Sitting of 10 July 1956

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  MILLPORT PIERS (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION
  Bill to confirm a Provisional Order under the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act, 1936, relating to Millport Piers (Amendment), presented by Mr. James Stuart, and ordered (under Section 7 of the Act) to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 161.]
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  SCOTLAND

    Forth Road Crossing
    Sir W. Ansthruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make a statement about the Forth road crossing.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. James Stuart): I regret that I am unable to add at present to the reply which I gave on 19th June to the hon. and gallant Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Sir A. Gomme-Duncan).
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: When does my right hon. Friend expect to have another meeting with the Forth Bridge Board, because that is the next step, is it not?
    Mr. Stuart: The present step, apart from the next step, is the discussions which are at present continuing with the authorities concerned.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman, in the meantime, pending his final decision, taking steps to see that the necessary preliminaries are continued with the roads, etc., on the approach to the bridge?
    Mr. Stuart: All these matters are at present under close examination.

    Nurses (Holiday Pay)
    Mr. Nairnasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue a circular to regional hospital boards directing them to allow nurses to draw holiday pay in advance.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Hospital authorities have discretion to make reasonable advances of pay to nurses going on annual leave. I do not think it would be appropriate for me to issue a directive on a matter of this kind.
    Mr. Nairn: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that members of the nursing profession need and deserve holiday pay in advance probably more than the members of any other profession? If he agrees, would he then encourage hospital boards to grant holiday pay to nurses before their holidays?
    Mr. Stuart: Hospital authorities have discretion. They have been well aware of the position since 1951, when they were so informed.
    Miss Herbison: Might it not help hospital boards to do what the hon. Gentleman is asking if the Secretary of State were to send out a circular? Teachers have their holiday pay in advance, and have had for a long time.
    Mr. Stuart: One must leave some discretion to the authorities. It is not that I am opposed to the hon. Lady's suggestion.

    Slum Clearance Proposals, Caithness
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why, in view of the magnitude of the problem, he approved slum clearance proposals by Caithness County Council for the three years to 31st December, 1958, at the lowest demolition rate and lowest new building rate of all 33 Scottish counties.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The council proposes to build 120 houses for rehousing purposes for the three years in question, representing an increase from 33 to 40 houses a year in its average rate of building since the war. The county is remote; building is normally on scattered sites; and there are demands on the local building

    169
    resources for other urgent purposes. In all the circumstances, the proposals were approved as being not unreasonable.
    Sir D. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend take another very serious look at this matter, because his Answer just will not do? Does he realise that it means that at least half of the people who live in these dilapidated houses are never likely to get a decent home in their lifetime? Does he also realise that the Burgh of Wick and the Burgh of Thurso are subject to the same difficulties about labour but are managing to tackle the problem within two or three years, instead of the 40 or 50 years suggested by the Question?
    Mr. Stuart: I was dealing with Caithness County and not with the burghs, where the work is not so remote or difficult. The houses built by Caithness County compare favourably so far with the work done by other remote authorities. If it is shown that more can be undertaken, I expect the council will do so.

    Milk (Price Review)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as next spring's milk is now in course of preparation in the cow, he will give an assurance that there will be no reduction in the standard quantity of milk, in the next Price Review, which is to be produced in Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: This is a matter which must be left to the next Annual Review, when all relevant factors can be considered.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend not aware that there are discussions on long-term assurances now going on between the Government and the farmers' representatives? Is this one of the subjects which will be discussed? Can an announcement be made before next spring, because then it will be too late?
    Mr. Stuart: I am afraid it is too early at this stage to say what progress may be made with these discussions, but I will certainly bear the point in mind.

    Rabbits
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present situation regard-
    170
    ing rabbit extermination in Scotland; and what new measures he has under consideration to prevent their increasing again.
    Mr. J. Stuart: All areas of Scotland have been affected by myxomatosis. Nearly two-thirds of the total land area has been designated as rabbit clearance areas. It is too early to assess the results of the campaign so far. At the present the survivors of myxomatosis are undoubtedly multiplying rapidly in some places. I am not considering any new measures, but it is clear that an intensified application of the present measures will be needed once the crops are harvested and natural cover dies back. Meantime efforts to eliminate rabbits should not be abated.
    Captain Duncan: Has my right hon. Friend heard of the suggestion made by the farmers' representatives in Scotland that a myxomatosis bank should be kept by the Government and used to re-spread the disease in order to keep rabbits down? Even if that would mean introducing legislation, will my right hon. Friend consider it?
    Mr. Stuart: I have indeed heard of the suggestion, but I must point out to my hon. and gallant Friend that the Advisory Committee on Myxomatosis has advised against it.

    Bulls (Tuberculosis Testing)
    Captain Duncanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he re-tests all bulls each year for tuberculosis before they are lent to crofting townships which are 100 per cent. tubercular tested.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Yes, Sir. All such bulls are tested before being sent out.
    Captain Duncan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in a 100 per cent. T.T. crofting county, when the test took place, last autumn, the only animal to go down in the test was the Government bull?

    Police (Arbitration Award)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what decision he has reached as a result of his consideration of methods of implementing the recommendation of the Police Arbitration Tribunal given on 31st May, 1956, that the award of 14th December, 1955, should be retrospective to 8th September, 1955.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to similar Questions by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 5th July.
    Miss Herbison: Has the Secretary of State no answer to give for himself on this question? Is he aware that his attitude and that of his right hon. and gallant Friend is regarded as most reprehensible throughout the whole country? Is he also aware that if there is need for legislation before the police can have justice, all of us on this side of the House would be most willing to expedite that legislation?
    Mr. Stuart: In this respect I am in the same position as the Home Secretary and, therefore, my Answer is the same. Consideration is being given to how we should deal with future awards. As I think hon. Members know, legislation would be necessary, and we are well advanced in the present Session.

    Land Drainage
    Sir W. Anstruther-Grayasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to make an announcement with regard to land drainage in Scotland.
    Mr. J. Stuart: Discussions with those concerned are still continuing, but I regret that I am not yet in a position to make a statement on this matter.
    Sir W. Anstruther-Gray: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that it would be a good plan to get on with this matter of land drainage without delay?

    Linn of Dee—Spey Valley (Proposed Road)
    Mr. Spenceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will have a fresh inquiry made as to the estimated cost and best route of a road, suitable for light modern transport, linking the Linn of Dee with the Spey Valley.
    Mr. J. Stuart: An inquiry into this proposal would be a matter for the local authorities concerned and in present circumstances I do not think I would be justified in asking them to undertake it.
    Mr. Spence: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is a rapidly changing climate of opinion on this question? Is
    172
    he further aware that the old proposed routes which were surveyed are not now the best and cheapest, having regard to modern methods of road construction? Before my right hon. Friend finally decides against having this survey made, will he please read the fourth leader in The Times today?

    Local Authority Houses (Rents)
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, as a contribution to achieving stability in prices, he will circularise local authorities advising them to implement a rent-freeze policy for the next 12 months.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I sent local authorities a circular on 30th June containing information which I hope will help them when reviewing the rents of their houses, but it is for the local authorities themselves to decide what rents should be charged. I would not feel justified in issuing another circular on the lines suggested by the hon. Member.
    Mr. Hamilton: Even the right hon. Gentleman would scarcely claim that his circular advocates anything like a rent freeze. Would he not agree that it is not more economically unsound to freeze rents than to freeze the price of goods obtained through the nationalised industries? How can the Government expect wage restraint simply by freezing those prices whilst at the same time the right hon. Gentleman is doing all he can to put up rents?
    Mr. Stuart: We discussed this subject this morning in the Scottish Grand Committee. In the figures I can supply to the hon. Member, rent has lagged behind other earnings.
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland why the initial announcement on the major change in policy concerning council house rents was not made in the House of Commons; and whether he will give an assurance that future statements of changes in Governmental policy, in so far as they affect Scotland, will be made initially in the House of Commons.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I indicated in the statement which I made in the House on 27th October last that the level of council house rents is low and could without hardship be raised if the available housing

    173
    subsidies were pooled. The circular which I recently issued to local authorities does not involve any change in this view. It contains information which may be useful to authorities in reviewing and fixing the rents, statutory responsibility for which rests on the authorities themselves. I can certainly assure the hon. Member that statements of important changes in Government policy will continue to be made in Parliament.
    Mr. Hamilton: Would the right hon. Gentleman not agree that the circular which he has issued to local authorities is much more than a recommendation? Will he indicate when he announced in this House the recent decision to increase the price of school meals, and the proposal to get on with the Forth road bridge, and when he made similar announcements which are causing considerable concern in the country, and about which Members of Parliament are the last people consulted or informed?
    Mr. Stuart: I do not think that this Question deals with school meals, but the Chancellor of the Exchequer stated that in the House. I made a statement on 27th October last year in relation to the announcement about which the hon. Member has questioned me.

    Garage, Shotts (Loan Sanction Application)
    Miss Herbisonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when Lanark County Council will be given loan sanction approval to its scheme for a garage for the scavenging district of Shotts.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I propose to reconsider the county council's application for loan sanction in September in the light of the restrictions on local government expenditure.
    Miss Herbison: Surely the Minister should reconsider this matter before September. Is he not aware that it is not only in that district but in many places in Lanarkshire that the men doing this most important and useful job feel that they ought to have better facilities and, indeed, that they have none at the present time?
    Mr. Stuart: I am not denying the desirability of the project at all. I am
    174
    merely suggesting that it is not immediately essential. At the county council's request, a meeting is being held this month to discuss the question of garage accommodation in the county generally.
    Miss Herbison: Would the Minister not consider putting some restrictions on building by private people because, wherever we look, public building is being restricted by the Government and all sorts of other building is going on?
    Mr. Stuart: I am afraid that I cannot add, in answer to a question, to what I have said about it.

    Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency
    Mr. J. Taylorasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the present state of the discussions and negotiations about the proposals to amend the law relating to mental illness and mental deficiency in Scotland, as outlined in Command Paper No. 9623.
    Mr. J. Stuart: So far I have received observations from only two bodies. I think that most of the bodies interested will require some time yet in order to give full consideration to these proposals.
    Mr. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State, when he gives further consideration to the proposals, bear in mind that there are very serious misgivings, particularly about the proposals for recommended patients, and will he give the house an opportunity, before presenting any legislation on this matter, to discuss and consider the proposals?
    Mr. Stuart: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said.

    Secretaries, Scottish Office (Salaries)
    Mr. Hoyasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what changes have been made in the salary scales of the permanent secretaries at the Scottish Office; and how many are affected.
    Mr. J. Stuart: In accordance with the recommendations of the Royal Commission, which have been applied to the Civil Service from 1st July, the new rate of pay of the Permanent Under-Secretary of State is £6,000 per annum, and that of the Secretaries of my four Departments £4,200 per annum.
    Mr. Hoy: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if, in addition to these salaries, his officials have travelling allowances and allowances for living in London?
    Mr. Stuart: They certainly have the normal travelling allowance, but I should like to give a further answer on any other point later.

    Housing Subsidies
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is now in a position to state what changes will be made in the Scottish subsidies for housing under general needs.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I hope to make a statement on this subject before the Recess.
    Mrs. Mann: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what tentative figure was arrived at in regard to the reduction of the subsidy for general needs when he was discussing this question with the local authorities?
    Mr. Stuart: No tentative figure was arrived at. As I said this morning, in the Scottish Grand Committee, I made certain suggestions to the local authorities which they are now considering.
    Mr. Woodburn: If the local authorities have any comments to make when they do consider the suggestions, will any attention be paid to those comments, or will the suggestions made by the Secretary of State be carried through, irrespective of what the local authorities say?
    Mr. Stuart: I should not ask for comments if I did not want to hear them.

    Accidents in the Home
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will state the annual cost to the National Health Service of the treatment of accidents in the home.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I regret that this information is not available.
    Mrs. Mann: Is it not rather a dreadful reply, as accidents in the home are the greatest factor in our hospital service, that the figure is never available? When are we to get these accidents made notifiable?
    Mr. Stuart: The fact is that a person injured at home may be treated by his
    176
    family doctor or as an out-patient or an in-patient in a hospital, and it would be very difficult to separate these from all the other cases.
    Mrs. Mann: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this is exactly the same reply that was given before road accidents were made notifiable?
    Mr. Stuart: No, the number of accidents is, I think, known. I thought that the hon. Lady was asking about the cost to the National Health Service.
    Mrs. Mannasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of deaths from accidents in the home in the four cities of Scotland and recent available annual figures.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The most recent available information relates to 1955. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT figures for the four cities for that year and for each of the two preceding years.
    Captain Duncan: Can my right hon. Friend say how he gets these figures? Are they collected by the Inter-Departmental Committee which has been sitting for a long time, because these accidents are not notifiable?
    Mr. Stuart: I believe that they come from the local authorities or the hospitals, but I do not know. I will find out.
    Following are the figures:

    NUMBER OF DEATHS FROM ACCIDENTS IN THE HOME

    —

    Glasgow

    Edinburgh

    Dundee

    Aberdeen

    1955

    …

    239

    127

    67

    39

    1954

    …

    246

    109

    64

    38

    1953

    …

    232

    124

    65

    45

    Electricity Supply, Caithness and Sutherland
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that the North of Scotland Hydro-Electric Board is not providing supplies of electricity to meet the demands of ordinary consumers in a number of agricultural areas in Caithness and Sutherland, and that the Board has given the Government's directive to cut capital expenditure on distribution by £300,000 in the current year as its reason for failing in its statutory duty; and what action he proposes to take in the matter.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am informed by the Board that already over 90 per cent. of the potential consumers in Caithness and Sutherland have been connected, including 278 in 1956 up to the end of May. The supply of electricity in any particular area is a matter for the Board and must be governed by its financial position as well as by the Government's request to reduce capital expenditure.
    Mr. John MacLeod: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Hydro-Electric Board is now asking exorbitant capital charges for taking electricity to these remote areas? Surely that is not a correct interpretation of the 1943 Act.
    Mr. Stuart: I would remind my hon. Friend that the Board, by statute, is required to balance its budget. The charges are entirely a matter for the Board.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it not also a fact that one of the statutory obligations of the Board is to bring electric light and power to the ordinary people, including those in the remote areas? Is it not within my right hon. Friend's knowledge that the moment that the credit squeeze occurred all distribution to those areas stopped, and will he take steps to see that the Act of Parliament passed by the House is carried out?
    Mr. Stuart: I think that it is very creditable that over 90 per cent. of the potential consumers have been connected.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Secretary of State aware that there are some complaints that he has not carried out the promise made in the Crofters Act to give, to crofters who are anxious to put in electricity, Government assistance in order to meet the obstacle of capital charges?
    Mr. Stuart: I was not aware of that. As I have said, the Board is responsible for balancing its budget and it must, of course, make charges accordingly.

    Herring Fishing, Wick
    Sir D. Robertsonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that herring fishing from Wick by local craft has come to an end during the years of Herring Industry Board control; if he is satisfied with the situation, having
    178
    regard to the fact that Wick was formerly one of the largest herring ports in Europe; and what action he is taking in the matter.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware that, for several years, the Wick fishermen have apparently preferred to catch other kinds of fish. I cannot accept the suggestion that the responsibility for this rests with the Herring Industry Board. The Board seeks by any practicable means to encourage herring fishing from Wick as elsewhere. Its first oil and meal factory was built at Wick, and last year the Board hired a drifter to explore the Hoy grounds.
    Sir D. Robertson: Is it possible that the Secretary of State is satisfied that, within the 18 years' existence of this Board which was formed to rehabilitate the herring industry, this industry has been brought to a complete end in my constituency, where it was once the greatest in Scotland?
    Mr. Stuart: As I have indicated, the fishermen have decided that they would do better in other ways, just as has happened in my own constituency, and I cannot order them to fish for herring.

    New Potatoes (Marketing)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will set up a committee to inquire into the causes of the reecnt heavy losses sustained by early potato growers and to make proposals for a long term policy for Scottish early potato growers.
    Mr. J. Stuart: No, Sir. The Potato Marketing Board has already met officials about the marketing of new potatoes, and a further meeting with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with whom I have a joint interest in these matters, is to be held as soon as possible.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State not realise that this is the second year in succession in which there have been very heavy losses incurred by the early potato growers, that the late potato growers are also affected, and that the farmers of Ayrshire are as disgusted with him as are the fishermen of Caithness?
    Mr. Stuart: That is very regrettable.

  EDUCATION, SCOTLAND

    University Students (Awards)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that substantial differences exist between the grants to Scottish and English university students whose family and financial circumstances are otherwise identical; that these differences are to the disadvantage of the Scottish students; the justification for these differences to the disadvantage of Scottish students; and if he will now take steps to improve the grants to Scottish students so as to rectify this and give them equality of opportunity with English students.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am aware of the differences to which the hon. and learned Member refers, but I am satisfied that the awards made by Scottish education authorities are sufficient to fulfil their statutory purpose of enabling students to take advantage, without financial hardship to themselves or their parents, of any educational facilities available to them.
    Mr. Hughes: Is it not unfair that these disparities should exist? Is it not a fact that representatives of both Aberdeen and Edinburgh Universities asked the reason, and that each of them was given a different reason? Will not the Secretary of State take courage, and see that equality of treatment is meted out to the students in both countries?
    Mr. Stuart: These disparities have existed between England and Scotland over the years. These rates are periodically reviewed and will be reviewed again.
    Lady Tweedsmuir: What about the particular position of Scottish law students?
    Mr. Stuart: I would ask my noble Friend to be good enough to put a separate Question to me on that subject.

    School Building (Cost Control)
    Mr. Patrick Maitlandasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will set up a cost investigation court in the Scottish Education Department to check on undue expense in achieving elegance in school building as in the earliest plans for Kirktonholme School, East Kilbride, and on extravagance of design as with the £550 mural at Duncanrigg Secondary School, also in the new town.
    Mr. J. Stuart: I am satisfied that the existing system of control of cost of school building makes additional machinery such as my hon. Friend suggests unnecessary.
    Mr. Maitland: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware of what went on at Duncanrigg School, where about £550 was spent on a fantastic mural? Is he aware of the delay elsewhere, and is he satisfied that education is not being sacrificed to the aesthetic whims of a whole lot of officials.
    Mr. Stuart: A simple and effective check upon costs is achieved by the permitted maximum per sq. ft. Within that maximum, education authorities have freedom to plan or design whatever they may think to be the best.

    School Meals
    Mr. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland the estimated saving expected from the proposed increases in the prices of school meals.
    Mr. J. Stuart: The annual saving expected in expenditure on school meals is £230,000.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Report of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and all informed opinion contends that the people most in need of help today are those with families of small children? How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile that with the policy of increasing the price of school meals?
    Mr. Stuart: It is precisely the policy which was followed by the Government of the party of the hon. Member before the present Government, that is, to charge the price of the food.

  MINISTRY OF WORKS

    Office Accommodation, Edinburgh
    Mr. Willisasked the Minister of Works to what use it is intended to put the office accommodation at Sighthill, Edinburgh, when it is vacated by the Ministry of Pensions Central Pensions Branch.
    The Minister of Works (Mr. P. G. T. Buchan-Hepburn): I think the hon. Member is referring to Saughton and not Sighthill. Any space which may be vacated will be made available to Departments now housed elsewhere in Edinburgh in accommodation which is either unsatisfactory or is held on short tenancy.
    Mr. Willis: Will the right hon. Gentleman get in touch with the other Departments quickly to tell them that there is this space available, because we are anxious that some other Government work shall come to Edinburgh in place of the Government work that is leaving?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The other Government Departments are well aware of that.

