the technical aspects of the matter to be able to say anything about the cost of flats, but I understand that the cost mounts extremely steeply the higher the block is built; and I do not know whether building flats would be making the best possible use of available sites.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: It is true that Manchester has already built some very large flats in the Miles Platting area and it is contemplated that more will be done. So as much as possible has been done in that direction.
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. I was proposing to allude
  100
  to the flats which have been built in my constituency.
  I do not know much about the technical side, but I know something about the human side of this problem. There are a large number of new houses and a considerable number of blocks of flats in my constituency where are housed many people who have been moved out of overcrowded slum houses. They all tell me how much they like the flats, but most of them express the wish that they could have a house. It is true to add that when I have asked them whether they would rather live in a flat in Blackley near their work, or move to a house some 30 miles outside the city somewhere in Cheshire, many say that they would rather live in a flat near their work. I suppose that the idea is to have more houses built, but that again comes back to the question of room. The hon. Member for Islington, North has referred already to the question of density. I am not going to say much about that, but for anyone to say that in Manchester we ought to build at a greater density than we are doing is, in my opinion, quite wrong.
  We are already planning to build on a density of 90 habitable rooms per acre, and that, I would have thought, was close enough in all conscience. If we build—and I think that this has been mentioned already—to an increased density this does not solve the problem, because the corresponding increase in the number of habit-table rooms does not go up in proportion to the density, for the obvious reason that provision has to be made for more schools, playing grounds, open spaces, shops and so on.
  It has been said also, in criticism of Manchester's policy, that we are reluctant to make use of the sites offered to us outside the city and that we want more than we have been offered because the sites offered are relatively small and scattered, which makes it necessary to build piecemeal and prevents any large-scale planned development which the city council would like.
  We have a Socialist city council in Manchester, and in general I am not a great believer in large-scale planning by public bodies, but I feel that this is not a party matter and—I am sorry to have to say this to my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—that in this respect I think that

  101
  the Manchester City Council is perfectly right, unless we are prepared to say that we are quite ready for Manchester people to go into scattered dormitory areas around the neighbourhood, with very few amenities and that they shall travel increased distances to and from work in the city day by day.
  I think that if we did that it would destroy my right hon. Friend's conception, with which I am glad to agree, about the green belt. We want to jump over the green belt and get a new town or develop a town outside. That is what Manchester thinks is the real solution to the problem. Negotiations have been going on with various local authorities round and about for a long time, and I think, although we seem to have reached a deadlock in some cases, that my right hon. Friend has said enough today to show that that is certainly not Manchester's fault.
  I have no intention of being drawn into battle between Manchester and the surrounding local authorities. It may be an over-simplification of the situation, but it seems to me that, in the long run, a decision has to be taken between growing as much food as we can in this country and providing the best accommodation for our people if we are determined to maintain our present population on its present level. I do not think that we can have it both ways.
  We cannot say that we will preserve all the existing agricultural land in the country and, in the same breath, say that we will, build a lot of new towns as well. That just cannot be done. I am not at all sure that we are not all of us trying, when we talk about housing and overspill, to put a quart into a pint pot. I am not at all sure that we are not casting our eyes over too narrow a field when we in Manchester talk about moving people into Cheshire or Derbyshire or wherever it may be. It might be better for us and for the whole country to consider whether our people would not live fuller, better and happier lives if they went to countries in the Commonwealth, like Canada, Australia or New Zealand, and whether there would not be greater opportunities for our industry, too, in those countries. But this is an entirely different topic from the subject of the debate, and although it may be interesting to discuss it at some other time, this is not the occasion today. I think, however, that it is a thought that we ought to bear in mind.
  102
  I do not want to go into the argument about whether we can grow more food in gardens or on farms. But at first sight it would certainly appear to be better for the economy of the country if we could grow more food at home and import less. I may get into trouble with some of my hon. Friends on this side in saying this—but that depends to some extent on what price the consumer is being asked to pay for the food which we are growing at home, and I wonder if we get full value for this heavily protected and subsidised industry.
  I do not accept the argument that we must preserve a very large agricultural industry in this country in case there is another war, because it seems to me, from what we now know or have been told about nuclear weapons, that the risk which we are likely to face in a war is mass destruction in a matter of hours and not starvation in a matter of weeks or months. Besides, if our ports were put out of operation, we would starve anyway because we could not grow as much food as we should like to. I do not minimise the importance of farming, but I think that the time has come when my right hon. Friend ought to consider, not whether he is going to kill the sacred cow of agriculture, but whether it would not be right to milk it a little more than he has done.
  I hope that Manchester will get a little more co-operation from her neighbours than she has had so far in trying to solve this problem of overcrowding. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred earlier, and I think a little unkindly, to the statement made in answer to a Question on, I think, 5th June, in which my right hon. Friend referred to the deadlock between Manchester and the surrounding county councils and local authorities and said that he was considering what action should be taken and that he would make a statement in due course.
  Mr. William Shepherd: My hon. Friend has raised the question of the surrounding authorities to Manchester. I represent a number of them. Does he realise that if Manchester had been a little more co-operative and not so dogmatic in wanting to have its own way in every little thing, the surrounding authorities would perhaps have been willing to help a little more?
  Mr. Johnson: I did say earlier that I thought that my right hon. Friend had showed already in his speech that Mancester had gone a fairly long way, but I also said that I was certainly not going to be drawn into any argument today, and I hope that I shall not be at any other time, as to who is right or wrong, but we would like greater co-operation, and maybe the surrounding authorities would like it as well.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman rather criticised my right hon. Friend's attitude, and I would make two points about that. He seemed to suggest my right hon. Friend was unduly slow. I do not like to say this, but I feel that I must in the circumstances: it is my sincere belief that the position would have been much worse today than it is if the rate of house building had not been increased very considerably since 1951, and I do not think that the party opposite did an awful lot in this matter when it had the opportunity and was in power. I also think that my right hon. Friend is perfectly right to give the various local authorities and Manchester plenty of time in which to reach some agreement. We all hope that we shall reach agreement, because I am certain that agreement is very much better than any question of compulsion on either side.
  Some progress has been made, and I hope that we shall soon hear that all these negotiations have been completed. I would say, in conclusion, that whatever decision, and it will be a difficult decision, my right hon. Friend makes in regard to the problem of Manchester's population, I am afraid that it will not be one that will please everybody, but I am sure that we would agree that what would influence him when he comes to that decision is not the interests of Manchester or Cheshire or anyone else separately but the nation as a whole.
  This has been a most valuable and interesting debate, and what we have discussed is not a party matter. It is one we all have at heart, namely, that something should be done to provide the best possible housing conditions for our fellow-citizens.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Delargy: I will not follow the remarks made by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson)
  104
  who, in the intervals of talking about gardening, agricultural produce and nuclear warfare, devoted only a few minutes to talking about Manchester. Although Manchester is my own native city, I am glad that I have no responsibility for it whatever. My responsibility is concentrated about 200 miles to the south-east of it. I would rather refer briefly—and so I hope set an example to everybody else—to the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet). She spoke of the grievous and peculiar difficulties of London and the measures which are taken to alleviate them.
  She complained, and I am sure she has grounds for complaint, of the lack of cooperation of authorities outside London. It is a complaint which certainly cannot be levelled against my own constituency, in which the London County Council has already built more than 5,000 houses. Nevertheless, some time ago, with one or two of my colleagues, I objected to the London County Council (No. 2) General Powers Bill. Indeed, we objected three or four times, and just when I was looking forward to a debate in the House I was told, to my astonishment and disappointment, that my objection had been out of order all the time. I thought that it might have been discovered a little earlier rather than about a month after I had made my objection. I was sorry that that debate did not take place.
  I have no desire to withhold any powers from my friends on the London County Council, but I wanted gently and fraternally to criticise some of the powers that they already hold and perhaps give them a little friendly advice on the powers which they hoped to assume. I cannot refer to all the things I wanted to say in that debate because I would be out of order, something to which I am most unaccustomed. I can refer, however, to the action for which the Minister and the London County Council have a joint responsibility, namely, the incidental work which is necessary after houses have been erected and which must have the approval of the Minister. It can only be carried out under conditions approved by him. I refer to road improvements, widening of bridges and all other things of that sort.
  When people arrive from London into these outlying areas, they at once miss many of the amenities and even some of

  105
  the necessities to which they have been accustomed. These estates are not towns and not villages, but merely dormitories. They are very clean, very trim and orderly, but still only dormitories. The residents sometimes have a sense of frustration, or rather of isolation. They feel that houses have been provided for them and they have been directed to them, but they seem to be left without any further thought being given to them. I could give two examples. They may appear to some hon. Members to be small, but they are significant of the existence of this problem.
  Most of the people who live on the Belhus Park Estate have to travel every day to London on the very worst railway in all England and Wales. The trains are slow and uncomfortable and very often not even clean. Successive Ministers of Transport have promised us over the years to electrify this line. Plans have been approved, but we have not yet been told the precise date for the starting of electrification. Several hundred residents have their own cars, but they have nowhere to park them. Every month they are hauled into court by hundreds and fined for parking without lights. The magistrates are very reluctant to impose these fines and over and over again have expressed personal sympathy with the car owners; but, under law as it stands, they have no option. This need for parking facilities should have been foreseen. It is one of the incidental works to which I referred. Now that the need has become so evident it should he met, and met immediately.
  Here is another example. People living on the Aveley Estate sometimes find it necessary to travel to South Ockendon. To do so conveniently they need a footbridge over the railway. That is also incidental work. The Thurrock Urban District Council has approached the Essex County Council, the British Transport Commission, and the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, and has asked them to contribute to the scheme. Because of lack of support from those authorities, the provision of this very necessary footbridge has had to be deferred.
  There is the vital question of the whole future of these housing estates. When a house becomes vacant it is filled by people from London who were on the London County Council's housing list. Even the
  106
  grown-up sons and daughters of the present tenants are not accommodated and become the responsibility of the local authority, which already has the enormous problem of rehousing thousands of people who have always lived in the area. The time has come when we must seriously consider the future ownership and the administration of these housing estates.
  I have been mildly critical of the London County Council. I am by no means unmindful of the very good work it has done, and I praise the Council for it, but I ask it to do even better. I am convinced that the London County Council has built these estates, not in order to be a landlord or to collect rents, but primarily for the benefit of the people. But these people no longer belong to London. They belong to Thurrock or in whatever areas the estates are built. They are now our citizens, and they live among us. They are very welcome. They are excellent people. We believe that we can take care of them better than the administrators in faraway County Hall.
  7.20 p.m.
  Mr. Frederick Gough: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) started his speech by telling us that he would set a good example. I should like to congratulate him on doing so and on the brevity and punch of his remarks, which he put swiftly. Having listened to most of this debate, I wish to be the first to follow that example. I wish it had been the example set by the speakers from the two Front Benches.
  The hon. Member confined his remarks to the London County Council estates. In my short speech I want to confine my remarks to what I hope never will be estates, the new towns. First, I wish to convey thanks, as my right hon. Friend did, to the Opposition for making this debate possible. Also, I should like to thank the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) for stating that the new towns have become a great success. As he probably knows, I represent the new town of Crawley and we consider Crawley the greatest success of them all. I shall not take up the cudgels with the hon. and learned Member, who said that the new towns were a Socialist experiment, but I disagree with him entirely on that.

  107
  The hon. and learned Member referred to the chairman of Harlow New Town Corporation and his private enterprise at Allhallows, inferring that that chairman, who is a great friend of mine, was using his public know-how for private interest.
  Mr. Mitchison: Certainly I used those words, but I hope that the hon. Member and Sir Richard Costain will both understand that that was not a personal criticism in any way. I hope I make it quite clear that my suggestion was that the public know-how ought to be used by a public body.
  Mr. Gough: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member. I was going to say, lightheartedly, that perhaps those on both sides of the Committee who were responsible for introducing the new towns should pay tribute to many people—Sir Richard Costain is one and Sir Thomas Bennett is another—who for many years have used private know-how for the public benefit. It was merely a play on words.
  I wish to say how glad I am that the Minister has continued closing the bolt-holes. I have referred to this matter before, and several hon. Members have referred to it in this debate. We in Crawley have been delighted to welcome newcomers from London, but we are always rather disappointed and disillusioned when we find that no sooner do they leave London and their factories than those homes and factories are newly-occupied and the situation is then no better. In other words, the original conception of the new towns has not been fulfilled. I hope that the steps which my right hon. Friend has taken and is taking will be really effective. Otherwise, all we shall do is to make a vaster London, and eventually the whole of the Home Counties will be one gigantic estate, such as those to which the hon. Member for Thurrock referred.
  Another great step was announced by my right hon. Friend with reference to green belts. He referred to some of the major cities, but I should like to underline what my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) said, and hope that my right hon. Friend will insist on green belts round the new towns. I have had occasion to comment in the past on one lapse in regard to Crawley.
  108
  I think it absolutely vital to decide on the final size of new towns and to create green belts round them. If I may be a little parochial for a moment, I would say that we in Crawley are rather concerned about the development, on the one hand, of Gatwick Airport, and, on the other hand, the adjacent town of Horsham. Beyond Gatwick there is big development in Surrey. We are rather afraid that unless Crawley is contained by a green belt, eventually there will be an enormous sprawl which will ruin a particularly attractive part of Sussex.
  The Minister has made certain comments about the building of offices in London. I think that if the new towns are to play their proper part, they must be balanced communities. They must be balanced between industry, commerce and business. When one of my hon. Friends referred to people going into the new towns and commuting, an hon. Member asked what commuting was. It is an American expression. There are some dreadful planning expressions being coined and I hope that we shall not eventually have "urbo-locomotion".
  We are rather frightened and worried that unless we can get large businesses offering their offices to new towns such as Crawley, we shall have a situation in which a large number of people will utilise the new towns to live in and travel to and from London by train, thus making the situation in London as bad as it was before. I was a little worried by the figures given by my right hon. Friend. Although I believe that the number of people living in London and Greater London has decreased, the number of people working in London and Greater London has risen.
  Quite a lot has been said on the question of amenities. I do not think that we in Crawley have much to worry about in that respect; we have been more fortunate than other places. I would, however, ask the Minister to have a word with his right hon. Friends, because by no means all the amenities of a new town or overspill area are directly under his control. For instance, in Crawley we are extremely concerned about our new hospital. Plans have been approved, and I ask my right hon. Friend to use his influence with the Minister of Health, because in a community increasing as rapidly as Crawley is, the rebuilding of

  109
  the hospital is a matter of vital importance.
  Another matter, which very often is overlooked is the question of roads and the danger on roads as a result of a rapidly increasing population. We have been strongly urging the Ministry of Transport to impose a speed limit on a certain section of road known as Manor Royal, where people have to cross a main road to get into the industrial area. I admit that that happens only twice a day, but on those occasions the place is a seething mass of bicycles, children in prams and other traffic. It is vitally important to see that the safety of people is looked after in the new towns.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering referred to a matter which I am sure we shall be discussing again and again, the future ownership of the new towns. In the short time I am allowing myself, I do not intend to do more than to ask the Minister whether the Government could make an announcement fairly soon on that subject. Much as those of us who really think about the problem would like to keep it out of party politics, I am afraid there is every indication that it will become a highly controversial matter. In Crawley this question is occupying everyone's mind. Whatever was said on either side of the Committee when the new towns were conceived, the position has altered as it was bound to alter.
  I would certainly take up the cudgels with the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) who, incidentally, referred to the fact that now there is a Labour majority on our urban district council. That is just the point I want to make. Every three or four years there are elections, and the one thing I do not want, as I am sure no hon. Member wants, is for the actual ownership of these houses to become the cockpit of local party politics. Then "Mr. Bloggs" would say, "Put me on the council and I will reduce the rents", and his opponent would say, "Put me on the council, and I will reduce them still further". This is a vast problem and concerns by far the largest ownership of houses in the country. We should think carefully before we put that great responsibility into the hands of what, by comparison, is a very small local authority.
  I promised that I would be brief and to the point. I want to make this plea:
  110
  I think that if we really want to make the new towns successful, we must if possible keep them out of the realm of party politics and study the issues which I have put to the Committee this evening. Those of us who are connected with the new towns must be assured that the original object is being achieved, and we must also be assured that where we need amenities and help, that help will be forthcoming. If that happens, the measures which my right hon. Friend has already taken will proceed apace, and the new towns will continue to develop as successfully as in the last few years.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mr. Julius Silverman: I am sure that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) will forgive me if I do not follow him. I want to deal with a problem of an entirely different nature. I want to put before the Committee the problem of Birmingham. In some ways it is not dissimilar to that of Manchester which was expounded a few minutes ago by the hon. Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson). It is a national problem, but I believe that Birmingham's problem is much more acute than that of any other provincial city, and today is even more acute than that of London.
  What is the problem? Today Birmingham has a register of 64,000 homeless families. Apart from those people who must be rehoused, at least 50,000 slum houses are unfit for habitation and will have to be demolished in due course. A problem is created, as they are demolished, of decanting the population, and, even then, it is calculated that out of every five families displaced only three will be rehoused on the same site. That means that two families out of five will be surplus and will have to be found new land on which to be rehoused. That is altogether apart from lodgers and sub-tenants who are displaced at the same time. That creates a housing problem which will demand sites for at least 20,000 dwellings in spite of the fact that Birmingham is building quite a number of flats 12 storeys high and the bulk of its housing efforts is going into flats.
  Birmingham calculates that all its available virgin sites, which will be used for the building of a few thousand houses, will be completely exhausted within the

  111
  next two or three years. It is calculated that, at the lowest estimate, it will be necessary to provide more than 50,000 dwellings outside the confines of the city. That is the equivalent of a population of more than 150,000, which is the population not merely of the town but of a substantial city. That is the problem.
  What is the present position? The advice which we are receiving from the Minister is to negotiate. Birmingham has negotiated and has done its best to come to arrangements with the surrounding county and local authorities. Some progress has been made, but it has been entirely inadequate. The Minister mentioned our agreement about 7,000 houses, in the Staffordshire area, and we have made some progress with the Worcestershire area. The plain fact is that certain county and local authorities are not anxious to have the Birmingham overspill. They do not want people from Birmingham, and the matter is not likely to be solved merely by negotiation. Some of the difficulties are purely snobbish, but others are admittedly on substantial financial grounds.
  One knows the difficulties of receiving authorities, difficulties which have been accentuated by increases in rates of interest. We are now faced with the situation that some local authorities in the first place agreed to accept Birmingham nominees in their housing estates, but at an interest rate of 5½ per cent. the financial burden they will have to bear and the rents they will have to charge will be very much more than they are prepared to face. Some of them are already endeavouring to withdraw from such tentative agreements. But even assuming that all the agreements go through, such schemes will be quite inadequate to house a substantial proportion of Birmingham's overspill.
  We are entitled to ask what the Minister intends to do. It is all very well for the Minister to say, "It is Birmingham's responsibility. I will look on benevolently and bless any negotiations which you enter." That is all he is doing. We say that it is the Minister's problem. It is a national problem and not merely a problem for Birmingham, just as the problems of Manchester and London are national problems which have to be solved by national planning.
  112
  Birmingham has had an influx of population to swell Birmingham industry. Is it right that Birmingham should face the headache and foot the bill?
  We talk about Birmingham industry, but Birmingham citizens do not get the benefit of that industry, except in so far as they obtain employment in it. For the most part, the people who own that industry live outside the city and contribute in rates to the surrounding local authorities and not to Birmingham. Some of those are the receiving authorities which do not want to take the Birmingham overspill. The factories in Birmingham, under de-rating, pay only 25 per cent. of what their rate contribution should be. So it is not Birmingham which gets the advantage of the profits of its industries. The nation gets the benefit of their production and we therefore say that the housing problem is a matter for the nation to plan.
  Apart from that, with the best will in the world, even if Birmingham is prepared to make the whole of the financial contribution, the problem cannot be solved on a city basis. And we calculate that by the time we have dealt with all Birmingham's overspill, assuming that the negotiations continue and Birmingham pays a ten years' rate contribution, Birmingham will have payed from its rates towards the rehousing of a population which has been swollen by an industrial influx a total sum of no less than £4 million. That is a very large sum, a very heavy burden, even for a city the size of Birmingham. Even if that were done, we cannot get authorities to take the overspill population.
  Birmingham says that there is only one way to solve the problem: there must be a new town in the West Midlands. We say that a new town must be provided under the New Town Act. We do not think that the provisions of the 1952 Act are quite good enough to meet the case. True, the Minister has suggested that Birmingham should tell him of an area which should be designated for development under the 1952 Act, but that is not Birmingham's responsibility. It puts the city in an impossible position. Birmingham has only to say, "This is an area we should like", and the local population will say, "There you are—Birmingham's out to grab us." As my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Fien-

  113
  burgh) said earlier, the Minister has to do the planning and the designation, and should indicate where the new town is to be.
  Industrial planning has been mentioned by many speakers, many of whom have dealt with the same point, namely, that if industry moves out of the city the local authorities at the present time have no power whatsoever to deal with the vacated premises. Birmingham has had the same experience as have other authorities. A factory employing 2,000 people recently moved outside the city, and before the council learned that was being done the premises had been leased to another industrial concern, with more people coming into the city as a result. It is therefore obvious that it is of no use telling local authorities that they must do something about it. They have no power at all to do anything about it. That power must be provided.
  It has been pointed out that inducements must be offered to the owners of industrial concerns to move out of the big cities. It is no good just encouraging them and saying, "Will you please go?" They must have a financial inducement to take the risk, to move their factories, to look for new resources of labour and to incur new capital expenditure. I know that the Government prefer budgetary devices to physical controls, but I can suggest a budgetary device which I hope the Minister will seriously consider.
  The Minister says that he is at present reviewing our rating system and derating. I hope that, for the most part, derating of industrial concerns will go, but there is a case for the preferential derating of industrial concerns in these receiving areas, and I hope that, as part of his review, the Minister will seriously consider that as a method of inducing owners of factories to move out of the congested industrial areas into these receiving areas where it is desired that they should go. In that limited case I think that derating could be justified.
  I have placed Birmingham's problem before the Minister and the Committee. It is a very serious human problem, and Birmingham expects the Minister to do something about it. The city itself is doing what it can out of its own resources, but not sufficient—in fact, little if anything—has been done by the Minister to assist Birmingham and other cities to
  114
  solve this problem. In our view, it can be solved only by direct Government intervention and assistance because, as I have said, this is a national problem and not one which should rest for its solution simply on the populations of the large cities.
  7.45 p.m..
  Mr. William Shepherd: I should probably not have spoken at all but for the fact that I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) cast some mild strictures on the attitude of the districts surrounding Manchester. I happen to represent one of those districts, and we have views that differ, perhaps, from his. I do not think that it can be said that many of the Cheshire authorities are unreasonable in their attitude towards Manchester. Most of them are anxious to help, and the local authority in my own constituency—the Cheadle and Gatley Urban District Council—has been extremely helpful to the Manchester authority.
  We have not been too pleased with the response which that spirit of helpfulness has evoked. That is why I intervened when my hon. Friend was speaking. It is, of course, one thing to say—and, indeed, to admit—that Manchester has a very real problem, and quite another to say that the desperate need resulting from that problem should allow the Manchester authority to engage in what, to many of us, appears to be an attempt to browbeat the surrounding authorities. That will not bring results, and I hope that those advising Manchester will impress that fact upon that authority.
  When we go into Manchester and look at it—and many of us have to do that—many of us feel that not enough is being done inside the city to deal with this problem of rehousing. I know that there are tremendous problems, and that we cannot, perhaps, get all the rehousing we want within Manchester, but we think that perhaps a higher density should be accepted and more effort made to rehouse the population within Manchester.
  I do not think that overspill is in any way a satisfactory solution. I say so because I have had what might be called two experiences, in that, although I now represent an area of Cheshire which surrounds Stockport and Manchester, I did for five years represent one of the largest overspill areas in the country—the

  115
  Wythenshawe Estate. That gave me an insight into what really happens when these overspill areas are established. I admit that I represented Wythenshawe at a time when matters were extraordinarily difficult. That was so, not necessarily because hon. Gentlemen opposite were in power—though that did not help, of course—but because, from 1945 to 1950, there were many problems associated with the war years. Nevertheless, I felt that the Wythenshawe Estate as a sort of overspill area was nothing like a solution to the problem.
  One cannot escape the fact that individuals put outside a city's boundaries and yet held responsible for rates, etc., to that city really do not get a satisfactory deal. There is always the feeling that the amenities are not so great as they ought to be because the city wants the people to come back and spend their money there. There is always a feeling that, being outside the ambit of the city's activities, they do not get the consideration to which they are entitled, and that those in the city are getting the real benefit of the rates.
  All these thoughts occur to people placed as were the people on the Wythenshawe Estate, as I remember it from 1945 to 1950. We should, therefore, think very seriously indeed before we allow of arrangements that are socially unsatisfactory. There is no doubt at all that an arrangement like that of Wythenshawe is socially unsatisfactory, and even today, with more amenities provided, the objections which were present from 1945 to 1950 remain, in part if not in whole.
  In reference to the question of co-operation between Manchester and the surrounding districts, I have at the moment a particularly difficult example of the relations between Manchester and the Cheadle and Gatley Urban District Council. Manchester wanted to build some houses on a site in Heald Green which had been partly filled by bungalows. Along came Manchester with a plan to build two-and three-storey buildings on that site, adjacent or very near to the building line of the bungalows. When it was represented to the Manchester and Cheshire county authorities that that sort of building adjacent to bungalows was not a sound idea, Manchester replied that this sort of building had been
  116
  done at Wythenshawe, and that if it was all right for Wythenshawe it was all right for the estate in Heald Green, despite the fact that bungalows are not a feature of the Wythenshawe estate at all.
  If the City of Manchester wants co-operation from the surrounding authorities it must go out of its way to accept, in whole or in part, the views of those authorities when the type of development which should be permitted is decided. I am not pronouncing on the minor details of this development, but it was wholly unsuitable from the point of view of the people living there. Those people were not objecting to the idea in its entirety; they were objecting to the type of development that was envisaged.
  If Manchester is to get good relations with the authorities around it, it should pay a little more attention to the wishes of those with whom it is going to associate, instead of saying "This is it; take it or leave it. It was good enough elsewhere. It must be good enough for you". I know that desperate problems make people impatient, and probably if I had the job of the Manchester City Council I should be impatient too. Nevertheless, this is essentially, basically, and almost wholly, a question of human relationships. We shall solve this problem only by getting a good relationship between the authority which wants to dispose of some of its population and the authority which is to receive that population.
  I urge upon the Manchester City Council and other cities to try to cultivate a little more tolerance towards the receiving authorities, and realise that a little less of the big stick and a little more keenness to appreciate the difficulties of the receiving authorities will bring about a situation in which there will be much more co-operation, which is the only way in which this problem can be solved.
  7.52 p.m.
  Mr. E. Shinwell: It is not only because I lack the qualifications to speak on the general matters that have been raised in this debate, but also because I have no desire to stand in the way of other hon. Members who have greater qualifications and who are anxious to speak, that my intervention will be of a very brief character.
  As it happens, I am interested in this matter because I represent, among other places, the town of Peterlee, one of the

  117
  new towns. It is a very fine town, fast developing, though perhaps not as rapidly as some of us would desire. But there is a problem in that area which, no doubt, exists elsewhere, to which I should like to direct attention. Indeed, there are two fundamental problems, in my judgment.
  The Minister said in the course of his very interesting speech—and I make no criticism, at any rate, of 95 per cent. of what the Minister said—as indicating the enthusiasm with which the new towns were accepted, that there was no shortage of applications for the houses. That applies to the town of Peterlee, but the reason is that there is not sufficient accommodation of a satisfactory character available elsewhere.
  That is why the people in my area apply for accommodation in the town of Peterlee, in spite of the fact that the rents are far too high in relation to the incomes they receive. I believe—but I am open to correction—that the greater number of the tenants in the town of Peterlee pay rents exceeding 30s. a week. It may be that in the South people are accustomed to paying rents of that sort, but that does not apply in the North.
  There is considerable discontent because of what the people regard as high rents. The result of paying those rents is that many are incapable of providing themselves with a sufficiency of the necessities that they require, and certainly they have not the ability to provide for other amenities.
  There have been several disputes about the matter, and considerable discontent has been expressed. I have received several deputations upon the subject, and I have made representations to the corporation responsible for the administration of the town of Peterlee, as well as to the Minister, all without avail. We are told that these are the economic rents and that they have got to be paid. I believe this applies also to the new town of Aycliffe.
  I do not know whether the Minister can do anything about this. The Corporation cannot do anything because of the financial situation, but certainly some attention must be directed to this problem because sooner or later the corporation may be faced with a considerable accumulation of rent arrears, and people will come into the town, pay their rent for a time, find themselves in financial difficul-
  118
  ties and then seek accommodation elsewhere. If there is any change in wage rates—as there may be in due course; one cannot tell—or some changes in the family income because of young people leaving the parental home, clearly they will find themselves in a position of considerable difficulty.
  There is another problem which is equally important. It is the provision of industries in the area. It is a remarkable fact that in the town of Peterlee, although it was begun about eight or nine years ago, there are only two industries. One is a clothing factory which was opened recently, and the other is a textile factory which is working with only a limited number of employees because it is not possible to obtain the machinery required.
  I should like to explain what has happened in that connection. This firm, which is a Bradford firm, decided to go to the town of Peterlee, quite rightly, and certainly this decision was received with great favour in our area. It was thought that it might be possible to obtain a considerable volume of female labour. The labour is available. But in order to produce all that the firm requires—and, incidentally, it exports 74 per cent. of its products and, therefore, the matter becomes even more important—the firm wished to provide itself with machinery which was not available in this country.
  Application was therefore made to the Board of Trade to obtain machinery from the United States, which of course would mean an expenditure of dollars. But the application has been refused and the firm has been told to wait until the British machinery is available. The result is that instead of employing about 400 persons—and it might eventually be possible to employ more—only about half the number are employed.
  That is the kind of problem with which we are faced. It is no use the Minister expressing his desire—which I believe is quite sincere—to proceed expeditiously with the development of these new towns and provide for expansion and for housing accommodation, if he does not try to bring pressure to bear on his colleagues in order to provide the industries so that at any rate the people can find a measure of employment within the area, instead of travelling elsewhere.
  There is one further matter, which has been mentioned during the course of this

  119
  debate. Sooner or later the Minister, in conjunction with the local authorities and the various corporations in the new towns, will have to face the problem of democratic administration. At present, Peterlee, the only place of which I can speak from direct experience, is administered by a corporation; but there is no representation on that corporation from the people who live in Peterlee.
  There is consultation between the local authority and the corporation from time to time, and no doubt representations can be made by people who are aggrieved by the action, or inaction, of the corporation. Nevertheless, this procedure is not democratic in character. Now that eight or nine years have expired since the inception of these schemes, it seems to me that the Minister must tackle this matter of local authority administration, providing a democratic content. I should be glad to know whether the Minister intends to make any proposals in this connection.
  Those are all matters of importance in my area. There are others concerning amenities and the like, but I excuse the Minister and the corporation because there are physical, financial and other difficulties in the way, which are apparent to those of us concerned about the town of Peterlee and which are, no doubt, familiar to those associated with the other new towns.
  Finally, may I say that I am a little surprised that the provision of housing and the expansion of the new towns, the development of further new towns, the need for mobility, the obvious need for removing traffic congestion, the need for enabling people to live near their work, and so forth—all social, human problems affecting the whole community—have not attracted greater interest in the House of Commons this afternoon. I should have thought they would have done. However, there may be reasons why the Committee has been poorly attended. Nevertheless, the problems which the Minister has raised and which have been dealt with by my hon. Friends are prolems of great human, and indeed national, interest, and the sooner we reach a solution of those problems the better it will be for us all.
  8.4 p.m.
  Mr. Martin Maddan: I wish to speak about two matters which arise in this debate, one relating to new towns and
  120
  the other relating to expanded towns. In my own constituency, the Hitchin division of Hertfordshire, we have the new town of Stevenage, and in another town in the division, Letchworth, where negotiations with the London County Council are going on with a view to expanding that town to take some of London's overspill. One could speak for a very long time on both these problems, but I wish to focus my attention, and the attention of the Committee, on two particular problems. One of them relates to new towns in general, though I shall cite examples from Stevenage, which I know, and the other relates to expanded towns which are intended to take overspill from large towns and cities in a particular area, the example I have in mind being Letchworth.
  Before I go further, I shall pay a tribute to the people in the areas receiving these large immigrations from surrounding cities for the way in which they receive them. Certainly in North Hertfordshire around Stevenage, despite the very bitter controversy which raged before that town was finally set on its way, all the people now, both in the original town or village of Stevenage and in the surrounding countryside, do all they can to make the newcomers to Hertfordshire feel welcome, and I am certain that any other developments which may occur in North Hertfordshire will find that same spirit prevailing. It is very important that it should.
  I have always thought it a pity that we should speak about "new Stevenager", "new" this, that or the other. What we are trying to do in the new towns, and more particularly in the expanded towns, is to graft something new on to something which already exists. There are very few new towns which are mushrooming up from nothing. If these towns are to have a good social basis and spirit, it is vital that a feeling of comradeship between all people, new and old, should exist. Therefore, I deprecate the use of the terms "old" and "new" when referring to the original and the growing part of these communities.
  In Stevenage, there are very many things about which I could grow eloquent and to which I could pay many tributes, but I suppose it is in the nature of these debates that we should talk about the things we regard as wrong and which we wish to see remedied. The most

  121
  disappointing thing to me in Stevenage is the "one class" character, if I may use that expression, of the development of the new Stevenage. I have tried to collect some figures, and, from the information I have, it appears that there have been finished somewhere between 4,000 and 5,000 new houses under the aegis of the new town corporation. When we come to look at the number of houses built for occupation by managers in the factories, technicians, professional men, doctors, solicitors and those in all the other professions we must have to keep the modern community going, the numbers arc falling far behind the proportion there might be to match the influx of people doing other forms of work.
  The result, of course, is bound to be an unbalanced community, unless we can put it right. I do not in any way criticise the corporation, which started off, I fear, under a considerable disadvantage, if I may put it in this way, from the nature of its first chairman, Miss Monica Felton. After the discontinuance of her association with the corporation, there were many difficulties left, and we are still trying to resolve them; but the pattern which has been set does not make their solution easy.
  Mr. Lindgren: For the sake of the record, I think the hon. Member for Hitchin has made a slip. He said Miss Felton was the first chairman, but she was not the first chairman of Stevenage New Town Coporation by any means; there were three before her, unfortunately.
  Mr. Maddan: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. She was not the first chairman.
  Mr. Shinwell: She happened to be the first chairman of Peterlee New Town Corporation.
  Mr. Maddan: She was the first chairman of Peterlee. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) mentioned some of the difficulties of Peterlee, though I am sure that he did not attribute those particular difficulties to Miss Monica Felton.
  The point I wish to make is that in Stevenage we have 4,000 or 5,000 houses built. There are some blocks of flats which one might reckon were designed and built for the sort of person I am
  122
  talking about, managers and other professional people, and there are something over 100 of those flats. There are about a dozen houses which one could describe as having been designed for this sort of person. There are a score or so of other houses which might or might not be designed for such people, and a contractor, in association with the corporation, is building a few more houses privately. When all these are added together and one takes the most optimistic view of their use, however, the proportion that they represent of the total population of the new town of Stevenage is much below the proportion of people who will be needed to provide the industrial leadership and the professional services for a town of that size.
  What happens, therefore, to these people? Many of them, when their factories move out to Stevenage, move into the blocks of flats. Whilst in many respects they are very pleasant flats indeed, they serve rather the purpose of a transit camp, for many of the people move out of them to live in the surrounding countryside. Unfortunately, therefore, as a result of the development of the new town, Stevenage is becoming a rather unbalanced community.
  It is certainly optimistic to imagine that people who move into the country—and perhaps one of the reasons why they come away from the middle of London is that they hope to be able to live a country life—should settle down in great blocks of flats put down very much in the middle of the town close to where the new town centre is being built and feel that that is the kind of place in which they can make their home for many years. It is not working out that way and, therefore, people are leaving the town of Stevenage and going into the surrounding countryside.
  Two houses have been privately built by people who intended to live in them—certainly it is a tiny number—but this arrangement has not worked out successfully. In addition, the other houses to which I have referred are being built. They are quite pleasant and fairly well sited, and they might well be regarded as houses in which managers, technicians and other experts of industry might choose to live near their work and among other people who work in their factories. We have yet to see how this works out, however, for the houses are still under

  123
  construction. Whether they will in fact serve that purpose, I do not know.
  The corporation itself has built houses specifically for these people but has encountered the difficulty that by the time it has paid the cost of building the houses and has added the cost of overheads and development, people who contemplate buying the houses find that the money they can get from a building society is not sufficient to meet the price. A building society's idea of valuation is naturally rather different from that of a development corporation, which is under a statutory and quite proper obligation to meet the cost not only of building the houses but also of developing all the amenities, including trunk sewers, lighting, water and the rest.
  There has been started, therefore, in Stevenage the experiment, which, I believe, has been tried elsewhere, of having a private contractor to build houses for sale privately. It is an interesting fact that the contractor, who has put his money down on this basis, considers that he can build the houses and sell them on a more attractive basis than the corporation is able to do. It may be that he has certain advantages. If so, it is a happy arrangement that he should exploit them.
  If this method succeeds, I very much hope that the corporation will have the support of my right hon. Friend the Minister. I am sure that it will, because my right hon. Friend has on many occasions expressed his concern that the new towns should be developed as balanced communities. I am certain that the corporation will have the Minister's support in pressing ahead with a scheme which will have the effect of keeping all the various sections of the people who are working in the town of Stevenage living there. That is most important if we are to avoid transplanting to these new areas in the countryside the same kind of onesided social set-up from which people who come to these towns have suffered in the areas which they have left.
  One of the unhappiest features of the industrial revolution was the way in which the people in the various walks of life were segregated, not only at work but also in the places in which they lived. In the villages, such a set-up was quite foreign to anything we had ever seen
  124
  before and we do not want to repeat it in the new areas which we are now developing.
  I quite understand that my right hon. Friend cannot subsidise these people in some special way. It is curious that those who are, one imagines, the better-paid people in the firms in which they work find it impossible to live in the new towns according to the standards which are their wont, while the people who draw a weekly wage packet can do so. Certainly, it is a topsy-turvy world. I do not suggest that my right hon. Friend should give these other people a special subsidy but if a solution such as is now being tried in Stevenage, and which, I believe, has been tried elsewhere, of letting out to private contractors the building of houses for these people can be put through successfully, it would be a happy outcome to the problem.
  If an arrangement of that kind does not succeed, we must devote ourselves to finding some other solution. It is not something that we can let go by default. We should be criticised, and rightly so, by coming generations if in building the new towns, with all the benefits of planning and thought and deliberate decisions, we simply repeated the same mistakes as happened haphazardly under laissez faire a century ago after the industrial revolution.
  I should like now to turn my remarks to Letchworth, the first garden city, of which we are very proud. Other garden cities have, perhaps, carried out more assiduous public relations campaigns and may be better known, but Letchworth nevertheless is the first garden city, not only in this country but in the world. A few weeks ago it celebrated its 50th birthday and held an exhibition. It was extremely well attended and showed the great interest taken by the people of Letchworth in their town.
  The town of Letchworth has been negotiating with the London County Council to build an estate of about 1,500 houses to take some of the excess population of London when its densities are reduced to a more proper figure. The town does not do this only for philanthropic reasons, of course. Whatever regrets we may entertain about change—and all of us, on both sides, are inclined to have misgivings about change—we in

  125
  our part of the world firmly believe that the people can be much better housed, their standard of living more easily maintained and the health of the nation much better advanced, by developing fairly small communities in place of huge agglomerations like the conurbations of London and those which are to be found in the Midlands, in the North-West and in Yorkshire. Though it may mean an upset in our local way of life, we are prepared to face it for the common good. Certainly that is the opinion of the elected majority of the Letchworth Urban District Council.
  Mr. W. R. Williams: As the hon. Member has had a long connection with Manchester, he will be pleased to know that that is the view of Manchester, too.
  Mr. Maddan: I thank the hon. Member. I have indeed a long connection with Manchester, having been born within eight miles of Manchester—I will not say exactly how many years ago, but long enough to justify what the hon. Member has said.
  Naturally, the local authority has to safeguard the interests of the people who live in its area. It would not otherwise be doing its job by the people who elected it. At Letchworth, the council is in the control of the political friends of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. I make no quarrel with it or with them on that account. Indeed, I think the great majority of the people of Letchworth would welcome the development to which I have referred.
  Certainly the industrialists would. We have many new factories being opened there, and old factories being expanded. Later this month a large factory is to be opened to make automatic transmissions for motor cars. It will have a colossal output. It has an extremely modern layout and modern mechanisation, so that its labour force will not be anything like as great as one would suppose from the contribution it will make to the motor car industry and also to our exports. Nevertheless, it will need men. There are other factories there in heavy and light industries which are, I am glad to say, prospering, but which are in great need of more people to work in them.
  How is the need to be met? Certainly, men cannot be drawn from the surrounding countryside. The farmers in the
  126
  neighbourhood are already hard pressed for labour. I do not believe their case is any worse than that which is general throughout the country, but the problem of obtaining people to work on the land is, throughout the country, fairly acute. It is made more acute for us by the fact that over the border, in Bedfordshire, there are towns like Luton, which has a large motor industry, and Dunstable, which is developing a large motor industry, which are drawing away from the countryside people who would normally have expected to have lived their lives working on the farms. Mechanisation on the farms is helping to meet the difficulty.
  However, because we cannot draw any more people from the countryside, and because the industry of Letchworth is expanding, the urban district council pursued with the London County Council a scheme to build 1,500 houses in Letchworth. Those negotiations so developed that it was generally believed the scheme would come off, but it has now foundered because the urban district council thought the high interest rates and, in particular, the risk that they might get higher, and the risk that building costs might also get higher, made it difficult for a small community such as that of Letchworth to bear an expansion of the sort which was contemplated.
  I am afraid I was not able to hear my right hon. Friend's opening remarks today, and so I do not know whether he referred to this subject or not. I can see that this difficulty could be a deterrent in the thinking and planning by a fairly small local authority in concluding a negotiation to commit its people to expenditures directly on behalf of other people, as a consequence of which bargain they might have to pay a greater share than originally contemplated, because of rises in interest rates or in building costs.
  I think the local authority could be fortified by the fact that in the new town at Stevenage only four or five miles away there is no difficulty at all in getting people to come to live there despite the high rents, which were referred to by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington when speaking of Peterlee, and as generally obtaining in the new towns. People go to them prepared to pay them. They go to live in very much better conditions than those they have been used to, and they pay

  127
  for a basic amenity, and they enjoy that amenity. I do not think there is much resentment about the level of the rents which they are called upon to pay. I believe that the authorities responsible for towns which may be expanded to take overspill from London could well be fortified by the experience of the new town corporations in obtaining comparatively high levels of rents without deterring people from coming to the new towns. Certainly, in Stevenage we have no trouble at all in filling the houses.
  It may be that in the expanded towns this would be equally true, but it would, of course, lead to a slightly different problem. In a town like Stevenage there is a large new part being developed by the corporation, and there is a comparatively small old part. There are council houses, a comparatively small number, of which the rents are much lower than they are in the new town. At Letchworth, people from the L.C.C. area, in the part to be developed, would see in the town of Letchworth as it exists today a large number of people paying for council houses rents very much less than they would be paying if they were paying at the same rate which the people pay in the new town.
  So the council is faced with this problem. Is it to raise rents all round? That would hardly be fair. Is it to have a large development right in its midst where some people will pay very much higher rents than are being paid for other houses whose occupants work in the same factories as themselves in the town? I can see that there is a very real problem in these expanding towns when wondering whether or not to undertake a development in conjunction with a large city in the locality. The authorities in these expanding towns may be rather more fearful than they need be. I also believe that the exporting authorities and the Ministry could go some way towards meeting their fears and, between them, probably overcome them. If that came about we might see the very great surge forward in these expanding towns which is needed to relieve the congestion in the old cities that are left to us from the days of the Industrial Revolution.
  In north Hertfordshire one type of this development has gone ahead after a rather dubious start, and we might well
  128
  see another development taking place a few miles away. It will be extremely interesting to see how they compare. We must ensure that both types of schemes succeed, because we cannot rest in the country while we have the old towns developed out of the Industrial Revolution, with their high densities of population and poor conditions of living which cannot but be a drain on the health, the spirit and the whole feeling of our people. If England is to continue as a nation, with homogeneity of feeling, solidarity and the same roots, we must see to it that the most basic social service of all—housing—is of the highest standard that the country can possibly afford.
  8.30 p.m.
  Mr. Albert Evans: The hon. Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) has made a long and interesting contribution, and I would wish to take up briefly only two points that he made. I am glad he is aware that the Government's policy of high interest rates causes very serious problems to local authorities. I hope that he will make that point plain to the Government on every occasion.
  The hon. Member also made an interesting comment about the difficulty of persuading middle-income groups to stay and live and mix with lower-income groups in the new towns. I believe that is true of Stevenage and that it is the case with other new towns. I do not think that the Minister can do much about it. It is deep-seated in the inequalities of our society. Where-ever the right hon. Gentleman goes, whether to new towns, old towns, city or countryside, he will find that inequalities of income result in a class division which will take Governments a long time to overcome.
  I think that we have found in this debate general agreement that the new towns are a success. We must agree that when the Labour Government took this step of bringing the New Towns Act into operation it was the first bold, practical attempt to deal with the problem of overcrowding in our cities and the dispersal of some part of our material assets. We are glad to know that, as he has said today, the Minister and the Government are not opposed in principle to the creation of new towns.

  129
  We on this side of the Committee are pleased to accept that as the Government's intention. The Minister also said that if the Labour Government had not started a new towns programme it should not be assumed that the present Administration would not have done so. It is a pleasure to know that a Conservative Administration supports collective enterprise. If the Government move along that path, we on these benches will have achieved some of our purposes.
  Though the new towns are successful—and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) also said that they were financially successful — I am in some doubt as to whether, with the added interest rates over the last 12 months, they will not run into serious financial difficulties. The rents are already beyond the reach of many people who would like to live in these new towns. The Minister has yet to feel the impact on new town rents of the Government's financial policy. When those higher interest rates find their way into the rents of the new buildings being erected in the new towns, we may find that the present rate of growth will have a setback.
  I look at this matter mainly from the point of view of London, representing as I do a London constituency, and also being a Londoner. When I consider it, I think of the eight new towns surround-the Metropolitan area. I have visited them and studied them to some extent, and I want to make two detailed points about them. I hope that the Minister will be very careful that these new towns do not become mere extensions of the greater Metropolitan region. There are signs that that is already happening. Information has been given to me that too many people are moving to and fro between the Metropolitan area and the new towns. They are working in London during the day and using the new towns as dormitories. If that process develops the problem of the over-large conurbabation will be made even worse. It is essential that the new towns should be kept as free as possible of persons who wish to use them merely as dormitories.
  We must also be very careful that the green belt between the Metropolitan area and the London new towns is not urbanised. Again, there are already signs that that situation is developing slowly. Some
  130
  of the new towns themselves are throwing out urban scatterings into the green belt area. We must see that that process does not develop further, so that the whole Metropolitan area becomes twice its present size.
  The Minister said that he was not concerned to state the precise number of persons who should be dispersed from the County of London. I agree with him. I am not over-anxious to lay down a precise figure. The County of London plan mentions a figure of 618,000; the 1951 development plan mentions one of 380,000, and in the same year the then Minister of Housing said that at least 250,000 people from London should be provided for outside the county area.
  We have made some progress. The London County Council has done a remarkable job. Since the end of the war it has made provision for 125,000 persons outside the county boundary, which is a remarkable achievement by a progressive administration at County Hall. The new towns have also made a contribution, but not such a large one as we might have hoped. The Minister said that 100,000 persons had gone from the greater London area to the London new towns since they had begun to be built. I accept that figure, but when we break it down and see how many came from the County of London we get a different picture. I believe I am right in saying that only 25,000 of those people have come from the County of London. The London County Council estimates that only 28 per cent. of the houses in the London new towns go to people from the County of London. The proportion seems to be about one-third from the County of London and two-thirds from greater London and other parts of the country.
  Sir Frederick Messer: How do they get there?
  Mr. Evans: They have to be nominated under the industrial scheme which operates. No one local authority can claim any proportion of the houses, and a new town has to house people who have jobs in it. That is the first test.
  We have made substantial progress. Perhaps 150,000 people have been dispersed from the County of London since the end of the war. But we have now reached the stage when that process is slowing down. The London County Council will be unable to build much

  131
  more on the periphery of the county. The sites are used up. There is no longer room for out-county estates. It may be argued that that development on the periphery has been overdone and that too many people have been rehoused too near London.
  The position in London is difficult. Over the next eight or nine years new towns will not take more than about 75,000 people from the County of London. There is no hope that we shall be able to solve the problem of London's overcrowding within the foreseeable future. Contrary to what the Minister appears to think, the schemes under the Town Development Act are stagnant. Negotiations have ended. The Minister said that a year ago he raised the grant for drains and sewers by 50 per cent. I wish to know what he has done since, during the time of the abortive negotiations between the London County Council and outlying authorities. Since the grant was raised, interest rates have gone up 2 per cent. My information is that development schemes have stopped, and I should like reassurance on that point. Only the Minister can reorganise the financial arrangements for receiving authorities.
  According to official figures, the London County Council has a waiting list for housing accommodation of 150,000. I assume that there are another 150,000 people on the waiting lists of the Metropolitan boroughs, making a total of 300,000 people requiring accommodation. If we make allowance for duplication, and reduce the figure to a minimum, we can say without exaggeration that there are 100,000 families in need of accommodation. Responsible councillors are telling people that there is little hope of them being rehoused within a reasonable period. Undoubtedly the position is worse now than it has ever been since the beginning of the war, and that is serious. Today people expect better accommodation than in the past.
  Let us examine what the Government have done over the last four or five years. The Minister has not started a single new town. Because of the refusal of the Government to face the financial obstacles, the Town Development Act has become inoperable. Furthermore, they have forced the local authorities in the London
  132
  area to derequistion property and rehouse displaced persons before providing for those in urgent need. They are pressing local authorities to clear the slums without making adequate provision to rehouse the people displaced. The Minister, in due course—quite soon now—will abolish the housing subsidy for general need. All these were contributions by the Government to help the London authorities to solve their problems. Interest rates had been pushed up to such an extent that a London flat built at the present time at a cost of £2,800 has to be let at about 50s. a week, 35s. of which goes in interest charges.
  The final thing which the Government have promised to do to help London to solve its problems is to amend the Rent Restrictions Acts. The Minister has stated that he proposes to do that, and presumably the rent of all controlled properties will rise. The only glimmer of sense about their policy of allowing the rents of controlled properties to rise seems to be in the idea which the Minister has that at present in London there is much under-occupied accommodation, and that by allowing the rents to rise that accommodation will be brought into use.
  It may be that a certain amount of under-occupied accommodation would be let if the rents allowed were sufficiently high. If it is the Minister's policy in future to amend the Rent Acts and allow the rents of controlled properties to rise, we shall be back to the old practice of the 1930s, which was called doubling up. That meant that the married son or daughter had to take one of mother's rooms. We shall be back to the time when people will be crowded together even more than at present.
  The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): The hon. Member is now dealing with legislation.
  Mr. Evans: Yes, Sir Rhys, that is so. I was discussing the statement which the Minister has made that he proposes to amend the Rent Acts, and I realise that that is outside the confines of this debate.
  The Deputy-Chairman: That subject is outside the limits of this debate.
  Mr. Evans: I apologise, Sir Rhys.
  I will conclude briefly by saying that the Minister and the present Administration, despite all the things that the

  133
  Minister has said today about the fine purposes of the new towns and the need to help to rehouse the overcrowded population, must be judged by the actions which have been taken during recent years. When one examines all the steps that have been taken in relation to this problem of overcrowding and overspill, we find that the Government's contribution to this problem has really been a negative one.
  8.49 p.m
  Mr. Richard Body: It is perhaps appropriate that I should follow the hon. Member for Islington, South-West (Mr. A. Evans) because many people from that borough come to live in Basildon, which will be the largest of all the new towns, with a population of about 90,000, and which I have the honour to represent. The hon. Gentleman referred to several problems affecting the new towns and those who go to live there. Although he and I sit on opposite sides of the Committee, I found myself agreeing with some of the points which he made.
  The hon. Gentleman did not refer to one problem which is causing very great concern to many who are now coming to the new towns or, more important still, are thinking of doing so. That is the problem of unemployment. If there is one thing that will deter someone from going to live in a new town it is the thought that if he goes there he may later be out of work.
  I asked the Minister of Labour recently how many people were unemployed in the new town of Basildon. The answer was that there were 40. In an old-established town of ordinary size that might present no problem at all, but in a new town, where all those who go to live in it are able-bodied men, anxious and willing to work, such a number is serious, small though it may appear, because the opportunities of alternative employment are very few.
  Many of those 40 may have great difficulty in finding other employment, although I understand that some have been able to find other work in the last few days. I ask my right hon. Friend to consider the problem, and I suggest three steps which might alleviate the difficulty in future. Taking the new town of Basildon as an example, there is a lack
  134
  of balance between the industries. The engineering industries are predominant. That is inevitable, as nearly all of them have come from East London, where there are many small engineering works. I suggest to the Minister that a better balance should be aimed at. I fully realise that that will present difficulties, but I maintain that it is something which ought to be aimed at, in view of the serious consequences which might otherwise arise.
  Secondly, I suggest that when industrialists apply for factories in new towns they should be asked to give some kind of guarantee not to declare redundant more than a certain number of workers at the same time. Of course, the ideal would be for them to guarantee that no one would be declared redundant, but that is beyond the bounds of practicability. On one occasion in Basildon a company discharged quite a number of people at the same time, and the local employment exchange could not cope with the position immediately. My third suggestion is that, so far as possible, priority for these factories should be given to those industrialists who have reasonably full order books for the foreseeable future.
  I should like to deal briefly with what the hon. Member for Islington. South-West said about high rents. He commented that the rents in new towns were often too high. When overtime is being worked, the rents such as those charged a few months ago were reasonable; but since then many rents have been increased, and at the same time overtime has ceased in many factories. Tenants with large families experience great difficulty and hardship in having to pay a rent, sometimes of more than £2 a week, when no overtime is being worked.
  The position of some of the middle-income groups is, in a way, worse. I can think of several examples of young professional men, young executives in the factories, and young schoolmasters, with a wife and one or two children, who cannot afford the rent in their new town and prefer to live outside, although they would be great assets to the communal life of the new town.
  Not long ago a deputation, representing the shop stewards of building sites in the new towns, came to see me here. When I went to meet them I was not too

  135
  sure what they were going to say. I was very interested indeed to learn that they had come to tell me that, in their opinion, as building operatives who had worked on building sites all their lives—their total building experience aggregated some 30 years—there was far too much waste by some of the architects and designers on the new town corporations. Many of the architects were young and full of fanciful ideas and continually changing the plans after the work had been started. Those variations added to the price of the houses, and the increases were passed on, inevitably, as higher rents to the tenants.
  Although that may not be the immediate concern of my right hon. Friend, I suggest that there should be tighter control and supervision of those responsible for the design of houses in the new towns, and that an order might go out on the subject of variations after the work is commenced. The shop stewards had no doubt that £30 at least could be saved on each house erected in the new town of Basildon.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin (Mr. Maddan) referred to private development. I have been told again and again by builders that they could build houses of similar types to those in the new towns at a lower price. Of course, we all realise the danger of indiscriminate private development in a new town, and that there must be considerable supervision over such private development, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that more use should be made of private builders in the new towns. They could be invited to submit designs of different houses. One of the major complaints, particularly of people in the middle-income groups, is that so many of the houses in the new towns look alike. Architects on the staff of the new town corporations have tried to vary the design so far as they can, but unfortunately they have not always been successful.
  I make a suggestion on a much more minor matter, but a matter which is causing some concern in nearly all the new towns and will cause greater concern later, small though it may be. I refer to the question of garages. I understand my right hon. Friend has sent out an order that the ratio of garages to houses should be only one to two. That is all right at the moment, but the number of cars being
  136
  bought by tenants in new towns is growing every year. Already there are signs in Basildon of cars having to be parked in the road all night, and that tendency is bound to increase. I suggest that the ratio should be varied.
  I fully realise that it would be a mistake and a waste for garages to be built and left unoccupied, but there is no reason why garage space should not be left so that garages could be erected later when the need arose. Surely that would be worth while, for the alternative in a few years' time may be that roads, which are narrow enough already, will be cluttered up with cars left out all night, as happens in so many London streets at present.
  As I have only a few seconds left, may I briefly ask my right hon. Friend to consider the question of local democracy in the new towns. So often changes are made in the administration of the new towns affecting all the tenants, yet little or no consultation takes place. By "tenants" I mean not only those who live there but also industrialists. I suggest that that problem should be looked into and an effort made towards creating a greater atmosphere of democracy in the new towns than exists at the present time.
  9.2 p.m.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: I am sure the Committee will agree that we have had an interesting debate. I am afraid I shall have to repeat quite a number of things mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison), because, to say the least, the opening speech of the Minister was very disappointing. The right hon. Gentleman hardly dealt with any of the material factors mentioned by my hon. and learned Friend. I was surprised that the Minister seemed to have no appreciation whatever of the problem.
  We have to see what the problem is and how this Government have been dealing with it. A number of hon. Members have mentioned figures in relation to towns in their constituencies. We express the position in terms of families registered on the local housing lists. They are a little startling. In London, the number is 160,000, in Manchester, 22,000; in Birmingham, 64,000; in Leeds, 25,000; in Newcastle, 15,000; in Liverpool, 42,000; in Hull, 16,000; in Sheffield, 20,000; in Bristol, 12,000. [An HON. MEMBER: "Which Newcastle?"]

  137
  Newcastle in the Tyneside conurbation. That is by no means the whole of the problem, but hon. Members will see that there is a total of 376,000.
  As has been pointed out by a number of my hon. Friends, even if the Minister is serious about slum clearance—and I have my doubts about that—he does not seem to have appreciated the fact, which should be evident, that on the site one rehouses only 50 per cent. or, at the maximum, 60 per cent. of the number previously living on the site. So at least 40 per cent. and perhaps 50 per cent. of persons rehoused from slum clearance must be added to those figures.
  What have the Government done about it, and what do they intend to do about it? My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering quoted the previous Parliamentary Secretary and the Minister. I will quote the Minister in a more favourable light. During consideration of the Housing Subsidies Measure, the Minister spoke of a desire to deal with 20,000 families per annum in new and expanded towns. Even on that basis it would take 20 years to deal with the problem. The Minister knows that he cannot deal with anything like that number, and I shall show why in a few moments.
  For all the airy fairy phrases which the Minister used, there are some plain facts and, in a debate like this, it is as well to state them. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite did not like the New Towns Act, 1946. They did not have the courage to vote against it, but they have done everything humanly possible by intrigue and by financial and legal methods to prevent its working. The Tory Central Office was very active in the early stages of the development of Stevenage. Hon. Members opposite have done their best to kill the development of the new towns which we started.
  The right hon. Gentleman did not seem to know the origin of the Town Development Act, 1952. I can tell him, because I had something to do with it. It was on the stocks when the 1951 General Election took place, and the first Minister of Housing and Local Government in the Tory Government of 1951 found it and brought it to the House of Commons. When we were dealing with it in Committee, I had the audacity to say that the Government did not intend effectively to
  138
  operate it. It was not so audacious, because I was proved correct. I have in my hand a copy of the Greater London Plan, Memorandum by the Ministry of Town and Country Planning on the Report of the Advisory Committee for London Regional Planning, dated 1947. From that emerged the Town Development Act and the proposals for expanded towns, which the Minister has tried to destroy.
  Let us compare the records of the Labour Government and the Tory Government in dealing with the human problem of housing the people of this country. In spite of all the immediate post-war problems which faced the Labour Government in 1945, we passed the New Towns Act and started 14 new towns. Since the Tory Party came to power in 1951, not a single new town has been started. During the Minister's speech I interjected—and to pay a compliment where compliments can be paid, he is always very generous in giving way—to ask what had happened to Congleton, which was the one new town which the Labour Government had designated but not started. His Government did not proceed with it. He did not develop just why they did not deal with it. Congleton was intended to deal with the overspill from the Potteries and Manchester.
  Some hon. Members opposite, even though they represent new towns, do not seem to appreciate what is necessary in the starting of a new town. After all, the Minister has not even had the machinery at his disposal or, if he has, has not used it, to find a site for Birmingham. He has thrown back, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Mr. J. Silverman) mentioned, on the Birmingham City Council the responsibility of surveying, from its own resources the surrounding countryside and finding a suitable site. As a Labour Government we took the responsibility of Government. We had a Department at our disposal which we used. We surveyed the countryside around London, and after considering very many sites made a decision.
  I must repeat that, from deciding on the site and designating the area of a new town, three years elapses before the first house can be built. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have been remarking on the fact that when they came to power

  139
  in 1951 in some of the new towns only the first few houses had been started. That is perfectly true in some of them, but when the party opposite came into office the plans were already laid, so that the new towns would be building houses at a rate of a thousand a year. When the Tory Government took office in 1951, the new towns were progressing on a balanced development. There were a thousand houses coming off the housing lines, together with the development of schools, factories and social amenities, so that the community could really be built up together. The interest rate was then 3 per cent. The houses that were built were of good standard—first-class standard—and were built at a density of ten to the acre. What is more, they were at reasonable rents.
  I am glad that a number of hon. Members have mentioned that the new towns have been a success. They have been a tremendous success, socially and architecturally. They have been a financial success. I would not put that first, but it is really remarkable that, within ten years of the passing of the Act, all the new towns are showing a surplus. They are a very good financial investment and something of which the country can be proud. One of the most interesting features has been the number of foreign visitors to the new towns to see how we are developing them.
  Now let us look at the record of the Tory Government since they came to power. In spite of all that right hon. and hon. Members opposite have said, that record is that the first thing the Tory Government did—apart from deciding that there would be no more new towns—was to upset the balance of development in the new towns. They cut the educational programme; they cut town centre development, and they cut social amenities. The problems which some hon. Gentlemen opposite have been mentioning today are the direct result of the Government's policy of preventing the development corporations, which are the agents of the Government, from carrying out what they originally intended to do, and what was already planned they would do, and what, in some cases, sanction had been given to them to do.
  I see the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) sitting there. He represents the new towns in Hertfordshire. As he
  140
  knows, the Hertfordshire County Council has been straining at the leash with plans for 14 new schools. His Government is holding up the county council—but he did not mention that. Now we are faced with educational problems in the new towns.
  It is true that we cannot deal with a new town on the same basis as we can deal with an existing town. One appreciates the problems involved. As an hon. Member opposite said, when building a new town one starts from scratch. But the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government, who was much more concerned with statistics than he was with human suffering, cut those programmes.
  Mr. Gough: The hon. Gentleman referred to educational facilities in new towns. I can speak of my own new town, and I can tell him that there is absolutely no ground whatever for his criticism of Crawley. The hon. Gentleman also spoke of the failure of my right hon. Friend to look after human misery. Surely to build at the rate of 100,000 houses a year is not neglecting human misery.
  Mr. Lindgren: The hon. Gentleman is privileged to represent a new town which was the first to be started. Crawley was fortunate in as much as its development had proceeded so far before the Labour Government fell in 1951. As a result, the education programme was completed.
  The Tory record in housing, even in Crawley, is not creditable. Interest rates are now at 5½ per cent. There has been a lot of talk about rents. One result of a Tory Government has been that, on the increased interest alone from 3 per cent. when they took office to 5½ per cent. as it is now, the rents have been increased by 16s. a week, and by a reduction in the subsidy there has been a further increase of 4s. As a result of the reduction of the subsidy and the increase in interest charges, there is an extra £1 a week on rents.
  No wonder my right hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) spoke of housing rent difficulties. If I may say so to him, if any residents in our new towns in the London area read his speech in which he referred to a rent of 30s., their mouths will water. The development corporation in the London area cannot build a house to let at an inclusive rent of less than £2 to £3 a week.
  Mr. Shinwell: I said that the rent exceeded 30s. a week.
  Mr. Lindgren: Rents exceed that amount by a great deal in this part of the country. In addition, although the houses are now costing over £1 a week, they are not a patch on the houses which were built by the Labour Government. They are smaller in floor area and the ceilings are lower. In the constituency of the hon. Member for Hertford, I went into a house during the weekend and saw a building trade worker whitewashing a ceiling while standing on the floor. The ceiling was 7 ft. from the ground. That is a result of this Government's cutting of housing standards. In that constituency where under the Labour Government houses were built at 10 to the acre, they are now being built at a density of 16 to the acre. The Labour Government built the biggest, the best planned and the cheapest houses, and at reasonable rents. The Tories have put up smaller and shoddier houses at a greater density.
  The hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay) referred to the use of agricultural land. It is not building houses at 10 to the acre in new towns that eats up agricultural land. It is the middle-class houses built at a density of one, two, three and four to the acre which eat up agricultural land. Never do I hear from hon. Members opposite that their friends should live at a density of 16 to the acre. There is never any talk of squeezing agricultural land for their type of development. It is only the worker in factory or workshop, living in a new town, who is to have crowded living conditions.
  I will go to any of the new towns about which hon. Gentlemen opposite have expressed interest. Let us visit the houses built under the Labour Government, and let us see the density at which those houses were built.
  Lord Balniel: Hardly any at all were built.
  Mr. Lindgren: The noble Lord has not represented that constituency for very long; I have lived there for 30 years.
  Lord Balniel: I have already pointed out that during the five years when hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible for the building of Hatfield New Town, only 51 houses were built, and during the five years when they were responsible for
  142
  building houses in Welwyn Garden City, only 200 houses were built.
  Mr. Lindgren: The noble Lord really ought to be a little more knowledgeable, at least about his own constituency. He talks about a period of five years. His mathematics are a bit at sea. I went to night school and, even at this hour, I can still count. The New Towns Act was passed in 1946. Hatfield New Town area was not designated until 1949, and I opened the first house there when I was Parliamentary Secretary in 1951. I will go to Hatfield with the noble Lord and visit with him those houses which were built in that period in both Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City, houses which are a credit, in which we have pride, more especially when we compare them with those now being built at a density of 16 to the acre, which are not creditable at all. No Tory could really take any pride in either the standard of building or the density at which those houses are being built.
  Mr. Finlay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the inhabitants of those houses, the standard of which he professes to deplore, have expressed themselves as highly satisfied?
  Mr. Lindgren: Not only do hon. Gentlemen opposite not know their own constituencies, but they do not appear to know anything of working-class life. Of course, if a man has been stuck in Walthamstow, crowded in one room with three kids, and he then gets a three-bedroom house in Harlow, it seems like heaven. The fact is that the party opposite have been debasing housing standards. The Tories were worried during the war because of the low standard of pre-war council development; they set up the Dudley Committee to say what housing standards should be in post-war years. Even the Coalition Government accepted the Dudley Committee Report.
  The Labour Government implemented the Dudley Committee Report, but the Tories are now building houses in Harlow, in Welwyn Garden City and in Hatfield at standards which are not only below the Dudley standards, which were accepted during the war when the men were fighting, but which are below the standards of houses being built by local authorities in 1938 and 1939. There is nothing to be proud of there. What hon.

  143
  Member opposite goes to bed in a bedroom with a ceiling 7 feet high? What wife of an hon. Member opposite is there who works in a kitchen with a ceiling 7 feet 3 inches high? Those are the standards being forced on people in the new towns, and that is what we are protesting against.
  After all the talk about development from hon. Gentlemen opposite representing new towns, there is one startling fact which remains. The rate of development of new towns is now very rapidly slowing down. In Welwyn Garden City and in Hatfield no new civil engineering contract or new housing contract has been let since last October. Of course, if hon. Gentlemen opposite really knew something about estate development and building, they would know that in order to maintain continuity in the completion of houses, contracts must be planned well ahead. Yet, within about 10 months from today there will come a time, unless contracts are let very quickly, when there will be no new houses at all produced in the new towns.
  This is the result of high interest rates and charges. Development corporations now faced with the necessity to charge rents, as I mentioned just now, of £2 10s. to £3 a week for an inclusive rent just will not take the risk of letting contracts and trying to let houses on that basis.
  Time is short, but I have a number of points still to make. I want to ask the Minister one or two direct questions. They have already been asked by my hon. and learned Friend, but the Minister did not answer them. I repeat them so that the Parliamentary Secretary will have no excuse for not dealing with them. My first question concerns town centre development. It is the population which comes to a town which creates the value. When a population of 20,000 comes, a shopping site is worth £x. When there are 40,000 people, it is worth at least £xx.
  So far as the development corporations were concerned, the policy of the Labour Government was that the values created by the community in the town centre should be used by the development corporations to provide easier housing facilities for the people in the town—in other words, that the values created by the people themselves should flow back to
  144
  the people. The new town development corporations were to be encouraged, as they were doing at Crawley and elsewhere, to provide the town centre.
  It is rumoured—perhaps it is a little more than a rumour—that the Government are now encouraging private finance to come in and take over new town centre development. This means, not that the development corporation will get the benefit of the values which are created, not that the benefit of these values will go back to the people in the shape of greater amenities, lower rents and the rest, but that the finance corporation which comes in will take the profit. We do not like that. Profit is the one thing which the Tories are concerned about. If they see some activity which gives a measure of private profit, they will make the most of it. I address this direct question to the Parliamentary Secretary. Will the development corporations be allowed to develop their own town centres or are the Government pressing on with the idea of private finance corporations in regard to town centre development?
  I wish to refer also to the new town which has been suggested in Kent at Allhallows-on-Sea. With my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kettering, I do not take any exception to Sir Richard Costain or Mr. Eric Adams or the others being associated with a private company—they did a first-class job in Harlow New Town; but they are taking advantage of their private enterprise because the Government are lacking Government enterprise.
  This Government have made planning permission a marketable commodity. Land which is purchased for a new town at £150 to £200 an acre can, with planning permission, easily go up to a figure of £2,000 to £3,000 an acre. It is that planning permission and the accretion of values which goes with it which these people are picking up as a result of the activities of the Government.
  Similarly, a number of hon. Members have spoken about what will happen when the existing new towns come to the stage when the development corporations cease to function as such. When the New Towns Bill was going through the House, from the Government side and, as my hon. and learned Friend has proved, also from the Opposition side of those days, it was generally accepted that ownership

  145
  should pass to the local authorities; and during the whole time of the development the local authorities have been anticipating that this should happen.
  Rumours are already abroad that the Minister has other ideas for the future ownership of new towns. It is true that rumour is a lying jade, but frankly, I do not trust a Tory Government. They would sell any national asset we have if they can make a profit out of it. We want to be sure that this national asset is not a sell-out in the same way that we lost the Trinidad Leaseholds, road transport and the rest. Will the Minister make a statement about what his future intentions are about ownership in the new towns?
  I will help him out. I am generally noted for my generosity towards the Minister and his Department. If he is in a jam, I can help him out. [An HON. MEMBER: "A friendly society."] Some of us on this side did more for friendly societies than anyone opposite—
  Mr. E. Partridge: Including selling them out.
  Mr. Lindgren: —because hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite lacked in the past concern for the welfare of men when they were down and out.
  New towns came into being not only as the result of propaganda about Letchworth and Welwyn in pre-war days, but also as a result of the work of the Reith Committee set up during the war. I put this question to the Minister. If he has not decided about the future of the new towns, will he set up a committee with the status of the Reith Committee to examine and recommend what the future of the new towns should be?
  I want to emphasise again what has been said during the debate about the failure of the Government to cope with overspill, and their failure to work the Town Development Act as well as the New Towns Act. When the Government came to power in 1951 the arrangements for Bletchley were already well under way. The arrangements for Swindon were already well under way. Financial arrangements had been made with Bletchley. It is interesting to note that Bletchley is the one which has a supplemental payment, and that was agreed by the Labour Government in 1951 before they fell. General arrangements were made with Swindon. Not another
  146
  single one since 1951 has come to fruition.
  I have a list here of places with which the London County Council have negotiated. These are the ones to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet) referred. These are the places with which the negotiations have, as she rightly said, fallen through. The Minister should review the information service within his Department if he does not know the cause.
  We had to wait from 1952 till April, 1955, before the Minister made any statement at all to local authorities about what sort of financial provisions he was prepared to make. Then in April, 1955, he made his 50 per cent. grant towards additional costs of water and sewerage attributable to expansion. When the Minister made that statement in April, 1955, the rate of interest was 3½ per cent. It is now 5½ per cent. The effect of that is that on a 30-year loan there is an extra £11 10s. per annum for every £1,000 of capital expenditure; on a 60-year loan an additional £13 16s. per annum additional interest on every £1,000 of capital cost.
  Consider that from the point of view of some of the local authorities to which my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham referred. On a capital expenditure of £100,000 the local rateswould have to find an extra £1,150. It is not an attractive proposition to local authorities. The reason why they do not co-operate with the London County Council under the Act is simply and solely that the financial provisions are not making it sufficiently attractive. They are willing to undertake town expansion but there is a natural reluctance on their part to undertake it to an extent that would mean an additional burden on their existing townsmen and ratepayers.
  Mr. Godfrey Lagden rose—
  Mr. Lindgren: No. I cannot give way. It would not be fair to the Parliamentary Secretary. We have only 25 minutes left as it is.
  My last point is a constituency one. Wellingborough Urban District Council was prepared to take London overspill and the London County Council was anxious that it should do so. They came to an agreement, but the Minister turned it down. One Government Department

  147
  does not know what the other is doing. The Minister said in a letter that he was turning the proposal down because the Ordnance Survey Department was moving from Southampton and Chessington to Wellingborough, but within 48 hours of his saying that another Government Department announced that the Ordnance Survey Department was not moving to Wellingborough.
  In view of the fact that the right hon. Gentleman turned Wellingborough down on a basis that subsequently proved wrong, will he now consider allowing Wellingborough to take London overspill? I have the authority of Wellingborough Urban District Council for saying that the council is willing and anxious to carry out the bargain as it was left with the London County Council if the Minister will allow it to do so.
  I am afraid that the debate has been most unsatisfactory from the point of view of my hon. and right hon. Friends. Because of the Government's incompetent handling of the new and expanding towns, I give notice that, with your permission, Sir Charles, I will later move an Amendment.
  9.37 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): It is clear from the last words of the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Lindgren) that I can scarcely hope to persuade him or his hon. Friends by what I succeed in saying in the next twenty minutes; but, apart from any party division, I think that it has been recognised that the problem which the Committee has been discussing is a very real and great one. The incapability of our great towns and cities to solve their living problems within their own boundaries has been the point of departure on which we all agree; but I can scarcely concede that it is a problem which has become more serious during the last five years, in which the number of homes in the country has increased by nearly 1½ million.
  The spread of built-up areas is a phenomenon which has long excited anxiety and caused serious troubles. As my right hon. Friend and others have pointed out, it means a constant increase in the distance between workplaces and
  148
  homes, it means that the average distance between homes and open country becomes ever greater, and it means that agricultural land which, even if it is not always the best agricultural land, is always exceptionally valuable when it surrounds great centres of population, is constantly eroded and eaten into. Our own generation has therefore embarked upon a policy, so often tried in the past, of setting a limit of "thus far and no farther" to the growth of continuous urbanisation.
  This policy, which we know as that of the green belt, is undoubtedly popular and accepted, but it too brings with it new problems and new conditions. If people are to live beyond the green belt they must work there as well. In other words, work must move, as well as workers and their families. Moreover, the emigration of work must be a net emigration; for if the old workplaces are occupied by new firms their employees will maintain or re-create the old congestion.
  This was a matter upon which anxiety was expressed by several hon. Members—including the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) and my hon. Friend the Member for Epping (Mr. Finlay)—but it is not one in respect of which nothing has been done. My right hon. Friend mentioned that the development plans which he has approved for the counties of London and Middlesex provide specifically for the progressive buying up of wrongly located industrial sites. The London County Council has an annual budget for this purpose, which it has recently increased, and the loss upon these transactions of buying industrial land and devoting it to some less profitable use attracts a 50 per cent. Exchequer subsidy. This is not restricted to the development plans of local authorities in the London area, so that local planning authorities everywhere have at their disposal the means of gradually extinguishing places of employment as populations and work are exported beyond the green belts.
  I should also like to mention that the Government themselves are taking a part in moving employment to the new towns. Emphasis has been laid, notably by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), upon the importance of the provision of office-type employment in the new towns and its corresponding reduction in the London area. My right hon.