    Northumberland House
    Sir F. Medlicottasked the Minister of Works why a Government Department continues to occupy one of the largest hotel buildings in London, namely, the Victoria Hotel; and if he will make arrangements for the staff now using this building to be transferred to more suitable premises on the outskirts of London and for this building to be restored to its proper function as a hotel.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: The Victoria Hotel, now known as Northumberland House, forms an essential part of the War Office's headquarters in the Whitehall area. It has been Government property since 1950, when the owners sold the freehold to the Government. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War is of opinion that it would not be practicable to have the staffs located on the outskirts of London.
    Sir F. Medlicott: Bearing in mind the great shortage of hotel accommodation in central London, would my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, broadly speaking, at least every effort will be made to prevent that kind of accommodation from being used for Government Departments?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: Broadly speaking.

    Excavations (Reports)
    Mr. E. Fletcherasked the Minister of Works if he will adopt the recommendation made in the Report of the Ancient Monuments Board for 1955 that,
    182
    in order to accelerate the publication of reports of excavations sponsored by him, a fee should be paid, not only for the actual work of excavation, but also for the preparation of the report of such excavation.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: In fact, the present fees paid to supervisors are intended to provide in one instalment for the writing of the report, as well as for the actual supervision of excavations. But I share the anxiety of the Ancient Monuments Board for England to ensure the early preparation of reports on excavations sponsored by my Department, and I am considering what further improvements can be made.
    Mr. Fletcher: Is the Minister repudiating the Report of his Board, which said quite categorically that the archaeological excavation is incomplete until the report is published, that the Minister's present practice does not enable reports to be published and that research workers and others interested are thereby hampered? Will he not reconsider the matter in the light of the Report of this Board?
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: I said in my answer that I shared the anxiety of the Ancient Monuments Board for England, and that I am looking into the whole question again.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: It is not enough to share the anxiety of the Ancient Monuments Board. What we want from the Minister is an assurance that he is prepared to revise the present method of paying excavators on the lines suggested by the Board.
    Mr. Buchan-Hepburn: To share the anxieties of the Board is something, but I also said that I am looking into the whole matter again.

  SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH

    Textiles (Flammability)
    Mrs. McLaughlinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works, as representing the Lord President of the Council, if he is now in a position to make a statement on the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research research into the most suitable method of testing textiles for flammability.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Works (Mr. J. R. Bevins): Two methods of testing textiles for flammability are at present being studied by a committee of the Textile Institute, co-operating with the British Standards Institute and the Joint Fire Research Organisation.
    The latter is also carrying out a survey in connection with this investigation, which involves collecting statistics and examining samples of clothing involved in burning accidents, and it will not be possible to lay down standards until this survey has been completed.
    Mrs. McLaughlin: Is the Minister aware of the great concern of the general public to have this research brought to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible? Will he do his utmost to inform those involved in the research of the great need for getting on as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Bevins: Certainly.

  BRITISH ARMY

    National Service Men, Kempston Camp
    Mr. Allaunasked the Secretary of State for War (1) at what time of day, on seven out of their 15 days' reserve training, three National Service men started the work of making cardboard barrows for an officers' mess cocktail party at Kempston;
    (2) what representations he has now received from ex-National Service men Hodgson and Quy and from hon. Members regarding the making of cardboard barrows for an officers' mess cocktail party at Kempston Camp; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Antony Head): Two of the men referred to were clerks who were employed in the office of Headquarters, Army Emergency Reserve during their part-time training. They attended normal parades in the morning and afternoon and carried out the documentation of reservists who were carrying out their annual training at the camp. This work is spasmodic and did not occupy all their time.
    In the intervals, during the five working days from Thursday of the first week of camp to Wednesday of the second these
    184
    men made these barrows. I cannot give a detailed timetable as they were not under continuous supervision. The third soldier, a painter, who reported for training a week later than the others did part-time work on them from Monday to Wednesday only.
    I have received no direct representation from the soldier who wrote the articles in the Manchester newspaper which brought the attention of several hon. Members to the case. I have received a letter of complaint from the other soldier.
    Mr. Allaun: Is the Minister aware that these men state that they started making the barrows at 8 a.m. daily? As in the House, at Question Time last month, the Minister stated that the work was done in their leisure time, thereby creating the impression that it was done outside Service hours, does he not think that he should tell the House that he unintentionally misled it? Is he aware that the men agreed to do this work only because, apart from making cardboard chess sets and using them, they had no other work to do?
    Mr. Head: No, Sir, what happened was as I stated. These men did this work in their spare time. I will admit—and I said this before—that these men were not as fully employed as they should have been. Part of the reason was that in two cases their camps had been transferred, at their own request, from the proper date, which meant their going to a different unit, to which they did not belong. It is also of interest that none of these men complained at the time that he had not enough to do. Had they complained, they might have been given extra duties.
    Mr. Strachey: Would not the Secretary of State agree that this is only another instance of the progressive difficulty of finding useful purposes for the part-time Reserve when called up, and is it not another case of the growing inappropriateness of the whole National Service system at the moment?
    Mr. Head: We have 26,000 A.E.R. men being trained, and this is the first complaint which has been aired in the House of Commons on this A.E.R. training. A very large number of men now do this training only once, after which

    185
    they have finished. Furthermore, there has had to be reorganisation because of the one-year instead of the three-year system.
    Mr. Shinwell: Ought not the right hon. Gentleman to regard this matter rather more seriously than he does? What is the purpose of this 15-days' Reserve training if men are to be occupied in such tasks? Would he give the House an assurance that he will make an inquiry into the matter in order to ensure that men's time is being properly used——
    Mr. Ellis Smith: That would be a change.
    Mr. Shinwell: —for the purpose for which the Reserve is intended?
    Mr. Head: I take this matter extremely seriously. I have made a great many inquiries into it and have gone as far as to say to the commanders-in-chief that if they consider that part-time training is a waste of time for men, because of various reasons of organisation on a short-term basis, it should be cancelled. I would point out, however, that in all this part-time training—and this is especially true of the A.E.R.—there must be National Service men doing part-time training who have to look after the administration of the camps. Somebody has to do these hewer-of-wood and drawer-of-water tasks.

    Officers, Jordan
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Secretary of State for War how many British officers there are in Jordan at the present time; and whether they are directly under the orders of the Jordan Government.
    Mr. Head: In addition to officers with British units, 12 British Army officers are at present serving with the Arab Legion. These 12 are under the orders of senior Jordanian officers but remain subject to the Army Act.
    Mr. Price: In view of the uncertain political conditions in Jordan, of which we have unfortunately had evidence in recent weeks, is it any longer desirable that these officers should continue in the service of the Jordan Government?
    Mr. Head: Yes, Sir. These men are in an advisory and training capacity and, although it is not entirely my sphere of responsibility, I am sure that from the military point of view their presence is justified.

    Goodge Street Underground Station
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement about the Goodge Street Underground Station which was used as an assembly station for Her Majesty's troops until it was recently damaged by fire, indicating whether it has been repaired, the extent, nature and cost of the repairs and the purpose for which it is now being used.
    Mr. Head: It has not been repaired and is not being used.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the grave dangers to which young soldiers were exposed recently in that place, will the Minister give an undertaking that it will never again be used to house troops?
    Mr. Head: I gave that undertaking to the hon. and learned Member about a month ago.

    Overseas Personnel (Special Telegrams)
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for War what administrative arrangements exist for notifying men serving overseas of sudden changes in their domestic circumstances.
    Mr. Head: Relatives may send special telegrams at United Kingdom inland rates to a soldier wherever he is serving.
    Mr. Thompson: May I ask my right hon. Friend if the relatives know that fact, and how they get to know it? Secondly, may I ask him what happens if a message goes direct to the War Office containing information of this kind? What does the War Office do about it?
    Mr. Head: The answer to the first part of the supplementary question is that this information has been posted on all notice boards throughout the Army, but obviously we cannot write to all relatives. It is the only way in which we can inform people of a practice which has existed for a long time. I think that the second part of the supplementary question arises on the next Question.

    Personal Case
    Mr. K. Thompsonasked the Secretary of State for War if he will investigate the circumstances in which his Department failed to notify a National Service man of the sudden death of his father.
    Mr. Head: This information was immediately passed to the soldier's unit in Korea. Unfortunately the unit was in the process of being disbanded and the information did not reach Sapper Birch. I should like to take this opportunity of apologising for his not receiving it.
    Mr. Thompson: The relatives of Sapper Birch will be very grateful to my right hon. Friend for his expression of regret. Is my right hon. Friend aware, however, how much distress a matter like this can cause within the circle of the family, and how much damage is done to the reputation of the administrative side of the Army by repeated happenings of this kind?
    Mr. Head: Well, it is a very large Army. But I can assure my hon. Friend that this particular information was passed on for the sapper by us. It is normal for relatives themselves to inform men of this kind of thing, but if we are particularly asked we do so, and did so by the best means possible. I very much regret that the information did not reach him because of the disbandment.
    Mr. Awbery: In view of the fact that the Minister is often criticised for his sins of omission and commission, may I ask him to accept my appreciation of the speed with which last week he brought home a young man to see his father, who had been taken seriously ill?

    Senior Officers
    Mr. H. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for War how many officers of the rank of brigadier and upwards there now are in the Army; and by how many the number will be reduced as a consequence of redeployment of our troops.
    Mr. Head: Five hundred and thirty-six. I cannot yet say what reduction will be achieved.
    Mr. Hynd: Does that figure include only officers on the Active List, or does it include also those who are retired or on the Reserve List? Is there not a tendency at present for the number of higher ranks to increase while the number in the Army generally is decreasing?
    Mr. Head: These are only those on the Active List. So far as senior officers
    188
    are concerned, our object is to have the minimum necessary for the size of Army we maintain.

    Forces, Germany
    Mr. Stokesasked the Secretary of State for War the total number of troops in the four divisions in Germany; and to what this number will be reduced when those divisions have been revised in the light of modern fire power.
    Mr. Head: We do not give these particulars.
    Mr. Stokes: Can the Minister tell us whether anything has been done? If there has, there do not seem to be any visible signs of it. The numbers in the Army seem to stay up. Is the right hon. Gentleman taking any notice of the change in fire power?
    Mr. Head: The Army, as the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt recollect, is running down at the rate of 30,000 a year over a two-year period.
    Mr. Shinwell: But will the Secretary of State take note that, although we are committed by the Paris Agreements to provide four divisions, we are also committed, as an alternative, to provide the equivalent in fighting power? In view of that, is it the intention of the Government to make the necessary adaptation?
    Mr. Head: It is not for me, I think, to discuss future policy in this matter. That rests on many considerations outside my Department. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, however, that all the latest methods and considerations of modern warfare are being considered in this respect.
    Mr. Stokes: Then, as a result of this consideration, may we expect a considerable running down of the number of men in the division?
    Mr. Head: So far as that is concerned, I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better wait and see.

    Fires, Cyprus (Casualties)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for War if he can now state the result of the investigations into the circumstances which led to the loss of 28 lives by burning in the fires in Cyprus.
    Mr. Head: Not yet, Sir.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Industrial Development, Aberdeen
    Mr. Elector Hughesasked the President of the Board of Trade if he will state his plans for encouraging the development of light industry in Aberdeen.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): The Board of Trade will continue to bring the existence of sites, labour supply and other facilities at Aberdeen to the notice of suitable industry seeking new quarters; but its needs must be considered in relation to those of other places.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that in a place so far north as Aberdeen the ratio of freight charges to the value of the freight makes the provision of light industries particularly important, and would he take steps to see that such light industries are fostered there?
    Mr. Walker-Smith: I will certainly bear that and all other relevant considerations in mind.

  PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE (SELECT COMMITTEE)
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister if he will consider including in the terms of reference of the proposed Select Committee on Procedure power to consider whether Questions dealing with purely Scottish matters should be answered at the Scottish Grand Committee.
  The Prime Minister (Sir Anthony Eden): As I indicated in replying to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee, East (Mr. G. M. Thomson) on 26th June, I believe that the arrangements for Parliamentary Questions are best discussed through the usual channels and in consultation with the authorities of the House. In any event, I do not think that a proposal to have Questions answered in Standing Committee is practicable or desirable.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that we get the opportunity of meeting the Secretary of State for Scotland at Question Time only about once in every six weeks, and that if Scottish Questions were asked in the Scottish Grand Committee it would ease the problems of other hon. Members in the House?
  The Prime Minister: I thought that we had 23 Scottish Questions on the Order Paper today.
  Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the Prime Minister will not take the humour of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) too seriously in this case, because I can assure him that most Scottish Members, and Scotland itself, would very much resent any suggestion of putting Scotland off the Floor of this House.
  The Prime Minister: That had occurred to me.

  COMMONWEALTH DEVELOPMENT (CAPITAL)
  Mr. H. Wilsonasked the Prime Minister what representations he has received from Prime Ministers and other Government representatives of Commonwealth countries about the difficulty of raising capital in London for Commonwealth development and about the rates of interest charged for such capital as is available.
  The Prime Minister: I would not wish to add to the agreed statement made at the end of our Conference. In this it was said that the Prime Ministers noted with satisfaction the United Kingdom's determination to maintain and improve its capacity to serve as a source of capital for development in Commonwealth countries.
  Mr. Wilson: We all welcome the emphasis placed on this subject at the recent Prime Ministers Conference, but is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that last year, out of current income, this country found a net figure of only £4 million for investment overseas? Is he further aware that a considerable number of Commonwealth countries are now having to borrow from such countries as Norway, Switzerland and the United States, partly because the capital is not available here, and partly because of the extortionate rates of interest at present charged by this country?
  The Prime Minister: I should not like to debate the first part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question now. As regards the general position, it is perfectly true that we wish there

  191
  were more capital available for this investment, and, in point of fact, as I think my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made plain a short time ago, we hope there will prove to have been, in the first six months of the year, a surplus of £100 million for overseas investment, and although that is not as much as we should like, it is a very considerable improvement on last year.
  Mr. Wilson: But quite apart from the question of surplus, which raises very wide issues of economic policy, is not the Prime Minister aware that this very essential borrowing is also inhibited by the penal Bank Rate in operation, and will he discuss that with the Chancellor of the Exchequer because of its effect on Commonwealth borrowing?
  The Prime Minister: That is why I carefully read out the Commonwealth statement. What it referred to was this country as a source of capital. There is nothing in it about the rates of interest.
  Mr. Beresford Craddock: Is it not a fact that this country is also subscribing very large sums to the Commonwealth through the colonial development and welfare fund?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir, that is true, but it also remains the fact, as I say, that although the first six months of this year have been better, there is not as much capital as we should all like to see, party politics aside, for investment in the Commonwealth overseas. But as a general proposition, that is true.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Without wishing to enter into the detail of a very complicated matter, may I ask the Prime Minister if he would like to make it plain that it would not satisfy the terms of the communiqué if we were to continue borrowing on short-term from the Colonies and lending on long-term to the rest of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: No; I think it is fair to say that the figure which my right hon. Friend gave of £100 million was overall investment.

  CEYLON (BASES)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his discussions with the Prime Minister
  192
  of Ceylon regarding the future of United Kingdom bases on the island.
  The Prime Minister: A statement, which was agreed between the Prime Minister of Ceylon and myself, was published at the end of the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. I have nothing to add to that statement.
  Mr. Warbey: Can the Prime Minister say whether, as a result of this agreement, the Government of Ceylon will be entirely free to determine the use of the bases in Ceylon both in war and in peace?
  The Prime Minister: The powers in this matter which the Government of Ceylon have, if powers is the right term, date from the agreement of 1947. They are written down there. The terms of this exchange between the Prime Minister of Ceylon and myself will be made available in the Library.
  Mr. Stokes: May I ask the Prime Minister whether the arrangements that he has arrived at will form the pattern of future arrangements with other parts of the Commonwealth?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. This pattern stems—if a pattern can stem—from arrangements made in 1947—arrangements then entered into with Ceylon in a defence agreement. As regards self-governing parts of the Commonwealth, arrangements are, of course, made between them and us, or between each other, freely in accordance with whatever terms they like to set down.
  Major Legge-Bourke: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is inherent in the conception of Dominion status that individual Dominions should have similar rights to these, and that there is nothing inconsistent with Dominion status in the new agreement?
  The Prime Minister: Most emphatically, there is not. There are various agreements in various parts of the Commonwealth on matters of this kind.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While welcoming this agreement, so far as it goes, may I ask the Prime Minister to say whether, in his opinion, we shall, as a result of it, be in any worse defensive position than we were before?
  The Prime Minister: We have to work these things out. We have not yet really

  193
  reached a point where we work out in detail what the facilities will be. All we have agreed is that we will work them out. I would rather not make a final statement until I see what the terms of the final agreement are.

  NATIONALISED INDUSTRIES (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS)
  Mr. Hobsonasked the Prime Minister if he will now give instructions to Ministers responsible for nationalised industries to answer Questions about matters arising in the annual reports and accounts of the appropriate industries.
  The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, this question has been frequently considered. I do not, however, think that any change in the rules in regard to Questions about the nationalised industries is called for.
  Mr. Hobson: Would the Prime Minister look at this Question again, because it really is becoming most important, particularly with regard to the accounts of Cable and Wireless where, on page 19, there is shown the revenue from subsidiary companies, and it is impossible to find out which are the subsidiary companies, even by reference to the Schedule to the Act? Will the right hon. Gentleman look at this matter again?
  The Prime Minister: I have sympathy with any Question which the hon. Member for Keighley (Mr. Hobson) puts, because it is always a carefully considered one. If we are able to have a debate, which, if time allows, we should like to have, it would be useful if that point could be discussed.

  DISARMAMENT (MR. BULGANIN'S LETTER)
  Mr. V. Yatesasked the Prime Minister if he will undertake to reply to the letter addressed to him by Mr. Bulganin on 6th June regarding the new approach to disarmament by the Soviet Government, before the end of July; and if he will, also, make a statement.
  The Prime Minister: I replied to Mr. Bulganin's letter yesterday, and my reply has been published today. I do not wish to add to that reply.
  Mr. Yates: Does not the Prime Minister think that, after six weeks' consideration, it is disappointing that the Government can offer no more than they offered in the White Paper? Would the Government consider that to leave ourselves with 700,000 men by 1958 is a fitting gesture to a move of this kind, and would not the making of a bigger gesture lead to a further step towards a reduction of armed forces?
  The Prime Minister: I do not think that this is a question of gestures; it is a question of serious exchanges of views. As I said, my reply was the result of considerable exchanges of view among all our Allies. In the circumstances, I think it was a reasoned and reasonable document.

  PUBLIC SERVANTS (MARRIAGE QUESTIONNAIRE)
  Mr. Youngerasked the Prime Minister whether the questionnaire regarding marriage or remarriage which is sent to atomic workers by the Atomic Energy Authority with the approval of Ministers is sent also to all other persons engaged upon Government work of the highest secrecy; and what exceptions there are to this procedure.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; but the Government are considering, in the light of the findings of the Privy Councillors' Conference, how far it may be necessary to require certain categories of staff in the public service to notify this information.
  Mr. Younger: Does the Prime Minister not think that if there is to be an inquisition of this kind, which, I understand, is something of an innovation, it should be only on the basis of the particular secrecy of the work involved? Further, is it not really a sign that this step has been very ill-thought-out, that it shoud be introduced piecemeal in this way in one section only of employees handling secret work?
  The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to this extent, that I think it is a matter which must be considered not for one part of the Civil Service or public service but over the whole, and I can give him the assurance that that is what is intended as a result of the Privy Councillors' Report.

  HIGH COMMISSION PROTECTORATES
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached from the discussions on the future of the High Commission Protectorates at the Commonwealth Ministers' Conference.
  The Prime Minister: The future of the Protectorates was not discussed at the Conference of Commonwealth Prime Ministers. During his visit to London, however, the Prime Minister of the Union of South Africa reiterated the Union Government's desire for their transfer to the Union. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom restated their position, and agreement was not reached.
  Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the view of Her Majesty's Government was that the peoples of the Protectorates should be consulted before there was any transference, and whether the word "consultation" implies the consent of those people, because we have had recently the unfortunate experience of Central African Federation, where a decision was made with consultation, but without consent?
  The Prime Minister: As I said, agreement was not reached; our position remains as it was stated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) on 13th April, 1954.

  GOLD COAST AND FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Mr. Fenner Brockwayasked the Prime Minister what conclusions were reached at the Commonwealth Ministers' Conference regarding the declared intention of the Gold Coast Government to apply for admission to the Commonwealth, and the relationship of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland to the Commonwealth.
  The Prime Minister: The question of membership for the Gold Coast will arise only when the country attains full self-government. It will then be one for all member countries of the Commonwealth.
  As regards the Federation, the hon. Member will have seen from the statement issued after our meeting that the Commonwealth Prime Ministers will
  196
  welcome the continued participation of the Federal Prime Minister in our meetings.
  Mr. Brockway: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman two Questions? In view of the reports of the Conference which have appeared, will he say whether it is the case now that a Colony which becomes an independent country shall have the right to join the Commonwealth Conference without a specific decision upon such an application? Secondly, why is it that the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland is to have the right to be represented in the Commonwealth Conference when it is not a democratic Federation, and why should it have that right any more than the West Indies or Nigeria?
  The Prime Minister: I can only tell the hon. Gentleman, as regards the last part of his Question, that the Prime Ministers of the Commonwealth, as they say, taking into account the 20 years since the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia, and, as he is now, Prime Minister of the Federation, has been with us, agreed that they would welcome the continued participation of the Prime Minister of the Federation. That seemed to me to be a reasonable and sensible arrangement, and I am glad the Prime Ministers took that view.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister make it clear that in deciding to continue that participation, it does not mean any decision by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference that there is any change in the status of the Federation?
  The Prime Minister: I think it means just exactly and precisely what it says, neither more nor less.
  Mr. Dugdale: Is the Prime Minister aware that Lord Malvern was invited to the Conference only in view of his special qualifications—personal qualifications? While realising that probably no actual vote was taken at the Conference, may I ask him to say whether in fact the decision to admit the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was taken unanimously without disagreement by any of the Prime Ministers?
  The Prime Minister: There was no question of their taking decisions in that

  197
  sense in the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' meeting, but the statement issued from the Conference expressed the views of each and all the Prime Ministers there present.
  Mr. Brockway: On a point of order. May I ask the Prime Minister to a reply to the first of the two questions which I put, which he ignored?
  Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.
  The Prime Minister: I apologise; I forgot the question. I do not know what it was.

  GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS (SECURITY)
  Mrs. Castleasked the Prime Minister what changes he is now prepared to make in the appeal procedure for non-civil servants who are considered a security risk.
  The Prime Minister: The Conference of Privy Councillors recommended that certain rights of appeal should be given, and this recommendation has, as they suggested, been discussed with the National Joint Advisory Council. As a result, the employees of Government contractors engaged on secret Government contracts who as a result of a directive by a Minister are dismissed, or in his opinion are liable to suffer financial loss, will be given the same right as is enjoyed by persons in the public service of having their case considered by the Three Advisers.
  Mrs. Castle: Is the Prime Minister aware that the present appeal machinery for civil servants is unsatisfactory, and that civil servants have not the right to be represented, either legally or by a union, before the tribunal, nor are they given chapter and verse for the charges brought against them, as promised by Mr. Attlee, as he then was, in 1948? Will the Prime Minister have a look at the appeal machinery for both categories, with a view to meeting these three points?
  The Prime Minister: I must say that I have not heard that particular complaint, though I have heard others. I will look into it.

  HOUSING AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

    Planning Appeal Inquiries
    Mr. Peytonasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government how many planning appeal inquiries under the Town and Country Planning Act took place in 1954 and 1955; and the average length of time which elapsed between the hearing of the inquiry and the promulgation of his decision.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): For England and Wales, 2,864 in 1954 and 3,342 in 1955. The estimated average time taken was between eight and nine weeks.
    Mr. Peyton: While recognising the difficulties in which my hon. Friend's Department is involved in administering this very cumbrous and impossible Act of Parliament, may I ask that he and his right hon. Friend should review its operation with a view to eliminating, so far as possible, both the delays and the other petty vexations which occur?
    Mr. Powell: There is a continuous effort to reduce the time taken to deal with appeals but the issues concerned are often important issues, on which a hasty result should not be reached.

    Motor Vehicle Factory, Luton-Dunstable
    Mr. Albuasked the Minister of Housing and Local Government from what districts he expects the workers to be drawn for the new factory for the manufacture of motor vehicles which he has agreed should be built in the Luton-Dunstable area.
    Mr. Powell: The recruitment of labour will be primarily a matter for the firm; but I hope that arrangements will be made, with its co-operation, to ensure that so far as possible the labour will be recruited from London, and from people with a housing need.
    Mr. Albu: Is the Minister aware that there is already a considerable shortage of labour in the new towns due partly to the fact that the motor industries in the Luton-Dunstable area are drawing labour away from them? Does he consider this to be a sensible planning arrangement?
    Mr. Powell: On the whole, the extension of industry in the new towns is slightly in advance of the expansion of housing, but the desirability of providing housing in the area for the labour that will be required in the Dunstable and Luton area is fully recognised.

BRITISH MOTOR CORPORATION (NOTICE OF STRIKE)
Mr. G. Brown(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to the decision of the trade unions concerned to call a strike at the British Motor Corporation's factories from 23rd July, as a result of the company's refusal to negotiate, and whether he has any statement to make.
The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I am, of course, aware of the resolution passed yesterday by representatives of the unions concerned recommending to their executive councils that notice be given to the British Motor Corporation that in certain eventualities all labour will be withdrawn on and from 23rd July. I have not been approached by either of the parties and, as I understand it, there is machinery available within the industry for dealing with the matter which has not yet been fully used.
I do not think that it would be appropriate for me to make any statement at this stage.
Mr. Brown: Does the Minister realise that, in the light of the more serious news today of the decision by the main unions concerned, that sounds a rather complacent statement? I am sure he would agree that not to use the fortnight which is at our disposal to bring about a settlement of what could be a very threatening dispute would be a major tragedy.
Does the Minister realise that the question of compensation to these men who were so hurriedly put out of work is emerging as a real major issue? Will the right hon. Gentleman put himself at the disposal of the parties concerned with a view to convening a joint meeting, with himself in the chair if need be, at which a solution to this problem might be the major issue?
Mr. Macleod: My statement is an exact account of the facts as they were yesterday, and, indeed, as they still are today. Of course, we must use the time that is available to us to seek any means of a solution—and I exclude no solution—to this rather difficult issue.
I should make it clear that machinery is available in the industry. It has been the policy of Ministers of Labour, of all parties, that they do not in any way attempt to weaken such machinery and that intervention is called for only after that machinery has been fully used and exhausted. Subject to that, however, the services of myself and of the Ministry will, of course, be available to anybody who seeks to make use of them.
Mr. Shurmer: Is the Minister aware that not only is there discontent among the men who have already been dismissed, but that there is great discontent among those who remain at work because there is no certainty about the position of the industry and how long it will be before they are dismissed, at practically a moment's notice, like the others? Cannot the Minister ask his right hon. Friend to set up an inquiry into the motor industry at once to find what the future holds, instead of leaving the men discontented and uncertain from day to day, as many of them are in the Austin and other motor factories in the area?
Mr. Macleod: The Question relates to the recommendation taken by the different unions yesterday. On the wider question of a Government inquiry into the motor car industry, that is, as the hon. Member indicated, a matter for my right hon. Friend, who has replied on it in the House and to whose statement I have nothing to add.
Mr. Gower: Does my right hon. Friend consider that there is sufficient recognition in the country generally that the British motor industry is fighting for its life against the motor industries of other countries?
Mr. Ellis Smith: Will the Minister bear in mind that, owing to the cruel action taken by the British Motor Corporation, the unions will be fully justified in any action they take? Will he bear in mind that that action was equivalent to a repudiation of the National Agreement, Clause 12 of which states that when a

201
depression in trade arises systematic short time shall be worked where practicable in preference to discharging men? In view of the fact that we have had full employment for 15 years, when all these men have given of their best, surely different treatment is called for than that meted out by the British Motor Corporation.
Mr. Macleod: I recognise the sincerity with which those views are very widely held. As to the wisdom of this action, that is a matter on which, as the hon. Member knows, Ministers of Labour do not comment.

PRIME MINISTER AND FOREIGN SECRETARY (VISIT TO U.S.S.R.)
The Prime Minister: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House I wish to make a short statement.
During the recent visit of the Soviet leaders to this country, my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary and I accepted an invitation to pay a return visit to the Soviet Union in due course. It has now been agreed that this should take place in May next year, and, as at present proposed, we would leave this country on 5th May. Our visit to the Soviet Union will last about ten days.
The Foreign Secretary and I look forward during the course of this visit to renewing our conversations with the Soviet leaders. There will also, I understand, be opportunities to visit Leningrad and perhaps other areas of the Soviet Union.
Mr. Gaitskell: Although it is rather too soon to ask the Prime Minister detailed questions about his visit, may I say, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends, that we welcome the fact that it is to take place and hope that it will be fruitful?

NEW MEMBER SWORN
The Right Honourable Sir Frank Soskice, Q.C., for Newport.
BILL PRESENTED
  OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT
  Bill to make new provision as to the functions of the Colonial Development Corporation, including provision in respect of past activities of the said Corporation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented by Mr. Lennox-Boyd; supported by the Attorney-General, Mr. Hare, Mr. H. Brooke, and Commander Noble; read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Thursday and to be printed. [Bill 162.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That the Finance (No. 2) Bill, as amended, may be considered immediately after the recommital of the Bill and Report thereof, notwithstanding the practice of the House as to the interval between the various stages of such a Bill.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  FINANCE (SAVINGS BANKS)
  Resolution reported,
  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.
  Resolution agreed to.
  Instruction to any Committee to whom the Finance (No. 2) Bill may be recommitted that they have power to make provision therein pursuant to the said Resolution.

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL
  Order for consideration, as amended, read.
  Bill re-committed to a Committee of the whole House, in respect of the Amendments to Clause 9, page 8, lines 11, 29 and 37; Clause 10, page 9, lines 3, 6 and 18; Clause 11, page 10, lines 5, 8 and 10; Clause 20, page 20, line 40, page 21 lines 22 and 37, page 22, lines 11, 15 23, 25 and 35, page 23, line 39; Clause 21, page 24, line 28; Clause 22, page 29, lines 3 and 7; Schedule 2, page 54, line 49; and the new Schedule (Retirement Annuities: Adjustments of Limit on Qualifying Premiums), standing on the Notice Paper in the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
  Bill immediately considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  FINANCE (No. 2) BILL

    Clause 9.—(RELIEF FROM INCOME TAX ON CERTAIN SAVINGS BANK INTEREST.)
    3.40 p.m.
    The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): I beg to move, in page 8, line 11, after "bank", to insert:
    "or a seamen's savings bank".
    I think it would be convenient, Sir Charles, to discuss with this Amendment my subsequent one, in page 8, line 37.
    The Seamen's Savings Bank was set up under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, and is operated by the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. The Ministry receives interest on deposits lodged with the National Debt Commissioners at the rate of £2 17s. 6d. per cent. and uses the
    204
    margin of 7s. 6d. to cover its expenses and credits depositors with £2 10s. per cent. In this respect the Seamen's Savings Bank is on the same basis as a trustee savings bank, though not a trustee savings bank within the meaning of the 1954 Act.
    My right hon. Friend has discovered, since the Bill was last in Committee, that the Seamen's Savings Bank is unique in that it is the only savings institution in the country to which all the terms of this Clause apply except for the fact that it is not a trustee savings bank. It was left out on this account at the time the Clause was drafted. My right hon. Friend wants to take the opportunity of the recommittal of the Bill to extend to it the concession made to the trustee savings banks which it resembles in the two important features, that the statutory interest is 2½ per cent. and there is automatic lending to the State.
    Mr. A. G. Bottomley: We on this side of the Committee see no reason to object to this proposal, but we should like to see it extended further. I do not know whether, at this stage, it would be appropriate to ask the Economic Secretary about, for instance, the case of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. When we discussed savings banks generally my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) raised the question of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and the Economic Secretary favourably indicated that the bank could be treated in the same way as other trustee savings banks.
    The Economic Secretary will remember that I myself called attention to the Walthamstow Savings Bank, and many of my hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies will be aware that there are also Scottish savings banks. We were hoping that the savings banks run by municipalities, as long as they pay 2½ per cent. and comply with the other requirements applicable to trustee savings banks, would be given the same facilities. Clearly, they ought to have them.
    Therefore, while supporting the Economic Secretary in his view about the Seamen's Savings Bank, I would ask him why he has gone back on his word—[Interruption.] I think that would be the interpretation to be placed upon what has happened. [Interruption.] The matter is

    205
    to come up on the next Amendment? I see. We shall deal with it then. Perhaps the Economic Secretary will understand that he will he questioned further on this matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, in page 8, line 29, at the end to insert:
    (3) Where, on the application in that behalf of any savings bank maintained under a local Act, the Treasury are satisfied, having regard to the rules to be adopted by the bank, the conditions subject to which deposits are to be accepted by it or any department to be formed by it, and such other matters as the Treasury may require to be proposed in the application, that the deposits will, if the application is granted, sufficiently correspond with ordinary deposits in a trustee savings bank to justify a certificate under this section, the Treasury may certify the bank or department for the purposes of this section, and, while the certificate is in force,—

    (a) the interest payable on the deposits shall not exceed the rate of two and a half per cent. per annum, but the interest shall be treated for the purposes of this section as if it were such interest as is mentioned in subsection (1) of this section; and

    (b) the deposits shall be invested with the National Debt Commissioners, and sections twenty-five to thirty-eight of the Trustee Savings Ranks Act, 1954, shall apply in relation to the bank or department as they apply in relation to trustee savings banks, but subject to such modifications as the Treasury may by order provide, including, if the order so provides, a reduction of the rate which the Treasury may by order under subsection (2) of section twenty-seven of that Act fix as the rate of interest on receipts for the bank's or department's payments into the Fund for the Banks for Savings.

    An order under this subsection shall be made by statutory instrument, which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament, and may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order.
    (4) If the Treasury at any time cease to be satisfied that a certificate under the last foregoing subsection is justified they may revoke the certificate and give such directions as they think fit for the withdrawal by the bank or department of any money standing to its credit in the books of the National Debt Commissioners.
    As the Committee will remember, we had a considerable discussion, when the Bill was last in Committee, about the position of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. I should like, at the outset, because I do not want to relate too much recent history to the Committee and so delay the proceedings unnecessarily, to express my own absolutely unreserved apologies to hon. Members of the Com-
    206
    mittee if any words of mine then caused any misunderstanding. It was not intentional on my part. I should like to make that apology beyond any question at the very start of my remarks.
    3.45 p.m.
    My right hon. Friend has been in touch with Birmingham Members on both sides of the Committee. My right hon. Friend came to the conclusion that it would be unreasonable to insist on the formation of a trustee savings bank with the two essential criteria, if the concession could be fulfilled by a new department of the Birmingham Municipal Bank under a less rigid formula.
    The effect of the Amendment is as follows. In the first place, the extent of this concession is confined to any savings bank maintained under a local Act. The Birmingham Municipal Bank is at present the only such bank in being, having been formed under the Birmingham Corporation Act, 1919. It is true that other local authorities have similar powers, but although they have similar powers, those powers have not so far been used. Secondly, the Treasury must certify the applicant. The criterion for the certificate, if the concession is applied, is that the deposits sufficiently correspond to the ordinary deposits in a trustee savings bank to justify such treatment.
    Any new department of the municipal bank formed for the purpose would function like the ordinary department of a trustee savings bank, but would operate under its own rules and under the terms of the corporation's local powers. Under the Birmingham Act the regulations governing the conduct of the bank require the approval of the Treasury, and the same arrangement would apply to any new department formed for this purpose. While the certificate is in force the interest payable to the depositors of the new department shall not exceed 2½ per cent. and the money lent with the department by the depositors must be invested with the National Debt Commissioners. In return, depositors draw the Income Tax concession.
    The Amendment does not provide, and, indeed, is not intended to provide for the National Debt Commissioners to accept the book value of the securities held at present by the bank and by the corpora-

    207
    tion. It enables the National Debt Commissioners to take new deposits into the Fund for the Banks for Saving and to pay interest on them. This is done by applying Sections 25 to 38 of the Trustee Savings Banks Act, 1954. The Treasury can modify the detailed application of those provisions by Order, and, in particular—and this is the point—the Treasury can fix the rate of interest payable by the Commissioners lower than the rate paid to the trustee savings banks. The rate is at present £2 17s. 6d. per cent. That is the rate applicable to both high cost and low cost banks—if I may so put it—but the latter have the liability to contribute to the Mutual Assistance Scheme, from which the former are helped.
    The only criticism which may arise of the Amendment is that the Amendment does not provide for the acceptance by the National Debt Commissioners of securities at book value in lieu of cash. The Birmingham Municipal Bank, or the corporation on its behalf, has a portfolio of securities many of which are standing at lower than book value. I quite understand that what the Birmingham Municipal Bank has in mind is that if depositors in the bank transfer to the new department the bank or the corporation may have to realise those securities at a loss to provide cash to transfer in accordance with the Amendment to the National Debt Commissioners.
    Of course, this is not the only possible course of action. For example, the corporation might be called upon to repay part of its loan to the bank and might borrow to do so. We have considered this very carefully indeed. The most the Commissioners would do would be to accept Government securities in lieu of cash at the prices ruling on the day in question. My right hon. Friend has looked into this very carefully indeed, but to go further than this would be unacceptable in view of the essential point that the Exchequer must be protected against direct or indirect loss.
    I recognise that this is a point on which there is some difference of opinion and that is why I wanted to explain it as fairly as I could to the Committee. I hope that with that explanation, the Committee will feel that my right hon. Friend has found a reasonable solution to this
    208
    problem of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. We recognise that a special position arises here, because there is not a trustee savings bank in Birmingham, because of the local Act, and because of the long and honourable history of the Birmingham Municipal Bank. I can assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend has done his very best to find a solution which will suit the great municipality of Birmingham and will safeguard the interests of the Treasury. This is the solution he proposes and I commend it to the Committee.
    Mr. Roy Jenkins: The Economic Secretary is, of course, right in saying that there has been a great deal of negotiation on this matter since the earlier proceedings in Committee on the Bill. It is true, as he hinted, that we encountered difficulties in the course of these negotiations which, at first, we certainly had not anticipated. He was good enough to say to the Committee just now that if any words of his had led to a misunderstanding he wished to apologise, but he need not go too far in offering a personal apology, because I can assure him that the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer went just as far as his own words and, if anything, a little further. Therefore, there is no feeling among Birmingham Members on this side of the Committee that the hon. Gentleman is personally responsible for any of the difficulties into which we ran.
    We understood that provided the two principles—the 2½ per cent. fixed rate of interest and the payment of all moneys to the National Debt Commissioners could be accepted—there would be no difficulty, subject to negotiations, in allowing a special department of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, which would not be a trustee savings bank in name, to have the benefit of the Income Tax concession. There have been difficulties in negotiations about that, and there have been a great number of deputations and visits to London. Even though, perhaps unfortunately, those had to take place, we are glad indeed that they have led to some result and, without question, we accept the Amendment as it stands.
    Do not let us think, however, that the Amendment is being too generous. As the Economic Secretary also pointed out,