  149
  Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury recently told the House that the Stationery Office is moving its duplicating services to Basildon, and the Meteorological Office is to have a new headquarters at Bracknell. Those are typical cases where the Government themselves, having office staff to dispose of, are locating it in the new towns. Thus not only are powers in existence and being used to extinguish workplaces in congested areas, but there is a movement, to which the Government are directly and indirectly contributing, of work of all kinds to the new towns.
  The disadvantages of the old type of overspill development, in which work was divorced from homes, were drastically explained and described by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) and, from another point of view, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).
  The great charge levelled against the Government this evening is that there have been no more new towns, or, at any rate, no more in England and Wales. Some hon. Members have gone so far as to say that the provision of more and more new towns is the only solution to the problem of urban congestion. It is very curious that this point of view should be put forward this evening, when the Labour Party has just published what I might call the "Black Book of Housing", in which an entire section is devoted to "Town Planning and Overspill". Would you believe it, Sir Charles?—in the whole section there is no suggestion that if the Labour Party were now in office it would be building more new towns. On the contrary, where it refers to the importance of town development schemes, it says that these schemes:
  "will become increasingly important as the new town programme nears completion."
  So it is quite a new idea of the Labour Party—in fact, it is less than a fortnight old—that the solution for the overspill problem is the creation of more and more new towns.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough asked me why, if the Government supported the new town principle, they had killed the scheme for Congleton. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will get more particulars from his right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) but that scheme had been dormant for two years before the Labour
  150
  Party went out of office. As the hon. Gentleman probably knows, there are at present developments in that locality which prevent the establishment of a new town.
  In the existing new towns there is still immense scope for the accommodation of population from greater London. My right hon. Friend reminded the Committee that the eight new towns which serve London have so far attained only one-third of their capacity. I say "so far"; but I might mention an elegant compliment paid by the Labour Party to the Government's attention to the new towns, when it refers to them as "growing at maximum speed"—that is a quotation from the policy statement. But even "growing at maximum speed", as it is considered they are doing, they have attained only one-third of their intended size, and another 200,000 Londoners can still find accommodation in the eight new towns alone.
  My right hon. Friend referred to the possibility that the eventual population of those new towns might well be, in some cases, larger than was originally envisaged. I understand, however, the anxiety expressed on this score by my noble Friend the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), and certainly the natural growth of industry and population in the new towns themselves, and the effect of their further extension upon the surrounding area, would be factors seriously to be taken into account before deciding to increase what are called the target populations.
  New town corporations are not the only agencies of new town development, although it is quite clear that most hon. Members opposite wish that they were. Reference was made by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) to the Allhallows project in the Isle of Grain, and he wished it well. His objection was that it was not being undertaken by a State agency. It is no surprise that the Socialist Party, whenever it finds private enterprise engaged on a laudable project, should say, "What a pity that it is not being carried out by the State". But the Committee would do well to remember that the earliest pioneers in the creation of new towns were private enterprise. It is not for nothing that Port Sunlight and Bourneville are honoured names in the story of the new towns.
  Mr. Mitchison: And Robert Owen.
  Mr. Powell: We could go back to the Mogul emperors.
  Those, and other projects of this sort which private enterprise will undoubtedly organise and carry through, represent a valuable parallel development to the new towns developed by the State corporations. There is no reason either why local authorities should not do this work themselves. The interest of Manchester in this type of development is well known, and the hon. Member for Peckham (Mrs. Corbet), who made so valuable a contribution to the debate, pointed out that it was an activity well within the scope and power of a great authority like the London County Council.
  Mr. Mitchison: Would that not require legislation?
  Mr. Powell: There is no reason at all why development
  "similar to development for the purposes of a new town"
  to quote the words of the Housing Subsidies Act of this year, should not be carried through by a local authority, and should not attract the subsidies provided in that Act. This is really one of the answers, or it may be, to the problem of Birmingham. If the other alternatives fail or are inadequate, why should not Birmingham be able to do what London and Manchester are prepared to envisage?
  The progress of the new towns has also come under review in this debate. Reference has inevitably been made to the fact that progress upon the provision of amenities has necessarily been slowed down, in common with the provision of similar services by local authorities, under the current financial restrictions. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) put that matter very correctly in its context.
  The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked me about the development of town centres by private enterprise, and in particular what was to be the situation in the new town of Peterlee. The intention of Peterlee Development Corporation is that about 30 per cent. of the town centre should be developed by private enterprise, and it is in negotiation for that purpose with not one but two firms.
  Mr. Mitchison: Why?
  Mr. Powell: The hon. and learned Gentleman asks "Why?" The development corporation, as a prudent manager, has here a choice of possibilities, development by itself or upon lease to developers. On the one hand, there is the prospect of higher profit, and on the other there is the likelihood of increased risk. There has to be balanced the provision in the one case of public capital and the provision in the other case of capital at private risk. Therefore, many of the corporations are deciding on a mixture—to do some of the development directly themselves and to entrust other development upon lease to private developers. This is, after all, a matter in which the initiative and decision rests with the corporations themselves, which have been entrusted with the job of management and of making the best bargain in the public interest. To them, I think, we ought to leave it.
  The hon. Member for Wellingborough, in winding up the debate for the Opposition, asked me about the future of the new town corporations when their work is drawing to a close. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the importance of a clear understanding as to the manner in which these great enterprises will at that stage be dealt with. He is in consultation with the corporations themselves on the subject and it is his intention, in due course, to make a statement.
  The other modern aspect of overspill is, of course, town development. It is quite absurd to say, as the hon. Member for Wellingborough did, that the present Government are trying to destroy it. It is equally absurd to say that the present financial circumstances have killed town development. In the nature of things, town development is a different process from the creation of new towns. It requires the co-operation of two if not three local authorities. It means a gradual growth and a gradual movement of population which will be embodied more or less naturally into an existing nucleus.
  That finance is not a decisive factor in the present slow development of these schemes can be judged by the fact that not only are the housing subsidies payable the same as in the case of the new towns, but for town development the Government shoulder 50 per cent. of the cost of the

  153
  maintained development services. Nor have the financial conditions prevented Manchester from securing agreements for several large development schemes—at Heywood, Whitefield, Hattesley and Hollingsworth. They have not prevented Birmingham from bringing to a very advanced stage negotiations with a number of Staffordshire towns for town development schemes in that county. Although the financial situation must clearly affect the prospects and calculations of risk of the receiving authorities, it is absurd, in the face of these facts of progress on town development, to say that this instrument of development has been killed.
  This debate has shown that the problem, the recognition of which is our common point of departure, is not capable of being dealt with by one instrument alone. No one seriously believes that new towns, valuable though their contribution is, can alone deal with the
  overspill from our great cities. No one really believes that town development alone, though a desirable and natural process, can cope with the population which must move and be decentralised. There must also be new developments in the treatment of our existing towns and in the redevelopment of the slum and congested areas. But I do not think that the progress over the last five years should lead us to despair of being able, by using a combination of all the available methods, to secure improved living conditions for the inhabitants of our great cities.
  Mr. Lindgren: I beg to move, That Item, Class V, Vote 1 (Ministry of Housing and Local Government) (Revised Estimate), be reduced by £5.
  Question put:—
  The Committee divided: Ayes 180, Noes 226.

  Division No. 255.]

  AYES

  [9.57 p.m.

  Ainsley, J. W.

  Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

  Lee, Frederick (Newton)

  Albu, A. H.

  Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

  Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

  Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

  Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

  Lindgren, G. S.

  Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

  Fienburgh, W.

  Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

  Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

  Finch, H. J.

  Logan, D. G.

  Awbery, S. S.

  Fletcher, Eric

  MacColl, J. E.

  Bacon, Miss Alice

  Gibson, C. W.

  McKay, John (Wallsend)

  Balfour, A.

  Gooch, E. G.

  MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

  Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

  Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

  Mahon, Simon

  Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)

  Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

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

  Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)

  Grey, C. F.

  Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

  Benson, G.

  Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

  Mayhew, C. P.

  Beswick, F.

  Hale, Leslie

  Mellish, R. J.

  Blackburn, F.

  Hamilton, W. W.

  Messer, Sir F.

  Blenkinsop, A.

  Hannan, W.

  Mikardo, Ian

  Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

  Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

  Mitchison, G. R.

  Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S. W.)

  Hastings, S.

  Moody, A. S.

  Bowles, F. G.

  Hayman, F. H.

  Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)

  Boyd, T. C.

  Healey, Denis

  Mort, D. L.

  Brockway, A. F.

  Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)

  Moss, R.

  Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

  Herbison, Miss M.

  Moyle, A.

  Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)

  Hewitson, Capt. M.

  Mulley, F. W.

  Burke, W. A.

  Hobson, C. R.

  O'Brien, Sir Thomas

  Burton, Miss F. E.

  Holman, P.

  Oram, A. E.

  Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

  Holmes, Horace

  Orbach, M.

  Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)

  Hoy, J. H.

  Oswald, T.

  Castle, Mrs. B. A.

  Hubbard, T. F.

  Paget, R. T.

  Champion, A. J.

  Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

  Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)

  Chapman, W. D.

  Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

  Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

  Chetwynd, G. R.

  Hunter, A. E.

  Palmer, A. M. F.

  Coldrick, W.

  Hynd, H. (Accrington)

  Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

  Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

  Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

  Pargiter, G. A.

  Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

  Irving, S. (Dartford)

  Parkin, B. T.

  Corbet, Mrs. Freda

  Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

  Peart, T. F.

  Cove, W. G.

  Janner, B.

  Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

  Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

  Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.

  Probert, A. R.

  Cullen, Mrs. A.

  Jeger, George (Goole)

  Proctor, W. T.

  Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

  Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn & St. Pncs, S.)

  Pryde, D. J.

  Darling, George (Hillsborough)

  Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

  Randall, H. E.

  Deer, G.

  Johnson, James (Rugby)

  Rankin, John

  Delargy, H. J.

  Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)

  Redhead, E. C.

  Dodds, N. N.

  Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

  Reeves, J.

  Donnelly, D. L.

  Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

  Reid, William

  Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)

  Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)

  Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

  Dye, S.

  Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

  Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

  Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

  Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

  Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

  Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

  Lawson, G. M.

  Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

  Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

  Sylvester, G. O.

  White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

  Shurmer, P. L. E.

  Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)

  White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)

  Silverman, Julius (Aston)

  Taylor, John (West Lothian)

  Wigg, George

  Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

  Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

  Wilkins, W. A.

  Skeffington, A. M.

  Thornton, E.

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

  Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

  Tomney, F.

  Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

  Snow, J. W.

  Turner-Samuels, M.

  Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

  Sorensen, R. W.

  Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

  Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

  Sparks, J. A.

  Usborne, H. G.

  Yates, V. (Ladywood)

  Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

  Warbey, W. N.

  Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

  Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

  Weitzman, D.

  Zilliacus, K.

  Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C)

  Wells, Percy (Faversham)

  Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

  Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Swingler, S. T.

  Wheeldon, W. E.

  Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

  156

  NOES

  Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

  Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

  McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

  Aitken, W. T.

  Garner-Evans, E. H.

  Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

  Alport, C. J. M.

  George, J. C. (Pollok)

  McLean, Neil (Inverness)

  Amory, Julian (Preston, N.)

  Gibson-Watt, D.

  Madden, Martin

  Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

  Glover, D.

  Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

  Armstrong, C. W.

  Godber, J. B.

  Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

  Astor, Hon. J. J.

  Gough, C. F. H.

  Marlowe, A. A. H.

  Atkins, H. E.

  Gower, H. R.

  Marshall, Douglas

  Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

  Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)

  Mathew, R.

  Baldwin, A. E.

  Green, A.

  Maude, Angus

  Balniel, Lord

  Hall, John (Wycombe)

  Mawby, R. L.

  Barber, Anthony

  Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

  Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.

  Barter, John

  Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

  Medlicott, Sir Frank

  Baxter, Sir Beverley

  Harris, Reader (Heston)

  Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

  Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)

  Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)

  Moore, Sir Thomas

  Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

  Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

  Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.

  Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

  Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

  Nabarro, G. D. N.

  Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

  Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

  Nairn, D. L. S.

  Bidgood, J. C.

  Hay, John

  Neave, Airey

  Biggs-Davison, J. A.

  Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

  Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

  Bishop, F. P.

  Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.

  Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. & Chr'ch)

  Black, C. W.

  Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

  Nugent, G. R. H.

  Body, R. F.

  Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

  Oakshott, H. D.

  Boothby, Sir Robert

  Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

  Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

  Bossom, Sir Alfred

  Hirst, Geoffrey

  Osborne, C.

  Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.

  Holland-Martin, C. J.

  Page, R. G.

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hornby, R. P.

  Partridge, E.

  Braine, B. R.

  Horobin, Sir Ian

  Peyton, J. W. W.

  Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.

  Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

  Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

  Brooman-White, R. C.

  Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)

  Pitman, I. J.

  Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

  Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

  Pitt, Miss E. M.

  Bryan, P.

  Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

  Pott, H. P.

  Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.

  Hulbert, Sir Norman

  Powell, J. Enoch

  Butcher, Sir Herbert

  Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)

  Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

  Campbell, Sir David

  Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

  Raikes, Sir Victor

  Channon, H.

  Hyde, Montgomery

  Ramsden, J. E.

  Chichester-Clark, R.

  Iremonger, T. L.

  Rawlinson, Peter

  Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

  Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

  Redmayne, M.

  Cole, Norman

  Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

  Rees-Davies, W. R.

  Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

  Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

  Remnant, Hon. P.

  Cooper-Key, E. M.

  Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

  Renton, D. L. M.

  Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

  Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

  Ridsdale, J. E.

  Corfield, Capt. F. V.

  Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

  Rippon, A. G. F.

  Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

  Joseph, Sir Keith

  Robertson, Sir David

  Crouch, R. F.

  Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

  Roper, Sir Harold

  Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

  Kaberry, D.

  Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

  Currie, G. B. H.

  Keegan, D.

  Russell, R. S.

  Dance, J. C. G.

  Kerby, Capt. H. B.

  Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.

  D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

  Kerr, H. W.

  Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

  Deedes, W. F.

  Kershaw, J. A.

  Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

  Dighy, Simon Wingfield

  Kimball, M.

  Sharpies, R. C.

  Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

  Lagden, G. W.

  Shepherd, William

  Doughty, C. J. A.

  Lambert, Hon. G.

  Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)

  Drayson, G. B.

  Lancaster, Col. C. G.

  Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

  du Cann, E. D. L.

  Leavey, J. A.

  Soames, Capt. C.

  Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

  Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

  Spearman, Sir Alexander

  Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

  Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

  Stevens, Geoffrey

  Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

  Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

  Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

  Errington, Sir Eric

  Linstead, Sir H. N.

  Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

  Erroll, F. J.

  Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)

  Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

  Farey-Jones, F. W.

  Longden, Gilbert

  Studholme, Sir Henry

  Fell, A.

  Low, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Summers, Sir Spencer

  Finlay, Graeme

  Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

  Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)

  Fisher, Nigel

  Lucas, P. B. (Brentford & Chiswick)

  Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)

  Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

  Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

  Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

  Fletcher-Cooke, C.

  McAdden, S. J.

  Teeling, W.

  Foster, John

  Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

  Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

  Freeth, D. K.

  Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

  Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

  157

  Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

  Vosper, D. F.

  Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

  Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)

  Wade, D. W.

  Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

  Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

  Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

  Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

  Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

  Walker-Smith, D. C.

  Wood, Hon. R.

  Touche, Sir Gordon

  Wall, Major Patrick

  Woollam, John Victor

  Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

  Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

  Yates, William (The Wrekin)

  Vane, W. M. F.

  Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

  Vickers, Miss J. H.

  Whitelaw, W. S. I. (Penrith & Border)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Mr. Wills and Mr. Hughes-Young.

  Question put, and agreed to.

  Original Question again proposed.
  Mr. Philip Bell rose—
  It being after Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

  FINANCE (SAVINGS BANKS)
  Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees)—[Queen's Recommendation signified].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to Finance, it is expedient to authorise such payments out of the Consolidated Fund or into the Exchequer as may result from the application to other savings banks of any provisions of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1954, relating to trustee savings banks.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
  Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

WOOL TEXTILE INDUSTRY (LEVIES)
10.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order. 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it might be convenient also to consider the following Order:
That the Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
I think I can indicate to the House in a very few words the purpose and effect of these Orders. Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act, 1947, provides for compulsory levies on industries to finance voluntary bodies for scientific research and promotion of export trade. There are two such levies existing in the wool industry, one each respectively for scientific research and export promotion.
158
The existing Orders require all persons carrying on business in the wool textile industry, or carrying on business consisting of the supply of wool fibre, to pay a levy. The levy is collected by the Board of Trade and paid respectively to the Wool Textile Research Council for the scientific research levy and the National Wool Textile Export Corporation for the export promotion levy. There is, however, a difference in the method of calculation. In the case of the suppliers of wool, the levy is based on the amount of wool supplied by them. In the case of those carrying on business in the wool textile industry, it is calculated partly on the wool consumed by them and partly on the number of operatives employed.
In the case of suppliers, there already exists an exemption in respect of very small suppliers from payment of the levy. Those who supply less than 100 lb. of wool a day are already exempted from the payment of the levy. The purpose of these Orders is to give small users an exemption corresponding to that already enjoyed by the small supplier. The method of doing so is to place the manufacturers using only a small quantity of wool material in a position similar to that of those supplying only a small quantity of wool.
Taking the average for the industry as a whole, the amount of the levy payable by manufacturers in respect of persons employed in processing 25 lb. of wool a day is as nearly as possible equal to the amount of levy payable by suppliers in respect of the supply of wool at the rate of 100 lb. a day. Therefore, these amending Orders introduce this new basis of exemption.
As a result of the Orders, about 50 firms now making very small payments may qualify for exemption from both levies and the reduction in yield in a six months' period will be only £20 to £25, or thereabouts, for the scientific research levy and £15 for the export promotion levy as against a product in respect of both levies of £135,000 for the six months' period. It is, therefore, a very sensible exemption at an infinitesimal cost. I

159
would only add that as a result of the statutory consultations held under Section 9 of the Industrial Organisation and Development Act both the principle and level of the proposed exemption are supported by the trade associations, including the Wool Textile Delegation, and also by the trade unions in the industry.
10.14 p.m.
Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I see no objection to considering the two Orders together. The Parliamentary Secretary has correctly outlined the reasons for them. I disagree with him when he says that it is a minor adjustment. I prefer to look at this as a matter of principle. We are dealing with the need for increased exports in order that we may live as a nation, and for improved facilities for carrying out research in order that we can better hold our own in the world. I should have thought that the Government themselves would have been the last body to discourage that kind of development.
That is what these Orders do. They weaken the principle that employers or certain users should contribute towards the export levy, and likewise limit the contributions to the research levy. I gather that there are difficulties in making the necessary calculations and that the cost is therefore high. I should have thought that it was not impossible to arrange some token payment to overcome that difficulty. I do not want to detain the House, or debate the subject at length. We recently had a discussion about an Order in which the Government agreed altogether to abolish the need for an export levy. I am glad that they have not gone so far on this occasion in the Order dealing with the export levy. I am equally pleased to see that they are to levy substantially for research.
The Labour Government were responsible for the Act under which these two Orders arise—the Industrial Organisation and Development Act. That was a very good Act, and I think that it is being weakened by the action which the Government now propose. I am not suggesting that we should divide on this matter, but I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether consideration was given to some other means of raising the levy without placing unnecessary burdens or difficulties on the industry.
160
Perhaps I might ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether everyone concerned, including those responsible for using the levy when it is raised, were in agreement with the Orders, or whether there were any objections from any other source. The hon. and learned Gentleman indicated that the statutory bodies were consulted, but there are others who, while not needing to be consulted in the same way, are intimately concerned. Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether those other bodies were in agreement?
Mr. Walker-Smith: With permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I would say that no objection to these very reasonable amendments which we are making to the existing procedure was entered from any source. Indeed, that is not surprising because, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, the 50 firms or thereabouts which are exempted by these Orders were, in total, paying only £40 a year to both levies. It must surely be common sense to exempt them rather than go to the administrative trouble of having so small a contribution from so many firms, in view of the fact that the amount is only £40 as against a total of £135,000 paid to the levy.
Mr. Bottomley: The hon. and learned Gentleman has not answered my question. I agree that the amount is small but I am speaking of the principle; that at this of all times we are saying to an industry, in a psychological sense, that there is not the same need to export. The Government's action may be interpreted as saying that there is not the same need for research. I suggest that there is. I ask again—was not it possible, whilst releasing these firms from what was an obligation, perhaps a burden on them, to have reached an agreement that they should make some token contribution?
10.18 p.m.
Mr. William Shepherd: I support my hon. and learned Friend the Parliamentary Secretary in what is being done. One really does not gain strength by having these marginal contributors to these compulsory levies. In fact, the very reverse is true, and in some industries I know, the marginal contributor, who often has a difficult task in the industry, does a great deal in spreading disaffection. I am quite satisfied that removing him at a very small financial loss represents a very considerable gain in the strength of the support for the scheme.

161
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) is worried about export promotion, but really this industry is doing magnificiently. I only wish that all industries would do as well, particularly other textile industries. There is really nothing that this industry can do in that respect which it is leaving undone, and the same can be said about scientific research. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has seen the research that is going on, but one really cannot say that more ought to be done in that field. I think that he is wrong this time, and that the getting rid of some of these rather reluctant contributors will strengthen rather than weaken the scheme.
Resolved,
That the Draft Wood Textile Industry (Export Promotion Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th June, be approved.
Draft Wool Textile Industry (Scientific Research Levy) (Amendment No. 3) Order, 1956, [copy laid before the House, 13th June], approved.—[Mr. Walker-Smith.]

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BACON AND HAM)
10.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I beg to move,
That the Draft Sale of Food (Weights and Measures: Bacon and Ham) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.
The basic purpose of these Regulations is to continue the principle of proper protection for consumers and to adapt the precise method so as not to place any obstacle in the way of progressive contemporary techniques of pre-packing and self-service stores.
The implementation of that purpose involves an Amendment of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926. Section 4 and the First Schedule to that Act, which are what these Regulations amend, have three main effects. First, they require a number of articles of food to be sold by net weight only, and other articles, which include bacon and ham, to be sold either by net weight or by gross weight, provided that the weight of the wrapper or container does not exceed a specified maximum.
The second main effect is to require certain pre-packed articles, again including bacon and ham, to be sold in certain specified quantities only—that is to say, in two ounces and multiples of two ounces up to eight ounces, ¼ lb. and multiples thereof up to 2 lb., and so on.
The third main effect is that in the case of pre-packed bacon and ham the wrapper must bear a true statement of the minimum net weight of the contents, or of the contents plus the wrapper where this is permitted. Strangely enough, the requirement as to pre-packing in specified quantities does not apply to butchers' meat because, by one of those esoteric distinctions with which our Statute Book is laden, pork is expressly included in the definition of butchers meat and bacon and ham are expressly excluded.
The reason for the change which we are proposing to make by these Regulations really derives from very strong representations which have been made on a very wide front by trading organisations, and particularly those concerned with the development of self-service trade. They

163
have claimed that pre-packing of bacon and ham in specified weights only hinders the development of the trade because it is difficult and unhygienic to cut joints and whole rashers exactly into such amounts. We are satisfied after various and extended consultations that a good case has been made out for amending the law.
Coming to the effect of these Regulations, the broad purpose is to remove the inflexibility regarding these specified quantities, but to maintain the rest of the consumer protection. The basic purpose of removing the requirement as to specified quantities only is achieved by Regulation 1 which removes bacon and ham from the First Schedule to the Act of 1926 and thereby makes it unnecessary for those commodities to be pre-packed in these specified weights only. But to remove them from the Schedule would of itself not only have removed the requirement that they should be pre-packed only in specified quantities but would also have removed the requirement for selling by net weight. We do not want to do that, and so Regulation 1 (a) requires bacon and ham to be sold by net weight only, subject to the same provisions in regard to gross weight as already exist, as I have indicated in Section 4 of the Act of 1926.
Regulations 1 (b) and 1 (c) afford consumer protection respectively for pre-packed bacon and ham and non-pre-packed bacon and ham in this way. Regulation 1 (b) requires all pre-packed bacon and ham to be marked with an indication of net weight or, where sale by gross weight is permitted, by gross weight.
Regulation 1 (c) requires non-pre-packed bacon and ham to be delivered with a statement of such weight unless the article is weighed in the presence of the purchaser and forthwith delivered to him. These Regulations embody a desired improvement.
10.24 p.m.
Mr. A. J. Champion: We regard this amendment to the conditions under which these articles are sold as very sensible. We welcome the Regulations and I would only like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade whether he has consulted consumer interests as
164
well as retailer interests in this matter. It seems to me that under the Act of 1926 it is obligatory upon him, before laying the Regulations, to consult not only retailer interests but also consumer interests.
I would like to know what organisations he has consulted in this connection to find out what is their attitude to this matter. I believe that every consumer would regard these Regulations as reasonable, but I should like to be assured that the hon. and learned Gentleman has taken the necessary steps to make inquiries.
10.25 p.m.
Mr. Peter Remnant: May I, as one of the many who represented this matter to my hon. Friend, express my appreciation to him and to his Department for the way in which they have met the case?
I can assure the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) that when the inquiry was first put to me by a packer, I personally took the trouble to consult the housewives in the area served by him, and I found that what they took a particular dislike to was having the small bits of bacon and ham put into the pack in order to make it up to the stipulated weight. I am quite certain that the alteration of the law will meet with the approval of both housewife and packer, and I thank my hon. Friend for what he has done.
10.26 p.m.
Mr. George Darling: It would be churlish to allow this matter to pass without thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for having done what I know has been the great deal of work involved here. I am sure that all trading organisations concerned, not just the co-operative society for which I speak, did not anticipate how complicated this business was going to become; we thought it was a very simple matter. It did cast a lot of work, I know, upon the hon. Gentleman and his Department.
We now have rather complicated Regulations to put a simple matter right. I hope this will stimulate the hon. Gentleman's Department to produce the new weights and measures legislation which will get rid of complications of this kind.

165
We do thank the Parliamentary Secretary and his Department for doing what we asked, and for doing it so well.
10.27 p.m.
Mr. Walker-Smith: I am very grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. Remnant) and hon. Gentlemen opposite have said with regard to the Regulations as a whole. As regards consultations, Section 9 of the Sale of Food (Weights and Measures) Act, 1926, provided that:
"The Board of Trade, after consultation with the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and such interests as appear to them to be concerned, may make regulations …"
We have had consultations over a wide range, including not only trading organisations but enforcing authorities, local authorities and so on. I would not suggest to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) that they were all quite as unanimous about the
166
merit of these proposals as hon. Members in the House have been good enough to be tonight: but, without going into the detail of it, I would say that, on balance, the effect of the consultations fully justified our conviction that the case is made out for the Amendment of the law in this sense.
Resolved,
That the Draft Sale of Food (Weights and Measures: Bacon and Ham) Regulations, 1956, a copy of which was laid before this House on 26th June, be approved.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (BACON AND HAM)

  ADJOURNMENT
  Resolved, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. R. Thompson.]
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

HOSPITALS
  Management Committees (Members)
  Management Committees (Members)
MEDICAL RESEARCH
  Cancer (Expenditure)
  Cancer (Expenditure)
  UNITED STATES (VISITS BY MEMBERS)
  UNITED STATES (VISITS BY MEMBERS)
  RUSSIA (B.B.C. SERVICE)
  RUSSIA (B.B.C. SERVICE)
  N.A.T.O. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)
  N.A.T.O. (UNITED KINGDOM CONTRIBUTION)
  PERSIAN GULF AND RED SEA (SLAVERY)
  PERSIAN GULF AND RED SEA (SLAVERY)
  I.T.A. PROGRAMME ("THIS WEEK")
  I.T.A. PROGRAMME ("THIS WEEK")
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  National Assistance, Cardiff (Retirement Pensioners)
  National Assistance, Cardiff (Retirement Pensioners)
  Pneumoconiosis (Clinical Examinations)
  Pneumoconiosis (Clinical Examinations)
  Clothing Needs, Accrington
  Clothing Needs, Accrington
  Applicants' Signatures (Witnesses)
  Applicants' Signatures (Witnesses)
  Earnings Limit
  Earnings Limit
FUEL AND POWER
  Opencast Coal, East Lothian
  Opencast Coal, East Lothian
  Concessionary Coal
  Concessionary Coal
ROYAL NAVY
  Retired Officers (Pensions Increase)
  Retired Officers (Pensions Increase)
SCOTLAND
  Secretary of State's Departments (Non-Industrial Staff)
  Secretary of State's Departments (Non-Industrial Staff)
EMPLOYMENT
  British Motor Corporation (Dismissed Workers)
  British Motor Corporation (Dismissed Workers)
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Re-engagements and Extensions of Service
  Re-engagements and Extensions of Service
  Rabbits (Destruction)
  Rabbits (Destruction)
EDUCATION
  Full-Time Education (Enforcement)
  Full-Time Education (Enforcement)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  National Savings Movement
  National Savings Movement
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
  Tank Factory, Farington (Sale)
  Tank Factory, Farington (Sale)
CYPRUS
  Corporal Punishment (Whipping)
  Corporal Punishment (Whipping)

Preamble
The House met at two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Several Lords—Took the Oath.
The Earl of Clarendon—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his grandfather.

Prayers

  VOTE ON DEATH PENALTY (ABOLITION) BILL
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask the Leader of the House whether Her Majesty's Government intend to permit a free vote in to-day's debate on the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill and, if so, whether they intend to base their actions on the result of such free vote in this House.]
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): My Lords, the answer to the first part of the noble Viscount's Question is in the affirmative. The answer to the second part is that the Government will consider their further action when they have seen the resin: of the vote.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, in our view it is desirable that the House, before voting, should know the intentions of Her Majesty's Government. In another place, a vote was taken on the question of principle on February 16, in which the representative of the Government, the Lord Privy Seal, indicated that the Government would be guided by the effect of the vote that day. In fact, ever since, although they were defeated, they have been advising against the principle of the Bill. We want to know, before we vote, whether or not the Government will stick to the pledge which was made by the Lord Privy Seal on February 16.
  THE MARQUESS or SALISBURY: I am afraid that I am not prepared to go beyond what I have already said.
  LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether their answer to the noble Viscount's Starred Question implies that they maintain what used to be the old doctrine: that the giving of a Bill a Second Reading in your Lordships' House, necessarily implies acceptance of the principle? Because I hold that that has been utterly done away with by the Parliament Acts.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The answer to that question is that I propose to deal with that particular point when I reply to the debate.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, may I respectfully put a question to the noble Marquess? I believe that there are over fifty, or even sixty, names on the list to speak in the debate. Would it not be possible for the noble Marquess to reconsider his plan for crowding it all into one-and-a-half day's debate, without a dinner break? We all want to hear every word that is spoken, and I beg him to consider whether it is the best course in the public interest to try to crowd those distinguished speakers into fifteen hours.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I sympathise with what the noble Viscount says, but if he had been here last week he would have known that all this was carefully discussed and the conclusion which was reached was reached with the agreement of all Parties. During the month of July this House is always tremendously overcrowded with Business, and it was in the interests o all Parties that other Business which had to be taken should be taken on the Wednesday. Therefore, it was decided that we should do our utmost to conclude this debate in two days, and I am afraid that it is impossible to alter that arrangement now.
  VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: May I return to the Question on the Paper? I am obliged by the answers of the noble Marquess, which to me are inconclusive, but I should like to know this—it is for the guidance of the House in voting on this Bill, whether it is against the Second Reading or not. In view of the fact that the principle of the Bill has been accepted in another place

  563
  on three separate occasions, do I understand that if a majority of your Lordships vote against the Second Reading on this occasion the Government will then follow their pledged undertaking to give time in another place for this Bill to proceed next Session under the Parliament Act? We ought to know now.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not think it is in the least necessary for the noble Viscount to know now.
  SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The debate will take place on the arguments for and against the Bill. It is not in the least necessary that the noble Viscount should look forward beyond this. Noble Lords will come to a conclusion on the arguments, which may be powerful, one way or the other. After the Bill has been passed or rejected, as the case may be, then will be the time to consider that.
  VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I return to my question? This is a Private Member's Bill—I am not showing any disrespect to my own leaders by putting this question. We in this House notoriously have very little to do—a couple of hours three days a week—but when it comes to this, which is the most important criminal and constitutional question for a long time, the House is being, I consider, indecently forced into an abbreviation of debate.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I really think that the noble Viscount's complaint should be directed to another place, rather than here. We received this Bill only a week ago and we have other large Bills to deal with. This Bill is a Private Member's Bill, and the Government cannot be regarded as responsible for the time it took in another place. We have only a limited amount of time and we are making the best use of it that we can.