    209
    it is being fairly sparing in the margins of rate of interest which it allows. In other words, the Birmingham Municipal Bank is not to receive from the National Debt Commissioners the full average rate of interest paid to the ordinary departments of trustee savings banks on the assumption that it would be a lower-cost bank.
    There is also the rather more important question of the securities which are to be taken over. This, as the Economic Secretary and the Chancellor know, is a point which is causing very genuine concern to those associated with the Birmingham Municipal Bank at present. The position is that nobody can tell exactly how much money will be transferred from the general Municipal Bank accounts to the new special department. The total deposits at the bank are about £88 million and some proportion of that—no doubt not a purely negligible proportion—will be transferred to the new department. There will then be an immediate obligation upon the bank to transfer to the National Debt Commissioners cash to the extent of that transfer of deposits.
    There is no difficulty and no dispute as to the future. As new money is paid into the special department, so it will automatically be paid over to the National Debt Commissioners. The problem is purely that of the transition period, because to realise this cash the bank will have to obtain money from some source or other, with the gilt-edged market in its present state, for which the Birmingham Municipal Bank certainly could not be held responsible.
    In the investment policy which the bank has pursued over a number of years in close association with Treasury advice, there might have been marginal dispute as to what type of security might have been invested in on a particular date, but I do not think that there has been any broad dispute between the Chancellor's advisers and the bank as to its investment policy. Indeed, since the outbreak of the war, its investment policy, to meet the wishes of the Treasury, has been very different from that which the bank would have pursued if it had been left to itself and had been unconcerned with special national needs.
    As a result of this policy, at any rate, the bank is in a position where it is worried about its liquidity ratio, and I
    210
    think that the Treasury agrees about this. The bank would like to be rather more liquid that it is at present, but the position in which the present arrangement is putting the bank will militate against its placing itself in a more liquid position, because if it has to dispose of securities the loss which it will incur will be greater if it disposes of long-term securities than if it disposes of short-term securities. This is a genuine dilemma for the bank at present.
    The Economic Secretary might say that it might be possible for the corporation to pay back some money to the bank and itself borrow to do so. The bank has not been lending to the corporation for a considerable number of years, and the money which the bank has advanced to the corporation is, to a very large extent, represented by Government securities on that specific account held by the corporation itself. Therefore, there is not so much room for manoeuvre here. But if it were to be done, the corporation would have to borrow at a heavy rate of interest at present and, therefore, there would be possibly an additional liability upon the ratepayers of Birmingham.
    There is very serious concern, therefore, about this matter of taking over securities. The Economic Secretary said that the Amendment did not make a provision for the taking over of securities at cost or book value. I think that the position is a little worse. The Amendment makes specific provision for the fact that they cannot be taken over. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman can confirm that I am right in thinking that. The hon. Gentleman appears to be indicating assent. My hon. Friends greatly regret that. It makes the position of the bank unnecessarily difficult and may, if met by the solution which the Economic Secretary proposes, impose an unwarranted burden on the ratepayers. We are glad that the hon. Gentleman has gone some distance and, on this question of the taking over of securities, I hope that the Treasury will do everything in its power to recognise the short-term transitional difficulties which it may make for the bank and to ease that as far as lies in its power.
    Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: I thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary for his speech and thank him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer for

    211
    making this concession. The Birmingham Municipal Bank is unique. It was founded by the late Mr. Neville Chamberlain and was one of the chief of his social reform projects in his career as Lord Mayor and leader of Birmingham City Council. It has a quite special place in Birmingham, and it attracts to the service of thrift all the civic pride and enthusiasm of the local people. Everybody who knows Birmingham knows that that is true.
    4.0 p.m.
    Owing to the fact that it has, so to speak, scooped the pool of thrift in the Birmingham area—there is not even a trustee savings bank there—unless some provision were made the concession which the Chancellor has made to small savings generally could not have been applied to Birmingham without new and special arrangements that would have cut across the whole of the thrift arrangements in Birmingham. But although that is the case, and, therefore, the case for a concession is strong, we have to face the fact that to the mind of the administrator an exception is an abhorrent thing. Administrators do not like to make exceptions, and we must admit, in fairness, that to a large extent they may be correct, because it is difficult to make exceptions.
    I am not at all sure that this concession would ever have been made if we had not been a parliamentary country, because both the hon. Gentleman the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) and the Economic Secretary stressed the fact that not only have the Chancellor and the Economic Secretary come into this matter, but, also, all the Birmingham Members on both sides of the Committee have come into it. This is a concession for which we are extremely grateful to the Chancellor and to my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Cyril Bence: It has been pleasant to listen to the thanks expressed by Birmingham Members for the concession made to the Birmingham Municipal Bank. In my constituency too we have a municipal bank, which was established in the ancient burgh of Kirkintilloch in 1920. This burgh seems to get a rough time at the hands of the Chancellor. Our municipal bank hands over to the local authority between £150,000 and £190,000
    212
    every year at an interest of about 3½ per cent. from the savings of the citizens of Kirkintilloch.
    Now, as I understand it, Birmingham is satisfied if money is hived off to the National Debt Commissioners. Our municipal bank hives off all its funds to the local authority, and the interest given by the local authority is much lower than would be the case if it had to go on to the open market. Furthermore, this money represents the thrift of the Scottish people, especially of the people of Kirkintilloch, where there are no public houses. This is important, because it represents money which does not go into the breweries but into the local savings bank. That fact should be realised by all interested in saving.
    That investment in the local authority is non-inflationary because it is taken out of the purchasing power of the people, whereas, if that money flowed to the National Debt Commissioners, the local authority would go on to the market and its borrowing would probably be inflationary because it would be met by new money created by the banks.
    We were hoping that this concession to the Birmingham Municipal Bank would spread to Kirkintilloch. Indeed, I am surprised that the Birmingham Municipal Bank should be given this great opportunity to enjoy legislation passed by this House for itself alone, and my constituents in Kirkintilloch will be annoyed that the industrial city of Birmingham should enjoy this concession while the ancient burgh of Kirkintilloch is ignored. In the course of its history, our municipal bank lent £87,000 to the National Debt Commissioners but, being good local patriots with civic pride, now the money goes to the local authority, which is the right thing to do.
    I understand that in order to have this concession extended to the Kirkintilloch Municipal Bank we would have to introduce a Private Bill. If that is the case, no wonder people advocate a Parliament in Scotland, because it is difficult for us to get any of these concessions for our thrifty people. It may well be that when people have a natural tendency to thrift there is no need to give them incentives, but if we have to legislate for incentives for those who are not thrifty by nature, they may get an advantage over the

    213
    naturally thrifty people. It is a serious state of affairs when we in Kirkintilloch have to suffer from this attitude of the Government, and I am shocked to think that to enable the investors in the Kirkintilloch Municipal Bank to get this concession of freedom from Income Tax it would be necessary to promote a Private Bill——
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Rhys Hopkin Morris): If I understand the speech of the hon. Member, he is now providing his own answer that it does not come within the scope of the Amendment.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: On a point of order, Sir Rhys. Surely it is in order to argue about the words in the Amendment, "savings bank maintained under a local Act", which is what I understand my hon. Friend is arguing.
    The Deputy-Chairman: If I had understood the hon. Member in that sense, I would not have intervened.
    Mr. Bence: My hon. Friend has correctly interpreted the impression I meant to give, Sir Rhys. I thought that was what I was doing, but I appreciate that I might not have been doing it as clearly as has my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis).
    There are several such municipal banks in Scotland which have quite as long a history as that of the Birmingham Municipal Bank, and so I hope that wider consideration will be given to other municipal banks throughout the country. I am pleading especially for the one in the small burgh of Kirkintilloch, which is self-contained. I am afraid that it would be impracticable for that bank to hive off a certain amount to the National Debt Commissioners because it has become a part of the local authority, which relies on it to finance its activities.
    I do not know whether we shall be introducing a Private Bill, but I hope that the Chancellor will give this matter further consideration between now and the next Budget in order to see what can be done to safeguard the municipal banks which have a long tradition of saving. This one has been established for 36 years. As a result of the proposals of the Chancellor, there may be a considerable outflow from the municipal banks as a result of the tax concession made on the initial interest rates from savings.
    Mr. W. E. Wheeldon: I want to intervene briefly principally to neutralise some of the atmosphere of generosity and gratitude that has been conveyed this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd). In these days we hardly regard the right hon. Gentleman as a Birmingham Member, but we recognise his interest in the city and understand the work he has done, along with his colleagues, in connection with the Municipal Bank.
    Mr. G. Lloyd: I hope the hon. Gentleman will remember that I represent the Erdington Ward of the City of Birmingham.
    Mr. Wheeldon: That is so and Birmingham was generous enough to turn one of the wards into the division of Sutton Coldfield in order to make the position of the right hon. Gentleman quite safe.
    On a previous stage of this Bill, we heard what we thought was a clear and unambiguous statement from the Chancellor as well as from the Economic Secretary. It was with surprise that we later heard there was some confusion about the position. I am sure that there was no duplicity on the part of the Economic Secretary and that it was a misunderstanding which we, and of course he, regret.
    We must not get into our minds the idea that Birmingham and Birmingham's Municipal Bank will accept the Clause with open arms. It will be accepted with very mixed feelings. We are speaking about an institution unique in the country, which has done tremendously good work for Birmingham and for the country generally. The local people will not relish an Amendment at this stage which will merely restrict the bank, and they will accept it very reluctantly.
    The Clause seems to put almost complete control into the hands of the Chancellor and the Treasury. They can tell Birmingham that unless it accepts this, that or the other, it shall not have the advantages which are bestowed on the Post Office and trustee savings banks. That is particularly so in regard to the point mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), investments. For a number of years I

    215
    have been chairman of the Birmingham finance committee, and I know very well the difficulties that we have had to meet. Whatever may be said about the decision. I am sure hon. Members will agree that it was the duty of the city's traders and finance committee to do the best they could for the city, which they certainly did, and it is no fault of theirs that the realisation of investments today would mean a considerable loss to the city. It is hard that Birmingham should be penalised because the Treasury now says that it will not accept these securities.
    I think the Birmingham Municipal Bank and the Birmingham City Council will give the matter very careful consideration. They may ultimately decide to come within the terms of this Measure. I am sure they will do so with considerable reluctance and will regard it as unfortunate that the Chancellor was not able, in the first instance in the Bill, to provide proper conditions whereby Birmingham could enjoy the favourable conditions which are at the moment bestowed upon the Post Office and trustee savings banks only.
    Mr. Donald Chapman: I should not have intervened but for the remarkable speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd), which implied that there had been a great Birmingham council of war, with him as the flag bearer at its head, and that a concession had been extorted from the Government as a result of such great activity.
    I do not want to be ungenerous. I acknowledge that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have given some help. Nor do I particularly want to claim a proprietorial interest in the solution, about which my colleagues were rather angry when I suggested it in the first place. At the same time, it must be said that the greatest credit in the matter goes primarily to my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins). He has worked very hard indeed, and has been in almost continuous attendance at the Treasury. I should not like it to be thought from the speech of the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield that this solution has been the result of a terrific all-party effort. What has happened has come about because of the very lively
    216
    Labour group of hon. Members from Birmingham.
    The Economic Secretary has been very helpful all the way through, but I still think that if there is any possibility of negotiations on the basis of taking over the assets at their book values, every effort should be made to find a solution to the problem. I put this specific point to the hon. Gentleman during the Committee stage. Although he did not commit himself in reply, the general atmosphere of his reply—he rose in a friendly way and said that it was a fair point—gave my hon. Friends and myself the impression that the problem would be worked out in the way that I have suggested.
    4.15 p.m.
    I would say to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, in all friendliness, that, instead of the general felicitations which he was handing out to his own side, he should pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford. I would say to the Economic Secretary that I still think he owes it to the City of Birmingham, because of the misunderstandings which have occurred, to try to be even more helpful than he has already been.
    Mr. Bottomley: The Economic Secretary is always polite and considerate, and, like my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), I at once relieve him of any accusation of wilfully misleading the Committee, but, whereas he has gone some way to meet the point raised by my hon. Friends who represent Birmingham constituencies—not altogether satisfactorily, I would add—I join other hon. Members in saying that I doubt whether anything at all would have been achieved had it not been for the efforts of the group of Birmingham Labour Members led by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford.
    I ask the Economic Secretary to recognise that those who raise the position of savings banks at Kirkintilloch, Clydebank, Airdrie, Motherwell, Walthamstow and Barnsley have no reason at all to be satisfied, because the Economic Secretary said that what applied to the Birmingham Municipal Bank could equally apply to these other banks.
    Sir E. Boyle: No, Sir Rhys. The extension of the concession is confined to savings banks maintained under local Acts. Other local authorities with

    217
    similar powers which are not used are Cardiff and Birkenhead. The banks in Scotland to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred were formed under the Companies Act and would not be concerned with the Amendment at all.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am sure the Economic Secretary will not mind if I refer him to what he said on 7th June. His words were:
    "The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins), to which, on behalf of my right hon. Friend, I agreed, could equally well have been accepted from the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th June, 1956; Vol. 553, c. 1385–6.)
    The suggestion that I made was that these banks should have been put in the same category as the Birmingham Municipal Bank, but I will not pursue the matter now.
    I would only make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman. He did a very good job for local government in creating municipal enterprise and encouraging local authorities to take a more active part. I ask him to continue that good work. There are only a few of these banks. Is it not possible somehow to enable such civic pride to be developed?
    The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd) referred to the civic pride in Birmingham and rightly claimed that a former prominent Conservative politician was responsible for the Birmingham Municipal Bank. It was, however, equally the Conservative Party which prevented any other bank developing, except the ones which have been mentioned, and they had to come into being by a different method. Although they did not come about as the result of a local Act, they are savings banks conducted by municipal enterprise, and I hope that even now the Chancellor will somehow find a way to recognise another aspect of municipal enterprise.
    The Deputy-Chairman: The Question is——
    Mr. Willis: Are we not to hear from the Economic Secretary why it has been found impossible to include other municipal banks? It is unsatisfactory that something should be given to the Birmingham Municipal Bank, but not to other municipal banks. Why could it not be done? What are the difficulties standing in the way? The banks are in practically
    218
    the same position, and are performing the same functions. Why could it not be extended?
    Sir E. Boyle: Perhaps I may explain to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that any bank such as that which the right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) mentioned which forms a special department as a trustee savings bank could take advantage of this Clause.
    As I said during the earlier Committee proceedings, the point of this Amendment is that it is confined to the cases of those savings banks maintained under local Acts, and that the Kirkintilloch and the other Scottish banks are in quite a different position, having been formed under the Companies Acts. Provided that they were ready to form a special investment department as a trustee savings bank, all these could get the benefit of this Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 8, line 37, at end insert
    "and 'seamen's savings bank' means a bank maintained under section one hundred and forty-eight of the Merchant Shipping Act. 1894".—[Sir E. Boyle.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. F. Beswick: The complicated Amendments which we have just discussed illustrate the difficulties in which the Government find themselves once they start discriminating as between one kind of small savings and another. It seems to me that is a bad thing to do. Small savings of all kinds ought to be encouraged in this country at present, and we greatly regret that another Amendment which was put down at an earlier stage of the Bill was not accepted, and was not even considered, as we thought, by the Government.
    In this Clause, we are accepting a new principle. It is that small savings that go directly to the Government are a good thing, and that small savings that do not go directly to the Government, or which may go to them indirectly or may indeed go to other good, useful and constructive purposes, are less good. That is the new state of affairs into which the Government have landed themselves, and I think

    219
    it is a bad state of affairs. The Government should encourage thrift as a whole, and not only thrift for one particular purpose.
    As a result of the Clause, the Government will discourage and offend institutions and people who have for many years encouraged and developed the idea of thrift among both young people and older people. I see that the Economic Secretary is smiling at the suggestion that the Government should encourage thrift. I was brought up to believe that thrift was a good thing. I always remember investing my first two or three pennies in a co-operative penny bank, and I still remember the legend over the doorway, "Take care of the pence, and the pounds will take care of themselves." That is an admirable thrift institution, but one against which the Government are now discriminating through this Clause, and I feel that in passing it we ought to register a protest.
    No one regrets the fact that a method has been found by which the Birmingham Municipal Savings Bank can be encouraged, but we should like the concession to go much further. In the long run, I believe that the Government will be doing a disservice both to themselves and the country in making this differentiation between one type of small savings and another.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 10.—(OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS.)
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Henry Brooke): I beg to move, in page 9, line 3, after "assessment", to insert:
    "(and the emoluments are not excepted as foreign emoluments)."
    Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time the next two Amendments on the Notice Paper, in lines 6 and 18. There is also a consequential Amendment to the Second Schedule, in page 54, line 49, to insert a new paragraph (3).
    These Amendments give effect to a statement which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made during the earlier Committee stage about the taxation of people working in this coun-
    220
    try for overseas concerns. He said that he would bring forward on Report Amendments which would have the general effect of restoring the existing position for persons domiciled overseas who work in the United Kingdom for overseas employers. Such persons who have hitherto been liable on what has been called the remittance basis will continue to be liable on that basis and not on their full pay.
    These Amendments are designed to give effect to that statement by excluding from Cases I and II emoluments which are foreign emoluments, as defined in the third of the Amendments as—
    "emoluments of a person not domiciled in the United Kingdom from an office or employment under or with any person, body of persons or partnership resident outside, and not resident in, the United Kingdom."
    The effect will be that foreign emoluments will be chargeable only under Case III on the amount received in the United Kingdom. In order to qualify for this relief, the holder of the office or employment will have to show that he is not domiciled in the United Kingdom, and also that he holds his office or employment under this wording:
    "under or with any person, body of persons or partnership, resident outside, and not resident in, the United Kingdom."
    The Committee may hesitate at these curious words:
    "resident outside, and not resident in, the United Kingdom."
    They are designed to cover the possible case of an international body which, it might be contended, was not resident anywhere. At any rate, that is the purpose of the words—to put that matter beyond doubt.
    The method by which the Chancellor is proposing to the Committee that this change in the Bill should be carried out is simple, and probably requires no further explanation. His announcement when the Clause was originally discussed—it was then Clause 9—was generally welcomed on both sides of the Committee. There were questions asked as to the extent to which other countries gave similar treatment in their tax laws. That is an interesting question, but it is not really the vital question here. The vital question is what would be likely to happen if the Clause were left unamended. In order to draw a conclusion about that, one has to look primarily at the rates of