DEATH PENALTY (ABOLITION) BILL
2.13 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I rise to move the Second Reading of a Bill
"to provide for abolishing, or suspending for a period, the passing and execution of the death sentence on conviction of murder and to substitute an alternative penalty therefor."
It is a short Bill dealing with a long controversy. Indeed, I suppose that there never has been a penal question that has been so constantly discussed over the last century and a half and that has led to such an intensity of discussion during the last eight years. Press, public, both Houses of Parliament and the Royal Commission, each in turn has examined the question from every possible angle.
To-day I am here to ask for the Second Reading of a Bill that has gone through all its stages in another place and that has been sponsored by a Private Member; and, on that account I suggest that the achievement is even the more remarkable. Those of us who spent many years in the House of Commons know how difficult it is for a Private Member to get even the most uncontroversial Bill passed. Here is a Private Member who, in the face of admitted Government opposition, has managed to get this Bill passed through all its stages with, on the whole, steady majorities, although I admit not very big ones, in very representative Houses.
My Lords, I am here to-day to ask, first of all, whether any change has taken place since I made a not dissimilar speech eight years ago, when the side that I supported was defeated by 181 votes to 28 votes. I suggest—this is my first contention—that since 1948 there have been substantial changes in public opinion. The change has shown itself, as I have just suggested, in another place. It has shown itself even in my old office, the Home Office, where I have observed that the present Secretary of State has himself moved in another place a Resolution that would, if carried, have made several changes in the present system. I am told, most surprisingly of all, that there has been some change upon the Judicial Bench—I do not venture to say anything concrete. This is a subject that I know

565
has given rise to controversy in the past, and I shall be interested to hear in the course of the debate whether to-day there are not substantially more Judges on the side of abolition than there were in 1948. I suggest, therefore, that a change has taken place, and that every Peer should look upon this new situation and judge it, not by what he thought in 1948 but by what he thinks to-day, in view of the great body of evidence that has been collected by the Royal Commission and the years of publicity and controversy that hare taken place since our last debate.
I could make a very long speech upon these questions. I could repeat once again what I have often previously said in this House—indeed, in these penal debates we have come almost to the point when some of us have our "signature tunes, and as soon as one of us begins to speak we can almost assume everything that is going to be said. I am painfully conscious of the fact that there are something like seventy-two Peers who wish to speak, and I am sure I shall be conforming with the general wishes of the House if I keep my remarks to the lowest possible minimum. I propose, therefore, not to go into a detailed argument upon every phase of the question but rather to state my particular views in the form of four or five sample propositions. I do not suggest that the propositions arc non-controversial; I can well imagine that to-clay and to-morrow they may be controverted; but I cannot help thinking that it would be convenient if the mover of the Motion, at the start of the debate, put his views into the form of certain clear propositions that lay themselves open to debate during the next two days.
The first proposition that I venture to put to the House is that the existing law of murder is most "evasive and sophistical." I take my description from a Report of a Select Committee of another place which used those words as long ago as 1875. This is what they said:
"If there is any case in which the law should speak plainly without sophism or evasion it is where life is at stake, and it is on this very occasion that the law is most evasive and sophistical."
Why is this? It is because the crime of murder shows every kind of variation in culpability, and it would be manifestly unjust to apply the death penalty to every case. The result is that, the law being rigid, means must be found Outside
566
the Statute Book for mitigating it. I give two instances: first, the frequent use of the Royal Prerogative, on which I shall say something towards the end of my speech and secondly, the frequent recourse, in murder eases, to the Macnaghten Rules. Both these expedients are unsatisfactory. Neither conforms to the Lord Chief Justice's statement that the punishment for murder should be "simple and certain." Each of them introduces elements of doubt and diminishes the certainty of the penalty which, according to some people, is the chief deterrent against the crime of murder. It is this unsatisfactory state of affairs that has made so many of the propagandists recommend, in the course of this controversy, changes in the present system.
Let me remind your Lordships of some of these recommendations. The Lord Chief Justice, in his evidence to the Royal Commission, has stated that there should be an amendment of the law dealing with constructive malice, suicide pacts and abortion. The noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, whom we are delighted to see in his usual place and than whom nobody is better qualified to speak upon penal questions, has urged greater use of the Prerogative for restricting the number of capital sentences. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, in a speech in 1948—a speech which in my view was the roost striking speech of the whole debate—recommended at the time a classification of murder that would differentiate between "foil murder" and "murder most foul," and stated categorically that we could not stay in the position in which we then were. He said that it would be a real setback to revert to the status quo, and added:
… we must go … forward, not as a concession to weak sentiment but as a true progress. There is a profound uneasiness about the death penalty in the minds of many people."
After all these various alternatives had been considered—and they were considered with meticulous care by the Royal Commission which sat for five years., and in its investigations visited almost every part of the world…either they were found to be unacceptable or it was found that they did not touch the real centre of the trouble. It is the death penalty that makes these difficulties, and

567
so long as that penalty remains there will have to be all kinds of evasive methods for mitigating it; and with every one of them the deterrent power of the death penalty will be diminished.
My first proposition, therefore, is that it is the death penalty that creates the difficulties. That leads me to ask this question: Is it then necessary, on the grounds of private and public security, to retain a legal procedure which creates so many insoluble problems? That question takes me to my third proposition—and here I challenge the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, when he comes to speak after me. Whilst the death penalty creates all these difficulties, it cannot be shown that it is an essential deterrent against murder. There is no evidence to show, here or in any part of the world, that the presence or absence of the death penalty has any effect on the murder rate.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: The Royal Commission examined meticulously the evidence in all the abolitionist countries and compared it with the evidence from the retentionist countries. They examined the evidence in Scandinavia, in the Low Countries and in the United States of America, and they came to the unanimous conclusion that the presence or absence of the death penalty has no effect on the rate of murder.
I come to my next condition, which also arises out of evidence collected by the Royal Commission. However the death penalty is carried out, an execution is a horrible and repulsive act that can be justified only if it is essential to the 'security of the State. I wonder whether noble Lords have read, for instance, the evidence of the Home Office and the public executioner. The public executioner gave the Royal Commission detailed evidence of the proceedings of an execution; and I notice that he has since been trying to publish his life story in one of the Sunday newspapers. I understand that that, fortunately, has been stopped. Let any noble Lord read this evidence and he must come to the conclusion that the whole business, whether it be necessary or not, is repulsive. The applications for the post of executioner, the training of the potential executioners with bags of
568
sand, the visit of the executioner the night before the execution to the prison, and his secret investigation of the weight of the murderer who is going to be executed the next day—all these things to me are absolutely repulsive and can be justified only if it is proved that these proceedings really check the rate of murder.
I remember that in our last debate one of the right reverend Prelates mentioned an execution and spoke of the death penalty as upholding the majesty of the law. He went further and spoke of it as creating "a quasi-religious sense of awe." I will not linger upon this part of the subject. I will merely ask noble Lords to read the public executioner's evidence before the Royal Commission, and I am convinced that three out of four of you will come to the conclusion that an execution is a horrible affair.
I pass on to my fourth proposition. If the death penalty is abolished an effective deterrent exists in life imprisonment. The Home Office and the Prison Commission have categorically stated that there is no insuperable difficulty in dealing with the small number of very dangerous murderers who would now be reprieved, but who, under a system of abolition, would be condemned to life imprisonment. I do not stop to argue this case in detail. I say only that in spite of all the difficulties with which the Prison Commissioners have been faced in recent years, prison treatment has been substantially reformed, at least in the training and special prisons where these dangerous criminals would be interned. It has been reformed out of all recognition since the late Sir Alec Paterson declared that hanging was more humane than a life sentence. Let me add only that I was very much disturbed when I saw that in another place the Secretary of State was slowing down the building of the East Hubert prison, which would be essentially the prison to which we should send these dangerous criminals. I hope that after these debates he will think again of that decision, and will not, for a mere £190,000, stop building what is the very kind of institution that ought to be used for dealing with the really dangerous murderers whom it is not safe to release.
Lastly, the sentence of death being irreversible, there is always the chance of an irrevocable mistake. I see it is

569
said that the precautions are so great that it is practically humanly impossible for a mistake to be made. I have, myself, had a good deal of experience of these cases—not only when I was Home Secretary, for before that, on two occasions, I acted for the Home Secretary when I was Secretary of State for Air and Secretary of State for India. Noble Lords will remember that any one Secretary of State can carry out the duties of any other. I say at once that when I deputised for the Home Secretary, my action was little more than perfunctory. Papers were brought to me; I knew none of the background. It was quite obvious that what was wanted was my signature before the execution took place. That may be inevitable when the Home Secretary is away. I suggest, however, in passing, that it is a thoroughly bad plan, and ought to be brought to an end.
When I was Home Secretary the position was different. I had the whole machine of the Government, of the Home Office, around me. I had an excellent permanent secretary in Sir Alexander Maxwell, who, in months of contact, had let me understand fully his mind in a way that I never could have known it if I had merely been brought in as Secretary of State for Air or Secretary of State for India. During the time, when I was Home Secretary I had forty-seven death sentences with which to deal. In twenty-four instances I advised reprieves. In four cases the persons concerned were found insane after the end of the trial. That means that out of forty-seven sentences nineteen resulted in execution. Did I make any mistake? I cannot say. I believe that on the evidence I had before me, and with the advice I had from my permanent officials, I made the light decisions in the circumstances. But what was to stop new circumstances arising after I had given my decision—new circumstances that seem to have influenced so impressively my successor Mr. Chuter Ede? Mr. Chuter Ede said in another place that in the Evans and Christie case he gave a decision based upon evidence at the time, but that subsequently evidence was available that he believed would inevitably have led him to decide upon a reprieve. Whatever care you take in this process, the possibility of these mistakes is bound to arise. It has arisen in
570
the past (I could quote to noble Lords several cases from past history) and it will arise again in the future. And the trouble is that the penalty is irremediable. Mistakes are irrevocable.
Now I could end my speech at this point. I have stated my five propositions: first, that the present law is admittedly unsatisfactory; secondly, that the death penalty is not an essential deterrent; thirdly, that an execution is a horrible proceeding; fourthly, that life imprisonment is an equally effective deterrent fifthly, that the death penalty, being irrevocable, makes mistakes irremediable. As I say, I could end what I have to say at this point. But I feel that my case would be incomplete if I did not, at the end of my speech, say something about public opinion, the opinion of the police, the opinion of the prison officers and the opinion of the general public.
Let me begin with the police. I admit that feeling against abolition is very strong among the police—indeed, I should be surprised if it were not. I have every sympathy with the police, especially now when almost everywhere, and particularly in the Metropolitan area, they are so short of men. But I must say—and I challenge anyone to controvert this statement—that there is no evidence to show that the police in abolitionist countries are any less safe than they are in retentionist countries. There has recently been a detailed inquiry into the experience in this matter in abolitionist and retentionist countries, which is forming the basis of evidence that is being given by the University of Pennsylvania to a Committee of the Canadian Chamber. And the results clearly show, statistically, that if there is any difference between experience in the two kinds of States in the United States, the advantage, so far as the police are concerned, is on the side of the police in the abolitionist States.
What is needed for the police is not a special clause in a Bill. What is needed is not authority to arm them—the Home Secretary has himself said the arming of the police has no bearing upon this question. What is needed is the very simple thing of greater numbers. If the police could be brought up to their full establishment (at the present moment I put the shortage, in the Metropolitan area and in the provinces, at no less than 10,000), the

571
deterrent against murder—the great deterrent against murder being certainty of detection—would become far stronger. I do not apologise for alluding to this question of the shortage of men in the police. I have raised it, I think, every Session since the end of the war, and I am sorry to say that every Government in turn has looked the other way. I would draw the attention of the Government to-day, when they say that it is very difficult to find the right number of police in a country of full employment, to the state of affairs in New York, where, as I read only this morning in the New York Times, the authorities have never had such good recruiting of the police. Their numbers are higher than ever before and the standard is better than anything in the past. That is the way to deal with the police: more police and better conditions.
I come now to the prison officers. There again, they feel very strongly that if the death penalty is abolished there will be no further penalty with which to deter a murderer already enduring a life sentence in prison. My Lords, I do not altogether accept this view. I believe—and my belief is founded upon some study—that, even with the most hardened criminals, the hope of liberty is a deterrent and that, though it may operate only many years hence, it will still have a restraining influence upon these dangerous murderers. But if that be not so. I say that there is other action that ought to be undertaken. I say that we ought to fill up the gaps in the ranks of the prison officers, and that will mean better conditions for them. They are one thousand men short at the present time. We ought to press on with our prison reforms, in specialising between one prison and another; and we ought to see that the conditions of the prison officers are a good deal better than they are now. But perhaps most important of all, we ought to see that there are three shifts of work in the prisons and that the prisoners are kept well employed. I do not apologise for having interjected those comments: they bear directly upon the central problem with which I am dealing.
Lastly, I come to the general public. I am aware that there is a very vocal opinion in the general public against abolition. The case is that they have never been consulted. When they have been asked a question, in a Gallup Poll,
572
whether they were in favour of capital punishment they have said. Yes. This Bill, therefore, so the argument goes, should not be pressed. My Lords, I do not accept this conception of the duties of Parliament. If it were applied to every controversial question, parliamentary government would become impossible. If it had been applied in the past to every important penal question there would have been none of the penal reforms of the last century that are now regarded as necessary and beneficial. Let us picture to ourselves what would have been the result in the 'sixties of a Gallup Poll upon public executions. An example like that shows the danger of accepting an opinion that is based principally upon emotion and applied to a question that I maintain depends for its right answer upon a very careful study of the ascertainable facts. How many of those who answered "Yes" had studied the details of this question? How many of them knew what is happening in other countries? How many knew what is the variation between one murderer and another? How many knew of the improved conditions in British prisons?
I am much more impressed by the fact that in two Parliaments, the first under a Labour majority, the second with a Conservative majority, Members of the House of Commons have voted definitely in favour of abolition. This is a fact of far greater importance than the casual votes of any Gallup Poll. It is a significant fact, but it by no means completes the process of parliamentary government. Your Lordships' House has its constitutional part to play. Every Peer will vote as his mind and conscience direct him. So far as I am concerned, I would say nothing to detract from the full liberty of every individual Peer. I have always defended the powers of your Lordships' House, but I have never regarded them as simply a check on reforming legislation. To me, at least, they depend for their justification on the need of an opportunity to discuss and decide difficult questions in an atmosphere less disturbed and emotional than the atmosphere of another place—an opportunity, that is to say, in which the evidence can be carefully weighed and a decision reached unaffected by the fear of an Election or popular resentment.
It is in this spirit that I move the Second Reading of this Bill. It is in this

573
spirit that I ask the House to give a Second Reading to a Bill that abolishes a repulsive punishment, that upholds the standards of a civilised society and that endangers the security neither of the State nor of the private citizen. I beg to move.
VISCOUNT DE L'ISLE: My Lords, before the noble Viscount sits down, may I ask him one question which I think would be in the minds of other noble Lords, as well as in mine? He has told the House that he does not think that the death penalty is the most effective deterrent. Will he be a little more informative about the details of the alternative he suggests?
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I gather that noble Lords agreed with my wish to speak at no great length. I am sure that the point he raised will be dealt with constantly during the debate. If it is not, I will intervene later in the course of the debate.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Viscount Templewood.)
2.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, before I proceed to give my answer to the five main points which my noble friend Lord Templewood has put forward, there are one or two general observations which I would venture to put before your Lordships. After this debate your Lordships will decide whether this Bill should be given a Second Reading, and that decision will be taken, as a similar decision was taken in another place, on a free vote. It will be for every noble Lord to search his conscience and express by his vote his personal conviction of what is right. Nevertheless, it is proper that at this early stage in the debate your Lordships should know the views of Her Majesty's Government.
Her Majesty's Government are clearly and unequivocally of the view that capital punishment must be retained. I endorse fully today what my right honourable and gallant friend the Home Secretary has said in another place about the dangers of this Bill. However, I have said that this will he a free vote and I do not withdraw from that statement in any way. The Government do not expect or wish that any noble Lord should speak or vote against this Bill out of a sense of loyalty to the Government and, least of
574
all, from Party feeling. At the same time, no Government with any sense of responsibility could abstain from expressing their own view on such an important matter. The view which I venture to express to your Lordships is the considered view of the Government, a view they have consistently expressed in debate in another place and which, after examining all the arguments and all the evidence, they still continue to hold.
My noble friend Lord Templewood proceeded for a short period in his speech to deal with the history of this matter. I shall try to emulate him in not going into it in detail, and endeavour to extract the important points which 1. believe your Lordships should have in mind. It is eight years ago since this very question was debated both in your Lordships' House and in another place. Those debates took place when, as now, crimes of violence were only too prevalent. What happened then will be so fresh in your Lordships' minds that again I need not go into detail. I shall content myself with reminding your Lordships of two points. In the first place, the clause by which it was sought in 1948 to suspend the death penalty for murder was inserted in the Criminal Justice Bill on a free vote, against the advice given in another place by the Government led by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. Secondly, the attempts made during the passage of that Bill to divide murder into capital and non-capital crimes proved totally unsuccessful.
It was as a result of these arguments, debates and discussions that the Royal Commission, which my noble friend has mentioned, was appointed in 1949 by the Government led by the noble Earl, Lord Attlee. After a patient investigation of 4½ years—and I should like to pay my tribute to the thoroughness with which they did their work—the Commission reported in 1953. Again I would remind your Lordships that, although investigating almost every question connected with the death penalty, by their terms of reference they were precluded from going into the question which is before dour Lordships to-day. Therefore I will not examine the recommendation in detail. For the purpose of this debate it is sufficient for me to say that they, too, after exhaustive research, including, as my noble friend has said, inquiries into the

575
experiences of foreign countries, were unable to recommend any method of introducing what are sometimes called "degrees" of murder. If I understand my noble friend correctly, it is the report of that Commission which is the major change on which he relies for his argument.
I do not say for a moment that it is impossible to distinguish those kinds of murder which are most dangerous to society—for example, those involving the use of poison or firearms, those striking at public order or those committed by professional armed criminals. Your Lordships will be well aware that since the Commission's Report was published these possibilities have been much canvassed, both in public and in the many debates that have taken place in another place, both before and during the passage of this Bill. Again I will not trouble your Lordships with details, but I agree with my noble friend that there are few questions that have received so much debate and so profound examination. But I believe that the question your Lordships have to decide in this debate is both narrower and more fundamental. That question is: Is capital punishment for murder to be retained at all in this country? That, I think, was the burden of my noble friend's speech. It is my task to set before your Lordships the conclusions which the Government have reached after long and anxious consideration.
That question must be considered without prejudice to the improvements in the law of murder which the Government have said they would be glad to consider, and which, indeed, dispose of much of the earlier part of my noble friend's speech. We have to look, as I say, at this narrow but fundamental question. I believe that the final object of criminal punishment, whether it takes the form of execution, imprisonment or a fine, is to reduce crime. It is commonly said, and I agree, that there are three elements of punishment: reformation, retribution and deterrence. I was reminded of these by the point made by my noble friend Lord Templewood in his evidence before the Royal Commission, when he said:
"The reforming element has come to predominate and the other two are carried incidentally to the reforming clement."
The noble Viscount has developed something of that line in part of his speech
576
to-day. I agree with the noble Viscount that when treatment, such as imprisonment or probation in its various forms, is being considered, reform comes first. But the other two elements are not to be ignored. In some cases—and I believe that murder is one of them—they are of paramount importance.
In speaking of "retribution", I do not mean revenge. "An eye for an eye" should have no place in our criminal law. I mean, to use the Royal Commission's phrase in paragraph 52,
"— the State's marking its disapproval of the breaking of its laws by a penalty proportionate to the gravity of the offence."
The State cannot ignore crime. Let me remind your Lordships of the words of the late Archbishop Temple, who was himself a convinced abolitionist. He said:
"…if when a crime has been committed, the community does nothing, it is condoning the act, and to that extent becomes a partner in the guilt of it."
The State is bound to punish crime, quite apart from the possible effect of punishment on the criminal. I want to draw your Lordships' attention to the opinion expressed to the Royal Commission (your Lordships will find it in paragraph 53 of the Report) by Lord Justice Denning, when he said:
"The ultimate justification of any punishment is not that it is a deterrent, but that it is an emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime: and from this point of view, there are murders which, in the present state of public opinion, demand the most emphatic denunciation of all—namely, the death penalty."
The paragraph continues with these words:
"The Archbishop of Canterbury, while expressing no opinion about the ethics of capital punishment, agreed with Lord Justice Denning's view about the ultimate justification of any punishment."
That is an important start. I myself would go further. I believe that the "emphatic denunciation" of a crime does more than mark the State's disapproval. It causes individuals, and, indeed, the whole people, to regard that crime with detestation. I cannot put the point better than it was put in a leading article in The Times newspaper on February 16 of this year, which your Lordships have no doubt read, when it said:
"Rather do [the retentionists] think that a century and more during which … murder

577
has been practically the only offence punishable with death, has bred in the whole people a unique horror … of the guilt of this one most dreadful crime."
I agree with the Royal Commission when they say, in paragraph 59, that the effect on the moral consciousness of society must itself play a part in deterring members of that society from committing murder. I have heard the abolitionists argue that the one person not concerned in this problem is the murdered man, for he cannot be brought to life. Is, my opinion, a mature community cannot escape from so grave a responsibility by so light a phrase.
Whatever we may think about the relative importance of various elements of criminal punishment, I apprehend that to roost of your Lordships the real crux of the question at issue in this debate is whether capital punishment is, in erect, a uniquely effective deterrent. That is the challenge which my noble friend. Lord Templewood, put to me specifically, and which I gladly take up and will try to meet. I suppose there are some people to whom the issue is clear, and for whom there can be no argument; who believe that it is wrong for the State, in any circumstances, to take life. I respect that view, which I do not share, but I shall not attempt to enter on that discussion, which must in the end turn upon religious faith. Nor do I suggest to your Lordships that a decision taken solely on the issue of deterrence would be satisfactory to all minds. In that context a moral problem is raised, and, as I myself have suggested, other considerations are important. But I think most of your Lordships will agree with this view: that if it could be clearly shown either that capital punishment does, or that it does not, reduce murder, the number of those in favour of retention, or abolition, as the case may be, would be so great, and the argument that could be presented so powerful, that few would be in any doubt about the proper course to take. Therefore, the question whether capital punishment has a greater deterrent effect than life imprisonment, has assumed almost overwhelming importance. Indeed, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has indicated that most clearly in the speech that he made this afternoon.
The Royal Commission, though they were not directly concerned with the question of abolition, did consider the evidence
578
about the deterrent effect of the death penalty, and surveyed with diligence and patience the information available over a wide field, including the experience of countries that have abolished capital punishment—and we are greatly indebted to them on this score. I funk it is an indication of the respect with which their work has been treated that no-one has sought to challenge their conclusions on this point, although varying interpretations have been placed on these conclusions. Therefore, I think it is important that your Lordships should have, at the beginning of the debate, what these conclusions are. I agree that in summarising them, there is an inevitable risk that one will give an over-emphasis or under-emphasis to certain points, and, while accepting that risk, I shall do my utmost to be fair. And I am sure I shall be corrected if I am wrong.
I would summarise the conclusions as follows: first of all, prima facie one would expect the penalty of death to have a uniquely deterrent effect; arid there is some evidence, although no convincing statistical evidence, to this effect. But this effect does not operate universally or uniformly, and there are many offenders on whom it is limited and may often be negligible. Secondly, the Commission say that the statistics of murder in the countries which have abolished capital punishment neither prove nor disprove the uniquely deterrent effect of capital punishment, because the murder rate is conditioned by many factors, and we cannot isolate the effect of that one factor. In fact, as they say in paragraph 67,
"… the figures offer no reliable evidence one way or the other."
Thirdly, they say that the statistics of murder in many foreign countries are not as reliable as our own statistics, because they are generally based on the number of prosecutions or convictions or on the registered cause of death; and this means that such factors as the efficiency of the police, the prosecuting authorities or of the registration officers may influence the figures. Your Lordships will see that statement in paragraph 65 and 27 of Appendix VI. We cannot assume that these factors are constants, and it follows that the statistics are riot as reliable as figures based (as are our own) on the number of murders known to the police. Our system reduces the possibility of error

579
to the minimum, although it does not eliminate it.
Fourthly, the Royal Commission say that, with the exception of Belgium, where, before the war, the convictions were, proportionately, five times those in this country, comparison between this country and most of the countries that have abolished capital punishment is vitiated by differences in social and industrial conditions and in density of population. Your Lordships will find that statement in paragraph 61 of the Commission's Report.
That is the fairest summary that I can make of the conclusions reached by the Royal Commission, and my noble friend Lord Templewood, and those who agree with him, have based their arguments largely on the inconclusive nature of these statistics. Beyond doubt they are entitled to say, as they do, that nowhere do these statistics prove that capital punishment is a unique deterrent. But it is in the nature of things that they should not. It is the murders which have not been committed that matter, and their number can never be shown in statistics. Again, let me put it in the words of the Royal Commission in paragraph 59.
"Capital punishment has obviously failed as a deterrent when a murder is committed. We can number its failures. But we cannot number its successes. No-one can ever know how many people have refrained from murder because of the fear of being hanged."
The statistics, however, reveal one fact to which I think too little attention has been paid. I would ask your Lordships to study Table 46, on page 371, of the Report, where the Royal Commission have set out the comparative "murder tables" per head of population for the various countries for which figures are available. When every allowance is made for differences in the law, the inaccuracy of reports, varying standards of efficiency and conscientiousness in police forces, one most significant fact remains: the number of murders known to the police (not merely the number of convictions for murder) in England and Wales, and even more so in Scotland, has been consistently lower than in all the other countries. I know that it would be dangerous to make that a conclusive and sole ground of inference, and my noble friend Lord Templewood would point to other countries where capital punishment exists and
580
the murder rate is dreadfully high, or whether it does not exist and the rate is comparatively low. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we have the lowest murder rate, and I for one would hesitate a very long time before asserting that capital punishment has nothing to do with it.
My Lords, I believe that the death penalty is a uniquely effective deterrent, but I do not believe its effect is universal—obviously, it is not. No deterrent will deter the insane or those who kill in moments of blind rage or passion, without thought of the consequences. Some people do not count the cost to themselves of what they do. The ability not to count the cost may produce great acts of heroism in some fields or foolish recklessness in others. But the fact that human beings do sometimes act without thought of the consequences puts them at times—I repeat at times—beyond the reach of deterrents. But murder is not a thing that occurs to the human mind only in moments of passion or frenzy. The mind is capable of calculating the advantage to be gained by eliminating a particular person or by accepting the risk of killing in the course of a particular enterprise. It is here that the natural disinclination to take in cold blood a substantial risk of death may tip the balance against murder.
It is sometimes argued that the risk is not great because only some 12 per cent. of known murders result in the execution of the murderer. But this is not for this purpose the relevant figure. Some murderers commit suicide some are found insane on arraignment, some guilty but insane and some are reprieved on the ground of mitigating circumstances. But those who are not insane and can plead no mitigating circumstance—and, surely, the armed criminal and the deliberate killer for gain are among these—must have considerably more than an even chance of hanging. This represents a big risk for the man who counts the cost. For those who are capable of being deterred. I believe that capital punishment is on all counts—the terrifying nature of the thing risked and the likelihood first of detection and then of execution—a most powerful deterrent. I do not believe that the prospect of imprisonment, even with the same likelihood of detection and conviction is to be compared with it. A man who contemplates imprisonment contemplates something that has an end—

581
something that may go on for a long time, but from which he will, he supposes, eventually emerge. It is something known, often very well known, to him, a state the inconveniences of which, such as they are, he has experienced and knows he can endure. But death is final and unknown. Can there be any serious doubt which prospect is more likely to make a man pause and consider whether the risk is worth running?
Let us turn for a moment to the armed criminal, since this is an aspect of the problem which causes the Government much worry and the public, I believe, great concern. What is the position to be if capital punishment is abolished? A man going out to commit a robbery, or it may be a burglary, perhaps with a long criminal record behind him, will know that if he is caught he is likely to be sentenced to from ten to fourteen years' preventive detention. If he arms himself and kills someone he will run the risk of a rather longer term of imprisonment. He cannot tell how much longer; I cannot tell how much longer; I did not understand my noble friend Lord Templewood to be able to tell how much longer. Let us say that it would be a few years longer. Is this difference in sentence, if he arms himself and commits a murder and is caught and convicted, a sufficient deterrent to prevent him from taking a revolver with him? My Lords, I believe it is not, because there are solid advantages for him if he arms himself. If lie takes a revolver, he increases the chances of success in the crime, because he can make other people do what he wants; he increases his chances of escaping apprehension if he is surprised at the scene of the crime, because he can shoot down policemen and others who try to arrest him; and he increases his chances of escaping conviction if he is caught at some later date, because he can shoot down eye-witnesses who may see him.
Faced with these solid advantages, what will be the reactions of the criminal classes with whom we are concerned? We must remember that we are concerned with the possible deterrence on criminals, not on armchair critics considering it afterwards. I believe that they will arm themselves on a much more extensive scale than they do at present. In reply to this argument my noble friend has said—and it has been consistently argued—that where capital
582
punishment has been abolished overseas there has been no increase in murders by armed criminals. My Lords, the conditions are not comparable. I know of no country comparable with our own which has abolished capital punishment and which has an unarmed police force. Where the police are armed the considerations are quite different. There the penalty of death remains for the armed criminal, even if capital punishment is abolished; he knows that if he uses his weapon while committing a crime he may be shot dead on the spot. This may well be the most important factor in the criminal's mind; the prospect of being executed, if he is caught, and if he is convicted, may not assume as much weight as it does in a country where the police are not armed.
In this country, the criminal may normally shoot at the police, or at a householder, or at a witness, with impunity from immediate retaliation; and the existence of the death penalty is the only deterrent, other than the prospect of a rather longer term of imprisonment if he shoots but fails to kill any one, against such action. Arguments from countries which have armed police, or from countries with a sparse population, have no validity for us. I pause only to say this. My noble friend made an eloquent appeal for better recruitment for the police force. I have been Home Secretary for three years, and I know just how great the problem is. But it is the first time that I have heard that that problem would be nearer solution by making the job of the police so infinitely more dangerous than it is to-day.
Some abolitionists are prepared to push the argument further and to say that if what I have said is a real danger, then the police should be armed. I hope your Lordships will not accept that point of, view. An unarmed police force is part of our tradition and our heritage. The Government would be most loath to see it otherwise, and any of us who has been at the Home Office would, I am sure, be most concerned at seeing something like that, which would lessen the good relationship between the police and the public. Nor is it an answer to say that the penalties for carrying arms can be increased and that this will be a sufficient deterrent. The penalties for committing offences while armed are already as high as can be justified. It is, for

583
example, punishable by life imprisonment to commit robbery while armed, or to shoot with intent to do grievous bodily harm or to resist arrest. In recent years Her Majesty's judges have imposed a number of very long sentences for armed robbery and similar crimes, and there is really no scope for providing for higher penalties in that regard.
On this aspect of the armed criminal—and how important an aspect it is!—this is a question on which each of us must form his own judgment. When all the statistics and all the arguments have been analysed and considered, that judgment will still be largely subjective and based on experience. Many of your Lordships have vast experience in the administration of the criminal law, not only in this country but throughout the British Commonwealth and Empire.
My Lords, I have no wish to obtrude upon your Lordships details of my own experience, but I have seen the criminal from the point of view of counsel, of judge and of Home Secretary; and I have had some opportunity of seeing how his mind works. With that experience behind me I can say that, in my opinion, to the professional criminal fear of execution is a very real deterrent—of that I am perfectly certain. I remind your Lordships again, and I hope you will bear with me in doing so, that it is the criminal we want to deter. Putting the question the other way, as the abolitionists wish, is the abolition of the death penalty likely to create a greater sense of the sanctity of life among the criminal classes? That is the question which must be asked.
I pass to some of the other arguments which my noble friend adduced. One of them—and this has often been raised—was the possible bad effect of an execution on the prison staff, and the rather more unpleasant manifestations of public and journalistic sensationalism. There is no substantial evidence of any real harm being done to the staff, and I think that a candid reading of paragraph 781 of the Report bears that out. I leave it to your Lordships to judge. On the other point, I would remind my noble friend Lord Templewood that murder repulsive and very often sensational, and when people commit murder the fact of the murder appeals to that aspect of human nature. We have tried, as my
584
noble friend knows, by administrative means to get rid of some of the factors, but essentially this is a problem for those responsible for the morals, education and taste of the people. People buy the newspapers they like, and we must never get rid of the responsibility which we, as some of the leaders of the people, have on ourselves for the public taste that we see around us.
There is one argument—my noble friend advanced it, of course—which we must all face. He said, rightly, "Death is final and a mistake can never be undone." That is true. But I do not believe—and I speak with full awareness of what has been said and written about recent cases—that within living memory a mistake has been made. It is possible that, after an execution, evidence comes to light which, if known earlier, might have prevented a conviction. That is a possibility that I accept. I also accept the theoretical possibility of an innocent man being hanged, but I do not for a moment believe that that is a practical possibility. The administration of the law and the government of this country have to be based on practical and not theoretical possibilities. I do not believe that it is a practical possibility, because, if any fresh evidence comes to light after the conviction, the most meticulous inquiries are made; and even if there is no fresh evidence the Home Secretary examines in the closest detail all information relating to the case, including the complete transcript of evidence. If, after this examination, there is in his mind a scintilla of doubt as to the rightness of the conviction, the convicted man is invariably reprieved. I can only say, with full knowledge of the genuine uneasiness that some people have felt, that I do not believe that any mistake has been, or is remotely likely to be, made.
My noble friend said there were occasions when, as Secretary of State for Air, he deputised for the Home Secretary. I was three years at the Home Office. I never let anyone deputise for me. The only time when I had to leave these shores, I arranged that I did not go until the middle of August and so dealt with all the cases which had come to the Court of Criminal Appeal after the Summer Recess. I do not believe that

585
that is a necessary danger if the Home Secretary sticks to his job.
With regard to other cases, I myself ordered inquiries in two, and the results of the inquiries have been published. In the only other case, where my predecessor had ordered an inquiry, I reconsidered all the facts. It is an unpleasant argument to have to advance that is based on one's own experience but, after all, on what better can one base views properly than experience, knowledge, and the best of information?
I have tried to give your Lordships, as sincerely as I can, the views I have so formed. I have spoken to-day—and I hope your Lordships will believe me—with a great sense of my responsibility. This Government, like every other Government, are, in the end, responsible for the protection of innocent people. This is a prerequisite of freedom. Our generation, let me remind your Lordships, has seen democracies fall on the Continent of Europe largely because ordinary people did not believe that the democratic Government would give that protection. It is our duty to see that the private citizen is not subjected to armed assault or armed burglary, and that the prison officers and the police, in carrying out their duties, do not go in peril of their lives.
Your Lordships will know only too well that there are still far too many crimes of violence in this country and I, for one, do not believe that the right time has come now, any more than it had eight years ago, for relaxing any safeguard. But it is not for this country alone that the Government are responsible. The Bill, it is true, directly affects only us here, but its enactment could not fail to be felt in every part of the British Empire. What would the effect be in Kenya, in Malaya, in Cyprus? I ask your Lordships to weigh that question very carefully before coming to any conclusion.
There are those among your Lordships who can give the House the advantage of their experience of government and administration in many parts of the Commonwealth and Empire. I, for my part, believe that a decision to abolish the death penalty for murder here will have disastrous consequences there. For any Government to carry out its duty
586
involves, to some extent, a repressive side. At times things have to be done which are unpopular with many and severe towards some. The infliction of criminal punishment is always such, but we cannot shrink from inflicting it where necessary. In the end, it is a question of balancing the severity of the penalty against the interest of the community. I am convinced that the interest of the community requires the mention of the death penalty for murder, and I should be failing in my duty if I did not repeat, in unequivocal terms, that the Government consider this to be an unwise and dangerous measure the presence of which in the Statute Book would be a disaster for the country and a menace to its people.
3.37 p.m.
LORD PETHICK-LAWRENCE: My Lords, I feel a great sense of responsibility in taking part in this debate in your Lordships' House to-day. It is a debate which will, for many reasons, be historic in the years to come. We are facing the issues of life and death. That is one which cannot fail to give us a great sense of responsibility. We have a constitutional issue—an unusual thing. I do not ever remember in the course of my life the carrying by another place, through all its stages, of a Bill which was from the start opposed by the Government of the day. Noble Lords in all parts of the House recognise the fact that we may be faced with a constitutional issue between this House and another place. It is not for me to say anything about that.
Now that we have had two speeches of some length, one from each side in this controversy, and we have, I believe, sixty-one Members of this House who are waiting o speak, I propose to make my remarks very short. In doing so, I naturally shall not be able to give, chapter and verse for all the statements I make; but if any of the statements I make are challenged, then I am quite sure that amongst the numerous other speakers who take my view in this question documentary answers can and will he given to substantiate the truth of what I am about to say. We have had a very powerful speech from the Lord Chancellor, a speech we should have expected from him. I should call it a massive speech, fully documented and building up a great edifice. But the

587
real point is this: no edifice, however well built, will stand unless it rests upon solid foundations. The question I have to put to your Lordships is whether this great edifice which the Lord Chancellor has built up to-day really rests upon any solid foundations of evidence. Over and over again, the Lord Chancellor said, "I believe this", "I believe that", "It seems obvious this", and "It seems obvious that"; but what is the evidence on which he bases those beliefs? I venture to maintain that there is no evidence of fact. The Lord Chancellor quoted from the recent Royal Commission and, of course, with his accustomed fairness he quoted correctly; but I suggest to your Lordships that he built a conclusion upon an entirely inadequate basis.
The Lord Chancellor himself admits—and, as my noble friend the mover pointed out, I think we must all admit—that putting another person to death is a pretty sorry business, and it can be justified only if it is really necessary. I do not think anyone in any part of this House will deny that. The Lord Chancellor quoted from the Royal Commission and said that they came to an inconclusive decision. They were bound to come to an inconclusive decision; we can never prove what would happen if we were to do something that we have not done. All we can do is to take analogies. The argument put forward by the Lord Chancellor was put forward in even stronger language than he put it to-day over a hundred years ago when the death penalty existed for a large number of things. It was said then, as it is said today, that if the deterrent of the death penalty were removed no one in this country would be able to go about with any prospect of safety for his life; he would have to go about armed and his possessions would be at the mercy of thieves and robbers. The Judges, the Lord Chancellor and the House of Lords for years begged Parliament to refuse to remove the death penalty, because it was said that it would be certain to open the floodgate to unlimited crime. Every one of those prophecies was falsified in the event. So far from the gloomy forebodings that were put forward taking place, crime gradually decreased from that day.
The Royal Commission said: "Let us see what has happened in cases where the
588
death penalty has been removed." They took the greatest trouble to inquire into the cases of all those countries which at some time in their history removed the death penalty. In the course of his speech, the Lord Chancellor said that one could not tell what effect the deterrent had on people who did not commit the crime. But if you remove the deterrent and there are not more crimes committed, surely that is proof that the deterrent was not what it was supposed to be. It seems to me that it is a strong argument if you can show that in all the countries where the death penalty has been removed there has been no increase in the murder rate.
But the Royal Commission were not content with that. There are some countries where the death penalty was removed and subsequently restored. They inquired whether, when the death penalty was restored, the murder rate went down. There is no evidence whatever that it did. The Royal Commission were not content with that. They travelled to a great many of these countries. They investigated what is happening in the United States, where some States have the death penalty and some have removed it. They considered whether, in the cases where it had been removed, the effect had been one of reducing or of increasing the number of murders, and they found that it had no effect whatever. They took two adjoining States of a similar type, one of which had removed the penalty and the other of which had not, and they found that the curve of the murder rate had assumed almost an identical line in the two States. Therefore I suggest that when the Lord Chancellor says that he believes, and it is incontrovertible, that removing the death penalty will have the effect of increasing the number of murders, that is entirely unsupported by any direct evidence. It is not enough to say that the Royal Commission did not find any positive evidence; such evidence as that is as far as it is possible to go. The Royal Commission did produce those statements.
The Lord Chancellor says that he has read—and I have no doubt that he has—the bulk of the Report of the Royal Commission, and that in his opinion they have produced a negative result. But I should have thought that perhaps the most important person who would be influenced by the Report would be the Chairman of the Commission himself. I

589
know Sir Ernest Gowers personally very well indeed. He is not a man to be swayed by sentiment or by emotion; he is a hard-headed man. He has been long connected with the Civil Service and with the main institutions in this country. Sir Ernest Gowers joined this Commission, as he himself states, with no very definite opinion but, on the whole, thinking that probably it was necessary to retain capital punishment, and he says:
"In the end I became convinced that the abolitionists were right in their conclusions, though I could not agree with all their arguments, and that so far from the sentimental approaches leading into their camp and the rational ones into that of the supporters, it was the other way round."
I could, of course, quote many passages from the Report of the Royal Commission and from many other sources, but in the short time that I am going to occupy your Lordships' House it seems to me that those things are pretty conclusive.
I come now to the question of armed burglars. The Lord Chancellor again says that, to his mind, it is quite obvious that if the death penalty is removed a great many more burglars will carry arms than is the case at present. That does not rest upon any evidence: again, it rests upon opinion. It does not seem an unreasonable result, but the question is one of fact. In all the other countries where the death penalty has been removed, is it, or is it not, true that the number of burglars who go about armed has increased? The answer to that is that it is not true. Of course, the Lord Chancellor can get out of it by saying that those countries arc different from our own. Every country is different from every other country. The Lord Chancellor began by saying that the facts that I am quoting come only from countries where the police are armed. But he admitted afterwards that they come from other countries but argued that they were smaller countries than our own. You can always evade an argument by putting forward some condition which may not be fulfilled. But the simple fact is that in countries where the death penalty has been abolished there is no evidence whatsoever that the number of burglars who go about armed and commit murder has increased. It is not a sufficient defence in the act of taking life to say that you cannot prove your contention. In this enlightened age, in the second hall' of the twentieth
590
century, you have to show positively that there is evidence demanding the retention of the death penalty, and I venture to suggest to your Lordships that if you cannot do that you have no right to defend the continuance of this practice.
I propose now to leave that aspect of the question and to come to one other, because though I notice that to-day it occupies a lesser place in the public mind, if I am not mistaken, when this question was before the House eight years ago it was one of the principal matters that was brought into account. It was said then that the countries that have abolished the death penalty have substituted real life imprisonment in its place—by that I mean that the man stays there until he dies. If, therefore, we are too humane to do that in this country, we should have to adopt the principle which we adopt in the case of other prisoners: we should have to release murderers after they have served a considerable term of years. I am going to deal with that aspect.
First, your Lordships must realise that there is a very large number of murderers who are reprieved at the present time. They are reprieved, not because of doubt about their having committed the crime, but for various reasons appearing good to the Home Secretary of the day. Having served their sentence in prison they come out when the prison authorities consider it appropriate to let them out; and I believe that in the last fifty years there has been only one case in which it was alleged that one of those murderers committed another murder or even any other offence. Even that case is exceedingly doubtful, for later there were grounds for believing that the second murder was not committed by that man. In all but two of the countries that have (many of them for many years past) abolished the death penalty, no murderer has ever been known to commit another murder after his release. I will be quite fait; there are two exceptions. One is Belgium, where there have been three, the other is Denmark where there has been one; font in Holland, Luxembourg, Maine. Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota, Norway, Queens land, Sweden, Switzerland, and Wiscon sin, not a single such case has ever occurred.

591
Not very long ago I had the privilege of meeting, in one of the Committee Rooms in these Houses of Parliament, the Ministers of Justice of Belgium, Norway and Sweden and the head of the Psychopathic Institute in Sweden. They were prepared to answer questions. They scoffed at the idea that there was any likelihood that the death penalty would be re-instituted in their countries. They said that the public of those countries were perfectly well satisfied with the way things were working. I asked them: "How do you get on about letting your murderers out? Do they really have to stay in prison for the rest of their lives?" They told me that they regard murderers as broadly of two classes: those who may be criminals but are perhaps actuated in murder by sudden impulse; and those who are psychopathic and who, though they may not be definitely lunatic, have a disordered mind. With regard to the first category, some of whom prove to be among the best behaved men in prison, they found that they could let them out, on average, after between ten and twelve years—some more, some less. Except for those to which I have already referred, there has been no repetition of the crime.
Psychopathic murderers, having disordered minds, have to be treated in an institution but I was told that in those countries they effect a cure in a considerable number even of those cases. If, however, there is someone on the verge of lunacy, naturally he cannot be let out. These gentlemen said to me: "You do not let your lunatics out of criminal asylums unless they are cured. They have to stay there for life because they cannot be trusted out." It is precisely the same case. If a man has a disordered mind he is a psychopathic patient. They told me, "In the great majority of cases we can even cure those men, but if we cannot do so we have to keep them in an institution for the whole of their life, though that is no different from what you do here."
My Lords, I promised to be very short in order to give as much time as possible to other speakers, and I am not going to argue my case any longer. Those who will speak following me from the same point of view will give chapter and verse
592
for any questions raised. In conclusion I want to say only this: I take it that all of us, whichever side we may be on, regard this question of murder and capital punishment as not merely a rational question, but as a matter charged with deep emotion. We all have in our hearts a deep sense of disgust at the deliberate killing of a human being. But these emotions have to be governed by reason if they are to yield sound fruit. It is my firm opinion, and I believe the opinion of others who in regard to this Bill are on the same side as I am, that facts alone are what count. As I see it, the facts are overwhelmingly in support of our case, and the opposite view, however honestly and eloquently put forward, can be held only in the teeth of the evidence.
3.57 p.m.
VISCOUNT MALVERN: My Lords, I regret that on the first occasion on which have the honour of addressing this House the subject of discussion is one which causes great controversy in the United Kingdom, and, further, is somewhat grim, if I remain true to form, however, mine will be the shortest speech in this debate. I have had some experience of this matter, having sat for twenty-one years on an Executive Council which played the part played in this country by the Home Office, and I have come to certain definite conclusions. First, I premise by argument on what I believe all noble Lords will agree is a fact: that the first duty of really democratic government is to preserve law and order from within; and if the Legislature is not prepared to provide the Government with the necessary instruments for preserving law and order, then law and order cannot prevail. Like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, I am quite satisfied, after much experience, that capital punishment does act as a deterrent. That is a matter on which everybody is entitled to his own opinion. There is room for manoeuvre and for argument; but, at any rate in the case of the noble and learned Viscount, nobody can say that these very positive opinions, which are given by so many people, are given by those who know little or nothing of the subject.
Overseas countries were referred to in the course of the debate, and that is my excuse for entering into this discussion. What I fear is that if this Bill for total abolition of the death penalty is passed

593
and becomes an Act and resides in Whitehall, it may at any time be pulled out of the drawer and imposed on one of those overseas territories which, whatever may be the position here, are certainly not yet ripe for total abolition. As a student of the Colonial Office policy of this country over many years, I am aware that we are often used as a kind of guinea-pig for trying out social experiments, and therefore I am most anxious to see that this Bill does not become an Act of Parliament.
And I take my stand from another angle. In another place, no Amendments were accepted, and we all know that we are looking for reform in this type of legislation. In my own country we found a formula which prevented a large number of people from being condemned to death, but I am told that what is suitable and satisfactory in a non-civilised community would not apply in this highly civilised community here. However, like every other noble Lord. I should like to see the number of death sentences reduced. The next difficulty I am up against is in dealing with the question: where does the conscience of the people really reside? It seems to me that it resides where whoever happens to control the Government of the day wishes it to reside. This matter has not been before the people of the United Kingdom, and, furthermore, as I understand it, the principle of the Bill is total abolition. I am opposed to that principle.
4.2 p.m.
LORD REA: My Lords, as it has been agreed that this debate shall not be conducted on Party lines, I should like to make it clear that any expressions of opinion I utter are my own, and do not necessarily represent the views of any other noble Lord on the Liberal or, indeed, any other Benches. For that reason, I propose to be extremely brief. But I do not propose to deprive myself of the privilege and pleasure of being the first to congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, upon a notable and most interesting maiden speech. I need not disguise from the noble Viscount that when we heard that he was to address us our expectations rose very high, and I cannot disguise from him that he has delighted us by exceeding our expectations. I am sure that all your Lordships will join in hoping that he will frequently give us the
594
pleasure of hearing him, when he can spare the time from other duties. It must surely be a rare occasion on which felicitations can be offered to a Prime Minister on his maiden speech, but this is the position in which we are to-day, and we offer them to him with all good will.
My Lords, I am in favour of this Bill, for many of the reasons which have been put forward already, and will be put forward again, by its supporters. I do not propose to recapitulate any of them. I shall confine myself merely to saying that we who support this Bill feel that, without any doubt, it represents a logical and consistent step forward in the advance of civilisation. It is many centuries since the rack and the thumbscrew were abandoned. It is a very long lime since we also abolished the selling of human lives into slavery. We who support the Bill feel that here is another stage forward in the same progression.
We are well aware of, and we respect, the opinions of our opponents, just as the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that our opponents respect ours. But to many of us the only real doubt has been whether, from the point of view of public opinion, we are perhaps a lithe premature in putting this measure through now, rather than a few years hence. I am no longer in any doubt about this. I believe that the step which is now proposed is bound to come soon, and as a progressive I prefer to see legislation—particularly de-restricting legislation—keeping pace with, not lagging behind, the will of the people. I consider that within a couple of decades of the abolition of the death penalty we shall be saying to each other: "Is it credible, is it conceivable, that as recently as 1956, we still had this barbarity on the Statute. Book?"
There is only one further aspect which I would mention. If we reject this Bill now and, in all consistency, reject it again, should it come before us again from another place, we shall obviously be inviting the operation of the Parliament Act. As a Liberal I have neither fear of, nor resentment at, the Parliament Act; but I should rather regret the necessity for its operation in the case of a Bill supported repeatedly by another place, irrespective of Party allegiances, and in respect of which no political Party has a mandate—either for or against—from the

595
electorate. Since the Bill has been passed by the House of Commons on a free vote, despite very influential persuasion against, it is surely reasonable to argue that the citizens of this country desire your Lordships to pass it as the other House has passed it. For those who conscientiously oppose this Bill, there is the traditional and honourable course of making in the Committee stage such modifications and alterations as would render the Bill acceptable to them. There is no limit to the degree of alteration which can be made in Committee; and even for that reason alone I urge your Lordships, in all parts of the House, to accept—if only to give the Bill examination—the affirmed and reaffirmed will of the House of Commons, by giving this Bill a Second Reading, and by deferring your veto, whether it be a total or a partial veto, until a later stage.
4.7 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, I am sure that I can count upon the indulgence which your Lordships invariably give to one who rises to address you for the first time. On this occasion, the indulgence of your Lordships must be very considerable, as I can never hope to bring to your Lordships' debates one fraction of what was brought to them by my distinguished predecessor. I have, however, the ambition that I may he of some service to your Lordships' House.
I intend to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. In saying this I wish to dissociate myself from some assumptions which have entered into some of the propaganda on behalf of this Bill, for I believe them to be dangerous and morally enervating assumptions. One assumption of which we have heard something—though not in your Lordships' House—is that it is progressive and Christian if we can gradually eliminate the element of retribution from punishment, and let the idea of reformation of the criminal hold the entire field, leaving no portion of it whatever to retribution. I dissent from that notion. I would endorse most gratefully what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said this day about the moral necessity of retribution within our penal code; and as for reform. I believe that the reform of people who have done things that
596
are terribly wrong includes on their part the recognition that they have deserved the penalty meted out to them. It will be a sad day for our country if the verb "to deserve" is eliminated from thought on this matter.
A second assumption which has also come into some of the propaganda for this Bill I would also wish not to endorse. I think it is a fallacy to assume that the New Testament disallows the taking of life by the State whether for justice or for the protection of its own citizens from violence. I will not here weary your Lordships by arguing that matter. I refer to it only because, from a fairly responsible quarter, literature has been circulated to the public, and I believe to your Lordships, setting out certain propositions about the law of forgiveness and the law of love, assuming that these propositions, taken naïvely, settle the matter and that there are no deeper and other aspects of truth going with them. The literature saying this comes from a body called Christian Action, but I hold it to be a very unchristian action to encourage the public to superficial thinking on a great moral issue, and to send the result of their views on postcards to a Canon of St. Paul's. If this Bill passes it will not, I am sure, be in virtue of assumptions such as those.
I make these main assumptions in approaching this terrible problem: murder must be punished. How? First, the penalty must be severe; second, the penalty must have attached to it a certain moral dignity as a simple and certain answer of the community, repudiating as unspeakable a horrible crime; third, the penalty must deter as effectively as a penalty can deter; and fourth—and this is an assumption to which, as a Churchman, I am compelled to attach importance—there must be no losing sight of the possibility that the worst type of human nature can be changed into something different before a man passes to his eternal account. If the necessities of deterrence make it exclude the possibility of so changing a man that he can resume some sort of place in society, at least it must admit of that gap allowing repentance and change before he leaves the world for a greater judgment.
In the past I believe that capital punishment has very often fulfilled all these four conditions. It has been severe;

597
it has had that simple certainty of condemnation by the community of an unspeakable crime to which an unspeakable penalty is attached. It has indeed deterred, and it has not been incompatible with that right of a human person to repentance and change before he faces his Maker. It is interesting to recall that one of the most gentle and sympathetic pastors ever known in the Church of England, Bishop King of Lincoln, who had much experience in dealing with criminals, believed the death penalty to be right, because he found it possible to deal with a man in terms of his mortal soul when that man first acknowledged that the terrible penalty was no less than his desert. On the other hand, all these considerations have for long been balanced by a consideration on the other side: that the State, by taking life as a penalty for murder, is not contributing to the sense in the public of the sanctity of life as much as it would be doing if it refrained from taking life as a penalty for murder. That is the consideration which used to be advanced, I believe in your Lordships' House as elsewhere, by the late Archbishop Temple, and I am one of those who have been perplexed as to the respective weight of that consideration and all those older considerations on behalf of capital punishment.
I do not think that there is a moral absoluteness, as it were, belonging to either side of this controversy. I believe it to be a matter of weighing the total moral effects upon the country if one line or the other line is taken. In weighing this matter, the question of deterrence comes to the head as a vitally important matter. I was moved by what the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, said to your Lordships about deterrence: but what was he saying? He was not claiming to offer the result of scientific examination of evidence. He was claiming that from his vast and massive experience of the problems he had an intuition, a "hunch," that a certain conclusion was right. Most decisions are made by intuitions and "hunches," and I want to repeat how greatly moved and impressed I was by the weighty words of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. But I think that I, and perhaps some of your Lordships, would have had a still
598
more overwhelmingly grew: impression if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor had done what he refrained from doing—namely, taken into account all those fields of evidence, some of which he gave the impression of regarding as irrelevant, and had given us that kind of conclusion as well.
Very perplexed as to the weight of force of argument to the conscience on the one side and on the other I have come to think that the abolitionists' case is by far the stronger, for this reason: that the death penalty in this country no longer has the moral dignity of representing, in an absolutely sure and certain way, the will of the community to inflict an unspeakable penalty for an unspeakable crime. For one thing, the bigger varieties of treatment given in the end to murder cases remove that simple certainty to which the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, referred in his opening speech. For another thing, the deep divisions in the public conscience no longer enable it to be said that there is a united will of the public conscience in this matter. And, further, what is the effect of capital punishment upon the public in general? Between the trial and the sentence and the execution there is the Press, carrying it to the public, and it can be carried to the public in no other way. I want to put this question: what is the use of telling us that hanging is an unthinkable penalty for an unthinkable crime if for periods on end the Press prevents sections of the public from thinking of aught else? What is the use of telling us it is an unspeakable penalty for an unspeakable crime if the Press discourages the public from speaking of aught else? It is these factors, which I will call the concomitants and atmosphere surrounding the place of the death penalty in the nation, that have come to weigh with me and to lead me to the conclusion—a conclusion reached by balancing the two views, each of which has moral potency attached to it—that it will be for the good of this country if this Bill passes your Lordships' House and becomes law.
4.21 p.m.
VISCOUNT HAILSHAM: My Lords. I am certain that, even against the sombre backbround of the subject matter of this discussion, your Lordships would desire me to turn aside for a moment from the debate in order to welcome into our midst

599
the most reverend Primate who has just concluded his first speech to your Lordships, even though the fact of his maidenhood in this matter was cunningly concealed on the list of speakers. The most reverend Primate touched all our hearts when he referred to his illustrious predecessor. I think that we cannot wish anything better for him than that he should have as many useful years of active life in our midst as his predecessor enjoyed, and win as warm a place in our affections. I think that I speak with the hearts of all of us when I say that this beginning gives us good ground for hoping that this will be the case. The most reverend Primate said that he had an ambition to serve your Lordships by the interventions in debate that he would make. I can only tell him that that ambition has already been achieved and that we all look forward to many other occasions when he will achieve it not less fully.
There are two ways of approaching this debate. One could come down to the House with a wealth of argument and statistics and thought, carefully prepared in advance; but I have chosen the other way, which I hope will commend itself to your Lordships. Deliberately I did not determine in advance the particular arguments to which I would address myself. I had played some part in the controversy in another place in 1948. I wanted to be very sure that it should not be thought, however strong my opinions had been on that occasion, that I had not genuinely tried to review the situation in the light of all that had taken place since and, in particular, in the light of the speeches which have been made by your Lordships.
I am glad that I chose this course of action, because I am bound to say that as I heard the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor develop his argument, I found that he was putting arguments on the merits of the discussion which, one after another, seemed to be put as well as arguments can conceivably be put—arguments which I found absolutely overwhelming. I should have stopped there but for the fact that I do not think the discussion can quite stop there. It must be apparent that, after so many years of controversy, apart from those who accept the assumptions which were rightly condemned by the most reverend Primate,
600
the real division of opinion in the country is on the weight to be attached to the undoubted fact that the statistics are inconclusive. I attach to that fact the opposite weight given to it by the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, and I attach to it exactly the same weight as was given by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack.
My reason for doing so, apart from the argument he so admirably expressed, is ultimately this. As the noble Viscount who so well moved the Second Reading said, murder is a crime which is extraordinarily difficult to categorise and classify. None the less, when all is said and done, the question is not whether we can measure (because we certainly cannot) the relative value of life imprisonment and hanging as a deterrent to murder—that is an argument which can never be solved by statistical material, for the reason which the noble Viscount gave. To my mind, the conclusive argument is the fact that, if this Bill becomes law, and your Lordships deliberately substitute life imprisonment for the penalty of death, we shall have a situation in which there will be a certain number of murders, possibly more numerous than the advocates of the Bill are prepared to admit, where there will be no deterrent for murder at all, or where the additional deterrent is only marginal. When I am faced with this proposition I am compelled to say that I regard the burden of proof as upon those who wish to bring about that situation. To my mind, that is a conclusive argument upon the merits of the debate.
What do we look for from a penal code?—surely that it should be, so far as possible, humane; that it should be, so far as possible, logical, and, so far as possible, practical. That is where I part company with the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence. Again and again we hear from those who differ from us the kind of argument that, because the penal code was inhumane and illogical, rather more than a hundred years ago, one should view the progress of penology as something which consists solely in the removal of excessive penalties. I do not so view it. Admittedly the so-called "Bloody Code" was inhumane. It was illogical also and it was illogical precisely for the reason that it deliberately encouraged murder. The old saying which dates from that time is, that it is as well

601
to be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb—in other words, if death is the penalty for robbery and for murder, there may be solid advantages in killing your victim. That is why the rate of violence decreased after the imposition of illogical penalties was removed, not because the fear of death no longer operated as a deterrent, as many advocates of the illogical code believed.
The effect of what your Lordships are invited to do this afternoon is to create a series of cases of murder in which the illogicality of the code is reimposed by making no difference, or no substantial or inadequate difference, in the mind of the criminal between the consequences of killing and the consequences of committing a crime without violence. That has always been to me the operative factor, and because the reasons were so well and fully put forward by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. I do not at this stage say anything more about it.
But I frankly do not think that the mere fact that a Second Chamber may think that a Bill proposed for Second Reading from the other place is a bad one is necessarily conclusive. The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said that we might be faced with a constitutional crisis. I rather wonder why. I should myself be glad to defer to other people's opinion in this matter, if I felt it possible to do so. It is a case in which I am emotionally on the side of the abolitionists, even if intellectually I am convinced that they are utterly misguided. But I wonder on what principle one can conscientiously vote against one's conscience in a Second Chamber. If the Government told us that, in their view, the Bill was workable and to the public advantage, and I happened privately to disagree, then I feel I could find it in my heart to abstain. But here the opposite is the case. The Government tell us in both Houses of Parliament that they view the Bill as a public disaster. We are the trustees of a limited constitutional power. We have to exercise that trust responsibly, unprovocatively, but still legitimately. That constitutional power was revised as recently, I believe, as 1948 or 1949. By all the canons of construction and common sense, that means that circumstances must exist in which it is right for us to exercise that power.
602
No doubt the other place can override us, and we shall feel no resentment if they do. But why they should try to make us the accomplices of what they desire, and then threaten us with the most frightful penalties if we will not become accomplices, I do not know. If they want to "go it alone", they can "go it alone". They will have the Government against them; they will have, I still believe, the Judiciary against them; they will have the police against them; trey will have the prison officers against them; and I have no doubt that they will have public opinion against them, too. But why they should feel it necessary to make us share their loneliness. I do not understand.
That is where I differ from my noble friend who moved the Second Reading of this Bill. Of course, I agree that this country is, and ought to be, governed by Parliament and not by momentary waves of public opinion. Here we are not, of course, representing constituencies. In another place Members are representatives and not delegates. But when another place says to us: 'We propose to go against the opinion of our constituencies, because we invoke the high doctrine of Burke, and then when we send it up to the Second Chamber we will complain of what the House of Lords does, because we invoke the high doctrine of democracy", it seems to me that they are guilty of some slight inconsistency. The truth of this matter, to my mind, is that if one comes to the conclusion that the Bill is good, one must vote for it—and I am sure that noble Lords who have spoken in that sense will record their votes. But if that argument is false, and one is driven rather against one's inclinations to the view that it is a bad Bill, then there seems to be no alternative but to vote against it. If those who vote against it happen to be in a majority, then the consequences of majority rule have to be faced, even when you do not like them. The worst that can happen is that the other place will decide to "go it alone", and they will no doubt follow their own counsel in that matter.
I should have been quite happy to give the Bill a Second Reading if it had been capable of amendment in a reasonable sense. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading of the Bill began his remarks with a proposition with which, with some qualifications. I wholeheartedly

603
agree. He said that the law of murder—I forget the epithets—is not perfect. I agree with him that it is a branch of the law in which clarity and perfection must be constantly sought after. If, therefore, this were a Bill for the amendment of the law of murder, I should feel, within reason, that the right course would be to give it a Second Reading and to amend it in Committee so as to reach out after perfection.
But this is a Bill which prevents amendment of the substantive law of murder; it is a Bill which would render it out of order to propose an amendment of the substantive law of murder. It is only a Bill for the attachment of a different penalty to murder. In so far as it can be amended, it can be amended only by taking out of that general exclusion an inner circle of non-exclusion, by citing particular kinds of murder which are not affected by the general ban on the death penalty while leaving the substantive law of murder unaltered. I do not believe that that is a dignified or, in the last resort, a possible method of promulgating to the country what the law of murder or the death penalty should he. That, I believe from the point of view of the abolitionists and the abstentionists. While, therefore, if the Bill went to Committee there might be Amendments which we should support as a second best, I do not think I can conscientiously put this Bill to the House as one that is capable of amendment. I think it would necessarily be a Bill which, even if amended, would render the state of the law worse than it is at the moment.
There is one other thing that I should like to say before I sit down. The noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading spoke at considerable length on the use of the Prerogative. I take the view—and here I do not think I should carry my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack with me—that over the last fifty years the use of the Prerogative has become too stereotyped. We none of us know for certain what the various categories are which constitute a sufficient reason for granting a reprieve. But I start with the proposition that there are many types of murder and many types of murderer, and that the attempt to categorise them by lawyers has hitherto failed. I should like to see the Prerogative used much more generously and
604
imaginatively. Not that I blame any individual Home Secretary for following the established custom in this matter. But I should like to see Home Secretaries go forward with the authority of Parliament in a more imaginative and constructive way of utilising that Prerogative.
If we did pursue that line, it might also be said that should the abolitionists be right, and those of us who are not persuaded by them be wrong, one could make a progressive utilisation of the Prerogative to enable changes to take place, with the complete certainty that public opinion was behind it, with a much more gradual and practical approach to the matter. If abolition were to come by that road, as it has already come in some countries, I should probably continue to think it a mistake. But if it were to come, that would be the royal road of progress, and not that which it is now proposed to take.
We are now asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill to which most of us cannot conscientiously give even a qualified blessing of any kind. We are asked to do that in the knowledge that the Government oppose it; in the knowledge that the police and the prison officers oppose it, with the solatium offered by the noble Viscount who moved the Second Reading that their conditions ought to be bettered. But whether recruiting would be more or less vigorous if to the existing arduousness of their professions were added the abolition of the death penalty, I must leave the House to judge We are asked to do it in the knowledge, or the belief, at any rate, that it does not appeal to the greater part of public opinion. I would agree, sadly, with the most reverend Primate in his maiden speech, that the division on this subject is deep and deplorable; but unless the minority is arrogantly to assume to itself the right against all opposition to rule the majority, then I believe that is an evil which cannot be helped.
4.40 p.m.
LORD BRABAZON OF TARA: My Lords, I know that your Lordships always look forward to any contribution that my noble friend Lord Hailsham can make to our debates, and certainly he has not disappointed us to-day. I do not entirely agree with his point of view, but I must say that I share with him a certain feeling of blame on the part of the Govern-

605
ment as to the position in which they have put your Lordships' House. Surely this question is of sufficient importance for the Government to be able to make up their minds and to give us guidance. At present we are all in different moods and not knowing what to do. I look forward with great interest to what our noble Leader will tell us to-morrow. Nobody will have more influence upon this House than he, because we all look upon him with immense affection and with a tremendous realisation of his wisdom in these matters.
I approach this problem not as a sentimentalist and not as one of those believing in "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth." I have always been under the impression that capital punishment was a deterrent. I think everybody is entitled to share that view until one comes to the Report of the Royal Commission. The statistics that are quoted there—and we must rely on them—have shot that case to pieces. There is no doubt now that, curious as it is, remarkable as it is, the death penalty is not the deterrent we thought. Knowing that this particular problem was coming up, I read all the propaganda from both sides —and, Heaven knows! there has been plenty of it—and I was not impressed by anything except one document, which gave a list of the last fifty murders and, roughly, the description of them—cases like murder through mad suicide, and cases of suicide pacts. I must say that I am shocked at the way the Royal Prerogative was not used. Never in my life have I been so shocked that crimes led to execution when they were really due to abnormalities and were not criminal acts. For that reason I come to the conclusion that reform is urgent, necessary and long overdue. Consequently, for that reason I will give this Bill enthusiastic support on its Second Reading.
I do not believe, as my noble friend Lord Hailsham said, that it is incapable of amendment. For instance, I should like to see an Amendment made relevant to resisting arrest. I know that, having given away the case of deterrent, it is not logical to do such a thing as that. I know there is no logic in it, but I think it would be of confidence to the police, who have to do the "dirty work" in this regard. If they want such an Amend-
606
ment, I should be prepared to support it. I firmly believe that the Bill can be amended but, after all the consideration I can give to it, I feel that it deserves a Second Reading from this House.
4.45 p.m.
LORD CONESFORD: My Lords, I find this subject one of the most difficult with which we have been faced. I do not suppose there is a single one of us who does not number among his personal and intimate friends men who take opposite views on this great question. I find myself in so much agreement with what was said by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellors, and by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham, that I can cut out a great deal of what I might otherwise have said. But I would repeat what has been said already by some noble Lords: that we are not in this Bill discussing the reform of the law of murder. If any question of the reform of the law of murder were involved—questions of constructive malice, insanity, provocation and so forth—there are many of us who would support some amendment. I would also say to the most reverend Primate, by whose speech I was most deeply impressed, as I think was the House that I do not think we are discussing either whether there are not some improvements that might be made in what I may call the process of capital punishment.
May I give two examples which occur to me? I am myself wholly opposed to the idea of returning a condemned prisoner to any prison where there are other prisoners. I am also wholly opposed to the present publicity given in advance about the time and place of execution. But those are not the questions that we are considering. We are considering the simple question: shall the death penalty for murder be abolished?
I have never regarded that question as at all easy, and I am certain that we cannot derive a clear and simple answer to it by an over-simplification of the problem of punishment. I was delighted to hear what the most reverend Primate said on that subject. Ever since I read philosophy at Oxford many years ago, I have always thought that the problem of punishment presented one of the most difficult with which philosophers, theologians, lawyers and statesmen have to deal.

607
Broadly, there are three main theories of the justification and purpose of punishment—retribution, reformation and deterrence. I am myself convinced that none of these theories can be pursued to the exclusion of both the others without producing absurd and even shocking results. Of course, punishment normally has all three aspects. These problems with which we so often torture ourselves have little reality to the man in the street. May I give your Lordships an example? Suppose a man sees a brute attack a child in the street and rushes to intervene and to knock him down. What is the rescuer likely to think or say? Is there not an almost equal chance of his saying any of these three things: "I'll teach him"; "I'll give him his deserts"; "I'll see that he does not do it again, or that people do not do that with impunity"? He may say any of those three things; and of course, according to which he has said, he has stated the reformatory, the retributive or the deterrent theory of punishment.
In another place I noticed that the honourable Member who seconded the Motion for the Third Reading of the Bill said, as though it were an almost decisive argument in his favour, that admission had been increasingly made that there was an element of retribution in the capital sentence. Of course there is. But is there not also an element of retribution in the alternative sentence of imprisonment for life? I believe, with the most reverend Primate, that retribution—which is, of course, quite distinct from personal vengeance; the principle is sometimes expressed in the two Latin words suum cacique—is the most fundamental aspect of punishment. If that principle is wrong, all punishment is wrong. Reformation or deterrence can have its place when we consider the form or method of punishment; sometimes both reformation and deterrence can have their place. But neither can justify punishment if retribution itself is wrong.
I am glad to see that the view which I have been expressing is not confined to supporters of capital punishment. I would plead in aid not only the speech of the most reverend Primate this afternoon, for the doctrine which I have just explained was held with equal conviction by the late Archbishop Temple, who was, of course, opposed to capital punishment.
608
I wonder if I may read to your Lordships a few sentences from Archbishop Temple? He said that in all punishment there were the three elements which I have mentioned and that they may, of course, be active in very varying proportions. He said:
"These have usually been called the Retributive, the Deterrent and the Reformative. Personally, I hold that the essential element in what has been called retribution is not the infliction of pain to balance evil done, but is the action of the community in repudiating a criminal act. If, when a crime has been committed, the community does nothing, it is condoning the act, and to that extent becomes a partner in the guilt of it. If it treats the criminal"—
and I ask the House carefully to note these words—
"merely as a subject for remedial care it is ignoring his moral character."
A little later in the same article, the late Archbishop Temple dealt with the question of deterrents:
"Now, so far as punishment is deterrent only, it is treating the criminal as a means to an end, and though the law which condemned him may aim at preserving him from the crime, the actual infliction of the punishment is mainly concerned with other people. So far as this is true, it is non-moral; and if there were no other element in any instance of punishment, it would he immoral, for it is always immoral to treat a person only as a means to some end other than his own wellbeing."
Although I differ from the late Archbishop Temple in his conclusions on the question of capital punishment, I associate myself wholly with what he said in the passages which I have read about the three theories of punishment. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor pointed out, Lord Justice Denning said something of the same kind in the passage which is quoted in the Royal Commission's Report. The fact, therefore, that capital punishment is retributive does not help us at all in determining whether it is the best punishment for murder. What we have to determine is which of two punishments, both retributive, is better—death or imprisonment for life.
Before I consider that question, may I deal for a moment with a matter which has figured so largely in this controversy, both outside the House and in some allusions in the House this afternoon? Many have quoted Lord Ellenborough and other lawyers in the House over a century ago who opposed the abolition of the death sentence for small thefts.