    221
    tax and the liability to tax that a person would suffer in this country if the Clause remained unamended, as compared with what he would suffer if he stayed elsewhere or went elsewhere.
    For example, we have to consider whether Americans would find the rates of British taxation so penal that they would be unwilling to come to work here, even though we might greatly need their technical services. We have to examine separate but similar types of case where people from overseas, who are now working in this country, might if we left the Clause unamended think very carefully whether they could not carry on the work they were doing on this side of the Atlantic just as well in Paris or Brussels as in London. If hon. Members will examine the relative tax liabilities which they would incur in France or Belgium, they will see at once that it is our exceedingly high rates of direct taxation which would have a profound effect on the probable decisions of such people.
    4.30 p.m.
    I recognise that in bringing forward these Amendments we are departing from the strict recommendations of the Royal Commission, but that was what my right hon. Friend said when we discussed the matter before. Expediency had to prevail over logic in this case. The Royal Commission sought to produce tidy and rounded recommendations, but this is a hard and practical world. The Committee have to examine what will happen if we keep the Royal Commission's recommendations intact in the Bill.
    It was not the business of the Royal Commission to inquire into the relative tax advantages which these people could get by staying away from this country or by moving across the Channel to the Continent. These are practical matters which any Government would have to take into consideration. Because we have come to the conclusion that it would be contrary to the national interest to enforce the full rigour of the law as defined in the original Clause, my right hon. Friend has decided to recommend the Committee to amend the Bill in this respect.
    Mr. Beswick: The Financial Secretary says that the Amendments follow the statement made by the Chancellor earlier in the Committee stage. It is unfortunate
    222
    that he has yielded so easily on this point. The Amendments do not follow any principle at all. Both the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor confess that the Amendments are based upon expediency, and are designed to get us, they feel, some advantage in the short run. My opinion is that they will place us at a disadvantage in the long run.
    If we go back to the position which existed before the Finance Bill was drafted, it is clear that there were people in this country, foreign citizens, who to a very large extent escaped taxation on their emoluments because of the difference between the tax laws of this country and the tax law in the country of origin of the companies for which they worked. It was possible so to arrange their affairs that they did not pay Income Tax on the greater part of their incomes.
    Apparently the Royal Commission agreed that that was wrong and that the position should he set right. The Financial Secretary says that the Royal Commission did not take into account certain consequential effects which the original Clause might have had, but surely the Chancellor and the Government ought to have taken account of any consequential effects that might have arisen when they agreed to the inclusion of the original Clause. Did they not consider the matter in its broader aspects before they agreed to the changes going into the original Bill? Are we to understand that they accepted the drafting without giving any thought to the changes or redispositions that might be made by foreign firms operating in this country?
    The same factors still exist and the position is not changed at all, save in one respect; that is, that the foreign firms have made their representations—and not the foreign firms always, but the foreign citizens resident in this country. They have suggested that they will take their businesses elsewhere unless changes are made. I have heard those representations described as "blackmail". Certainly, very strong pressure was exerted. I regret very much that the Government have yielded so easily. I admit that we are dealing only with individuals and not with companies and that the total amount involved is not very great compared with the concessions made in Section 39 of the Finance Act, 1947, which enabled foreign concerns to escape the full impact of

    223
    Profits Tax, Compared with that, the impact of the concession we are now discussing is very small.
    But the arrangements laid down in the Finance Act, 1947, were reciprocal. When I called the attention of the Financial Secretary to that Section 39 he said that the advantage which foreign concerns gained from the operations of their companies in this country had their counterpart in the reliefs given to United Kingdom companies operating in corresponding circumstances in the United States. His excuse was that it was a matter of reciprocity; but there is no reciprocity in the concession that we have now made.
    What thought are the Government giving to the possibility of getting reciprocity? Even if the financial results were not very great, dignity would, at any rate, be satisfied. There would be more possibility of our holding up our heads and saying that we did not always give in, particularly to pressure from the other side of the Atlantic. Many years ago in Sunday School I used to sing a hymn which contained this line:
    "Each victory will help you some other to win."
    We might change that and say: "Each concession compels us some other to yield." Every time we make another concession of this kind it puts us into a weaker position which compels us to make another concession later on.
    We might well ask ourselves if we are not much stronger than is sometimes indicated by the Government. We ought to say that it does not pay us in the long run to make these concessions so easily. In this case there is no question of unfairness to the individuals concerned. If they had been asked to pay at least the rate of tax which they would pay if the money had been earned in their own country, that would be reasonable. I could have understood it.
    Switzerland makes special ad hoc arrangements with foreign firms operating there. So far as I know, no attempt has been made by the Government to make similar arrangements in this country. The Government have quite simply and easily yielded to the pressure of these foreign residents and have said that whatever money is earned in this society—which is kept going in its social arrangements by our taxation system—taxation
    224
    will not be levied on it. It has been suggested that the individuals concerned may well have commitments in their home countries such as children to educate and dependants to keep, for which a part of their emoluments has to be sent to their own country.
    Suppose, however, that the children are not resident in that home country, but in this country. Suppose that in time of sickness these individuals avail themselves of our National Health Service, which is financed out of our taxation. Government supporters have criticised time after time the arrangements under which foreign residents can have the benefit of the National Health Service. They have said that it was a bad thing.
    But here we have a situation in which it may well be that individuals who earn their bread and butter here are not making their full contribution to our social services although they probably avail themselves of those services in time of need. This seems to be wrong in principle. When this proposal was first put forward I felt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a little uneasy about it. I do not believe that he was very enthusiastic about the concession. He seemed to recognise that a principle was involved, and I do not think that he really wanted to go back upon it, even though he has since put down these Amendments.
    Even now I hope that he will say either that money earned here must pay its full rate of tax, and that the double taxation provisions will apply anyhow, or, at any rate, that taxation shall be applied up to the level to which it would be paid at the rates existing in the country of origin of the foreign resident concerned. I should have thought that that would be a reasonable approach. No attempt has been made at a compromise, and I feel that we should vote against these Amendments.
    Mr. F. A. Burden: Most hon. Members probably welcome the Amendments which my right hon. Friend has put down. If the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) will give the matter a little careful thought, I think that he, too, will agree that in this instance the Chancellor has taken the wise and reasonable course.

    225
    We should all like to see persons who come here charged reasonable Income Tax and not given special concessions, but in this case the whole question is whether or not the action proposed originally would react to the detriment of our export trade. I move among many exporters, and many Americans and Canadians who are resident in this country, and I am quite sure that if the Clause had been adopted in its original form it would have reacted very detrimentally to our export trade. Many of those who come to operate here do so because of their special qualities. They are extremely highly paid and very highly qualified in their own countries. If the course originally proposed had been followed, the effect would have been to reduce their standard of living when they came here.
    Mr. Beswick: No.
    Mr. Burden: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment. These people are in a position to play a vitally important part in stimulating our export trade, as they do.
    Mr. Beswick: I wonder whether the buyers to whom the hon. Member is referring come here to buy our goods, which they feel are worth buying, or because they know they are going to get some tax concessions. Surely the prior consideration in these matters is the decision by the parent company as to the country in which it thinks it can best buy goods for its home market.
    Mr. Burden: But if they are extremely good buyers, and are told, "If you go to England the standard of living that you will enjoy there will be very much lower than it is here," those buyers will put up the utmost resistance to coming here.
    Mr. Beswick indicated dissent.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Burden: I assure the hon. Member that that is so. They play an absolutely vital part in our export drive. They can assist very considerably in styling British merchandise for the American market. They know their home trade; they have served in it and have bought for it, and because they know their markets so well they know what sort of styling is required.
    226
    I can give the hon. Member an example of this, which came to my notice this morning. A certain British buying organisation, which had no American stylist, sent a large order of British men's pyjamas to America. They stuck in the stores there. A representative went over and investigated the matter. The reason for their unsaleability was a very simple one. The pyjamas did not sell because the Americans hang their pyjamas up, whereas in this country it is usual for pyjamas to be put under the pillow. The pyjamas that were sent out there had no tabs by which they could be hung up. Tabs were put on in future shipments and American sales went ahead. That is an instance of the sort of thing upon which American buyers can give advice and guidance.
    The hon. Member for Uxbridge smiles, but it is a simple point, and absolutely vital in merchandising. These men have the "know-how ". They come here to find goods to sell in America. They are here searching the British market the whole time. They assist British manufacturers who may produce very high quality merchandise but work upon a small scale in small factories and so cannot afford to send representatives to the United States. It is the job of these American buyers to find and assist those firms in the matter of styling and packaging, and to ensure that prompt deliveries are maintained.
    These people stimulate old sources of supply and create new ones. They are vital to our export trade. It is imperative that they should come here, and also that we should attract more of them. If the Clause had been passed as originally drafted, I believe that there would have been a resistance on the part of those people to coming here. Instead, many would have gone to the Continent, where they would have set up their buying organisations and sought out sources of supply in respect of goods which they can and do find in this country now They prefer to come here because difficulties of language which they experience on the Continent do not exist here.
    Already many organisations are being set up on the Continent to compete with us in the sale of these goods, and if we allow this process to continue we shall suffer very considerably in the long run.
    Mr. Edward Evans: Does the hon. Member agree that these men are being subsidised by our taxpayers? Should not their emoluments be provided by their own organisations?
    Mr. Burden: The hon. Member says that they are being subsidised, but that is not so. They are being paid by overseas companies and are paying full tax upon that part of their salaries which they bring and use here. A very important point to bear in mind—which I am sure my right hon. Friend has taken into consideration in putting forward these Amendments—is that because many of these men are under contract to overseas concerns they pay very considerable sums towards pension schemes at the source of their incomes, which is in the United States. If the Clause had gone through in its original form, undoubtedly those men would have had to cut their pension schemes considerably, unless the American concerns had agreed to boost up their payment to compensate for that which they would have lost as a result of taxation. I am of the opinion that in many cases such a course would have been resisted by the American firms.
    There is one point upon which I should like guidance from my right hon. Friend. It concerns the case of Englishmen—I have one particular case in mind, and there are others—who went to America and joined American companies with every intention of living in America. Then, because of their knowledge—having lived in the States for some time and become domiciled there—they return to this country to operate from the London office of their firm but with an American or a Canadian contract. I wish to know whether, under the Bill as it is amended, the incomes of such people will be treated as of old; that is, that they will pay tax only on that part of their income which they bring into this country; and whether, to all intents and purposes, otherwise they will be in the position of the Americans who come here.
    The reason such men come back to this country is because of their knowledge. I believe that the concession should apply to them because, with their British background and American experience, their influence as executive heads is vital in the case of American, Canadian and other overseas buying agencies such as I have indicated. I should be grateful if
    228
    my right hon. Friend would clarify that point for me, and I hope that the concession will apply to such men.
    I consider the decision taken today by my right hon. Friend an extremely wise one, though from the point of view of taxation it appears to be a generous course to adopt. The amount which he would receive by way of taxation would probably be about half a million. But the amount we should lose in exports, and the reduced possibility of new American companies coming to this country, would be very much more. It is the case now that new American companies coming to this country have to retain their highly trained executives here for an initial period of perhaps four years until they have taught our people the know-how. I believe it vital to the future of the export trade of this country that these people be encouraged to come here; and at the cost of the pittance which we might otherwise gain in taxes I think this a step well worth while. I appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge, and emotionally one is in full sympathy with him. But here it is a case of practical business, and that is what must sway us.
    Mr. Douglas Jay: The trouble about the attitude of the Government to this problem is that they skip light-heartedly—or perhaps one should say light-headedly—from one extreme to another without, so far as we can see, making any attempt to find a reasonably practical compromise. We are now discussing how we should tax that part of the income earned here, by someone working and resident in this country, but domiciled elsewhere, which is not remitted to this country.
    Before the Chancellor rushed in with Clause 9 of this Bill as it was previously, it was only the part of the income remitted here which came under the weight of British taxation. That was criticised by the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income; and then, presumably after fully considering all these matters which the Financial Secretary has mentioned and the economic consequences, the Chancellor adopted the whole of the Commission's proposals, marched bravely up the hill and presented the proposals in that form to the Committee.

    229
    At the time I ventured to say that I thought there was something in the argument now advanced by the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden), that if we had gone to that logical extreme it might have had certain undesirable consequences. The Chancellor, having embraced logic up to that point, told us that he thought expediency had to be taken into account as well. We suggested that it might be possible to find a compromise between the extremes of logic and expediency. I said that we could not see why all these foreign nationals living in this country should pay no tax at all in either country on that part of their income earned here which was not remitted here. That is what the position will be, if the present proposal of the Chancellor is accepted.
    I do not see, and I do not think the Government have explained, why it is not possible to find a suitable compromise. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Beswick) suggested that it might be practicable to tax, on that part of the income not remitted here, such a sum as would have been due in taxation had it been normally subject to tax in the other country. Alternatively, I suppose we might take a certain proportion of the untaxed income and subject it to British taxation. Or again, my hon. Friend says that in Switzerland, to take one example, it has been found possible to make ad hoc arrangements for each taxpayer. I am not saying which compromise would be possible, but I had hoped that the Chancellor, having given more consideration than we can to these and other ideas, would find it possible to discover a resting point between these two extremes.
    However, the Chancellor has not done that. He has rushed back to the other extreme and surrendered unconditionally at the first sight of the enemy or, rather, at the first sight of the hon. and learned Member for Northwich (Mr. J. Foster), who originally raised the banner of revolt. Having run right round the course on the grounds of logic, we are not satisfied that it is necessary to run the whole way back on the grounds of expediency. If logic had such force that the Chancellor, having thought over the whole matter, was prepared originally to put this Clause in 100 per cent. form in this Bill, logic must have some force, even though weighted against expediency. We do not feel that the case has been made out for
    230
    this unconditional surrender by what the Financial Secretary said.
    Although the Chancellor has made one of his rare appearances in the Committee, he has not had the face to get up and advance this unconvincing case himself. We remain far from satisfied by what has been said so far by the Financial Secretary.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: I wish to applaud the Chancellor for having taken this step but to repudiate completely the suggestion that it is taken solely on the grounds of expediency. That deals with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay).
    I do not think one could do better than read an extract from The Times leader of Tuesday, 5th June:
    "If general salary levels were the same in all countries, it would be fair."
    That is, the proposal as it was before the Amendment today.
    "But is the British tax scale appropriate to the whole pay of Americans working for American firms in this country? They have always been taxed on the British scale on the portion of their pay which is remitted to—and, therefore, presumably spent in—this country. That is just. But most have continuing responsibilities—for family expenses, education, life assurance and pension funds—which are payable in their own countries and remain related to the dollar economy with its higher pitched scale of taxable incomes. These responsibilities are normally covered by the portions of their pay left in America. It is hardly just that these amounts should be brought into income taxed on the United Kingdom scale, which is designed for lower levels of income and expenditure."
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Beswick: I appreciate that point. What I cannot appreciate is how the other American citizens who also have family responsibilities, insurance, education, health and other responsibilities, manage to get along while paying tax at the American rate.
    Mr. Bennett: It is not for the Committee to decide the scale of tax applicable within the United States. It is not fair to impose our scale of tax, which is related to our sort of economy, on the American economy with the responsibilities that go with it. That is the point I am making.
    It would be a pity if we accepted that this Amendment was put forward only on the grounds of expediency. It is thoroughly justified on grounds of principle as well.

    231
    I cannot see either why the Chancellor should be accused of going from one extreme to the other, considering that all he has done in this respect is to revert to the law as it was. That position seemed to be quite satisfactory to right hon. And
    hon. Gentlemen opposite during the six years of their tenure of office.
    Question put, That those words be there inserted:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 256, Noes 204.

    Division No. 256.]

    AYES

    [5.2 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G

    Foster, John

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Freeth, D. K.

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

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Alport, C. J. M.

    George, J. C. (Pollok)

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Longden, Gilbert

    Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)

    Glover, D.

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Godber, J. B.

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Armstrong, C. W.

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    McAdden, S. J.

    Ashton, H

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Gower, H. R.

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Atkins, H. E.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Baldwin, A. E.

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

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Balniel, Lord

    Green, A.

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Barber, Anthony

    Grimond, J.

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Barter, John

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Maddan, Martin

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Hall, John (Wycombe)

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Marshall, Douglas

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mathew, R.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Hay, John

    Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.

    Mawby, R. L.

    Black, C. W.

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

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

    Body, R. F.

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

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

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

    Braine, B. R.

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Brooman-White, R. C.

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Holt, A. F.

    Nicholls, Harmar

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

    Hornby, R. P.

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

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

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Channon, H.

    Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

    Oakshott, H. D.

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Howard, John (Test)

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Cole, Norman

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Page, R. G.

    Cooper, Sqn. Ldr. Albert

    Hurd, A. R.

    Partridge, E.

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

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

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Pilkington, Capt. R. A.

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Pitman,

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Hylton-Foster, Sir H. B. H.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Pott, H. P.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Cunningham, Knox

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

    Profumo, J. D.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Davies, Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Redmayne, M.

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Deedes, W. F.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Keegan, D.

    Renton, D. L. M.

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Ridsdale, J. E

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Kerr, H. W.

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Drayson, G. B.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Robertson, Sir David

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Kimball, M.

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Lagden, G. W.

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Duthie, W. S.

    Lambert, Hon. G.

    Russell, R. S.

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Warwick & L'm'tn)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Sharples, R. C.

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Leavey, J. A.

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

    Finlay, Graeme

    Leburn, W. G.

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Fisher, Nigel

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

    Soames, Capt. C.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Fort, R.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Speir, R. M.

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

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

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

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

    Stewart, Henderson (Fife, E.)

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Wills, C. (Bridgwater)

    Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Wood, Hon. R.

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Vosper, D. F.

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Teeling, W.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Mr. Legh and Mr. Bryan.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

    Albu, A. H.

    Hale, Leslie

    Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Hannan, W.

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Anderson, Frank

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Parker, J.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Hastings, S.

    Parkin, B. T.

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Hayman, F. H.

    Pearson, A.

    Baird, J.

    Healey, Denis

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Balfour, A.

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

    Popplewell, E.

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

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

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

    Hobson, C. R.

    Probert, A. R.

    Benson, G.

    Holman, P.

    Proctor, W. T.

    Beswick, F.

    Holmes, Horace

    Pryde, D. J.

    Blackburn, F.

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

    Randall, H. E.

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Hoy, J. H.

    Rankin, John

    Boardman, H.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Redhead, E. C.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Reid William

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

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Robens, Rt. Hon. A.

    Bowles, F. G.

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Boyd, T. C.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Brockway, A. F.

    Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Janner, B.

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Burke, W. A.

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

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Burton, Miss F. E.

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

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

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Champion, A. J.

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

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Chapman, W. D.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)

    Steele, T.

    Clunie, J.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Coldrick, W.

    Kenyon, C.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Swingler, S. T.

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Lawson, G. M.

    Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

    Cove, W. G.

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Thomas, George, (Cardiff)

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

    Cronin, J. D.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Thornton, E.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Logan, D. G.

    Timmons, J.

    Daines, P.

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Tomney, F.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    MacColl, J. E.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    McInnes, J.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Warbey, W. N.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Weitzman, D.

    Deer, G.

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Mahon, Simon

    West, D. G.

    Delargy, H. J.

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

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Donnelly, D. L.

    Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

    Wilkins, W. A.

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

    Mayhew, C. P.

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Dye, S.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Messer, Sir F.

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

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

    Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)

    Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

    Moody, A. S.

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

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

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    Fernyhough, E.

    Mort, D. L.

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Fletcher, Eric

    Moss, R.

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

    Forman, J. C.

    Mulley, F. W.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

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

    Oliver, G. H.

    Zilliacus, K.

    Gibson, G. W.

    Oram, A. E.

    Gooch, E. G.

    Orbach, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

    Oswald, T.

    Mr. J. Taylor and

    Greenwood, Anthony

    Owen, W. J.

    Mr. G. H. R. Rogers.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Padley, W. E.

    Grey, C. F.

    Paget, R. T.