609
In my view, those who took that line were terribly wrong, and I find their arguments shocking. But may I call the attention of the House to this fact: the House will note that Lord Ellen-borough and the rest would never have been led into that error by the retribution theory. They were led into their error by deterrence run mad.
My Lords, in choosing between death and life imprisonment as the penalty for some murders, we are choosing between two forms of retribution. In making that choice we can rightly consider, among other matters, which is the more calculated to deter. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has given reasons why it is difficult, and indeed impossible, to give absolute proof in this matter, but I would call attention to a few considerations which make me think —indeed, which convince me—that the death penalty does prevent a number of murders from being committed in this country. Let me mention again a matter which has been far too little mentioned in this controversy, although it was mentioned by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. It is that to-day in this country we have the lowest homicide rate in the whole world.
Let me put it to the House in this way. Every Member of the House has received a number of communications from outside bodies, all sincere and intended to help us; and all, one after the other, making the point that surely this country should abolish the death penalty and put itself in agreement with so many other civilised countries. But does it never occur to any noble Lord that, if he have the lowest homicide rate in the world, it may be that other countries could learn from us? Why should it be assumed that we must change our law of the punishment of murder, when the fact is that with this punishment—I do not venture to say whether as a consequence—as tempered by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative, we enjoy the lowest homicide rate in the world? I need not refer in detail to the passages on which I rely, but I would refer any noble Lord who is interested to pages 370 to 372 of the Royal Commission's Report.
That is my first reason for believing that the deterrent may be real and effective.
610
My second reason is that given by my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham. In some cases we shall be considering not which, in general, is the more effective deterrent, death or life imprisonment; we shall be considering, as Lord Hailsham quite rightly said, whether there shall be any real deterrent at all. As he pointed out, in the case of the habitual criminal engaged in a robbery for which he may be sent to prison for fourteen years, if nothing but long imprisonment is suggested as the penalty for murder, there will be no additional penalty before him to deter him from murder. As I have said, we have the lowest homicide rate in the world, but we have not a diminishing number of crimes of violence.
The next reason why I believe that the death penalty is a real deterrent is the fact that that is the strong conviction of the police, generally supported by the judges. Perhaps I may read a few sentences in paragraph 61 of the Report of the Royal Commission:
"Of more importance was the evidence of the representatives of the police and prison service. From them we received virtually unanimous evidence, in both England and Scotland, to the effect that they were convinced of the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment in its effect on professional criminals. On these the fear of the death penalty may not only have the direct effect of deterring them from using lethal violence to accomplish their purpose, or to avoid detection by silencing the victim of their crime, or to resist arrest. It may also have the indirect effect of deterring them from carrying a weapon lest the temptation to use it in a tight corner should prove irresistible. These witnesses had no doubt that the existence of the death penalty was the main reason why lethal violence was not more often used and why criminals in this country do not usually carry firearms or other weapons."
We must be very conceited if we claim that we know so much more about the habits of the criminal classes than do the police, who have to deal with them daily. I say that the evidence of the police is worthy of the greatest respect, especially when it is so often supported by the judges. I repudiate most strongly the suggestion that the Judges of the Queen's Bench Division throughout our history have been rather blood-thirsty men, generally in the wrong. I think it was my noble and learned friend Lord Oaksey, eight years ago, who pointed out that it was to the judges that we owed the doctrine of the presumption of innocence.

611
I wonder whether I may say one personal word about the judges. In the debate eight years ago, a very valuable contribution was made on the Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill (when the question of capital punishment was only one of many questions involved) by the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, who spoke with great authority in this House, and charmed this House in all quarters. When I was called to the Bar long ago, in 1919, I went as a pupil to Herbert du Parcq (as he then was), and towards the end of my pupilage he invited me to stay on in his chambers. From then until he was appointed a Judge of the King's Bench Division, I was in daily contact and constantly having discussions with that very humane lawyer; and after he became a judge and, later, went to the Court of Appeal, and ultimately in your Lordships' House, he remained my very close friend.
I remember, eight years ago, as a Member of another place, hearing, at the Bar of your Lordships' House, the speech which he made. Perhaps I may quote the few sentences with which the noble and learned Lord, Lord du Parcq, concluded his speech on April 28, 1948 [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 155, Col. 519]:
"For my part, believing as I do that capital punishment is a deterrent. I shall not vote for that clause. You must record your own vote as if upon you alone rested responsibility. That, I suggest, is the only test by which to Judge. If it rested with me to decide, then in the future, whenever I read in the Press of a murder I would be mentally confronted with the question: would these innocent lives have been sacrificed, would those innocent relatives have been bereaved, if the capital penalty had been in existence? That would be much more for my conscience to bear than the thought that a few murderers had been executed."
I come to the last of my arguments, to the effect that capital punishment is a direct deterrent. This, perhaps, is the most astonishing of all. It is an admission in another place by the promoter of this Bill himself. In another place, an Amendment was moved on the Committee stage which would have exempted from the operation of the Bill certain people by a proviso which said—
"Provided that this Act shall not apply in any case in which the murder was committed
(a) in the furtherance of burglary"
et cetera, and
"(b) by the use by the person charged of some offensive weapon or instrument with which such person was himself armed."
612
That was the Amendment to which the promoter of the Bill had to address himself when he came to reply. By the Rules of your Lordships' House I am not at liberty to give his exact words but must give them by paraphrase. But I ask all your Lordships who wish to study this to turn to Columns 2077 and 2078 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of another place for May 16. The promoter of the Bill pointed out how useless this Amendment would be in dealing with gang warfare, because the master spirit would be encouraged to make certain that someone else used the weapon. A little later on, he pointed out that, if the Amendment were passed, it would be only the hand that fired the shot that would be held to be supremely guilty; and he suggested that the Committee could be quite certain that those who planned the murder would make absolutely sure that somebody else actually fired the shot. Could one have a clearer admission that, in the view of the promoter of the Bill himself, capital punishment provides a unique deterrent which imprisonment does not?
I believe the death penalty to be a valuable deterrent. I also believe, with the late Alexander Paterson, that it is morally preferable to the proposed alternative. One of the extraordinary things in this great controversy is that each side thinks the other is lacking in imagination. The abolitionists think that we do not share the view that capital punishment is horrible, and those who uphold the death penalty think that the abolitionists are unimaginative when they come to deal with long imprisonment. I met the late Alexander Paterson in my student days and, like so many of us who knew him, even slightly, I was very much impressed by him. I do not claim that I knew him nearly so well as many of your Lordships in different sections of the House knew him, but I know it is suggested that he might have been prepared to revise the views which he so strongly expressed some years ago if he had been made aware of all the improvements in prison conditions that had taken place.
My Lords, I am unable to take that optimistic view. I still find a little shocking what is said, with great honesty, in the Report of the Royal Commission itself—I quote the concluding sentence of paragraph 657:
"that the principles now followed by the Secretaries of State in determining the actual length

613
of detention in each case are in general appropriate for the purposes of punishment, deterrence and the protection of the public, without undue risk of causing moral and physical deterioration in the prisoner; and that if, in exceptional cases an exceptionally long period of detention is called for, the additional risk of such consequences ought not to be held to rule it out."
I cannot believe that that is a conclusion with which all humane men will agree.
Much has been said of the sanctity of human life. I think I need say nothing on that matter this afternoon, except to associate myself with what was said by the most reverend Primate. The matter was also dealt with by the right reverend Prelate the then Lord Bishop of Winchester in the debate in 1948. Absolute opposition to capital punishment has never been an unqualified principle of Christian thinkers or of the Church of England; but if the words "sanctity of human life" have an important meaning for the Christian, they must, I think, refer to the quality of life and not only to its duration. I believe that this Bill is wrong in principle and wrong in practice. Of course, I have considered, as have so many, whether, notwithstanding my personal convictions, this was a matter in which I could honestly bow to the will of the Commons and not record a vote against it. I can find no ground whatever on which I can justify abstention. How can we claim to be a Revising Chamber if, in a matter of this moment, we fail to record an honest vote? I blame no Member of another place who voted as his conscience dictated, even if, as the seconder of the Motion for the Third Reading admitted, he voted knowingly in defiance of the wishes of his constituents. For my own part, having long and carefully considered my duty, I shall vote as honesty compels me.
5.13 p.m.
THE EARL OF GLASGOW: My Lords, I must ask for your Lordships' indulgence because I am not able to speak in your Lordships' House unless I read what I have to say. But, to come to the point, I believe that the abolition of the death penalty would be a mistake for the following reasons. A Bill passed through Parliament in an emotional atmosphere, in which tears were seen streaming down the cheeks of some of its supporters, cannot be sound, in spite of the obvious sincerity of its promoters. It reminds me of what a Parliament of women would be like who sometimes are inclined to
614
judge with their hearts and not with their heads. I was struck with the unanimity of the Judges who, with scarcely an exception, were against abolition. Your Lordships will probably recollect, as has already been mentioned, that one of there commented that at present burglars are, as a rule, unarmed, bat if this Bill passes they will arm themselves and may think it worth while to shoot their way out, as the penalty for murder would not be much greater than what they would get for robbery with violence. I know a prison chaplain who, whilst talking with "old lags," was told by them that they hoped hanging for murder would be abolished as it was the one deterrent feared by all criminals.
I think this country is disturbed to-day by the amount of violence and vandalism amongst adolescents and young people. There are several reasons for this state of things, and lack of parental control is one of them. The other reasons are the abolition of the "cat" and the cane and the defective education given to so many of the younger generation. Some cinemas are not good for the young. Many films have the effect of inciting boys to be what are called "tough guys" and they model themselves on those lines, go about in gangs, and are a terror to their neighbours. They are prepared to steal and even to kill, for they know that their precious skins will undergo no pain and that, if under eighteen, they will not hang. I believe that there should be a review of what were called "progressive and beneficial measures" which have been introduced during the last few years, because they have been obvious failures. The Government should turn a deaf ear to the sentimentalists and reintroduce the "cat" and the cane. If young people had been disciplined in their early years by corporal punishment, there would be less need for the death penalty; but if abolition is brought in now, when, owing to lack of discipline, violence and vandalism are so much in evidence, it would be a danger to the country. I know, of course, that there are hundreds of thousands of boys and girls, many of them members of youth clubs, who will make the best kind of citizens that any country could have. In passing, let me congratulate the inhabitants of Guernsey on their common sense in deciding, by a considerable majority, to retain the "cat" and the cane.

615
The arguments of the abolitionists by which they make comparisons between nations are, to my mind, untenable. When I read of the nature of the murders which have been committed during the last few years, such as the horrors who take children of tender years into woods and rape and murder them, I feel that there is in this country a streak of insensitiveness and a tendency to violence in certain strata of the population which is lacking in many foreign countries. Also, how is it possible for the abolitionists to compare Scandinavian countries, with their small population of well-educated and cultured peoples, with Anglo-Saxons? But, as they seem to set store by these comparisons, let me remind them that in the small Anglo-Saxon country of New Zealand, with a population of nearly two million, the death penalty was not in force between the years 1935 and 1950. Between 1935 and 1941, although hanging was the law, it was not carried out. In 1941 hanging for murder was abolished, and in 1950 it was restored. During the fifteen years in which it was not in force, the average number of murders was nine. Since it was restored in 1950, the average has been three. If hanging is a deterrent in New Zealand, the people of which are of the same stock as ourselves, there can be little doubt that it is a deterrent here. If your Lordships pass this Bill there is no doubt in my mind that the number of murders will be greatly increased, and in my view this experiment —for that is what it is—should not be tried out, because it is not worth the sacrifice of even one more life per annum, much less the many which abolition would entail.
At a recent meeting of the General Assembly in Edinburgh, certain prominent Ministers of the Church of Scotland declared their belief that to hang a man was unchristian. That belief is held by other people, notably the most reverend Primate who spoke today. I want to say a word on that. Before Italy was united in 1871, some of the States and Parliament enforced the death penalty and some did not. Piedmont did it, but Milan and Lombardy did not. In the Papal States the Roman Catholic Church, being a spiritual organisation, did not admit capital punishment. Their own words on this point were: "Ecclesia non sitit sanguinem", which I am told means
616
"The Church does not thirst for blood." In the old days the death penalty was reserved for heretics and its execution was entrusted to the civil powers. Nevertheless, in countries subject to the Roman Catholic Church as a temporal power, the death penalty was inflicted for murder and even for common crimes of particular gravity. Even to-day, in the small state of the Vatican City, capital punishment can be inflicted for any attempt against the life, integrity or personal liberty of the Pope. Equally, a similar offence committed possibly against the heads of foreign countries in Vatican territory may be punished by death if the laws of the victim's country admit capital punishment, So it would appear that successive Popes of Rome considered that the penalty for murder was not only not unchristian, but was a necessity.
My Lords, to sum up, I think that this is a question of "black" or "white" and that this is not the moment to follow suggestions for compromises, from whatever source they may come. Whether a murderer should hang or not should be examined from a practical and not from an emotional angle. Any sympathies I have are for the relatives of the corpse, and for the victim who was once a human being but whose life has been blotted out by a gorilla. I feel strongly that hanging is a deterrent, and that, if the floodgate is opened, we shall contrary to the experience in some countries, have a large increase in the number of capital offences.
Finally, I have been out in the byways and hedges. I have accosted perhaps fifty to eighty strangers in the streets and on the roads, including two engine drivers and firemen. Most of these people were working class. They ought to know, as it is from their ranks that most of the victims come. This was a small cross-section of the Scottish people, and only one of them was in favour of abolition. Of course, that proves nothing, but it convinced me that at least 70 to 80 per cent. of the people north of the Tweed are against this Bill. My Lords, as has been said, this Bill passed through another place by nineteen votes, with many Members abstaining. Is that true democracy working through the elected representatives of the people? Your Lordships know in your hearts, even those who are for the Bill, that the great majority of the population are against it. If your

617
Lordships act in the interests of true democracy and throw out this Bill now, you will have the thanks of the people.
5.22 p.m.
LORD WISE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down, will not, I am sure, wish me to follow him through his speech. I want to deal with the matter before the House in quite a different way from that in which he has covered it. I think we can assure ourselves that the effect which this discussion will have upon public opinion outside the House will be to the advantage of all. Our discussion will undoubtedly bear scrutiny outside, and be considered as a serious attempt on the part of the House of Lords to solve a difficult situation. This is indeed a problem which creates differences of opinion among people, wherever they have gathered together, even in family circles and in places such as that.
It has been stressed, and I think it cannot be over-stressed, that we, as Members of your Lordships' House, have to-day and to-morrow to come to an extraordinarily difficult and important decision. That rests with us, but I am sure that nobody here will wish to avoid the responsibility of deciding, according to his own conviction and his own conscience, whether he should vote for abolition or retention of the death penalty. None here, or elsewhere, can condone murder in any form or in any circumstances. The last speaker referred to his heart, but I am convinced that none of us, in his heart of hearts, can agree with capital punishment or retribution by the destruction of what we know as "a life for a life."
We all know what constitutes murder in individuals or by an individual, but I want to make a suggestion to your Lordships for consideration which may not find favour with many of you. I hold the view that premeditated and planned death by execution can in itself be described as murder and is therefore equally indefensible. Such a retribution to expiate a previously committed murder cannot satisfy a reasonable conscience. It may be brought about by a desire for some such retribution as the outcome of either an orderly or a disorderly mind. There may be a spirit of revenge in sanctioning a death by execution or agreeing with death by execution. On the other hand,
618
it may be a result of a conviction very firmly and faithfully held.
We have been told that, in order to counteract a seemingly increasing number of murders, punishment must be swift, terrible, final and complete. I want to emphasise a point about confinement for life. The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack suggested an increasing degree of penalties, according to the crime. I suggest that, as a suitable punishment to be considered, there is confinement for life; and when we talk of "life," we mean life, and not a prescribed period of years. We may be persuaded against such punishment by reason of cost, but we must remember that we do not leave mental defectives at large: we control them. We bear the cost of their control, whether for a long period or a short period; and, in my view, every murderer is a mental defective of some degree. I also want to stress this particular point—unfortunately I was not here when the most reverend Primate spoke. I want to suggest to your Lordships that murder is not only a sin against earthly society but is a sin against a higher Power. The opportunity of repentance is given to all of us. Life comes front above, and it is not ours to destroy. I want to stress that particularly, because I hold that view very strongly.
I want to put a point for every individual one of us to consider, not only in this House but outside as well, because this is a point which affects every family, not only here but overseas and elsewhere. We are all human, subject to like temptations, passions, mental reactions and balances and the rest. We all have the power to resist sin, but that power is not equal. The risk of family or personal tragedy has to be run by all of us—rich, poor, and all alike. We ca mot be certain that we can circumvent it. We may sin, or we may be sinned against. Murder may fall upon us or ours, or be committed by any of us. The risk is there. We may break down without warning; we may be troubled by overwork;, we may overrate small day-to-day happenings in family or business life; we may misjudge the actions of others. At any t me, anyone may come face to face with provocation or temptation. It may arise from envy, malice, avarice, covetousness and the like. A blow may

619
be struck after long premeditation or as the result of sudden impulse.
And here is where I want to put a direct question to every one of your Lordships. If a man should murder his wife, if you should be the man who did that, do you think that the wife would wish that the death penalty should be inflicted? The reverse applies. If your wife should murder you or anyone else, what would your reactions be concerning the penalty? What would your reactions be with regard to the penalty which should be meted out to her? If the criminal should be one of your own children, what would your feelings be as to what should be the measure of retribution? We must think of the possibilities as to what might follow from sudden temptation or otherwise in any of our own families. Your own boy or girl might overstep the mark in any direction. That is indeed a serious thought.
The noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, referred to a conversation which he had had with a prison chaplain. I should like to conclude by mentioning a conversation which I had with a prison chaplain who was well known to me some years ago. He was present at two, if not more, executions. In the first instance, the person to be hanged was an old man who, when drunk, assaulted an old lady and then killed her. He was hanged. I may say that these executions which I am now mentioning are not included in the list which has been sent round, I think, by one of the papers. They occurred before the time of those executions which are set out in that list. The second murderer was a young man. It was alleged that he robbed a young woman and that then, in the excitement, a shot was fired either by him or by someone else. He was found guilty and hanged. He admitted the robbery, but he steadfastly pleaded to the prison chaplain that he was not responsible either for the revolver or for the shot. The prison chaplain, as was his duty, spent hours in the condemned cell prior to the execution, and he was so convinced that the lad was innocent of murder that after the execution he resigned. Now that boy, I understand, was a typical British boy—full of vitality, full of life. He was a clean-living lad, except for that one occasion when he overstepped the mark. He was a typical
620
young British boy. And that is the sort of thing that might have happened to one of your own children.
The noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, spoke of the horrible effects of execution. I come now to the horror of the two executions attended by the chaplain I have mentioned. One murderer was hanged and the other was strangled. The chaplain inspected one body but he was not allowed to inspect the other. Cannot we do something in our society to prevent things of that sort happening? Cannot we, if only for a trial period of years, do away with the death penalty and make imprisonment the punishment for murder? I cannot bring myself to believe that hanging is necessary in our Christian society. I hope that, in the ages to come, humanity will outlive everything which is horrible and beastly in our present age.
5.36 p.m.
LORD WEBB-JOHNSON: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack spoke of his own experiences. I propose to follow his example. First, I would speak of the two murders by violent methods which I have witnessed. I may say at once that I formed quite different conclusions in regard to them. In one case, the killer was a notorious "bad hat." He awakened us in the small hours of the morning, and my mother and I rushed to the window from which we saw that the man had chased his wife into the front drive, and there before our eyes he slaughtered her. Not satisfied with that, he kicked her in the face and kicked her in the belly. That man was not insane; he was a beast, a brute and, as such, he ought to have been destroyed. That was the conclusion I came to then, and it is the conclusion which I have held for fifty years since. What would he have been preserved for, and who was going to welcome the job of looking after him for the rest of his life? It did not strike me that there was any sanctity in that so-called human life.
The second murder I witnessed when leaning over a ship's rail in the harbour of Tampico, which is some six miles up the Gulf of Mexico. Some men were loading, a ship with a cargo of coffee, and a few hasty words passed. Almost before one could see anything of what was happening, one man pulled out a knife and plunged it into another. He afterwards,

621
went on loading coffee, but later the local police carne and took him away. In my view, that man required treatment quite different from that of the first murderer I have mentioned. I think that if any of your Lordships had had a short sojourn at Tampico you would have realised that tempers there were a little short and that knives came out very easily. What that man wanted was a good slap in the face, and then a few years in gaol to cool his temper arid teach him to control it.
Another type of murderer that has come under my notice is the poisoner. I have had direct personal experience of the work of poisoners, and on two occasions I have been able to recognise that a man was the victim of slow arsenic poisoning. It is very difficult for a family doctor to turn his mind towards the idea that his patient is being poisoned. But when you are acting in a consultant capacity and the patient is brought to you revealing symptoms, we will say in this case, very like cancer of the stomach, and yet again not looking as if he was going through a mortal disease, but through another crisis, you are more ready to form certain conclusions. When I isolated this man in a nursing home, allowed him no visitors, and saw to it that no food reached him except food prepared by a nurse and served to him by a nurse, in a few weeks he became well. What does one do in such circumstances? The noble and learned Viscount may say I did the wrong thing. What I did was to tell the patient that his symptoms were due to the fact that he had swallowed continuous doses of arsenic, and I reckoned it was his business to find out where it came from or who kindly gave it to him. I saw his wife and I imagined the situation in that home as she carefully watched the effects of her means of doing him to death. There it was; there was no getting away from it. But there is a type of case where nothing but the extreme penalty for crime seems to meet the case.
To show your Lordships the difference between the general practitioner and the specialist, I will give you another instance, if I am not taking up too much time. During the "blitz" I went to answer the telephone, which was near the window. That sharpened ones' wits; one wanted to get away from the window as soon as one could. The doctor wanted me to go to the outskirts of London to see a man
622
who was desperately ill; he thought he was dying. I said, "What do you think he is dying of?" He replied, "I think he has cancer of the stomach". I said, "He did not get it this afternoon. You might have let me know earlier in the day." I asked him some questions about the symptoms, and they were all such as I have told your Lordships about in the other case. I asked, "What about the X-ray?" He said that the curious thing about that was that it did not show any deformity of the stomach. I said: "Don't be a damned fool. Somebody is poisoning him." I hope your Lordships will excuse the language. I never saw the patient, but I got rid of the telephone and I got away from the window; and my wits had been sharpened—for I was right.
I saw the doctor about six weeks later, and asked, "What happened about that patient?" He answered, "You were right." I said, "How do you know?", and he replied: "I put him into a nursing home, isolated him, and tested him. He was full of arsenic, and he was soon on the way to getting well." I then asked, "What did you do about it?", and he replied: "I told him he ought to be very careful what he ate." That is all very well, but if these women had succeeded they would have deserved the extreme penalty. These prisoners are dreadful people! I would not have any thing to do with them!
Then I had two friends in Broadmoor. You may think that a little curious, but there it is. That is a wonderful institution for the right type of patient. Both those men served two or three years and then were liberated, and they served their fellow men and led lives of sacrifice for the rest of their lives. They were genuinely temporarily insane.
Now, with that experience, I have been puzzled to know why there is such wide support for the abolition of the death penalty. I suspect that very largely it is due to two factors which, if cleared up, would greatly diminish the number of supporters of abolition. One is the gruesome tableau of the pronouncing of the death sentence in every case when a prisoner is found guilty of murder. Undoubtedly there are different grades of offence which may either demand the death sentence, as I

623
suggested, or may require a lesser punishment. I cannot understand and never have been able to understand, since the days when I was being attracted to the Bar instead of medicine, why the law should say that the death sentence must be pronounced on all those guilty of murder. It is so dreadful, so cruel, and so unnecessary.
The other factor is the method of killing. I started research work on execution fifty years ago. I did not publish the results, and your Lordships may guess why I did not do so. But the method of killing is disgusting, crude, primitive, clumsy and inefficient. Both the pronouncing of the death sentence and the method of execution should be revised, and I believe that if this or any Government brought in a Bill modifying the sentencing of people found guilty of murder, and modifying, bringing up to date and making scientific the method of terminating a life by execution, it would bring great relief to a large number of people in this country and would remove half the demand for the abolition of capital punishment. From which I hope your Lordships will gather that I strongly believe in the retention of capital punishment for suitable cases but not for all.
5.49 p.m.
LORD OAKSEY: My Lords, I regret that I was unable to be here when the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was opening this debate, and also when the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack was making his speech. I should not have wished to intrude upon the debate again, having spoken on previous occasions, but for the fact that I have for many years been a Judge in the King's Bench Courts and now in the Queen's Bench Courts, and have had the duty of presiding at a number of murder trials. I want to say a few words upon the subject of deterrents and upon one or two other subjects. I am not in the least convinced by statistics that the death penalty is not a deterrent. It may be that some people have enough animal courage or religious belief not to fear death, but I would put it to your Lordships: is there anybody who does not fear death with disgrace? The very case which abolitionists put forward seems to me to prove the deterrent effect of the death penalty. It is their horror of death which makes them aboli-
624
tionists. They say that the infliction of death is such a terrible thing that the penalty must be abolished. That shows the fear that a natural man has of death and, as I say, particularly of death with disgrace.
As to deterrence generally, is imprisonment no deterrent? If imprisonment is a deterrent—and surely it must be admitted that it is—then the greater penalty of death must be a deterrent. Can anyone be persuaded by statistics? Are your Lordships persuaded that imprisonment is no deterrent because people continue to commit crimes and some of them to go to prison time after time? I submit to your Lordships that anyone who looks at the case for abolition and the case for the death penalty must be convinced, as I have been convinced in the course of many murder trials, that the death penalty is a great deterrent. As one noble Lord has already said, it is possibly a more cruel penalty to give a sentence of life imprisonment. It is not realised at the time by the man who has it imposed upon him that it is a more dreadful penalty than death, and therefore it has little deterrent effect; but those who have seen it carried out know that it is a terrible penalty.
I want your Lordships to consider, when thinking of the evidence which is before you on the merits of the death penalty and of the case for abolition, who are the witnesses who speak on one side and on the other. On one side is the almost unanimous opinion of the judges, the legal profession and those engaged in the prison system. Against them are those who rely upon statistics, upon emotion and upon their political views. Which view is more likely to be right? Is it that the judges and the members of the legal profession and of the prison service are more bloodthirsty, more cruel, than those who advocate abolition? Take another sentence which has provoked much controversy, the sentence of flogging. The warders who are in touch with the criminal population, and who presumably know, insist upon the retention of flogging for offences against them. I submit to your Lordships that all the facts point to the view that those who really know the criminal population and who come in touch with the administration of the criminal law, and who therefore might be thought to know more about it, are practically all against abolition. It is those further

625
away from the criminal classes and from the administration of criminal justice who are, to a large extent, in favour of abolition.
I cannot agree with what the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said about possible alterations in the law. I think that the flexibility of the law as it stands is a great virtue. I ask your Lordships to think of what happens in a murder trial. The judge has to sum up and has to lay down to the jury that intention to kill or to do grievous bodily harm must be proved. Sanity, in the view of the law, must be proved—must be presumed almost until insanity is proved. Then, apart from intention, provocation may be proved. In those ways murder is distinguished from manslaughter. The jury have a completely flexible discretion on whether or not they find a man guilty of murder or of the lesser offence of manslaughter. The judges have to apply the principles of the law to the facts of the case. If one reads the summings-up of judges, one sees the care and, in some cases, the skill with which they have applied those principles to the facts. In that way juries are fully apprised of the distinctions which they can make; and they do make them. There is no case my recollection, except possibly one, where I have disagreed with the verdict of murder.
In addition to that, there is the completely flexible discretion of the Home Secretary. In my view, it is far better to retain that discretion than to categorise murders, to put them into little legal compartments, which will always lead to difficulties and argument. The Home Secretary is absolutely free to receive any evidence—not only legal evidence—and to consider any facts whatever in order to decide whether or not he will reprieve. I think that any lawyer who has had experience of the administration of criminal justice in this country will say that it is carried out with absolute fairness and with the greatest tenderness and mercy for those who are accused.
5.59 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I shall not take up a great deal of your Lordships' time to explain why I propose to vote for this Bill, though undoubtedly some four or five years ago I should have voted against
626
it. I should have voted against it largely for the reasons given by the most reverend Primate who has spoken before me. It has been traditional in Christian ethics to allow the legitimacy of the taking of life by the community as the most extreme form of punishment at its disposal. That tradition has warrant in Scripture and is supported by reasons which I do not propose to elaborate this afternoon, since the most reverend Primate has done it for me and, in any case, the reasons are probably familiar to your Lordships. I should also have voted against the Bill largely because the retributive element of punishment is not only always properly present but is, indeed, properly predominant. It is for that very reason that care is always taken to ensure that the punishment is in proportion to the crime. If the punishment be over-severe, it is held to be unjust. It is for this reason, also, that the utmost care is taken to ensure that no man is punished except for those actions for which he is reasonably held to be responsible.
It seems to roe that over the years, latterly, there has been a growing uneasiness in the public conscience as to whether the imposition of the death sentence in cases of murder in this country does accurately reflect a proper retribution; that is, a growing uneasiness whether the imposition of the death penalty in certain cases of murder is just. That is so in two directions. The death penalty is the extreme penalty, beyond which there can be none worse. It should therefore be reserved as the most emphatic, dramatic mark of disapprobation, the detestation by the community of particular crimes.
It seems to many people that in this country there are now being committed some crimes which are more dangerous to the well-being of the community, and more detestable, than some murders; and they are crimes for which the criminals are undoubtedly morally responsible—crimes, such as the exploitation of the white slave traffic, the inculcation of drug addition in adolescents, or sustained cruelty towards a child. I think the public conscience regards criminal activities of those kinds as more detestable than some of the murders for which the murderers have been hanged. They have, therefore, a certain unease about the

627
imposition of the death penalty. I am not pleading that the death penalty should be extended to cover these crimes. I am saying only that the fact that the death penalty is not executed in the one case but is executed in the other creates in the public mind a sense of unease and a certain sense that justice is not being done.
Further, there is a public idea that some persons are hanged for murders for which they were not, in fact, wholly responsible, or are hanged for murders which were not, in any ordinary sense of the word, premeditated. It has already been said that the law of murder is sophistical. Certainly I think the common man of the English nation does not now understand the rulings which hold in the law courts. The common man does not understand why it is that in some cases a man is acquitted and in other cases he is not. I speak with the greatest respect before noble and learned Lords who are Judges of Her Majesty's Bench, but it is precisely because the Judiciary is so emphatic that distinctions and degrees of murder cannot be entertained in the law courts that the public mind is uneasy about the imposition of the death penalty. If the murder law could be reformed, and if there could be produced gradations of murder and gradations of penalty, then I believe a great deal of this public unease of which I speak would be removed. But I understand that that course is not possible; and therefore I shall vote for the Bill to abolish the death penalty altogether, so that I may aim to abolish what I conceive to be a grave evil—namely, public uneasiness of conscience.
The second element in punishment is, of course, that it should be reformative. I do not for one moment accept the argument of those in favour of the abolition of capital punishment on the ground that capital punishment, because it is final, cannot be reformative. There have been cases—perhaps a great number—in which the acceptance by the murderer of the justice of the death sentence imposed upon him has effected a reformation of character—and by "reformation" I mean a recognition of the wrongness of his action done, together with a will and desire to make atonement and to reform. Chaplains of prisons have spoken of more than one case where the death penalty has been reformative in that sense. But it is not necessary to impose the death
628
penalty in order to get this reformation. For this reason, also, I shall vote for this Bill, because I cannot believe that it is right to impose the death penalty unless it be necessary or near-necessary. But I shall vote for the Bill under this heading with the greatest caution.
We are told in the Scriptures not to fear those who can kill only the body and that after that there is nothing that they can do; we are warned that it is for God alone to destroy both soul and body in Hell. But it is certainly within the competence of a civilised community, while preserving the body, to destroy the soul in prison. I intend no criticism of the governor, chaplain and officers of Her Majesty's Prison at Princetown when I say that it seems to me to be almost inconceivable that any man can emerge from Dartmoor a better man than he went in. The chaplain tells me that in fact that does from time to time happen. All I can say is that it happens against all the odds.
It seems to me that by imposing long sentences upon murderers we should be running the risk of exposing them to a deep spiritual corruption. Therefore, to me, it is a corollary of the passing of this Bill that urgent reforms in our prison system should immediately be set in hand. It is not an easy problem which the authorities have to solve. I lay no claim to any expert knowledge on penal reform, but it is clear, is it not, that the sentence which is to be imposed on a murderer, if it be not the sentence of death, must be one which is severe. And in the early stages, at least, it must, I believe, hurt; because the sentence must reflect the detestation of the community for the crime which the murderer has committed. The sentence must make plain that the community hates the use of violence against any one of its members. Therefore, the punishment must be severe, and I think that probably it must be very long, because the community has the right to be reasonably sure that an offence which has been committed once will not be committed again. Therefore, the authorities must be given time to make themselves reasonably sure that the man's character is reformed.
Above all, if a man undergoes a really long sentence, the early stages of which are accompanied by severe discipline, then he must at every stage of it be

629
buoyed up with the emotion of hope: either hope for a release, or, if that seems almost too distant to hope for, then a hope that by good conduct, by loyalty and by acceptance of his punishment, he may earn ever-increasing privileges, and, as time goes on, may be entrusted with actual responsibilities and duties. Further, it is of the utmost importance that the plans already in being for an institution for the special treatment of the pathological cases should be pushed forward with all speed.
I will riot weary your Lordships with arguments for or against the deterrent quality of the death sentence. Others far more competent than myself have laid, or will lay, before your Lordships all those arguments. All I would say is this. Until recently I was convinced that the death penalty must be retained because of its uniquely deterrent nature, but I am convinced by the evidence of the Royal Commission that it is not possible to say that the death sentence is uniquely deterrent. If it were, then surely it is an unavoidable conclusion that, wherever the death sentence is removed, the proportion of murders must increase. Of course the death penalty is a deterrent. My contention is that it can no longer be said to be a unique deterrent. Therefore it can no longer be said that it is necessary for the well-being and protection of society.
My last reason for changing my mind and voting for the abolition of the death sentence is that the imposition of the death sentence creates in the community a certain morbid and unhappy excitement which is had for general morals. It is difficult to assess the degree and nature of this morbidity, but I think your Lordships will all agree that it exists. One has only to look at the whole atmosphere which surrounds a murder trial, the whole manner in which murder trials ale reported in the Press, to realise this. I have no criticism of the Press to make. They print only what people like to read; and the fact that the papers print these long accounts of murder trials is in itself evidence of this morbid unhealthy interest of which I speak. The atmosphere is reminiscent of that which presumably obtained among a Roman mob seated in the Coliseum watching the gladiators fight for their lives. Again there is this morbid interest in all the details which the authorities can allow to be published
630
about the last moments which precede the execution and about the execution itself. These things are difficult to assess, but their existence cannot be denied; nor can it be denied, I believe, that they are a bad influence upon society.
The justification of capital punishment is, as I have said, that it is due to a man because of his gross misconduct, and that it marks emphatically the deep detestation in which the community holds his action. Deliberate, violent taking of the life of a fellow-member of society is a detestable act for which, in my judgment, the death penalty would be the entirely just one if it were necessary. But the effect of the death penalty, which is itself the violent taking of life, is, on the whole, to make the violent taking of life seem less detestable and less abhorrent than the community intends that it should appear. In other words, the death penalty as a mark of detestation for murder defeats itself. Instead of inculcating into the community an even deeper reverence for the sanctity of human life, the death penalty actually cheapens human life, and in the mind of an ordinary man depreciates the sanctity of that human life. It is for those reasons that I shall vote for the Bill.
6.15 p.m.
LORD CLITHEROE: My Lords, although most of your Lordships will have listened with great attention and respect to the speech we have just heard from the right reverend Prelate, I am bound to say that the last argument which he brought forward was not one which appealed to me. The Report of the Royal Commission sets out that the outstanding defect of the law of murder is that it provides a single punishment for a crime widely varying in culpability; and it is, I suggest to your Lordships, that defect that has caused the death penalty to be so much criticised at de present time. I agree with that criticism, although I listened with the greatest interest and respect to what the noble aid learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, had to say.
I should like to see the law of murder reformed. It is difficult to define categories of cases, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, and others have discussed that point. There is only one way in which, as I see it, the penalty can be made appropriate to the crime, and that is a way with which the Royal

631
Commission do not agree and a way with which Her Majesty's judges, on the whole, I believe, do not agree. It is that the penalty shall be determined by the judge. He is the man who is in a position to form an opinion—the right opinion, think—of what the penalty should be. Though that may be putting a great additional burden upon judges, it is one which I should like to see placed upon the Judiciary. I myself believe that certain murders are so foul that it is necessary and right that the death penalty should be retained, and I shall therefore vote against this Bill since its object is to do away altogether with the death penalty.
Your Lordships have heard from much greater authorities than I could be on the various objects of punishment. With regard to reform, the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter has just told us that, in his opinion, at least (I think I do not misinterpret him), penitence is just as likely to be present in the case of a murderer sentenced to the death penalty as in the case of one sentenced to imprisonment for life. With regard to retribution, I agree with the views of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and the sense in which he approves of retribution and the point that the community must mark its disapprobation of so great an offence.
But much of the discussion this afternoon has turned on the question of deterrence, and I could not agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, said about this aspect of the problem. I was reminded of some words used in this House not many years ago— I suppose it was in 1948—by the noble and learned Lord, the late Lord Wright, of which I made a note. What he said was this:
"The sudden ending of human life by the process of law is the most terrifying thing that can be devised."
I am bound to say that that is also my judgment, and I believe that, whatever statistics may show, many people are deterred, and will be deterred, from murder if the penalty is death. I have never believed that the voice of the people was necessarily the voice of God, but I do suggest that the voice of the people should be listened to. I believe that if the criminal law is to be respected, it
632
should accord largely with public opinion; and I believe that public opinion is, on balance, considerably against this Bill.
The Bill was passed by the House of Commons, and on Third Reading—although there may have been some special reasons for this; so that I wish your Lordships to attach to it only such importance as you think right—less than a quarter of the honourable Members of another place voted for it. One also hears that some honourable Members who voted exercised their undoubted right to vote in a way contrary to the opinion of those who elected them. From all I have heard in the country, and from what I have read, I believe that the balance of opinion in this country is against this Bill, and I therefore think we should be wise in this House to exercise our power to reject it and to give the country another opportunity for further thought.
Finally, we cannot overlook the view which has been put to us by the Lord Chancellor, representing the view of Her Majesty's Government. Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Home Secretary, are responsible for law and order in this country. They have to consider the effect which such a Bill would have upon the police, upon the warders, and, indeed, upon various parts of our Colonial Empire. For all those reasons, I believe that we should accept the advice given to us by Her Majesty's Government.
6.22 p.m.
THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON: My Lords, at the beginning of the few remarks which I shall make, I should like to say that great stress has been put this afternoon—and perhaps rightly—on the opinions of Her Majesty's Judges. We have listened to a very powerful speech by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, and various references have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Conesford, and others to the opinions of the Judges and the respect with which we should treat those opinions. I myself would yield to none in my respect for Her Majesty's Judges. I have the privilege of being a friend of one or two of them, and from what I have seen, from what I know and from what I have heard of their work, I think they are a standing example to the whole world. Their industry, their vast knowledge and their