    Further Amendment made: In page 9, line 6, at end insert:
    "(and the emoluments are not excepted as foreign emoluments)".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Amendment proposed: In page 9, line 18, at end insert:
    Subject to that Schedule, the emoluments excepted from Cases I and II as foreign emoluments are emoluments of a person not domiciled in the United Kingdom from an office or employment under or with any person, body of persons or partnership resident outside, and not resident in, the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Mr. Geoffrey Stevens: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after "domiciled", to insert:
    "or if domiciled not ordinarily resident".
    I understand that with your permission, Sir Charles, we can discuss this Amendment and the next Amendment to the proposed Amendment, at the end to add:
    "or under or with a permanent overseas establishment of a company resident in the United Kingdom".
    I heard my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary point out earlier this afternoon that his Amendments to Clause 10 are designed to leave the position of foreign nationals resident in this country as it is at present, namely, that their income shall be taxed upon a remittance basis and not on an earnings basis. I support my right hon. Friend in that, but I feel that the way in which he has seen fit to give effect to that very desirable object has led to a number of anomalies.
    Whereas I think the effect of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend will be to leave the income of foreign nationals resident in this country taxable on their remittances and not on their earnings, as the Clause is drawn we shall have British subjects domiciled abroad but resident in this country—persons of British domicile resident in this country—taxed on their earnings instead of on the remittance basis.
    That seems to be absolutely wrong. To claim the full benefit of the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend, a person must have a foreign domicile and be employed by an organisation which is not managed or controlled in the United Kingdom. It is true that a number of foreign employees come to this country and, although the organisation is not resident in the United Kingdom, they have British domicile. It seems quite wrong
    236
    that those persons of British domicile should be charged on the earnings basis and not on the remittance basis.
    Furthermore, there is the type of case of the British employee resident overseas, employed with a British company which may be operating overseas, who may be brought here to the head office of the company for a year's training. He will not be so well off as an American living in this country who is a foreign domiciled person. Those British trainees who come to this country for a year will be assessed for tax, not on the remittances paid by an overseas subsidiary of the United Kingdom company, but on their earnings.
    5.15 p.m.
    The second Amendment in my name seeks to ensure that, to get the full benefit of the Clause as redrawn, the person must be an employee of a subsidiary company formed overseas, but a subsidiary of a United Kingdom company. There are a large number of United Kingdom companies operating very widely overseas, not through subsidiary companies established overseas, but through branch offices. The branch office has no legal entity of its own and, therefore, a person employed by that branch office is treated for tax purposes as though he were employed by the head office. He is employed by an organisation which is ordinarily resident in this country and not resident overseas.
    I commend both Amendments to the attention of my right hon. Friend. They represent genuine attempts to clear up what seem very serious anomalies.
    Mr. F. M. Bennett: I wish to support my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) and to give an illustration so that my right hon. Friend may see the force of what we are saying. At present, there are banks in this country with branches overseas where British personnel are employed for many years at a time, but they remain domiciled in this country although their work, their life and their families are abroad and they have to face the higher costs of the economy abroad. A young man leaving his family abroad comes here for a period of leave, a period of training, or of attachment to head office. Unless the Amendment to the Amendment, or a similar provision, were adopted, that young man would have discrimination made against him because he happened to be domiciled in this

    237
    country in contradistinction to a foreign citizen.
    I should have thought that the words suggested by my hon. Friend would go all the way to get rid of that anomaly, which I cannot think can have been in the mind of the Chancellor when he drafted the main Amendment.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The effect of these two Amendments to the proposed Amendment would be that persons who are domiciled in the United Kingdom but not ordinarily resident here, and who work here for an employer not resident in the United Kingdom, or for an overseas branch of a British company, would be chargeable to tax on a remittance basis only and then only in years in which they are resident for tax purposes.
    That all sounds rather complicated and technical. I will try to put it in practical terms. The Amendments would mean that a person whose permanent home was in this country, but who had been working abroad for some time for an overseas concern or an overseas branch of a British concern, and had become not resident for tax purposes and then returned to the United Kingdom to work for a period not of sufficient duration to render him ordinarily resident, would not be liable to tax at all if he remained not resident and would be chargeable only on the remittance basis if he became resident.
    The Committee will appreciate that he would become ordinarily resident when he had been back here for three full years and, if at some earlier date he formed the intention of staying here a longer period, he would be regarded as ordinarily resident from that date. My hon. Friends have argued that anomalies would be created if these Amendments were not accepted, but I must put this to the Committee. In the Amendments which have been accepted, we have made a dent in the strictly logical basis of the Clause as founded on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Because we have made that dent, it is not in itself an argument for making further dents, and it does not appear to my right hon. Friend that there are in these very special cases to which the Amendments refer the same grounds of expediency.
    The Amendments that have been accepted have been accepted because of certain very undesirable results to the
    238
    British economy which would follow if the Clause had remained unamended, but there is no consideration of that kind here.
    It is quite true that the individuals whom my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) has in mind may have hitherto, in some cases at any rate, been assessable on a remittance basis, but if we accept this Clause at all we accept it as based on the recommendation of the Royal Commission that liability to tax should be determined primarily by reference to the places where the duties are performed. For strictly practical reasons, we have agreed to make an exception in the one class which has been mentioned. I do not think that would justify us in extending the exceptions further where there are not the same practical reasons cogently operating. On those grounds, while I congratulate my hon. Friends on their watchfulness, I cannot recommend the Committee to accept the Amendments to the proposed Amendment.
    I should like to take this opportunity of replying to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham (Mr. Burden) because it is relevant here as well as to the Amendment on which he raised it. The type of person whom he mentioned would have his tax liability determined by whether he was domiciled here or abroad. If my hon. Friend studies the law of domicile further, he will understand why I am not anxious to give a firm answer "Yes" or "No" to any particular case. The people whom my hon. Friend has in mind would do well, if they are considering where they should work in future, to examine very carefully where their legal domicile will be.
    Mr. Jay: I am very glad on this occasion briefly to support the Financial Secretary. I should have thought that if he gave way on this proposal, not merely would indefensible anomalies be created but it would be highly probable that the door would be opened to evasion. If it were really possible for a British subject resident, at any rate for periods, in this country and working for a foreign company or for the subsidiary abroad of a British company nevertheless to be taxed only on the remittance basis, I should have thought that would give rise to schemes the main purpose of which would be to avoid taxation.
    On the other hand, the plausibility of the argument of the hon. Member for

    239
    Langstone (Mr. Stevens), who moved the Amendment to the proposed Amendment, largely arose from the extent to which the Government had gone on this Clause as a whole. It is because the Government made this extreme sort of concession that these apparent hardships arise, and they reinforce the argument which we advanced in the earlier debate. Nevertheless, I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is convinced of the rightfulness of his case and if on this occasion a Division is called we shall support the Government.
    Mr. Stevens: I am disappointed with my right hon. Friend's remarks. It only shows how dangerous it is, even in financial matters, to depart from purity. Look at the mess in which we can land ourselves. I do not want to land my right hon. Friend in further difficulties and therefore I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Question, That those words be there inserted in the proposed Amendment, put and negatived.
    Proposed words there inserted.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 11.—(RESIDENCE OF HOLDER OF OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT PERFORMED ABROAD.)
    Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, to leave out from "person" to second "the" in line 7 and insert:
    "works full-time in one or more of the following, that is to say, a trade, profession, vocation, office or employment and the condition mentioned in the next following subsection is satisfied".
    Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the two subsequent Amendments to lines 8 and 10.
    These three Amendments do two things. First, they bring within the scope of the Clause certain people who are engaged full time in a trade, profession or vocation, no part of which is carried on in the United Kingdom. If I remember rightly, this was a matter to which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) drew attention when we were discussing this Clause earlier, and an under-
    240
    taking was given that we would look at it further.
    Secondly, the Amendments provide for a slight relaxation of the requirement that the holders of offices and employment must carry out their duties wholly outside the United Kingdom as a condition of the application of the Clause. The Committee will recollect the debate which we had on the meaning of the word "wholly", in a similar context in what was then Clause 9 of the Bill, when an Amendment was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Mr. Black). I gave an undertaking that, while I could not accept his Amendment to substitute the word "mainly" for the word "wholly", because that would apply where 51 per cent. of the work was carried on abroad and 49 per cent. in this country, I would see if there was any form of words which would, as it were, so define the word "wholly" as to read "almost wholly". This is what we have sought to do here. I think that this will be in accordance with the wishes of the Committee as then expressed.
    The first Amendment makes it clear that the trader or the professional man, whether working on his own account or in partnership, should be brought within the Clause if he is working full time in that trade, profession or vocation and if no part of it is carried on in the United Kingdom. The provision that the work should be done full time is designed to exclude those among the traders and professional men who are comparable with employees who have duties partly here and partly overseas. What we are seeking to do is to get a comparable test for the traders and the professional men. The tests for employees are that the employment must be full time and the duties must be performed wholly outside the United Kingdom. We are proposing similar tests for the traders and professional men, though after consideration we are willing to respond to the suggestion made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member Kensington, South that they should be brought within the scope of this Clause.
    I hope that as regards the difficult word "wholly" the new language suggested in the last of the three Amendments will commend itself to the Committee. We were all agreed at an earlier stage that it would be wrong to make this Clause inoperative because of the performance

    241
    in the United Kingdom of trifling duties which were merely incidental to the performance of the main duties aboard. We have sought—and I hope that we have been successful—to find a form of words, in the latter part of the third Amendment, which will define that situation satisfactorily and meet what were at the time the unanimous wishes of the Committee.
    5.30 p.m.
    Mr. John Peyton: It is only with very great reluctance that I intervene, thereby prolonging the proceedings on the Bill. It is also with great reluctance that I enter the wood of Income Tax law; to me it is a quite intolerable forest, which only too often is beyond human comprehension. We must hope that at some time the tax law will be reduced to a form which can be understood.
    I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend has been unable to go rather further in these Amendments. I take it that the Clause as a whole is intended as a concession, but in fact there are certain classes of people—they may not be many—who, by losing their residence status, have lost a considerable benefit. I have never been satisfied that in recent years we have treated our colonial servants with anything approaching the measure of generosity which they might expect. I have referred to my right hon. Friend the instance of a constituent who is a colonial servant and who will be adversely affected to the extent of £200 a year.
    All I am suggesting to my right hon. Friend—and I put the suggestion to the Committee now—is that it is right and proper that colonial civil servants serving abroad, particularly when they are coming towards the end of their service, should be placed in a position in which they can provide fully for their retirement at home.
    This, I am aware, raises a general point which I feel has never been properly appreciated by the Treasury—namely, the wholly different nature of the problem of retirement for those serving in the Colonies overseas. It is not a problem which affects any civil servant in this country.
    I have made as strong a representation to my right hon. Friend as I could. Although it may be too late this year to
    242
    take action, I very much hope that my right hon. Friend and the Treasury will go into the matter and not say merely that it would be inconvenient and would make the arrangement untidy by creating an exception but will admit that the demand of justice is very clear here, that a colonial civil servant, in particular, should in no way be penalised and that the benefit which he previously and very properly enjoyed should not now be taken from him.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 10, line 8, leave out "while fulfilling that condition".
    In page 10, line 10, at end insert—

    (2) The said condition is that no part of the trade, profession or vocation is carried on in the United Kingdom and all the duties of the office or employment are performed outside the United Kingdom.

    (3) Where an office or employment is in substance one of which the duties fall in the year of assessment to be performed outside the United Kingdom there shall be treated for the purposes of this section as so performed any duties performed in the United Kingdom the performance of which is merely incidental to the performance of the other duties outside the United Kingdom.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]

    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 20.—(RETIREMENT ANNUITIES (RELIEF FOR PREMIUMS, AND EARNED INCOME RELIEF).)
    The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I beg to move, in page 20, line 40, to leave out from "him" to the end of line 41.
    It might be convenient if we took at the same time the Amendments in page 22, line 25; page 29, line 3; and page 29, line 7.
    These four Amendments will allow those with two sources of earnings, one of which is pensionable and the other of which is not, to qualify for self-employed relief in respect of the earnings which are not pensionable. The Committee will remember that this point was originally raised on Second Reading and was raised again in Committee, when hon. Members were thinking of such persons as university dons, who derive earnings from coaching and writing. Since that time other examples have been brought to our notice. In our last discussion the main types included solicitors in private

    243
    practice who hold part-time pensionable posts as clerks to districts councils and other local bodies, and doctors in private practice who draw pensionable fees for part-time work as consultants under the National Health Service. It was thought that we ought to try to make a provision for such people whose service was partly pensionable and partly self-employed. We have tried to do so by these four Amendments.
    The purposes of the first three Amendments is to delete from the three places in the Bill where they occur the words which restrict relief to those having no pensionable office or employment, and the fourth Amendment is consequential I hope the Committee will feel that by these Amendments we have carried out what was, I am sure, the general wish of the Committee in the previous debate in dealing with the problem of dual employment.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: The right hon. Gentleman, or one of his right hon. Friends, gave a pledge on this matter and, as far as we can understand it, the pledge has been carried out. We are grateful to him and support this extension of the original principle of the Clause.
    Mr. Stevens: I rise to express thanks on behalf of my hon. Friends and myself who tabled the Amendment in Committee. The Chancellor has met our wishes in a remarkably clear and fair-minded manner, and I thank him very much.
    Mr. Leslie Thomas: I should like to endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) said, with reference to the Amendment down in my name and the names of my hon. Friends. I think the Chancellor's Amendments clear up a number of points and meet the difficult situation.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 21, line 22, to leave out from "or" to the end of line 24.
    Perhaps we could discuss at the same time the Amendment in page 21, line 37.
    These two Amendments are intended to strengthen the provisions of the Bill against the commutation or the assignment of self-employed persons' annuities.
    244
    It is necessary for purely technical reasons to make the Amendments, which remove any such danger.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made: In page 21, line 37, at end insert:
    "and that it does include provision securing that no annuity payable under it shall be capable in whole or in part of surrender, commutation or assignment".—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 11, to leave out "the individual" and insert "any person".
    This Amendment is advisable for the following reason: the Bill allows a self-employed person to buy, instead of a straight life annuity, an annuity for his life or ten years from his retiring age, whichever is the longer. It also allows him to buy a life annuity for his widow to start on his death, but under the Clause as drafted there is no option to extend her annuity for a guaranteed period if she should die soon after he dies. This Amendment will allow the widow's annuity also to be for her life or for ten years, whichever is the longer. It has been suggested to us that this Is an improvement which will deal with certain cases which would otherwise be cases of hardship.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 15, at the end to insert:
    (e) in the case of an annuity which is to continue for a term certain, for the annuity to be assignable by will, and in the event of any person dying entitled to it, for it to be assignable by his personal representatives in the distribution of the estate so as to give effect to a testamentary disposition, or to the rights of those entitled on intestacy, or to an appropriation of it to a legacy or to a share or interest in the estate.
    (4) So much of subsection (1) of this section as provides that an annuity shall be treated, in whole or in part, as earned income of the annuitant shall apply only in relation to the annuitant to whom the annuity is made payable by the terms of the contract.
    This Amendment deals with two points relating to annuities guaranteed for a certain minimum term, and I think that the Committee would like just a short explanation.
    Under the Bill, a self-employed person may buy an annuity that is to run from his retirement either for his life or for a stated term, which must not exceed 10 years, whichever is the longer. If he

    245
    should die within the stated term the annuity for the remainder of that term will be payable to his personal representatives. The first part of the Amendment provides, as an exception to the general rule prohibiting the assignment of annuities which qualify for relief, that an annuity which is to continue for a term certain may be assigned by will, and that the personal representatives may assign it to a beneficiary of the estate. The second part of the Amendment provides that, where the tail end of a guaranteed term annuity is thus assigned to a beneficiary of the estate, it shall no longer attract earned income relief. The annuity is treated as earned income of the self-employed person while he has it, and also for the life of his widow. After that it is not.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 22, line 23, after "law", to insert "of any part."
    I think that it may be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to take with this Amendment that in page 22, line 25.
    These Amendments were drafted after certain representations had reached us, and I think that they both relate primarily to the position in Scotland. Two of the conditions that must be satisfied by a trust scheme set up to provide pensions for self-employed persons are, as the Bill stands, first, that it must be established under the law of the United Kingdom, and, secondly, must be established by a body of persons representing a substantial proportion of the individuals engaged in a particular occupation in the United Kingdom.
    The first of these conditions, owing to an error in our arrangements, does not as it stands, allow for the differences between English and Scottish law, and the purpose of the first Amendment is to allow a scheme established under the law in any part of the United Kingdom—either United Kingdom law or Scottish law. The second of these conditions would exclude a purely Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish body. The object of the condition is to ensure that schemes are set up only by representative bodies with some status and reputation. It is not necessary to require them to cover
    246
    the whole of the United Kingdom. The only purpose of the conditions was to see that it was a reputable body that really had a serious existence. We are, therefore proposing this Amendment to admit either a Scottish or a Welsh or an Irish body so long as it fulfils the condition of being a reputable body of proper status in its own country.
    5.45 p.m.
    Sir James Hutchison: It is always easier and quicker to say "thank you" than to be critical or condemnatory. I am glad that my right hon. Friend has recognised that Scotland has a law code of its own, and that sometimes we think it is rather better than the English code, notably in the matter of executions. When I first saw this Amendment, it looked to me as if it might be interpreted as though Scotland were no longer part of the United Kingdom, so I take the occasion to say that it is, and that it intends so to continue.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendments made: In page 22, line 25, leave out from "individuals" to "engaged" in line 26.
    In line 35, at end insert:
    "or of those so engaged in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland".—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 23, line 39, at the end to insert:
    Service in an office or employment shall not for the purposes of this definition be treated as service to which a sponsored superannuation scheme relates by reason only of the fact that the holder of the office or employment might (though he does not) participate in the scheme by exercising or refraining from exercising an option open to him by virtue of that service.
    This is the last of this group of Amendments. Its object is to ensure that a man who elects not to join his employer's pension scheme shall be eligible for self-employed relief. It is quite true that a very large number of pension schemes are compulsory for all employees, but there are many which are voluntary. As the Bill is drafted, an employee in a post within the scope of a pension scheme would fall to be treated as pensionable whether he joined the scheme or not, and would, therefore, be ineligible for self-employed relief in respect of his salary.