633
absolute incorruptibility are things of which we can all be proud.
Nevertheless, there is a strange situation which has puzzled me: that when it comes to this question of arguing on the death penalty, and arguing in general about big deterrents such as flogging, or, in the old clays, even torture, we find that throughout history in this country the Judges have been unanimously on the side of capital punishment and on the site of the hardest penalties one could imagine. I should like to substantiate that statement with one or two examples. I will not go too far back, but in 1748 William York, a boy of ten, was sentenced to be hanged for murder. Apparently there were some mitigating circumstances and there was some doubt whether a boy of that age should be hanged. The opinion of all the Judges was unanimously for the hanging of the boy as an example.
In 1786 Lord Loughborough, Lord Chancellor of that time, defended the burning of women at the stake, because, he said, "It made a strong impression on the beholder." Incidentally, it was his opinion that any reform in the criminal law should originate with the Judges or at least be approved by them before being submitted to Parliament. I will not go into the views of Lord Ellenborough which are well known. I think the only measure which he himself entirely framed added ten new offences to those punishable by capital punishment. Your Lordships will no doubt know that in the last century there were at one time about two hundred offences for which men and women could be hanged. Lord Ellen-borough's well known remark when he opposed a Bill brought in to remove the death penalty on people who stole in shops, was:
"If this passes we shall not know whether we stand on our feet or our heads."
He went on to say that if such a Bill was passed the goods would be stripped from the shops and no property would be safe. In 1811 he fought the Bill to remove the death penalty for stealing from shops goods worth more than five shillings. When this was challenged as perhaps being a personal view, he replied:
"This is not my opinion but it is the opinion of the learned judges with whom I have been in the habit of consulting in the punishment of crime. They are unanimously agreed that the expedients of justice and public security
634
require that there should not be a revision of capital punishment in this part of the criminal law."
I could go on quoting for a long time. Lord Eldon was also well known as having blocked all reform to the criminal law for years. There were many cases of children being hanged; for instance, in 1808 a girl was hanged at Lynn. She was only seven years old. In 1831 a boy of nine was publicly hanged at Chelmsford for having set fire to a house; another, aged thirteen, was hanged at Maidstone. Lord Eldon claimed that he had advised His Majesty's Government for twenty-five years and could say without any doubt "that mercy had never been refused in any instance where it ought to have been given." That was the opinion of Lord Eldon. He was most successful in this matter, because the Bill for the abolition of the death penalty for shoplifting was passed by the House of Commons in about eight different years and was always thrown out by the House of Lords on Lord Eldon's advice. In fact, in 1818 he was so eloquent that the Bill was thrown out without a Division. Finally, in 1832 Lord Eldon opposed the abolition of the death penalty for stealing sheep and horses. In 1861, however, in spite of the efforts of the Judges, capital punishment was reduced to the present count of four offences.
I have quoted these remarks rather at length to your Lordships because although, as I said, I would yield to none in my admiration of the judges in their administration of the law, yet when it comes to making the law there seems to be a strange lack of understanding of human nature amongst them. This is curious and has puzzled me. I can offer only two possible solutions why men of such great knowledge and wisdom in these cases should be so terribly prejudiced. I think one reason may be that a Judge has continuously presented to him the worst aspects of human nature. He has terrible crimes expounded before him all the time. I wonder whether, in the course of years, dealing with those crimes, he does not in the end become jaundiced and come to believe that there is no redemption for humanity at all. It would not be surprising if that were his point of view.
My other point is much more difficult. Many of our actions spring not, as we

635
should like to think, from reason, but from emotions, desires and passions which fortunately are usually under control. In a Judge's office, which is a very responsible and a very high office indeed, the greatest moment of power which that office expresses must surely be when a Judge controls the life and death of the man he is judging; when he, by directions to the jury, by his conduct of the trial, by his summing up and finally by his sentencing to death, has a dramatic and terrible power which undoubtedly gives prestige to his office. I am not suggesting for one moment that Judges consciously think of that when they are advising us, but I am wondering whether unconsciously they are not influenced by this, and feel that their office must keep this ultimate sanction of deciding life and death. It is the only way I can explain why the Judges have always been against any mitigation of most savage laws. When they are so wise otherwise it is puzzling that in this they have always been so wrong. Laws have always finally been brought in to abolish the death penalty, but the dire consequences which have always been prophesied by the Judges—such as that if the death penalty were abolished no one's life would be safe, treason would flourish, goods would be seized, and no one's property would be safe in his house—have in no case ever come to pass. Yet we still pay great attention to Her Majesty's Judges whenever they advocate that, whatever happens, we must keep the death penalty.
I should like to finish by quoting an American judge of some years ago who, speaking of judges and their work, said:
"From any opportunity of observing the influence of punishment upon the classes of men among whom malefactors are most commonly found, the great judges are by their stations and duties placed at a great disadvantage."
I wonder whether that is not the answer to this rather puzzling situation. I agree with the noble Viscount who introduced this Bill that we must all think that hanging is a nasty business. It is repugnant to all people. What I should like to urge is that if it is to be retained, the burden of the proof must be on those who support hanging. If they can show that actually the death penalty is the only
636
unique deterrent, that might be convincing; but they cannot. in fact, as has been said again and again to-day, the results of the Royal Commission show that no evidence can be brought to prove that getting rid of the death penalty in any way increases the murder rate or would make any of us less safe in our beds or in the streets every day.
May I quote again the American Judge Wilson, for whom I have a tremendous respect? He said:
"There are in punishments three qualities which render them fit for the prevention of crime. The first is their moderation, the second is their speediness and the third is their certainty."
I am sure that that is the key to the whole question—a sufficient police force and making the murderer realise the certainty of being found and convicted if he has done a murder. That is the real problem in regard to reducing the murder rate. I think it is a question of getting more police, which is most important.
There are one or two other points I should like to mention although I do not want to go into this question of the deterrent. Many speakers have touched on that and, no doubt, many speakers will touch on it again. I should like, however, to draw the attention of your Lordships to the terrible penalty we impose on the prison staff by this public execution—whether it is the governor, the doctor, the chaplain, or the warders, who have to look after this wretched person. We are putting a terrible strain on them. It is, no doubt, one of the factors which makes it difficult to recruit the right type of person as a prison warder.
Next, I should like to agree with the right reverend Prelate that the important thing is to enhance the sanctity of life. If we can build that up, that is our greatest protection and our greatest deterrent. After all, what really makes a murder trial interesting to the public is the fact that a man is fighting for his life; the Press plays it up as much as it can and there is a wave of hysteria. Not only do I feel that that is a very unwholesome emotion but I think also that on some occasions it may be an encouragement to murder. There have been one or two cases where the murderer undoubtedly has seen himself in the limelight and almost a hero. That is possibly one addition to the motives which make for this terrible crime.

637
The greatest possible deterrent is the tabu of public opinion. That is what we have to aim at. May I give your Lordships two examples? When I was in America at the time of the depression, when in Chicago people were robbing and shooting and there was a wave of gangsterism, the one thing that was never touched—I used to go along the streets and see this—was the money of the newspaper sellers. They would put a cap down while they were away at lunch and people would throw in silver half dollars and cents, and this little pile of money was never taken. It always surprised me and I was told that it was an unwritten law that this money should never be touched; and it never was. Another example I can give is that there was no cheating at cards in the last century among certain classes of people. No-one did so because public opinion was against it. I believe that that is what we have to aim at: we have to aim at building up public opinion even more strongly against murder. I do not want this to be the last civilised country in the world to introduce this enlightened measure. Therefore, I support this Bill.
6.38 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I have one qualification for speaking in this debate that is possessed by only one other Member of either House; that is that I was a member of the Select Committee which sat in 1929 and 1930 to consider this matter. The other member was a noble Lord who, I think, is not now in the House. I was elected to Parliament in 1929 and was almost immediately appointed on the Select Committee. I had no preconceived notions of any kind. I was a lawyer, I had had some small criminal practice though never, I think, a murder case. I had a perfectly open mind on the question of the abolition of capital punishment.
We sat for some weeks. We heard evidence from this country, from many other countries and from every authority we could think of and, without question, that evidence convinced me, as it convinced the majority of that Committee, that the time had come to abolish capital punishment. It is true that it was a majority recommendation, though that fact had really nothing to do with the merits of the case. There was a difficulty which did not affect the merits but which re
638
sulted in a majority verdict. The consequence was that the Government of that time did not carry the recommendation of the Committee into effect. From that day, I took a much greater interest in the subject than I had previously taken.
My constituency in Leeds, the greater portion of which was inhabited by splendidly honest, worthwhile and responsible people, had a spot in it which was the resort and residence of rogues and vagabonds of every kind. I do not think I need describe it, because it has been described by the late Archbishop of Canterbury, Cosmo Gordon Lang, whose words have appeared in a biography of him. If your Lordships will forgive me I will quote just a few lines from it—perhaps I ought to say that Leeds was his first curacy. He said:
"I never saw anything worse, or indeed as bad, in East London. A few of my folk were decent artisans and small shopkeepers, more were casual labourers, most were denizens, of common lodging-houses or single rooms let out for the night. I don't think I exaggerate when I say that my first flock contained 2,000 beings whose homes were either rooms let at 6d. a night or a corner in a lodging-house kitchen. I wonder where they till went when these squalid hovels were at last swept away."
They were, in fact, swept away some twenty years ago and a magnificent block of fiats, the finest in Europe, now stands on the spot. The Archbishop went on:
"Some of them, especially the women in the Marsh Lane courts, were worse than beasts, for beasts are not degraded. I seem to see now their unkempt hair, their tattered clothes, their bleared eyes looking out at me with sullen suspicion. Many of them were the lowest class of prostitutes, but indeed, to put it bluntly, the unashamed promiscuousness of living made even the ordinary brothel respectable in comparison.… I often had to interfere … with fierce fights. I found that it was generally possible to separate men, but never women, if they had once had their hands in each other's hair!"
And so he goes on.
My Lords, that was a terrible portion of my then constituency in Leeds, and after sitting on the Select Committee, I took it upon myself to visit many of those places and to make the acquaintance of many people who lived in them. I had previously represented that part of Leeds on the Leeds City Council, so many of them knew me well, and I discussed with them on many occasions the view of the Select Committee. I ought perhaps to say that their reading consisted almost entirely of the News of the World, and, as my noble friend said, they seemed to

639
glory in the pictures and the descriptions of murders and executions, and so on and so forth. I never heard one of them express a fear of hanging. All they seemed to worry about was whether or not they would be likely to be sent to another dose of "jug." To them, imprisonment seemed to be a much nearer thing, and a much more serious possibility, than hanging. Nor, incidentally, either in that part of my constituency or in the other and much more respectable part, did I ever have a criticism, or indeed a question, on the vote which I gave on the Select Committee for the abolition of hanging—and I fought no less than five general Elections there. Of course, what I have said is not conclusive, but it does instance something of one's experience of what were largely members of the criminal class, and it confirmed me in the conclusion at which I had arrived, after hearing the evidence before the Royal Commission.
It is impossible in a short speech to deal with a hundredth part of the points that have been raised, but I hope that some of your Lordships will feel, with me, that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack really did "protest too much." He made one statement which I think requires some explanation. He said that there was no country where there was abolition where the police are not armed. That is not the question. The question is whether that arming followed the abolition of capital punishment or whether it was the normal custom of the country. Your Lordships may know that in many Continental countries it has always been the custom for the police to carry arms. I do not know whether the noble and learned Viscount can give us any proof that the carrying of arms followed or was consequent upon the abolition of capital punishment in those countries. Certainly I know of no evidence to that effect. If that be so, we can discount that argument.
My Lords, the facts have been set out sufficiently clearly, and I hope that the great majority of your Lordships are satisfied that nowhere in the world has there been an increase in crimes of murder resulting from the abolition of capital punishment. No evidence was given before either the Select Committee or the Royal Commission that imprisonment is not at least as great a deterrent
640
as capital punishment. In the last twenty-five years more than 200 reprieved murderers have lived amongst us, and in our country no reprieved murderer has ever committed a second murder. I agree there was one case, the case of Rowland, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Pethick-Lawrence, but as to that case there is doubt. Certainly no reprieved murderer in our country has ever killed a prison officer, and no country which has abolished capital punishment has found that it has led to an increase in the carrying of firearms by professional criminals, or, indeed, as I have stated, has found it necessary to arm the police as a result of abolition.
I submit to your Lordships, without going into details, that the evidence before the Select Committee and the Royal Commission must be accepted as conclusive. Those statistics, assembled from every quarter of the world, are surely convincing. They show that, regardless of climate, race, nationality, or any other of those considerations, abolition has not led to the consequences imagined, for example, by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack—they simply have not happened. Surely, my Lords, we are therefore entitled to deduce from that fact that they are not likely to happen here. Furthermore, do we need to retain capital punishment as the only deterrent powerful enough to save us from being murdered in larger numbers than is the case at present? I do not believe it. What is the special virtue in hanging which is not equally virtuous—if it be a virtue at all—in imprisonment? In the course of my war experiences I spent a good many months as a prisoner of war, and imprisonment is a powerful punishment. If it be, as is said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, a more cruel punishment possibly than death on the scaffold, then surely that is the punishment which ought to be given for the most serious crime of all, that of murder.
In my submission, the case is proved. Your Lordships must know that for 200 years penalties have been reduced, usually in the face of opposition from official quarters, and in particular from a majority of the judges. Surely the time has now come when this present blot on our so-called civilisation should be removed. I hope that your Lordships' vote to-morrow will help towards that end.
6.50 p.m.
LORD KEITH OF AVONHOLM: My Lords, in addressing this House in its legislative capacity for the first time, may I be allowed to intrude into the debate certain aspects of the matter in Scotland? I do not suggest for one moment that the same principles must not be applied in Scotland as in England—it would be wrong if a different principle were applied, and so far as I am aware I do not think that anybody would suggest that hanging should be continued in England, with abolition in Scotland, or vice versa. However, there are two factors, at any rate in Scotland, which go very much to alleviate the number of convictions for murder. These are no doubt known to many of your Lordships. There is, first of all, the doctrine of diminished responsibility. The doctrine of diminished responsibility has this result: that if a jury finds that a man or a woman accused of murder is of sufficient diminished responsibility to reduce that crime, the verdict that they are entitled to return is one of culpable homicide; in other words, in England one of manslaughter. Diminished responsibility is something less than insanity. At the same time, it is something which involves some degree of mental disease or instability, and if the jury finds that that is the condition of the prisoner at the bar, they are entitled to return a verdict of culpable homicide and not one of murder.
The other qualification that applies in Scotland is this. The Macnaghten Rules are not applied in Scotland: at least, they are not applied with anything like the rigour with which they are applied in England. They are not sacrosanct in any way. If the question of insanity comes up, it is determined upon evidence, upon the evidence generally of medical witnesses and psychiatrists, and on that evidence the jury is entitled to bring in a verdict of insanity. These features are not unimportant in this debate. One of the results, of course, is that many fewer people are hanged in Scotland than would be hanged for the same offences in England.
It is, I think, a matter of comment that the fact that there is a greater liability to be hanged in England does not seem to reduce the number of murders when compared with the figures in Scotland.
642
It is a very remarkable thing that in Scotland there were many years when nobody was convicted of murder at all. From 1929 to 1945 there were no executions at all for murder. There were one or two convictions for murder which were reprieved, but there were no executions. From 1936 to 1943—that is, within the period to which I first referred—there were no convictions for murder at all. It is true that three did do the act which might have been murder in a sane person, but they were found insane, and twenty-seven were found unfit to plead on the ground of insanity. The fact remains that from 1936 to 1943 there were in Scotland no convictions for murder, and to some extent that would be due to these two features of the doctrine of diminished responsibility and the fact that insanity was dealt with as a matter of evidence and not upon an application of the Macnaghten Rules.
As I see the question, it is this. Is hanging to be retained for all murders? When I say, "Is hanging to be retained for all murders?", I do not, of course, ignore the fact that there may be reprieves. But, in theory, everybody may be hanged for murder, and is that to be retained as part of the law of this country? The other alternative is: Is hanging to be abolished, with certain possible exceptions? At the moment I say nothing whatever about the exceptions. I am expressing no views upon what exceptions there may be or should be. That is the alternative view: Is hanging to be abolished, with possible exceptions grafted on to the general rule that there should be no hanging for murder?
On the best consideration that I have been able to give to the matter, I am prepared to support the Bill. Might I add that I do not regard this as a legal issue at all? It is a question of penal reform. I do not think the question of whether a man is to be hanged or is not to be hanged is really a legal question at all. It is not a matter for the administration of the law. It may be regarded as a matter of the administration of justice, but it is not a question of the administration of the law. If I may express an opinion upon a matter which has been canvassed to a considerable extent in the debate in this House, I may say that I am not entirely satisfied in my own mind that judges have any better reason, or are more qualified, to decide

643
upon this question than any Member of your Lordships' House. The question is primarily a social question. I have had quite an amount of experience in the trying of murder cases. I have tried some terrible murders, and one cannot avoid the feeling in these cases that hanging is a justifiable penalty. None the less, I think that, as a matter of principle, the question of abolishing hanging is one which must be seriously considered; and, on the best consideration that I can give to the matter, I am prepared to vote for this Bill.
6.57 p.m.
LORD MILVERTON: My Lords, as the first speaker after the noble Lord who has just made his maiden speech in this House, it is my pleasant privilege to convey to him the congratulations which I am sure that we should all wish to convey for a speech whose quality was remarkable, even on an afternoon such as this, when so many speeches of high quality have been made. I am sure that we all wish that he will come here frequently, and that we shall have the privilege of listening to him again.
My intervention in this debate will be brief and, I hope, to the point. After listening to, if I may say so with the greatest respect, the magnificent speech of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, and the brilliant intervention of Lord Hailsham, it would seem that there is little else for the ordinary person to say. However, in spite of certain reflections upon the value of public opinion if it does not agree with the person who happens to be speaking —reflections which have been made this afternoon from a very unexpected quarter of the House—I should like to suggest that this is precisely an occasion when the ordinary citizen ought to be heard, and I wish to speak in that capacity now.
The ordinary citizen is deeply interested and concerned in this question and is somewhat 'bewildered because his support has been confidently claimed by both sides. He sees also both sides accusing the other side of being prompted in their views on this subject by purely emotional, or by largely emotional, considerations. I have read with the greatest care the mass of literature with which the supporters of this Bill have loaded
644
the daily post—I do not mean supporters in this House, of course, but those outside who support the principle of this Bill. And I am now speaking, I hope, as one of the units of public opinion, which must, after all, be of major importance in this matter—that is, in relation to my knowledge of the operation of such things in this country.
If the House will pardon a personal reference, may I emphasise that I do not speak with any academic or sentimental irresponsibility this afternoon, since I have, many years ago in my official capacity, been a witness of hangings. Also, for a period of eighteen years, it fell to my official lot to decide whether or not the Prerogative of mercy should be exercised in particular cases which came up. I have signed more death warrants than I care to remember. So I ask your Lordships to take it as a serious expression of opinion, based, as the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-L'awrence, said he would like to have any opinion worth having based, upon the facts of personal experience.
It is my experience throughout the world in the outer territories for which we are responsible that the death penalty emphatically is a great deterrent. I have, of course, been associated with the Administration, which is deeply concerned in the maintenance of law and order and respect for law. I can only say that, as the result of all my experience. I have not the slightest doubt about the value of the death penalty as a deterrent in those territories; nor, since my return to this country, have I seen any particular reason to believe that human nature here is so utterly different—so very much more enlightened it may be—as to make that principle inapplicable here. I am a convinced and sincere opponent of this Bill. I ask your Lordships to reject it on Second Reading and not be misled into giving it a Second Reading on the plea that it could be amended in Committee. I think enough has been said this afternoon to make it clear that it is a simple principle upon which we are voting, and for those who think as I do there can be only one decision, which is to vote against the Second Reading.
In dealing with murder, surely one must aim at satisfying justice as well as exercising mercy. It is, after all, the most heinous crime of all, and as such it surely

645
demands special punishment laid down in the law. I am not in the least impressed by references to days of long ago when capital punishment was a possible penalty for what we regard as minor crimes today. It seems to me quite irrelevant to this debate. We are now discussing the point that murder is regarded in any civilised community as the most: heinous crime of all. Therefore, it needs a special punishment to he prescribed by the law. The death penalty is a terrible and fearful thing; but it is meant to be, because the social conscience of the community rightly regards murder with such special horror. Inevitably, one cannot estimate the success of the existence of the penalty as a deterrent; we can only number its failure by the murders that take place. But when we have deducted from these failures the cases of insanity or overwhelming provocation, it seems to me that the smallness of the number left strengthens the view that the prescription of the death penalty in the law is an effective deterrent.
I have not personally come across that public unease which was described to us a short time ago by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter. I would have said that there is a great deal of public unease about the prevalence of murder, and that a great deal of public unease has been caused by the discussions on this question and by the very emotional approach which so often has been made in the public Press. But the right reverend Prelate, if he will forgive my saying so, left me in complete confusion of mind as to what it was he wanted. If he did not want to extend the penalty for murder and certain other crimes, which he very rightly condemned, it seems to me rather illogical to suggest that because there are some other things which he and the public conscience, perhaps, condemn as the meanest of crimes, we should therefore abolish the death penalty for murder, which the right reverend Prelate apparently regarded in many cases as a relatively unimportant crime. It does not seem to me that the sequence of thought there is a very convincing one.
The good of society, the good of the State, demands exceptional treatment for the wanton taking of human life, and any weakening of this attitude cannot, I submit, safely take place in advance of public opinion. In so far as there is any reliable evidence at all about public
646
opinion, various Gallup Polls and so forth taken a few years ago indicate that the balance is heavily against the abolition of the death penalty; and this House surely cannot be charged at any time in this matter with flouting the will of the country when such will has never been ascertained. Indeed, as has been mentioned, the Bill was passed in another place by a majority which represented rather more than a quarter of the elected representatives of the people, which, in itself, surely shows that in that House it was regarded as a matter of personal conscience. The free vote was given, presumably, on that understanding. Therefore, a rejection of the Bill by this House has nothing whatever to do with flouting the will of the people.
With respect, it seems to me unreasonable, as well as unhealthy, to exalt a pity for the offender over sympathy for the victim. The State insists that positive action in cases of this kind must be taken by the law and not by the individual. The sanctity of human life surely cannot be invoked to protect those who have just violated it. Both in war and in peace, the State must sanction the taking of human life to preserve the structure of its own society from destruction. Even if this Bill were passed, the unsavoury Press publicity over murders would surely still continue and probably would high-light the total inadequacy of a sentence of imprisonment in dealing with such crimes. I feel sceptical, too, from my experience, about the remedial influence of long terms of imprisonment.
In conclusion, and as a corollary to what I have just said, may I add that, however negligible may be the harm anticipated by abolishing the death penalty in this enlightened community, and however little it may be expected to bring the law into disrepute and to increase the danger to the public and to its servants, the police and the prison staffs, I do not think that the result in less highly developed countries would be at all happy. Inevitably the example of this country will carry the greatest influence throughout the colonial territories. They have been apt, very naturally, to follow our example in legislation of this major kind. An application of the principle of this Bill in many such countries might well lead at the least to a recrudescence of personal and family vendettas and

647
would certainly tempt the outraged individual or the outraged family to supply the punishment which the law denied. My Lords, I oppose this Bill.
7.11 p.m.
LORD SHERWOOD: My Lords, I have one or two points to put to your Lordships. They are divided into two parts. I cannot imagine politically why we have this Bill before us now; why it is not a Government Bill; why it has been put up by a Private Member and why we have to vote for a Private Member's Bill to go through with a pistol at our heads. We have heard arguments for and against hanging, but the political side has not been clearly put. No doubt Mr. Silverman and the noble Marquess who leads the House have been in close collusion to see how they can get the Bill through, because I cannot discover, from all the debates in another place, how the Bill ever got here.
The Parliament Act was passed because it was thought that a Party such as ours, or the Party of noble Lords who sit on the Benches on our left, might pass a Bill which, because there is in this House a Conservative majority of something like 500, might be thrown out without a word, although it had been passed by another place. But suddenly we find the Bill passed, with a Tory Party Administration under a great Prime Minister, and with a seventy majority in power. They can do anything they like, bring any Bill they like to this House. Why, therefore, does it have to "slink in" in this back door way? Is it that the Government have no courage? Is it that they are not united? Certainly it is not one of the matters for which the Parliament Act was forced through, in face of great difficulty.
I agree that it is quite easy for the House of Cecil to use almost any measures to get what it wants, and it may be the reform of the House of Lords. Let us be careful of that. When I listened to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor he was almost convinced in every word he said. And if his views had been put in the Cabinet and the Government, to which he belongs, they obviously broke with him because they could not put it forward. He now brings the Bill forward and puts his case—and I say it fairly to him—with even more strength than I think he put it in the Cabinet. He was very bold; he did not
648
pull" his view, that we should vote against this Bill. He did not agree this was a Bill which should have been put before the House, and he said so with all the immense authority that comes from the Woolsack and from the Benches of the Law Lords, and from all the people who are supposed to advise on changes in the law and in the Royal Prerogative.
All that is set aside, and now we have a small Private Member's Bill, passed, I presume—it must have been—by a majority of Labour Members. But I notice that they did put it to a free vote. When I was a Member of another place I used to see another Member there, now with us as Viscount Margesson, wrestling with the conscience of Tory Members of Parliament—and he wrestled well: he nearly got us into war. The statement that they voted on their conscience on this matter is really one of the most absurd things that has ever been "put across." The Government, with a majority like they have, on a matter on which the Lord Chancellor has put his case, on which Lord Oaksey has put his case and Lord Keith of Avonholm has put his, have still not put their case. Why is that? Have they not the courage to do it? Here we need an answer from the Leader of the House. The case for this Bill is, to my mind, a strong case. I myself, and I say it clearly, am going to vote for the Bill, because it has come to us from the other place and I presume that it is a Bill to which we must give a Second Reading.
I also, my Lords, have taken a little trouble in asking other people what their views are. There is a certain amount—as was brilliantly put by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter—of disquiet in the country about what is the major crime to-day. There is this enormous penalty for a crime which, in many cases, is not so great, while other crimes that are very, very serious do not carry this immense penalty. When one asks about the problem, even if one gets a direct answer—which is not often: and I admit that some are for and some are against—there is a feeling that other things are bigger than this. And I do not feel that, because twelve or fifteen people are strangled in the prisons of this country to-day, any one of your Lordships rests safer in his bed. Since the death penalty has not been carried

649
out, I believe that something like twenty or thirty people have been reprieved. Yet the number of murders has not gone up. We are in no more danger.
I am not certain on this question of the deterrent. No one can be certain what constitutes a deterrent, I admit. But certainly the death penalty has not worked as a deterrent in the murders that have occurred. There it is. Everybody knows that if he commits a murder he may be hanged for it. Yet murders continue, and always in the same class as they were—of a rather sordid type where deterrents probably could not work. I thought that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, in his maiden speech, made a strong point in saying that this was not a question of law but a question of social justice. The law decides whether a man has committed the crime of murder, but we, not the judges, decide what the punishment should be. We are the people to decide whether hanging is or is not a deterrent. Therefore I say: do not lend your ear too much to the judges who say, with all their great knowledge, that if you take away this deterrent, we shall have murder rampant. I do not believe it, any more than we do under the law as it is to-day, under which we find 50 per cent. of murderers being reprieved.
I am not going into the "sob-stuff" of the matter, but I should like to say a word about the evil effects of the newspapers, especially the Sunday newspapers, which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter mentioned. We all know that the newspaper Lords do not publish anything unless it is what the public wants; unless it sells their papers and brings in advertisements. They are publishing these stories because the public want stories of murder. They want to know about the last days of a murderess or a murderer. That is all the Press does; it is not a wicked Press at all. Although I am a Liberal and believe in moderacy in every way, I think that certain things which the public want they must not have. They are like little children. It should be forbidden, like going to Tyburn, which at one time had a greater audience than even Wimbledon to-day. Here is a chance for us to do something. I do not believe that the public Press would publish all these details, if it were not because of the
650
terrifying effect. I shall certainly vote for the Second Reading of this Bill in the hope that it will be carried into effect.
7.24 p.m.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, in the path into which he has so charmingly led me. I think that I have heard every speech in support of the Bill, and one thing common to most of them, and accepted by all its supporters, if I may judge from the applause with which the sentiments were welcomed, is the statement that if this Bill goes through, the state of our prisons and the nature of our penal code will need a radical overhaul. The fate of this Second Reading has to he decided tomorrow, and so far as I know there are no propositions put forward from any quarter which will lead to a rapid improvement in our prisons or an alteration in our penal law —and there are certainly no propositions that are widely agreed. Therefore it seems to me to be rather rash, and certainly to be putting the cart before the hourse, to say that we should pass this Bill now and then we must have wide reforms, unspecified and certainly unagreed. If this Bill, or something like it, is to go through, these things should have been done first.
I enjoyed very much the debate between the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, on this question of statistics. I am sorry that the noble Lord is not in his place, because he is a great mathematician, and I was hoping for some assent from him to what I am going to say on this matter. It has always seemed to me that numbers of murders in any civilised country—I almost added, semi-civilised country—are far too small in proportion to the population to be proper subjects for statistical analysis, and if investigations were to be continued over a period sufficient to give reliable data, the whole effect would be masked by the social trends that must take place during that period. For that reason, this argument from statistics leaves me quite cold.
Your Lordships will remember that the noble Lord finished by saying that "facts" were what we wanted on this matter. I am only a Back Bencher and I cannot be expected, like one who has been a Minister, to call out volumes of

651
figures and facts. But I can give one fact. My noble friends Lord Greenhill and Lord Mathers may remember a burglary and murder which occurred in Glasgow, I think, about four years ago. Three young men were engaged in it, and before they started out one of the three asked the others to wait because he wished to go back for his pistol. They tried to persuade him not to go back, because, they said, if he used it, it would be murder. But the young man said, "Not a bit of it; they will never hang me." He was only nineteen years old. He took the pistol with him and, in the event, murdered the householder. It is difficult to find evidence of a negative, but that case provides evidence that the death penalty is likely to prevent murder. It was brought out in court that if that young man had been sure that he would have been hanged, he would not have taken the pistol and the murder would not have been committed.
When I came into the House to-day, I was prepared to ask your Lordships to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, upon grounds very similar to those put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Rea. It seemed to me that when we have a Bill coming to us from another place, especially one that has not been amended during the whole of its passage, it is certainly a courtesy and probably a very proper thing to be willing to give it a Second Reading. I am the more reinforced in my opinion because I saw in The Times to-day, and it was also implicit in the Starred Question of the noble Viscount. Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, at the commencement of this debate, that to give a Bill a Second Reading in your Lordships' House is tantamount to accepting the principle of the Bill. I do not think that that proposition can be held to-day at all. That was perfectly true in 1900, but the passage of the first Parliament Act has entirely altered that situation. As your Lordships know, an overwhelming majority of your Lordships disagreed with the Town and Country Planning Bill and the Steel Bill which were introduced by the Socialist Government into your Lordships' House; but none the less we gave the Bills a Second Reading. I do not think it makes any difference that this is a Private Member's Bill coming from the other place; I do not think we are
652
committed in any way, even should we decide to give this Bill a Second Reading. At the same time, I am waiting—at present, my mind is in a state of doubt about this—until I hear what the noble Marquess the Leader of the House has to say to-morrow.
It is Her Majesty's Government who have put us into this position—and I am not going to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Sherwood, said because it is quite true. The Government undertook, with the mandate of the people, to decide all major questions facing them; and if there is any force in what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack said this afternoon, surely this is one such question. There is one point that I should like to emphasise: that the noble Marquess not only is the Leader of the Government in this House but is also, as Leader of the House, peculiarly charged with everything that concerns it. I quite see that if we do not accord a Second Reading to this Bill, this battle may be fought out on another ground elsewhere. Therefore, the noble Marquess will perhaps forgive me if I remind him of the duty that was laid upon the Leader of another House of Lords many hundreds of years ago, that it is his duty to visere ne respublica damnum capiat.
7.32 p.m.
LORD CHATFIELD: My Lords, it is my great disadvantage that I was unable to be present earlier this afternoon to hear the opening speeches in the debate by the noble Viscount. Lord Templewood, and the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. I particularly regret that I did not hear my old friend Lord Temple-wood, because since he and I worked together some years ago I have always respected his lofty views on human nature. I really have no justification for speaking at all: I am one of the most aged men in your Lordships' House, and only a sailor. But as I have decided that I must vote against this Bill, I think it right that land I think those like me who have no great quality of decision on such a matter as this—should endeavour to justify my doing so.
I not only have a great respect for the Mover of the Second Reading, but I also have respect for those who support him. As has been said more than once to-day, this is a question on which each individual must make up his own mind; and

653
if we make up our minds for or against this Bill, according to our lights, then surely we can respect each other's views. One of the unfortunate things about this matter has been the tremendous amount of propaganda that I—and I daresay most of your Lordships—have received in favour of this Bill, which has exploited, to the utmost extent, all the pros of the Bill but has largely ignored the cons. I do not think that such propaganda is a good example of what should be done on an occasion such as this, when Parliament is investigating a difficult problem. If feel that this drastic Bill to abolish capital punishment does not clearly commend itself to public opinion, as has been so clearly stated.
Public opinion is supposed to be represented in another place, but I feel that insufficient conviction has come to us behind this Bill from the other Chamber for such a drastic step to be taken. The lack of large majorities and the abstentions have already been referred to. I feel that the child—as Punch would call it—lying on the table is only a delicate infant; and somehow or other I do not think there is any clear national will behind this proposed alteration of the law.
That does not mean, however, that there are not many people who disapprove of the present methods of carrying out the law. If the murderer is to be killed, then surely one of the benefits of civilisation, as it is called to-day, is that he can be killed silently and painlessly. I feel that that is one of the weaknesses in the law as it stands at present: that the method of killing the murderer is much worse than it need be. It is not so had as cutting off his head, as was done in the time of Henry VIII, or of torturing him to death. But why need he be hanged? That seems to me a weak point, and I think there are many people in this country who will not support this Bill to abolish hanging entirely but who feel some doubt about the way the murderer is dealt with when it has been decided to kill him. Then, on the question of degrees of murder, I should hope that one day a modified Bill may be brought in which will make things as we should all like to have them. But that is not the issue to-day. We have to consider this Private Member's Bill. Whether we think the Bill would be good or disastrous is a matter of individual
654
opinion and experience; we each have to make up our own minds. It is no good looking to other nations to guide us. The British people have never done that. We have our own peculiar way of solving our own problems, and I do not like the argument that other countries have proved that the abolition of capital punishment has made no difference. That is not the way to look at the problem. We must solve our own problems in our own way.
The right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter referred to the spiritual side of this question; and he talked very eloquently on the sanctity of human life. We must not forget that the teaching about the sanctity of human life comes from the Bible—in fact he said it did. But the teaching of the sanctity of human life was to prevent murder, and not to give sanctity of life to the person who committed murder. There is nothing in the Bible which says that. I was brought up in a religious home, and I learned a lot about the Bible. I even got a prize for religious knowledge in the "Britannia," which was generally supposed to be a sign of bad character— the son of a parson or something like that. But you have only to refer to the book of Genesis where you will see that God said to Noah:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
And our Lord, just before His Crucifixion, said to St. Peter:
"Put up your sword, for all those who take the sword shall perish by the sword."
That is the biblical teaching as I know it (I am sorry that we have not one of the ecclesiastics here), and that thought has always influenced me.
Now if it is right that, as the Bill expresses an opinion, we should alter the law because it no longer accords with the needs or the true interests of a civilised society, then we must alter a great deal more than the rules about murder. Is it proposed that the Ten Commandments which are set out in the early part of the Old Testament should also be ignored as God's instruction about not killing, and about punishing men for killing in the same way that they treated their victim? Are we to say that those Ten Commandments can also be ignored and altered in the same way by an Act of Parliament? Are we to say that the