    247
    That was not our intention, but we have been advised that that would be the effect of the Clause as it is drafted at present; in other words, even if the scheme were voluntary a person would be regarded as being able to take advantage of it and could not, therefore, take advantage of the self-employed system. The purpose of the Amendment is to put that right, and to make it clear that he can exercise this option if he so chooses.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: With the general intent here we are in agreement. This is obviously a just thing. What I am not quite clear about from the wording is what happens if the man, not having joined the scheme, takes advantage of this provision and buys annuities and so forth and later joins the scheme. That does not seem to be dealt with. So far as I can see, he can go in and out of the employer's scheme, buying annuities here and there and then gaining the benefits under the employer's scheme. Is that not possible by this Amendment as now drafted? As the Chancellor explained it, we are in agreement with it. Goodness knows I do not set up to understand the language in which we are now dealing, but it did strike me that there might be a certain cat-and-mouse position by which a certain privileged class of person could get into both schemes as it suited them, one after the other.
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not think that that would be the result. As the Clause is drafted, I think that the Revenue would have no option but to refuse his claim for Income Tax relief, if, being one of the people who could have joined a voluntary scheme, he refused to, but chose to go in for this. The Revenue would not allow a claim for deduction in that case. As the Clause is drafted they would have to say that he could not make the deduction.
    As I understand it, this Amendment gives the Revenue the option, the administrative capacity, to say what should be done; and I think that all it does, therefore, is to remove an obligation on the Revenue not to grant it. I do not think that it allows a man to opt in and out or to operate both schemes at once, but it does take away what otherwise would absolutely prevent the Revenue from admitting his claim for relief.
    Mr. J. T. Price: Perhaps the Chancellor could throw some light on the position of a man who has at some time been in a pension scheme under which he has been granted a deferred annuity—a frozen annuity—and, because of what may be a very small, nominal pension payable at a certain date or on reaching the age of 60 or 65, may be excluded from the self-employed provisions laid down in the main part of the Act. Has the Chancellor considered that there may be thereby an express prohibition against the admission of any citizen to the self-employed provisions for relief if, at some previous time, a frozen or deferred annuity has been granted under some existing scheme? Without wishing to enter into any heavy arguments about the technicalities, it does not seem to me that that is covered by the present legislation.
    Mr. Macmillan: I must say that I find it rather difficult to follow the hon. Gentleman's point as he explained it. Admittedly, this is a new plan. It may be that we shall find, from year to year, that certain Amendments will have to be made.
    Whatever might be the dangers, I think it would on the whole be better to make this Amendment I am now proposing. It is obviously unfair that a man who is employed somewhere where joining a scheme or not is a voluntary matter should have taken away from him the right to exercise that choice. What this Amendment does is to say that he can make a choice, and, if he chooses to go for the self-employed scheme, he is not automatically prevented from doing so. I am informed that he could not jog in and out.
    I can only say that these problems, and the even more complicated point which the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) has just put, are matters we have got to accept at this stage; we have the scheme, it is a new one, and we must see how it works. I have no doubt at all that there may be some loose ends we shall have to tie up when we have got some experience of it.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I am not quite sure that the Chancellor has fully taken the point which I was trying to make. I did not quite mean jogging in and out,

    249
    which would be rather an extreme version of it. The effect of the Amendment, as he says, is that the Treasury or the Board would no longer have to refuse a man the right to come under the benefits of Clause 20.
    May I put my question in this way? A man may have an optional scheme with his employer, which he does not enter. He then goes on for three or four years and buys annuities, each of those annuities being the subject of separate and distinct contracts—that being the whole purpose of them—and then, having done that, he says he no longer wishes to do that but wishes to exercise his option to join the employer's scheme.
    Would the Chancellor object to that? If he does, what is there in this Amendment to stop a man, not going in and out, as he suggested, but having for X years benefited from Clause 20 suddenly deciding that it would pay him to benefit under the Clause by coming under his employer's scheme, thereby getting the best of both worlds? He would be the only sort of legal creature who could get the best of both worlds in that way.
    Mr. Macmillan: I am informed by that admirable tic-tac service, of which I have now had many years' experience, that the answer to the question raised by the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) is really this, as I understand it. We want to take away from a man, so long as he does not enter a scheme, what is now a prohibition from making this arrangement for himself. As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) says, they are separate arrangements. After some five or six years, a man may, in his present employment or, if he changes his job, in another firm, decide that he would like to come in, though, of course, one does not do that on quite such good terms; in an employment scheme there is always some disadvantage from a later joining.
    I do not think that this Amendment prevents him doing that, nor do I see why he should be prevented. There would be no objection to that happening. I do not think that it is a very common thing to happen. The more common thing is that a man would exercise his right not to join a company scheme in order to join one of his own. I am told that, as it is drawn, there is nothing to prevent him
    250
    doing that. I will think about the matter again, and perhaps we might look at it afresh next year, though I do not at present see that there is any objection.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I do not want to prolong this discussion, and I am not raising this question in any critical spirit. I do, however, put it forward quite seriously as a matter of policy for this House. Many of us are anxious to safeguard the position of the established, individually administered funds as against the casual contracts which may be entered into by insurance companies prejudicial to existing rights which have been strongly defended in this House since the Act of 1921. It is from that point of view that we are putting these very tentative views forward, because any haphazard approach to this matter which might undermine the stability of existing funds would be something which many of us would regard as a quite wrong development.
    Mr. Macmillan: I do not know whether I am being completely accurate, but I will put it in this way. The fact that a person had in the past had a pensionable post does not deprive him of the benefit of this Clause.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 21.—(NATURE AND AMOUNT OF RELIEF FOR QUALIFYING PREMIUMS.)
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, in page 24, line 28, to leave out from "year" to the end of line 31, and insert:
    "(but so that in the case of individuals holding a pensionable office or employment, and of individuals born in or before the year nineteen hundred and fifteen, this proviso shall have effect subject to the provisions of the Schedule (Retirement annuities; adjustments of limit on qualifying premiums) to this Act)".
    I do not know what would be most convenient, but this Amendment is designed really only to lead up to, and to be part of the necessary method of leading up to, the proposed new Schedule. Perhaps it would be convenient at this stage to move it formally, since without it the Schedule cannot be moved or debated.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: We are quite agreeable to that. I would only make it clear that we have objections to the

    251
    Schedule, and we therefore reserve our rights in that matter.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: Clause 21, as amended, is, of course, a Clause in a very different state from that in which it first reached us in the Bill. As the Chancellor will have seen from our treatment of his Amendments to Clause 20 with which we have just been dealing, we are really very favourable to this broad idea of his in carrying out this part of the Millard Tucker proposals. We are not hostile to that at all, and our attitude on these further adjustments and concessions he has made proves that.
    We did originally agree to this Clause in the Finance Bill, but at that time it had an upper limit of £500 a year. Now it comes to us with an upper limit of £750 a year put into it. Therefore, although we broadly support the Millard Tucker proposals in so far as they appear in this Bill, and although we are perfectly agreeable to further adjustments which make the thing more just, we are deeply and irrevocably opposed to this raising of the limit from £500 to £750 a year, because it gives a benefit—and the Chancellor must realise it—solely and exclusively to people earning more than £5,000 a year.
    This is really the only concession—at any rate, it is the most important—he has made in the whole of the Finance Bill. Although he dresses it up as a savings concession, it is in fact a concession to these extremely rich people. All sorts of other concessions, no more expensive or even less expensive, which could have been made he has turned down, but this one which benefits only people earning over £5,000 a year he has accepted. We are, therefore, very strongly opposed to it, and we shall fight it in all the ways open to us.
    This is not just a bit of envy on our part. The limit of £500 a year which was in the Bill originally did help to reconcile us to certain defects in these Clauses in Part III, defects which were very powerfully pointed out in the Wocdcock-Cater dissent to the Millard Tucker Report and in the opinion of the minority of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income. They
    252
    pointed out defects in the original Millard Tucker proposals and we feel that those defects were real defects; but as long as there was limit of £500 a year, those defects did not really become very important in scale, and we swallowed our objection to them. One must not strain at gnats all the time, and the fixing of the £500 limit did substantially affect our view of the matter.
    To lift the limit to £750 is to bring in people earning between £5,000 and £7,500 a year, and even more still. In such circumstances, of course, the defects which were pointed out by those dissenting to the Millard Tucker Report and by the minority of the Royal Commission become of really great importance.
    6.0 p.m.
    That is why we are so strongly opposed to this proposal. We are opposed to it for arguments set out very cogently in those two dissents to which I have referred. Our objections and the objections set out in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission—for instance, to including self-employed people and controlling directors—become worse when the limit is raised from £500 a year.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury told us in Committee that this concession would cost something like £1½ million a year. I have been trying to discover how many people will benefit from this £1½ million a year. On 21st June, I put down a Question to ask the right hon. Gentleman the number of people earning over £5,000 a year and he was good enough to tell me that there was some 22,000 of them. Of those 22,000, however, about half were self-employed and half were employed. Most of those who are employed will, of course, come under "top hat" schemes and similar arrangements, so that in the main we are dealing with half of the 22,000—that is, those who are self-employed.
    I do not know whether the Chancellor, when coming to his estimate of £1½ million as the cost, worked out how many people he thought would come within this benefit. As far as I can see, if I take the number as 11,000 to 12,000, I am reasonably safe in my figures. Those employed at the level of over £5,000 a year tend to come into pension schemes which their employers organise, so that there will not be many more than half of the 22,000 who are self-employed.

    253
    That means that a present of about £125 a year is being made to a very small number of people, all of whom, to get this present, must be very rich indeed.
    The Temporary Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): It occurs to me that it might be more convenient if these matters were discussed when we discuss the new Schedule—"Retirement Annuities; Adjustments of Limit on Qualifying Premiums".
    Mr. H. Macmillan: It is simply a matter of convenience, Sir Gordon. When we discussed the formal Amendment which led up to the Schedule, I realised that we would have a full debate on this issue. It is simply a matter of convenience to the Opposition whether they prefer to have the debate on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, in which case it might be necessary to repeat the argument when discussing the Schedule, or whether it would be better to discuss the matter fully when we take the new Schedule so that we may then have the one debate on the whole issue.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I certainly will not repeat my arguments when we move from Committee to Report, Sir Gordon, but I understood that our Amendments to the new Schedule were not being selected and that we would raise points when dealing with our Amendments to Clause 21 on Report. When we reach that stage, however, we will be making quite different points. I am arguing now that the limit should not have been reached. When we reach the later stage, I shall argue that the limit, having been raised, there are certain things we would like to do about it.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: If the right hon. Gentleman wishes to argue the whole point on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, we can have the argument on raising the limit now and when we come to the new Schedule we can deal with the points he has mentioned if the main principle has been accepted by the Committee. It would be better, however, not to argue both sets of points twice.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I assure you, Sir Gordon, that we will not do it twice. I am prepared to deal with the matter later, but that would necessitate repeating the
    254
    first part of my speech, otherwise my remarks will be unconnected. However, I am near the end of what I have to say.
    The Chancellor must face the fact that he is giving a present of something like £125 a year to people who already have to be earning £5,000 a year to get it. This is an extraordinary concession that he is making, and I am sorry that he has done it. We did not want to oppose this arrangement; broadly speaking, we are agreeable. We would far sooner that these important innovations, which, no doubt, will have to be amended from time to time, should enter into our financial system with the agreement of both sides of the Committee.
    As these proposals first appeared before us in the Finance Bill, before it went into Committee, that would have been the case. We were all agreeable; the whole thing would have come about with the agreement of both sides of the Committee. Now, however, the Chancellor, by singling out this tiny class of very rich people for this benefit and by multiplying the defects in his scheme by so doing, has divided the Committee. We feel strongly about it.
    It means that when we on this side come to command the finances of the country, these are things we must think about again. It will be a great pity if one has to go back and forth in these things in such matters as limits. We were agreed with the original Bill. It is only now, when the Chancellor has mucked around with it, that we are in such bitter and strong disagreement.
    Party division on this sort of matter is unfortunate if it can be avoided. It leads to coming and going, making changes, and people being uncertain of the future. It is within the Chancellor's power to remove this uncertainty without eating his words. He has only to go back to the words he originally spoke, which is what he has been doing about the Americans who are over here. He ate his words and went back more or less gracefully to the position before the Bill was introduced. Here, we ask him merely to go back—we will not laugh at him; we will be only too pleased about it—to the position which he originally took up and very ably defended. He gave powerful arguments for his first position and I ask him to consider them.

    255
    If the Chancellor does not do that, there is an element of bitter controversy on this point between us and one which may not end tonight. The Chancellor should think of that, because that is wrong and we do not want it. If, however, he insists, he knows our position. All the people earning £5,000 and £7,500 a year and all the rest will be on notice that these things are not as secure as had the Chancellor left the Bill in its original form.
    Mrs. Eirene White: I am glad that we are discussing this matter on the Motion, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill, for it is better for the Committee to be clear on the main principle. When we reach the new Schedule, there will be other considerations to be taken into account.
    Nothing which has been said in our debates on the Bill or in the comments in the Press has convinced me that the Chancellor was well advised in raising the limit as he did. I am fortified in this opinion by an article which appeared in the June issue of the Banker. That article, dealing with pensions for the self-employed, was written before the Chancellor's concession was made. Therefore, the remarks made then, when the top limit was still at £5,000 a year, or a premium of £500, apply even more strongly to the Chancellor's present proposals after he has so very considerably raised the limits.
    Even of the original scheme the writer in the Banker said that it was clear that the concessions to the self-employed meant most to the Surtax payer, and that for the non-Surtax payer the value of the new facilities was less clear. Even on the lower limit, therefore, it is plain that this concession is already of great benefit primarily to those who are in the Surtax-paying class.
    In this article in the Banker there was a most interesting table showing the net cost to the individual taxpayer after tax relief had been taken into account on each £100 of premium which he pays under this scheme. Of course, although the number of £100 worth has now been increased, the principle of the matter remains the same. It shows that a person whose income is £2,000 a year pays in effect £66 19s. for each £100 worth of premium; that the person earning £5,000 a
    256
    year pays in effect only £35 for his £100 worth of premium; the person earning £7,500, instead of paying £66, will pay only £26 in effect. Higher up the income scale, a person earning £15,000 a year or more, although not allowed a higher proportion than that allowed on an income of £7,500, nevertheless, owing to the tax which people in that class pay, gets his £100 worth for an effective price of £7 10s.
    Therefore, the Chancellor is dealing with a group of people, those with between £5,000 and £7,500, who are getting very substantial extra benefits because of the extra tax remission which they obtain at the same time. This really very large increase is a thoroughly retrograde social step.
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) very properly said, we on this side were prepared to reckon £5,000 a year as being a not unreasonable level for the professional man. The only argument, I think, that can be fairly put forward in favour of the increased limit is that which was put forward rather peculiarly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) yesterday. The burden of his argument, as I understand it, was that this concession had an element of justice for the professional man compared with the business man in a "top hat" scheme. As we on this side of the Committee object in any case to a "top hat" scheme, that argument will not find very much favour with us.
    There is, however, another element in this which was also made clear in that very revealing article in the Banker. Having said that the concession meant most to the Surtax payer and probably meant very little to the non-Surtax payer it went on to say:
    "There are interesting possibilities, however, for controlling directors".
    It points out that controlling directors may now a fortiori benefit under the new higher concessions.
    "A controlling director may now be able to make provision for Estate Duty by disposing of his shareholdings during his lifetime secure in the knowledge that he will have a pension for life at retirement and is thus enabled to afford a drop in income that will ensue through giving away this concession".
    This is a very interesting possibility, and it is a possibility which is very consider-

    257
    ably extended by the concession which the Chancellor is making by the Clause as it now stands. Therefore, it seems to me there are the clearest possible reasons why we on this side of the Committee should oppose the Clause, nad I hope we shall do so in no mistakable manner.
    Mr. William Shepherd: I do not want to detain the Committee, but I must observe that the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) could have no difficulty in proving that those who pay the most tax get the most relief when tax is reduced. I appreciate the way in which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) dealt with this issue. It could have been an issue of considerable controversy. I think most hon. Members on this side of the Committee are grateful to the Opposition for the way they have tackled it.
    6.15 p.m.
    It may appear that giving this advantage to people with incomes up to £7,500 is unwise, but I would urge upon the right hon. Gentleman opposite to realise that it is most unlikely that any individuals who are in business on their own account or in a professional capacity will be able, even under the provisions as at present revised, to give themselves pensions equal to those of people employed in similar capacities by firms, or a rate of pension similar to that of those employed in administrative jobs and in the Civil Service.
    There are two characteristics of being in business on one's own account or of being a professional man. Such professional people do not reach a high level of income until relatively late in their careers. The incomes of people in business on their own account are subject to considerable fluctuations. What this increase from £5,000 to £7,500 does is to give them some insurance against the fluctuations which are almost inevitable in the incomes of people engaged in business on their own account. If hon. and right hon. Members opposite will look at it from that point of view, they will see that this is really an insurance against the hazards of being engaged in business or in a profession on one's own account. Thus this proposal is not so anti-social as it may have appeared at first sight.
    I very much indeed doubt whether there will be many individuals who in the next 30 years will be able from their earnings
    258
    each year to put away £500 or £750 for insurance purposes. When we see this scheme working out we shall see that there will be very few individuals indeed who in a period of 30 years will be able year after year to set aside such sums for this purpose. I hope that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite will realise that owing to the hazardous nature of being in business on one's own account, and as professional people do not earn anything like such incomes until comparatively late in life, the adjustment which my right hon. Friend has made is not an unreasonable one.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I share the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) about this departure and the erosion of the Chancellor's mind upon this question. The Chancellor will have only himself to blame if he runs into heavy weather on this Clause. There are many of us on this side of the Committee who, on first seeing the Millard Tucker proposals and their embodiment in the Bill, were prepared to agree that, on a general question of social equity as between different citizens in the community, we were justified in giving rather qualified support to those proposals. We were certainly not prepared for the tremendous increase in the upper limit which has been introduced into the Bill since the Second Reading.
    I am not deliberately raising a class issue. The Chancellor the other day assured some of his supporters in the country that they could not expect even a Conservative Government always to pander to the middle classes. The upper limit of £500 which we on this side of the Committee were reluctantly prepared to support has now been raised to the offensive increase of £750.
    Perhaps the Chancellor may not realise as clearly as he ought that many of us who represent industrial constituencies in the parts of the country where the real work of the country is done will have to face criticism if we allow this Clause to go by unheeded. Very many of our constituents constantly press us to get an increase in the miserable 50s. a week for old-age pensioners. Now the Chancellor proposes in this case that the upper limit shall be £750 regardless of the year in which the annuitant was born, and in a certain margin of cases, that is, those

    259
    born before 1907 and in some instances up to 1914, the upper limit is increased to as high as £1,125.
    What is the significance of these figures? I ought to declare that I have given some study to these matters and I am not unfamiliar with the aspects of annuity finance and their impact on the revenues of the country. It is clear that there are persons in receipt of very large incomes not only from self-employment but from investment and inheritance who are able to raise from their resources sufficient to pay £750 a year for 40 years. These cases are by no means imaginary. In this country, 1 per cent. of the population still owns 50 per cent. of the wealth. This fact has a great bearing on the whole matter.
    A relatively young man who has sufficient access to means to pay £750 a year will have by the time he reaches the normal age of retirement at 65 a capital sum, with interest at 4 per cent., of something over £50,000. This will provide him, on present annuity tables, with a pension of one-tenth the capital value, that is £5,000 a year. It will not only provide him with that pension but will erode the capacity of the Treasury and the National Exchequer to collect Estate Duty at death which otherwise would be payable in a capital sum if the money had been saved by some other means.
    I have no illusions about these provisions. I speak rather regretfully about this because, in discussing the problem privately with some of my colleagues, I have been inclined to advise that the Millard Tucker proposals are sound in principle. But when they are carried to these limits it is palpable that they are a device to provide a vehicle for avoiding the full impact of Surtax on annual incomes and to avoid the impact of death duties on estates.
    This is not good enough. I know that the Chancellor has spent a good deal of time and has used a great deal of midnight oil and vinegar rags on this problem and he has listened to the pressure groups who—and I am not complaining—have been to see him, but I warn the right hon. Gentleman that when he introduces matters of this kind, which are clearly class measures, into an austerity Budget, we are entitled to
    260
    protest from the Labour benches and to carry our protest into the Lobby.
    Sir Patrick Spens: I am very sorry to find that what started as a rather impetuous objection at an early stage has grown to something like steady and determined opposition to this change. It is easy to think of someone who, for 40 years, is so rich as to be able to pay £750 a year premium out of his income on an insurance policy, and thereby to build up a cumulus of criticism, as hon. Members opposite have done.
    I look at the matter from the entirely different point of view of the self-employed professional man who, if he was lucky, 40 years ago might have been making £750 a year and possibly able to pay £10 a year premium—and with no assets and no inherited wealth, which have to be presupposed to build up the criticism offered by the Opposition. Such a man, by his own efforts, gradually increases his income over the 40 years so that at the end of that time he may be lucky enough to be making an earned income of £5,000 a year out of which perhaps—because at that stage he would probably have large family responsibilities—he would be able to pay, with great difficulty, a premium of £500 that particular year.
    If he is a barrister he may with luck have a big case the next year and be able to pay £600 premium, but later he may be back to an income of £3,000 or £4,000 a year and be able to pay a far lesser premium. Then, again, perhaps for a year or two he might be able to pay £750 a year. This provision was suggested to try to enable two things to happen. It was to enable these people to try to safeguard their future when, if they are not fortunate enough to be given judicial employment, their practice might dwindle away in old age. It was to enable them to provide a pension for themselves or, if they were somewhat better off, to increase their savings for their own and the country's benefit.
    I remain, for those reasons, profoundly grateful not only to Sir James Millard Tucker but still more so to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for having introduced these provisions. I am absolutely certain that they will not be used in the way the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East