655
Mosaic Law of: "Thou shalt do no murder; thou shalt not steal; thou shalt net commit adultery or swear falsely against your neighbour, or covet your neighbour's house, wife or money," should be done away with as obsolete and not in accordance with modern civilisation, whatever that may be, when we drop bombs and kill thousands of people without the slightest hesitation?
I feel that it is not right to look at the sanctity of human life from any other point than both that of the murderer and his victim. I cannot convince myself that we are right to support this Bill for that reason, good as its intentions are. But on this House has been thrust a responsibility for which we did not ask, and which, with our wisdom and expert knowledge, we can solve. I have no doubt that we shall stand up without any hesitation for what we think, and shall tell the country that we cannot support this Bill.
7.45 p.m.
LORD AILWYN: My Lords, I am sure my noble and gallant friend Lord Chatfield will forgive me if I do not follow him in his extremely interesting and feeling speech. Having given this matter all the thought of which I am capable, and having browsed over the various Reports of all the debates, the Royal Commissions, and so on, and having listened to most of the speeches in your Lordships' House to-day, I am quite clear where I stand in this matter, and it can be stated in a few words. Perhaps I should say that one feels a certain diffidence in entering into a debate of this sort as an undistinguished Back Bencher, without any of the experience possessed by so many of your Lordships who have spoken to-day—Bishops, Judges and so on.
I should like to see, not the abolition of capital punishment, and not merely its retention, but the Prerogative for mercy, used sparingly. I believe, rightly or wrongly, that there have been too many reprieves just lately. One execution for every twelve convictions by a jury are remarkable figures. Furthermore, I should like to see the Common Law of England altered in order to make such iniquities as rape, criminal assault, revolting cruelty to children, brutal and savage attacks on the aged and defenceless, punishable by death. I feel strongly
656
that perpetrators of such horrors, if convicted, should have no further place in this world, and, if sane, they should be hanged.
As regards the actual method of carrying out the death penalty, I rather agree with my noble friend that hanging may not be the best and cleanest way of doing it. I would not know that, for I have never had to witness a hanging, but I am quite sure in my own mind that these people should be done away with. The safety and well-being of the community is infinitely more important than the life of an individual who has been proved guilty of such crimes. That is my view. No doubt I shall be called reactionary, and told that I am out of touch with the present trend of public opinion and with the general climate of public sentiment. What is this sentiment? Is it perhaps largely sentimentality about the legal taking of a man's life? Are we not in need—perhaps in rather sore need—of a little more realism, and possibly a little less hysteria in this world in which we are living to-day? There is no cruelty or brutality or savagery in the act of death as meted out by the law. I saw it described the other day as a barbaric and degrading form of punishment. I beg leave to say that it is nothing of the sort. Nor is it an act of vengeance. It is, surely, a solemn act of justice and retribution.
Nor have I any reason to suppose that the measure before the House commands the support of the majority of the people of this country. Rather does it appear—though it is extremely difficult for a private individual to assess a matter like this —that in fact the reverse is the case. I believe the proposal to be fundamentally unwise, and that it would play into the hands of those elements determined to undermine the forces of law and order. It is urged by some of those who support abolition that the chief deterrent for the potential murderer is not severity of punishment, but the certainty of detection and subsequent conviction. It may be so; but detection has to be effected by the police, and to-day, as we know, the police force is something like 10,000 under strength. Do the supporters of this Bill contend that the making good of that shortage is likely to be facilitated by the removal of one outstanding safeguard from the police point of view? The question has only to

657
be posed to receive an immediate negative answer.
Another contention of the supporters of abolition of capital punishment is that murder is frequently—in fact, generally—unpremeditated, and as such the murderer should not receive the death sentence. Suppose that while I am on my feet my noble friend the Chief Whip—he does not seem to be here at the moment —or my noble friend the Deputy Chief Whip turns round and gives me a bleak look, and I pay no attention but continue to address your Lordships. Then my noble friend turns round again and gives me an ugly, nasty look—and I still refuse to be intimidated. Then he turns round a third time and mutters in a loud stage whisper, "Sit down". I, finally, exasperated and furious, lose my temper, seize my amplifier and from my position of advantage hat him on the head with such force and precision that I kill him stone dead. Unpremeditated, my Lords—completely unpremeditated. What would your Lordships do about it? Would you say, "Treat him kindly. He did not mean it. Do not hang him"? Of course you would say nothing of the sort. Except for sorrow and remorse at having killed a very good friend of mine, I should walk to the scaffold, somewhat reluctantly no doubt, but knowing that I had richly deserved what was coming to me.
I have the greatest possible respect for, and sympathy with, those who genuinely and sincerely support this measure. I nevertheless believe that they have got their values wrong and that their perspective is out of adjustment. It is more important, in my view, to protect the old and feeble, the young and defenceless, than to keep murderers and men of such calibre alive. It is of paramount importance to sustain the police in their terribly difficult, arduous and frequently dangerous work. I am unalterably opposed to the abolition of the death penalty and, for the reasons I have given, whatever may be the plea of political expediency, I could in no circumstance give my vote for the Second Reading of the Bill.
7.52 p.m.
EARL FERRERS: My Lords, it is with a certain degree of reticence that I rise to address your Lordships this evening after having heard from many eminent Members of your Lordships' House, but I do so because I have very strong feelings on
658
this subject. I regret that I can offer no legal qualifications, nor indeed any real qualifications at all, for speaking on this topic. My only qualification, rather obscure, is that of having a forbear whose life was terminated by the methods which your Lordships are now discussing. He had the peculiar distinction of being tried in front of your Lordships' predecessors, and I believe that he conducted his own case with such ability that he defeated his own plea. He was trying to plead insanity and he said, "My Lords, I am insane". My Lords, am quite sure that after you have heard what I have to say, you will agree that I reflect that particular facet of his character most admirably; but I trust that that will be the only idiosyncrasy of my forbear which I shall portray.
One of the most important questions in this discussion is one which has been mentioned on many occasions to-day: is hanging a deterrent to murder or is it not? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, has said that unless we can prove that hanging is a deterrent to murder, we should not have it. I disagree entirely and utterly with that argument. I would put it the reverse way round. Unless we can prove that hanging is no deterrent whatever, we should not do away with it—and by "prove" I mean prove beyond any doubt. Those whose tendencies lean towards the abolition of capital punishment will produce, as they have produced this evening, facts and figures of other countries. They will say, "In such-and-such a country, where hanging has been abolished, the murder rate has not risen; therefore hanging is no deterrent." That is no proof; that is purely surmise. How do they know that if hanging had been retained the murder rate would not have gone down? How can they compare two countries whose whole social outlook, whose inherent mentality and whose standard of upbringing and standard of livelihood are completely different? They cannot compare them.
There is a great conflict of opinion over whether or not hanging is a deterrent to murder. Without doubt, the general consensus of opinion in this country is that hanging is the greatest deterrent to murder that we have, and that is supported by the old criminals themselves, who say that they would not carry a weapon because they might be found in a situation in which they might accidentally

659
use it, kill someone, and then hang for murder. That is an indisputable fact which they themselves openly and frankly admit—and that must surely mean that to some extent and in some degree hanging is a deterrent. Even those who insist that hanging is no deterrent whatever are unable to prove it. If they cannot prove that hanging is no deterrent, then surely they must admit that it may be a deterrent; and if hanging is a deterrent, it means that if we abolish it, more people will be murdered than if we keep it. That means that if hanging is a deterrent, there are people walking around to-day the continuation of whose lives depends solely, utterly and entirely on the retention of the death penalty. I humbly suggest that should one person more be murdered were hanging abolished than would be murdered were hanging retained, your Lordships should not consider this Bill, for it will become nothing other than the legal death warrant of innocent people; and if your Lordships pass it, you will be the signatories—your Lordships, both Temporal and Spiritual.
I believe that every noble Lord, every honourable Member of another place and every serious-minded person in the country will admit that what may happen to the murder rate if we abolish the death penalty is a matter of speculation. Will it go up, will it go down or will it stay the same? As some people put it, "Let us abolish it and see what happens." But who are we to dice with the lives of innocent people? I humbly suggest that it is surely our duty in this House to legislate for the safety, welfare and happiness of the 53 million people in this island rather than to lavish undue emotion and sentimentality on 150 or so people who each year commit the most heinous, bloody and brutal crimes.
Two of the arguments put forward for the abolition of hanging are that we may hang an innocent man and that there is belief in the sanctity of human life. Human nature being as it is, there is always the possibility that an innocent person may die who ought, in fact, to live. But which is the more likely to occur? Are we more likely to hang an innocent man, a man who has nevertheless been convicted of murder, after having been given the best advocates in the country to prove his innocence and having been judged in front of his own
660
countrymen; and, if found guilty, whose case will come before the Home Secretary with the view to being granted a reprieve? Here let me remind your Lordships that in the last fifty years in England and Wales out of every twelve people who have been sentenced to death, in the end only one has been hanged. Are we more likely to find an unjust death by that method, or are we more likely to find that some innocent person becomes the victim of a foul and filthy murder, possibly preceded by rape or robbery, just because the greatest deterrent to murder is no longer there? I would humbly suggest to your Lordships that there is far greater likelihood of injustice being done without the death penalty than with it.
I should like to give your Lordships a true example. In about 1935 there was a case which came up for judgment before the learned Judge, Sir Cyril Atkinson. The man concerned was a man of great stature. He entered a railway carriage which had no corridor. The carriage had one other occupant, a lady of about thirty. When the train started, this man proceeded to rape the lady; he then robbed her; he then bound and gagged her. At the next station he got out. The lady being bound and gagged was unable to give the alarm. When the train had gone two or three stations further, she loosed her gags and managed to give the alarm. She gave the police a description of the man who had done this and told them at which station he had got out. The station was duly contacted and the staff remembered seeing this man leave the train. He was eventually caught and found to be a criminal with a very bad record. He was brought before Sir Cyril Atkinson and charged with rape and robbery with violence. For that, he got a flogging and ten years' penal servitude.
Suppose that the death penalty had not existed: what would that man have lost if he had murdered that woman? She was the only person who knew that he had committed the deed and where he got off. If, in fact, he had murdered this woman, nobody would have known who had committed the deed; nobody would have known at what station he had alighted. He would have had every chance of getting away. If he was caught, what then? The sentence for rape and the sentence for robbery with violence can both command a life term of imprisonment, the same sentence as that

661
which murder would command. Therefore he had every chance of escaping, if he had done this deed, and the dice would have been weighted in his favour. He would have had nothing to lose. I suggest to your Lordships that there is an example, for all we know, of a person whose life may have been saved and who may still this day be alive simply and solely because the death penalty existed.
I do not wish to keep your Lordships longer, because there are many other people who wish to speak and who arc far more able, knowledgeable and capable than I am. I realise that I am a most junior and insignificant Member of your Lordships' House, without even the characteristic wisdom engendered by age; but, with all the power of word that I am able to command, I most humbly and respectfully beg all your Lordships to throw this lethal Bill out of your Lordships' House. It is dangerous, it is callous and the public just do not want it.
8.5 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, I should like briefly to add to those arguments that have already been given in favour of this Bill. If in so doing I disagree most heartily with the noble Earl who has just sat down, and also with the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in his absence, I am sure they will forgive me. I should like to look at two or three different types of murder and see what the position really is. First of all, let us look at the calculated murder, the murder of a man or woman which has been decided on a long time beforehand and, in nearly every case, is done for gain. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, in a very amusing speech, gave us two very serious examples of this kind of murder.
First of all, of course, such murders are fewer than others, but their object is gain. The murder is worked out definitely and carefully to get something out of it—perhaps it is a wife trying to murder her husband for his money. The whole point with such murders is to get clean away with it. If the murderer is caught, he or she loses the whole point of that murder: the deterrent is the fear of being arrested, the fear of being proved guilty. The deterrent is neither life imprisonment nor hanging, because, whichever of those the murderer gets, he or she has lost the whole point of the crime. So that it does not matter which
662
deterrent is put forward; it cannot make any difference to the problem of that kind of murder.
People say that it is much more frightening to think of the hanging of a person than of life imprisonment. I am not sure that I agree with that view. Your Lordships are no more likely to commit a murder than I am, so we do not know what people like that really feel. But we can remember what it was like in the war to be ready to face death at any moment. We did not have to be in the front line; we could be in London, sitting in our homes: a bomb might drop on us at any time. I am quite certain that I was not in a minority in feeling that, although it was the last thing in the world that I wanted to happen to me, I was much more frightened of being maimed for life and of being useless to myself and to the community, perhaps for forty or fifty years. It is not exactly the same thing, but it is as near as an honest individual can get. I think that, if I committed a crime such as murder, I should be infinitely more frightened of having to stay for the rest of my life behind bars than I should be of being killed immediately. That is only a matter of opinion, but one opinion in this way is just as good as another. One cannot argue that the deterrent of life imprisonment is any less than the deterrent of hanging, or the other way round.
Reference has been made to the danger of abolishing hanging since an innocent person might then be killed because the man or woman in question was not frightened of life imprisonment. That works both ways. If an innocent man is hanged, your Lordships and I, and the Members of another place, are jointly responsible for that roan's murder. It has been suggested on very good authority that, at least in one case in our lifetime, that has happened. It is just as important to realise that danger as it is to say that hanging is the only way of preventing other people from being killed.
There is another and far larger group of people who commit murders—I refer to the people who ire slightly mentally deranged but are not sufficiently mad to be held "guilty but insane." We ought to be grateful to the Observer for giving us a list of all the cases of murder in a

663
certain five-year period, but it was horrifying to see how many of those convicted had some kind of mental defect. The noble Lord, Lord Webb-Johnson, said that he had two friends in Broad-moor. Although he did not say so, I understood from his speech that these people were murderers. He said that they had been mad, but that after three or four years they had completely recovered and were ordinary members of the community once more. My Lords, if that can be done to the completely mad, surely medical science can also do it to those who are slightly mad but are not mad enough to be called "guilty but insane." If that is so, then all these people who are now being hanged should have the chance of becoming reasonable citizens by being put under medical care. I am not suggesting for one moment that they would all be all right, but some of them would. Again the argument is given to you: by hanging these people you take away from them their chance, and they can never become ordinary citizens once more. Again, the suggestion is that you are killing a man who could become a reasonable and straightforward citizen.
My Lords, I remember very well, when I was a young man sitting on the Steps of the Throne and listening to my father presenting a Bill to legalise euthanasia. Quite rightly, I suppose, that Bill was immediately thrown out. But what your Lordships did then was to take the case of a man or woman who was suffering agonies, and who could not possibly be saved by any medical care, and refuse him or her the chance of dying and so avoiding, perhaps, months, or even years, of absolute agony. Your Lordships would not accept the responsibility of letting those people be killed. Yet, if you turn down this Bill, you will be, on your own responsibility, executing a great number of people whom medical science might be able to help and who, if they are hanged, will never have that chance.
There was one argument given by those in favour of keeping hanging, first of all by the Lord Chancellor and then by another noble Lord, who said that the homicidal rate in this country was far lower than in any other country. I think we should be most grateful for that. But is that really an excuse not to try to do better? Is it really
664
an excuse not to say "We can be much better"? We may be the best, but let us be very much better than we are now. I think that that is the way we should look at a problem like this. Finally, we have heard so often of the tremendous danger that there is supposed to be if we do not hang a murderer and he escapes from prison. First of all, if he escapes from prison, it is not the fault of the law but of the administration in the prison. It was the fault of the administration in Broadmoor in one case when that happened. But we should not argue against the abolition of hanging simply because the administration of a certain prison goes wrong. To you and me, and to the country in general, there is much less danger, much less risk from a murderer escaping—particularly a murderer who is likely to commit a further murder—than there is every day of our lives when we may be run over by a dangerous driver, who may never get any punishment at all. My Lords, I earnestly beg of you seriously to consider this problem and to vote in favour of this Bill.
8.13 p.m.
LORD DOWDING: My Lords, I do not wish to occupy your Lordships' time by recapitulating the arguments for and against capital punishment which you have heard this afternoon and this evening. I wish to deal briefly with an aspect of the question which has received scant attention. Like most of your Lordships, I suppose, I have been deluged during the past week with books and pamphlets dealing with the subject now under debate. But I have been struck by the fact that in all those books and pamphlets there was no mention of any serious attempt to deal with what I may call the esoteric aspect of the question. The supporters of capital punishment rather assume that when you have caught your murderer and hanged him you have finished with the business. But that is not so. There remain outstanding three points. The first point is, what happens to the murderer after he has been executed? The second point is, to what extent, if at all, can he influence the lives of those still incarnate on earth? And the third point is, what is the spiritual effect on those people whom we pay to do our killings for us?
To deal with the first point, I would

665
say that murderers vary from habitual criminals to those who have never before broken the law. But they all have this in common: that after their execution they find themselves still consciously alive —in many cases they do not even know that they are what we call dead. Very often the reaction is "Aha! They thought that they could kill me, but they could not." Some of these people are filled with blind, savage rage and hatred at the way in which they have been bundled out of life, and their one desire is to cause as much damage and suffering as they can amongst those still on earth.
This brings me to the second point. In the five years' survey to which reference has already been made, out of eighty-five convicted people who were hanged, sixteen, or roughly 20 per cent., committed their murders—I quote from the Report of the Royal Commission:
"…in some sudden excess of frenzy where the murderer had previously no evil animus towards his victims."
That, I think, is a most important point, because I know for a fact that discarnate spirits do on occasion enter into the auras of living persons, displace their minds temporarily, and control their bodies. This process is generally called "obsession" —as a matter of fact, "possession" would be a more accurate term. Noble Lords will recall the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. Doctors speak of schizophrenia, a split personality. In many instances it is a case not of a split personality, but of two personalities alternatively taking control of the mind and the body. I have had some personal experience of dealing with these cases of obsession, freeing the victim by ejecting the obsessing entity and persuading the latter not to repeat his offence. Of course, I have no proof at all. I do not know any more about the circumstances than was given in the description of those eighty-five cases; but I feel personally quite convinced that some, at least, of those sixteen cases were due to this type of compulsive obsession. So it is, perhaps, not an untenable hypothesis to suppose that, in fact, the hanging of murderers may increase rather than diminish the number of murders over a stated period.
Finally, there is the effect on the executioner. That, I think, has not been dealt with to-day, so far as I have heard. At any rate, it is not at all realised in this
666
world. Executioners perhaps think that they do a public service by ridding the world of criminals, a task which others are too squeamish to perform. Eventually they will realise their responsibility. So, speaking from the esoteric point of view, the hanging of murderers retards the progress of the murderer after death; it places innocent people in danger of a compulsive obsession, and it puts an unrealised load of responsibility on the shoulders of the executioner. For these reasons, and also on general principles, I support this Bill.
8.23 p.m.
LORD RUSSELL OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, there are few occasions in this country which are so serious that the metaphor of cricket is out of place. Although I intend to be as brief as possible. I should like to warn your Lordships that, although I may not hit any boundaries or even make any runs, and although all the strokes have already been played very much better than I myself could play them, my stay at the wicket may be a little more prolonged than is either customary or seemly in respect of one who comes in so late in the batting order. I am against retention of the death penalty for murder of any kind or any degree. Nevertheless, I should not have thought it necessary to intervene in this debate but for one reason. I think it is generally thought that the balance of public opinion is against this Bill, against the abolition of the death penalty. I am prepared to concede that provided that for the words "public opinion" are substituted the words "public feeling", because I think that that better describes the position regarding this matter.
I have found, in talking to people on the subject, as no doubt many of your Lordships have, that many of those who have strong feelings about the retention of the death penalty have not been aware of the arguments against retention, and that when they have been apprised of them they are not inclined to be so dogmatic about their views. It is because I think that there is this fairly strong public feeling against the abolition of the death penalty that I hope your Lordships, even at this late hour, will hear with me for a few moments while I give you some of my reasons for supporting the Bill and, at the same time, for hoping that, perhaps for the same reasons, many of your Lordships will do so too. It is argued

667
that if we throw out this Bill we shall be flouting the will of Parliament, and that if we give it a Second Reading we shall be defying the wishes of the public. I hope that your Lordships will not give much consideration to either of those arguments and that you will approach this Bill individually and personally. If you think it is a good Bill, support it; if you think it is a bad Bill, refuse to give it a Second Reading.
A few years ago I happened to hold an appointment which brought me very much in touch not only with murder trials but with the execution of death sentences. During the war it was my job to advise successive commanders-in-chief abroad in respect of many murder trials. Not only had I to advise whether the conviction was a proper one, but I realised that it was principally on my advice that the commander-in-chief had to make the decision whether the punishment should be carried into effect or not. While I held that appointment, perhaps quite naturally, I never stopped to think about whether the death penalty itself was right. It was my duty—that is what I had to do —to see that the conviction was a proper one and, if there were extenuating circumstances, to recommend to the commander-in-chief that the sentence should not be carried out. I am therefore, like a number of other people, a comparatively recent convert to the view which I now hold and which I am putting to your Lordships.
As your Lordships know, three or four Home Secretaries, since they ceased to be responsible to Parliament for the Home Office, have changed their views on this subject. I think that one of the most striking examples of people who have changed their mind is Sir Ernest Gowers, who was the Chairman of the Royal Commission and who has also changed his views; yet it would be difficult to find anyone, I am sure your Lordships would agree, who is a more level-headed thinker than Sir Ernest Gowers. And yet one read last Saturday in the Daily Telegraph that all those who are in favour of abolition are inebriated by the heady wine of sentimentality. My Lords, whatever else you may think of that tasty morsel of journalese, I am sure you will agree that as an accurate statement of fact it could not be wider of the mark. I have looked in the dictionary to find out what the
668
writer of that leading article meant. I understand that what he was trying to say was that those of us who favour abolition have a tendency to be swayed by sentiment rather than by reason. Nevertheless, I share the views of Sir Ernest Cowers that, so far from the sentimental approach leading into the abolitionist camp and the rational approach leading into the retentionist camp, it is the other way about.
Considering this matter of how I should vote on the Bill, I start from the point touched on by the Home Secretary in another place—and I will quote his words [OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, Vol. 548 (No. 98), col. 2551]:
"First, let me say emphatically that I believe capital punishment to he justified only if it is likely to reduce the amount of murder. If there is reason to think that without it there might be more murder, then I think that it should be retained;"
I think it is now generally acknowledged that that is an agreed starting point. I do not agree with the Home Secretary, or with the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, who has spoken so well this afternoon, that it is for those who are in favour of abolition to show that the change in the law would be beneficial. I take the view that the onus of establishing that hanging is a unique deterrent lies fairly and squarely upon those who seek to retain it. Those who would seek to retain hanging cannot discharge that burden of proof. I think that, whatever else has emerged from this debate, that has emerged as a fact; and it was the most reverend Primate, making his maiden speech in your Lordships' House, who said that the most that could be said about that "proof" was that it was a "hunch."
There is another reason why I wish to support this Bill. This point has not been mentioned as much as I had expected, but a number of noble Lords have brought it forward. It is not possible to say with any certainty that no innocent person has been executed after conviction for murder. In the last ten years there have been two cases regarding which I think it is impossible to say that the court would have convicted those two men had the court at the trial been in possession of evidence which came to light only after they had been executed. I need not go into the details of those cases, because your Lordships know them very well: they are the cases of Rowland and Evans. On February 16 this year in another place,

669
during a debate on the capital punishment Motion, both the Home Secretary and the Lord Privy Seal dealt with this point very emphatically. They both affirmed that no innocent man had been hanged within living memory. I do not think that it is possible to be so dogmatic about it. I believe that no jury would have convicted Evans had they known at the time of the trial that the bodies of the other women whom Christie had strangled were lying buried in that yard in Rillington Place.
Some of your Lordships at least must have served in the war in Italy. If you did you will remember the traffic notices put up by the American forces: "Death is so permanent". I do not believe that that notice deterred anyone from dangerous driving, any more than I believe that the death penalty is a unique deterrent to would-be murderers. Nevertheless there is no doubt that those words express a profound truth. Death is very permanent, and I would urge your Lordships that so long as it is not merely possible but reasonably probable that an innocent man may be wrongly convicted and executed then the death penalty should not continue.
We are always asked: "If you abolish the death penalty what is a satisfactory alternative?" I cannot at this late hour go into that matter very thoroughly. If the death penalty is not a unique deterrent, the punishment of imprisonment for life is the proper punishment. It remains to be settled how that is to be administered. I am personally quite prepared to leave that to the Home Secretary. There may be some cases—a few cases—where imprisonment for life may be really for life; it will not be possible to let the convicted person out. I think those who are in favour of abolition must be prepared to face up to that fact. But in the majority of cases, the time in which a person would be imprisoned would not be until the end of life. Each case should be dealt with on its merits, paramount attention being given to the public safety.
Another argument which is raised is that if the death penalty is abolished there will be a great increase in the number of criminals who will shoot their way out when they are about to be arrested for committing some serious crime. That may be a matter for argument. I should like to make this suggestion. I think it is
670
high time that the regulations regarding the possession of firearms were overhauled. I cannot see any adequate reason for allowing anyone outside the police force and the Services to carry arms in any circumstances whatever, and I think that if the penalty for offences under Section 1 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1953, were a serious penalty instead of the rather small penalty of two years' imprisonment it would be a great discouragement to the use or the carrying of arms in those circumstances.
Before I sit down I want to say one other thing—something which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, said prompts me to say and I think that at least two other noble Lords have mentioned it since. I hope it will not be taken amiss by the Judicial Members of this House. In 1948, during the debate in this House on the Criminal Justice Bill, particularly on Clause 1, which, as your Lordships remember, proposed to suspend the death penalty, a number of Judges, Judicial Members of this House, came here and told your Lordships that the death penalty was a greater deterrent than any other form of punishment, and they warned your Lordships that its suspension would lead to an increase in the rate of murder. 'This House naturally listens with great attention to what its Judicial Members say on any legal matter. I would not suggest that your Lordships should do otherwise. What I do say is this—and I think that other speakers have made this point: that whether the death penalty is a unique deterrent that cannot safely be abolished is not a legal matter at all. It is not, in ray submission, a legal matter; it is something about which the Judicial Members know no more than those of your Lordships who are laymen.
I would not ask your Lordships to accept my ipse dixit for such a statement. If you will allow me, I will quote from the Report of the Select Committee on Criminal Laws, 1819, on this subject. The fact that the Committee said this one hundred years ago does not make it any less wise. The Committee said:
"Highly as the Committee esteem and respect the Judges, it is not from them that the most accurate and satisfactory evidence of the effect of the penal law may reasonably be expected. They only see the exterior of criminal proceedings after they are brought into a Court of Justice. Of the cases which never appear there, and of the causes which

671
prevent their appearance, they can know nothing. From any opportunity of observing the influence of punishment upon those classes of men among whom malefactors are most commonly found, the Judges are by their stations and duties placed at a great distance."
I would ask your Lordships to consider that passage very carefully, and if you agree with it, as I do, I hope that you will regard anything which Judicial Members have said, or may say to-morrow, as to the death penalty being a unique deterrent, as merely an expression of opinion, to which, of course, you will pay due attention. You should not attach undue weight to it or regard it as an ex cathedra pronouncement that is infallible and not to be questioned. By the end of the debate, I hope that your Lordships will have come to the conclusion that a rational, rather than an emotional, approach to this serious question leads in one direction only, the direction of abolition. I hope you will also come to the conclusion that it is not the heady wine of sentimentality of which the abolitionists have drunk their fill, but the sobering draught of reason. My Lords, I urge you to give this Bill a Second Reading.
8.41 p.m.
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, rising after rather more than thirty speakers have spoken, I am sure the House would not wish me to attempt to repeat or recapitulate their arguments. I will only briefly put three points of my own, on which earlier speakers have touched. Before I come to them, the noble Lord who has just sat down has used the words "sentimentality" and "emotion". Speakers on both sides today have charged their opponents with sentimentality, which is going rather a long way. Put it this way: in a debate such as this, the heart has a certain place in the debate, as well as the head. But this debate has fined itself down to a clear-cut simplicity, of whether we retain the death penalty or whether we abolish it. Every one of us here speaks, as he must, from his own experience and his own analysis of his experience.
So far as I can make out, from listening to to-day's debate, and having followed the debates in another place, and having read the publicity and propaganda surrounding them, the abolitionists' case, in the main, stems from three particular
672
points. There are those who think that hanging is uncivilised, in the sense that it is unchristian. There are those who think that hanging is unnecessary, in the sense that it is ineffective in its object, and that the death penalty is not a unique deterrent. And, last of all, there are those who think that the death penalty is now unwanted, and a large proportion of the country are claimed to have changed their minds.
Let me take the first point first, the matter of hanging being uncivilised. If a Parliament of this country came to the clear conclusion that it was an uncivilised, unchristian act to hang a man, not only would hanging have to cease in this country on the instant; it would have to cease among the 60 million human beings in the British Colonial Empire. If it is unchristian in England, it is unchristian in Africa. To say that it might be slowly abolished there is merely to beg the question. If you take that point of view you must be consistent; and consistency demands also having conscientious objections about going on the field of battle. One or two, or three, of those countries which abolished the death penalty far back in the last century made an exception in the case of their own war criminals. If you take that view, it must be a completely unyielding view. The Society of Friends are entirely consistent. They are conscientious objectors. They objected to the hanging of the Nuremberg criminals, and I have no doubt that other Members of your Lordships' House, besides myself, have received their leaflet. I cannot forbear to quote one passage where they say:
"Our concern, therefore, is for all victims of violence, not only the murderer but also those who suffer by his act."
I should not have put it quite like that; I should have put it the other way round. Perhaps I am influenced by the fact that some years ago I was in the Government Service in East Africa, and I probably saw more murdered men than any Member of your Lordships' House; therefore I tend to think of them first.
The noble Lords, Lord Malvern and Lord Milverton have drawn attention to what would happen if we were suddenly to scrap the death penalty in the colonial territories. What might not be too bad in this highly civilised country would be a vastly different thing in

673
countries just emerging from the Stone Age. When we went to these countries we found that justice took the form of the blood feud, and we replaced that with our own machinery of impartial justice; and if ever that machinery of ours shows signs of breaking down, the blood feud will come back again. I fear that, when the African police, or whoever it may be, apprehended a murderer, and the only punishment was imprisonment, too often you would see against the case "shot while resisting arrest" or "shot while attempting to escape". Then you would have undermining of the omnicompetence of justice, a parallel justice set above the courts.
The second proposition is that hanging is ineffective of its purpose. Considering my thesis of the Colonies just a little further, if we abolish capital punishment in this country, on the ground that it will not deter murderers, it would still possibly be logical to retain it for some little time in certain colonial territories, where the circumstances could be shown to be vastly different. But, my Lords, murders in Britain are committed by an undeterrable few, the neurotic, the paranoiac, the schizophrene—people who do not reason. We have in this country a distressingly large criminal class, and they reason very carefully. There have been a great many comparisons made in to-day's debate, between this country and other countries, as to why they have abolished their death penalty long ago and do not appear to have suffered any great hardship, or have recently abolished it with no apparent sign of rise in the murder rate. Let me give your Lordships this proposition. Most of those countries are not comparable with Britain at all. This is a country with vast cities. We are at the moment in the biggest city on earth. Let me give you another proposition. Compare this city we are now in with New York, which has just about the same population. It has a very mixed population, I admit, but so have we in London, and it is becoming more mixed. There were ten times as many murders in New York last year as there were in the city of London.
Deterrence can be only one thing; or really it is two: it is composed of the certainty of conviction coupled with the severity of the penalty. If you have certainty of conviction and a penalty that is
674
not severe, that will not deter. If you have a drastically severe penalty and a corrupt or inefficient police force which cannot enforce it, that again will not deter. It is the coupling of those two together that deters. As has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Conesford to-day, it is no accident that we have the lowest murder rate of any major nation; and the reason, in this parable of two cities, for the difference between us and New York is that there the large criminal class carry firearms in the pursuit of their criminal profession. In London they do not; and in London the certainty of conviction is much greater, owing to the unique relations that exist in this country between the police and the public. Therefore, when a man is tempted to murder, or tempted to carry a pistol when he goes out on burglary, for him the gallows is not a remote possibility. It is a near-certainty if he kills. That is the deterrent.
But let me put this to your Lordship's. There is not the slightest doubt that if we abolish the death penalty a distressingly large number of the criminal classes will take to arms. I wonder how many of your Lordships realise the power of the pistol. I have seer it turn snivelling cowards into great roaring bravoes, holding a pistol in their hands, and knowing that they hold sirs men's lives there. Look at that nauseating thing, the armed bully who swaggers around with this power, the power of the pistol. If you are a professional criminal, just imagine taking a revolver on a burglary. It is only of use in one aspect or a burglary, and that is making the get-away. If you got down a fire-escape and found a policeman waiting below, you see the one man on earth who can identify you. If this Bill goes through, you are faced with either a good many years for burglary, if you are caught—and because you have plainly committed many other burglaries, which will almost certainly be brought home, you will get a good long jail sentence—or an indeterminate sentence if you murder as well. There in front of you is the one man who can identify you, You have a gun. Do you hesitate?
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord, but he is speaking with so much confidence that I am sure I shall not disturb him at all if I interrupt. He says that he is certain that if capital punishment is abolished the criminal class will become

675
armed. Has he bothered to study the details which can be discovered in the various Appendices of the Royal Commission's Report, or is he just brushing that aside and relying on his own superior intuition?
LORD TWEEDSMUIR: My Lords, I do not brush that aside, but I have given the example of New York, which is probably the closest possible comparison we can get, and there the criminal classes are armed, and that certainty of conviction is not there, because they have not that police and public relationship. If the criminal classes are armed, recruiting for the police force is going to fall. When the police say that they do not want to be armed, what I am sure they mean is that they hope a state of affairs will never come about that will necessitate their carrying arms. They know only too well that the old relationship of police and public will go.
My last point is this. It has been submitted to-day that the country has changed its mind. I think that there is some slight movement of opinion, but I would not put it further than that. In my short experience of politics it seems to me that the interest of the people in the doings of Parliament rises and falls in cycles. In 1948, for reasons which I cannot analyse, it was high, and now, I think, it is rather low. Whereas in 1948, when hanging was debated on the Criminal Justice Bill, every Member of Parliament felt it very heavily in his postbag, now I think that most Members of Parliament would tell you they got many fewer letters. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, spoke as if he saw abolition as part of a continuous process, going back, I suppose, to the abolition of hanging, drawing and quartering, which was a monstrous and barbarous thing. Gradually, hanging for theft was abolished, and now it may be argued that hanging for murder should be abolished too. But I think that hanging for the theft of property and hanging for taking a man's life are very different things. Long before hanging for the theft of property was abolished juries were
676
going to tremendous lengths not to enforce the law. In one famous case, of which I shall not quote the exact details, of a thief who stole a chest containing a large sum of money in gold sovereigns, the judge ruled that its value was only 1s. 3d., or whatever the sum was, in order to keep it outside the ambit of the death penalty. Those days are over. But I do not think that we can equate those two things, the death penalty for the theft of property and the death penalty for murder.
A group of publicists, who have a perfect right to do so, have spent tremendous energy on giving the public the idea that Britain has changed its mind on this subject. I do not agree that they are right. This Bill has gone through another place directed by an honourable Member, whom I choose to regard as the ablest debater and ablest Parliamentary tactician in another place. It does him immense credit. There have been certain murmurings in certain quarters of the Press about what your Lordships should or should not do. This is a matter for every single one of us as individuals, and anything that may be claimed for a free vote in another place and its results, can equally be claimed for a free vote in your Lordships' House and for its results. I think I have been overlong, but I trust that the sum total of the votes passed by your Lordships' individual consciences will show a majority for retention.
8.56 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Merthyr, I beg to move that the debate be now adjourned.
Moved, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Lord Teviot.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.

COAL INDUSTRY BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.
House adjourned at three minutes before nine o'clock.