    261
    (Mrs. White) and the hon. Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) have suggested. I believe that they will be a great encouragement and a help to the professional classes, having regard particularly to those who are late entrants and who may have the opportunity for a year or two to put by the larger sums to which reference is made in the Schedule. These provisions will also be of great advantage to those people who were extremely hard hit during the war and were unable to start earning. The Committee should be grateful to my right hon. Friend for what he has done.
    Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I should like to direct myself to answering the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens). We have had painted for us a delightful picture of the man who is not in a position to save much early on, but, later, is in a position to save more. We have also had the delightful picture of the somewhat elderly person who will no doubt benefit in certain circumstances. I merely point out to the right hon. and learned Member that there arc Amendments on the Notice Paper to Clause 21, page 24, lines 21 and 23, which provide for those two cases and upon which we shall confidently expect his support when we debate them later.
    The right hon. and learned Member must remember that there are some cases which are not provided for by those two Amendments, and which are not of the character which he has so eloquently and I might almost say so pathetically described to us. There are some fortunate people who have incomes of between £5,000 and £7,500 a year for quite a long time, and we have to consider whether those persons should be entitled to a special tax concession at a time which, as we understand from the Chancellor at other moments, is one of national crisis, financial emergency, of trying to stand still on a plateau which we may or may not attain, and of a number of other remarkable difficulties.
    If the change which is now appearing in the Bill, and for which he had some initial responsibility, is designed to cover the type of case for which he has so much regard why, instead of wringing our hearts at this late stage, did the right hon. and learned Member not draft the proposals to cover the type of cases which he has
    262
    mentioned and limit the proposals to those cases? I would not accuse him either of laziness or of perversity, but we view with some suspicion a speech of this character from a right hon. and learned Gentleman who could, if he wanted, have limited these benefits to that class of person, and has extended them to a class of person, who—without saying anything unduly against them—are not entitled to any special benefit under these Clauses in the present state of the national finances brought about by the present Government and Chancellor.
    6.30 p.m.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I shall not venture to intervene in this dispute or to broaden the discussion into the wide fields suggested by the last sentence of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). This debate has been an interesting one and moderately well conducted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) said with great truth that his party had given a general support to the principles underlying these proposals, and I am grateful for that. I recognise that it is helpful, both for now and for the future. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say, more in sorrow than in anger, that I, having now decided considerably to raise the limit, would alter the entire character of their approach to these plans. I hope that is not a final verdict, because it is a great advantage that this scheme, which is one of the main features of the Budget of the year, should have broad support, anyway in principle.
    I cannot quite see how there can be such a great distinction of principle between the sum originally suggested and the sum now to be suggested. I did not know there were so many more people with £5,000 a year than £7,000. I thought that all the rich were damned, but particularly the class with unearned incomes. But then we are not dealing with those, we are dealing with people who are ex hypothesi self-employed, professional men or others, earning their own living.
    If it were true that there was an absolute rule in any walk of life, either among the higher civil servants or among judges or among business men, to have an income above £5,000 a year then I could understand an argument that the

    263
    limit of £500 was sacrosanct. The truth is that we are trying to deal with a rather special class of people who have to look after themselves, as was so well put by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Shepherd).
    Of their nature their occupations are often hazardous. They, and often their parents before them, made great sacrifices before they started these occupations. There are many entrants in these races and not very many of them make the grade. In these walks of life there are a tremendous number of young men who start, but some do not succeed. Those who succeed very often do so only for a short time and with somewhat fluctuating fortunes. I thought, therefore, having listened to the debate, and having received strong representations from many of the professional societies, that it would be fairer to increase the limit to the sum I now suggest.
    I was particularly struck by some of the arguments put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). He made a very powerful case, both in his approaches to me on behalf of the Bar and in what he said. I am sorry that I have not been able to meet all the suggestions which came from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, but I think he feels that we have met some. He made a strong and powerful case, which was referred to by one hon. Member this afternoon. There has been that problem of uncertainty, there is the problem of fluctuation, and there is the fact that other people, in different walks of life, are to have either from business, or now even from the Civil Service, very high rates of pension provided for them.
    I think that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Smethwick was fair in his first approach and I do not think that he can feel that this difference of degree is such an enormous difference in principle as to lead him to oppose the entire scheme which otherwise he would be prepared to support.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I based myself on the minority Report of the Royal Commission, which stated that it begins to work above £5,000.
    Mr. Macmillan: Yes, but nobody can fix an absolute figure and say that it is
    264
    absolutely right or that another figure is absolutely wrong. It is a matter of judgment. I say, therefore, that if his side of the Committee does not agree with the judgment which I am asking the Committee to form, I hope, nevertheless, it will not mean that the whole of this scheme will have from now on the insuperable opposition of Members of the party opposite.
    If the right hon. Gentleman gives me notice that there may be changes in future in the system of taxation, that may be so. Taking it broadly, and having regard to all the considerations brought to my notice—and I think brought to the notice of many hon. Members—and having regard to the fluctuating character, the hazardous character and to some extent the special conditions that apply to what is admittedly a small number of people, I think that on the whole the Committee would be wise to accept a scheme which, since these people play a great part in all the different professions, will, by giving them a greater sense of security and something more still to work for, be to the general benefit of the community.
    Mr. Harold Wilson: I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but in view of the reference by the Chancellor to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) I ought to intervene to make it clear, in case there is any doubt in any part of the Committee, that my right hon. and learned Friend was not speaking as a Member of the House of Commons, and certainly not in his capacity as a member of the Labour Party. He was speaking as Chairman of what must, within the context of this debate, be regarded as a pressure group.
    Mr. H. Macmillan: I think that at one stage in the speech which is reported in this morning's newspaper he made that clear. I said that the right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke as Chairman of the Bar Council.
    Mr. Wilson: I did not want there to be any doubt about that. Certainly, in anything that my right hon. and learned Friend said he was speaking in a representational capacity and not in his capacity as representing either St. Helens or this side of the Committee.
    Since I am now on my feet perhaps I might refer to one or two other points

    265
    made by the Chancellor. I think the Chancellor has taken this first point, if he does not agree with it. We are not opposed to the principle of this Clause, but what has made it unacceptable to us is the concession accepted by the Chancellor, and now enshrined in the Amendments on the Notice Paper. It is only fair once again to remind the Chancellor that it was not very easy for this side of the Committee to accept his proposals at all so far as the Millard Tucker Report is concerned, when we heard them in the Budget speech.
    I have told the Committee before that we divined in advance that this concession was to appear in the Budget, and we had several meetings on it, even before Budget day. Our view was that if any proposals made by the Chancellor on this subject were broadly on the lines of the minority Report, we should feel that they might be accepted, particularly if they appeared as part of a generally fair Budget. It was not, of course, a generally fair Budget.
    In spite of that, we felt, after consideration, that we should support the Chancellor's proposals although they were not part of the kind of Budget to which I have referred and although they went considerably beyond the minority Report of the Millard Tucker Committee. This was not easy. We have been told that they are an incentive to savings. As some of us have previously had occasion to remark, it seems odd that every Budget concession
    during the last four years has been an incentive to someone in relation either to production or savings, and all too often it has seemed to refer to people with higher incomes or to companies. I had to ask the Chancellor once why it was that there seemed never to be any incentives for poor taxpayers and all the incentives were for the richer ones. Although it was not easy for us to accept the proposition, nevertheless we did so.
    Then the Chancellor, despite all his earlier arguments, which had been powerful, accepted this back bench Tory Amendment in the middle of the night. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) has made clear, it has destroyed the basis on which we felt we could go along with the Chancellor. It is for that reason that when the debate is ended—I am not seeking to close it at this point—we shall want to divide against the Clause, making it clear that we agree with the principle of doing something for self-employed and professional persons, but feel that the Chancellor has gone much too far in a Budget where he has done so little for so many people and where he has steadfastly refused all kinds of concessions, including one we debated many weeks ago which affected the welfare of old-age pensioners.
    Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 244, Noes 196.

    Division No. 257.]

    AYES

    [6.42 p.m.

    Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

    Boyle, Sir Edward

    Deedes, W. F.

    Aitken, W. T.

    Braine, B. R.

    Dodds-Parker, A. D.

    Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

    Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)

    Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

    Alport, C. J. M.

    Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

    Doughty, C. J. A.

    Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

    Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

    Drayson, G. B.

    Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

    Bryan, P.

    du Cann, E. D. L.

    Armstrong, C. W.

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

    Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)

    Astor, Hon. J. J.

    Burden, F. F. A.

    Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

    Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

    Butcher, Sir Herbert

    Duthie, W. S.

    Baidwin, A. E.

    Campbell, Sir David

    Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir A.(Warwick&L'm'tn)

    Balniel, Lord

    Channon, H.

    Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

    Barlow, Sir John

    Chichester-Clark, R.

    Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

    Barter, John

    Clarke, Brig. Terence(Portsmth, W.)

    Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

    Baxter, Sir Beverley

    Cole, Norman

    Errington, Sir Eric

    Beamish, Maj. Tufton

    Cooper-Key, E. M.

    Fisher, Nigel

    Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

    Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

    Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

    Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

    Corfield, Capt. F. V.

    Fletcher-Cooke, C.

    Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

    Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

    Fort, R.

    Bidgood, J. C.

    Crouch, R. F.

    Foster, John

    Biggs-Davison, J. A.

    Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

    Freeth, D. K.

    Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

    Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)

    Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

    Bishop, F. P.

    Cunningham, Knox

    George, J. C. (Poliok)

    Black, C. W.

    Currie, G. B. H.

    Gibson-Watt, D.

    Body, R. F.

    Dance, J. C. G.

    Glover, D.

    Bossom, Sir Alfred

    Davidson, Viscountess

    Godber, J. B.

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

    D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

    Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

    Gough, C. F. H.

    Leburn, W. G.

    Rees-Davies, W. R.

    Graham, Sir Fergus

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

    Remnant, Hon. P.

    Grant, W. (Woodside)

    Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

    Renton, D. L. M.

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

    Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

    Ridsdale, J. E.

    Green, A.

    Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

    Rippon, A. G. F.

    Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)

    Linstead, Sir H. N.

    Robertson, Sir David

    Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

    Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)

    Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

    Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

    Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

    Roper, Sir Harold

    Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

    Longden, Gilbert

    Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

    Harris, Reader (Heston)

    Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

    Russell, R. S.

    Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

    Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

    Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

    Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

    McAdden, S. J.

    Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

    Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

    Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

    Sharples, R. C.

    Harvie-Watt, Sir George

    Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

    Shepherd, William

    Hay, John

    McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

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

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

    Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

    Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

    Henderson, John (Cathcart)

    Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)

    Spearman, Sir Alexander

    Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

    McLean, Neil (Inverness)

    Speir, R. M.

    Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

    MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

    Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)

    Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

    Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

    Stevens, Geoffrey

    Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

    Maddan, Martin

    Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

    Hirst, Geoffrey

    Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

    Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

    Holland-Martin, C. J.

    Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

    Stoddart-Scot, Col. M.

    Hornby, R. P.

    Markham, Major Sir Frank

    Stuart, R. Hon. James (Moray)

    Horobin, Sir Ian

    Marlowe, A. A. H.

    Studholme, Sir Henry

    Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

    Marshall, Douglas

    Summers, Sir Spencer

    Howard, John (Test)

    Mathew, R.

    Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

    Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

    Mawby, R. L.

    Teeling, W.

    Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

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

    Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

    Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

    Medlicott, Sir Frank

    Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

    Hulbert, Sir Norman

    Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

    Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

    Hurd, A. R.

    Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

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

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

    Moore, Sir Thomas

    Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.

    Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)

    Nabarro, G. D. N.

    Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

    Hyde, Montgomery

    Nairn, D. L. S.

    Tilney, John (Wavertree)

    Iremonger, T. L.

    Neave, Airey

    Turner, H. F. L.

    Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

    Nicholls, Harmer

    Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

    Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

    Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

    Tweedsmuir, Lady

    Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

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

    Vane, W. M. F.

    Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

    Nield, Basil (Chester)

    Vickers, Miss J. H.

    Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

    Noble, Comdr. A. H. P.

    Vosper, D. F.

    Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

    Nugent, G. R. H.

    Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

    Joseph, Sir Keith

    Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

    Walker-Smith, D. C.

    Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

    Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

    Wall, Major Patrick

    Keegan, D.

    Page, R. G.

    Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

    Kerby, Capt. H. B.

    Partridge, E.

    Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

    Kerr, H. W.

    Peyton, J. W. W.

    Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

    Kershaw, J. A.

    Pitman, I. J.

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

    Kimball, M.

    Pitt, Miss E. M.

    Williams, Paul (Sunderand, S.)

    Kirk, P. M.

    Pott, H. P.

    Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

    Lagden, G. W.

    Powell, J. Enoch

    Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

    Lambert, Hon. C.

    Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

    Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

    Lancaster, Col. C. G.

    Profumo, J. D.

    Woollam, John Victor

    Langford-Holt, J. A.

    Raikes, Sir Victor

    Yates, William (The Wrekin)

    Leather, E. H. C.

    Rawlinson, Peter

    Leavey, J. A.

    Redmayne, M.

    TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

    Mr. Oakshott and Mr. Barber.

    NOES

    Ainsley, J. W.

    Burton, Miss F. E.

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

    Albu, A. H.

    Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

    Dye, S.

    Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

    Callaghan, L. J.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)

    Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

    Castle, Mrs. B. A.

    Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)

    Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

    Champion, A. J.

    Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

    Anderson, Frank

    Chapman, W. D.

    Fernyhough, E.

    Awbery, S. S.

    Chetwynd, G. R.

    Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

    Bacon, Miss Alice

    Clunie, J.

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

    Baird, J.

    Coldrick, W.

    Gibson, G. W.

    Balfour, A.

    Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

    Gooch, E. G.

    Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

    Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

    Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

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

    Corbet, Mrs. Freda

    Greenwood, Anthony

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

    Cove, W. G.

    Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

    Benson, G.

    Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

    Grey, C. F.

    Beswick, F.

    Cronin, J. D.

    Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

    Blackburn, F.

    Crossman, R. H. S.

    Hale, Leslie

    Blenkinsop, A.

    Cullen, Mrs. A.

    Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

    Boardman, H.

    Daines, P.

    Hamilton, W. W.

    Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

    Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

    Hannan, W.

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

    Darling, George (Hillsborough)

    Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

    Bowles, F. G.

    Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

    Hastings, S.

    Boyd, T. C.

    Davies, Harold (Leek)

    Hayman, F. H.

    Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

    Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

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

    Brockway, A. F.

    de Freitas, Geoffrey

    Herbison, Miss M.

    Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

    Delargy, H. J.

    Hewitson, Capt. M.

    Burke, W. A.

    Dodds, N. N.

    Hobson, C. R.

    268

    269

    Holman, P.

    Mitchison, G. R.

    Skeffington, A. M.

    Holmes, Horace

    Moody, A, S.

    Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

    Howell, Denis (All Saints)

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

    Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)

    Hoy, J. H.

    Mort, D. L.

    Sorensen, R. W.

    Hubbard, T. F.

    Moss, R.

    Sparks, J. A.

    Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

    Mulley, F. W.

    Steele, T.

    Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

    Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

    Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

    Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

    Oliver, G. H.

    Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

    Hunter, A. E.

    Orbach, M.

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

    Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

    Oswald, T.

    Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

    Janner, B.

    Owen, W. J.

    Swingler, S. T.

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

    Padley, W. E.

    Thomas, George (Cardiff)

    Jeger, George (Goole)

    Paget, R. T.

    Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

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

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

    Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)

    Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

    Palmer, A. M. F.

    Thornton, E.

    Johnson, James (Rugby)

    Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

    Timmons, J.

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

    Pargiter, G. A.

    Tomney, F.

    Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

    Parker, J.

    Turner-Samuels, M.

    Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)

    Parkin, B. T.

    Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

    Kenyon, C.

    Pearson, A.

    Warbey, W. N.

    Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

    Plummer, Sir Leslie

    Weitzman, D.

    King, Dr. H. M.

    Popplewell, E.

    Wells, Percy (Faversham)

    Lawson, G. M.

    Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

    Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

    Lee, Frederick (Newton)

    Probert, A. R.

    West, D. G.

    Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

    Proctor, W. T.

    Wheeldon, W. E.

    Lindgren, G. S.

    Pryde, D. J.

    White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

    Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

    Randall, H. E.

    Wilkins, W. A.

    Logan, D. G.

    Rankin, John

    Williams, David (Neath)

    Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

    Redhead, E. C.

    Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

    MacColl, J. E.

    Reeves, J.

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

    McInnes, J.

    Reid, William

    Williams, W. R.(Openshaw)

    McKay, John (Wallsend)

    Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

    Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

    McLeavy, Frank

    Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

    Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

    MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

    Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

    Winterbottom, Richard

    Mahon, Simon

    Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

    Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

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

    Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.

    Yates, V. (Ladywood)

    Mann, Mrs. Jean

    Shurmer, P. L. E.

    Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

    Mellish, R. J.

    Silverman, Julius (Aston)

    Zilliacus, K.

    Messer, Sir F.

    Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

    Mikardo, Ian

    Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

    TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

    Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Deer.

    Question put and agreed to.

    Clause 22.—(TAXATION OF ASSURANCE COMPANIES DOING ANNUITY BUSINESS.)
    Amendments made: in page 29, line 3, leave out from "who" to "is" in line 5.
    In line 7, leave out "so defined)" and insert:
    "defined in section twenty of this Act)".—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. E. C. Redhead: I intervene on this Clause only to draw renewed attention to what we on this side of the Committee, and, I think, some hon. Members on the other side, feel to be a continuing defect in the Clause. It is regrettable that the Chancellor has not found it possible to seize the opportunity of the concession provided in this Clause for an encouragement and incentive to the wider adoption of the principle of transferability or inter-availability of pension schemes. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled an Amendment designed to give effect to that view, but it has not been called, and it would not, therefore, be
    270
    proper for me to discuss that Amendment in detail.
    I want to recall attention to what we regard as a lost opportunity in making this concession—a not inconsiderable concession and one which might well have been accompanied by a condition that, if not completely comprehensive—and I freely admit that the Amendment that was tabled would not have covered the whole field—would have been an incentive for the development of what is an increasingly urgent necessity in respect of pension schemes.
    It is common ground that there has been a considerable extension of occupational pensions schemes. The Phillips Report refers to the fact that about one-third of the working population is now covered by such schemes. That being the case, it is obvious that schemes of that character are welcome to the individual as offering a greater measure of security. Similarly, they are advantageous to individual employers, for one can appreciate their desire, particularly in the skilled trades and in times of difficulty, to retain their skilled workers and seek to bind them to their employers by the

    271
    attractions of a pension scheme. But, when these pension schemes become rivetted and accepted as part and parcel of the hidden remuneration attached to the job, it becomes increasingly difficult to give effect to the real need for the mobility of labour, which is so constantly stressed today.
    The provision, similarly, acts as a deterrent to the venturesome spirit who seeks to depart from one field of employment to another, making fuller use of his opportunities and talents for advancement elsewhere, and a deterrent to the occupational pension scheme, in the absence of any aspect of transferability, becomes increasingly imperative in the mind of the worker or professional man as he gets older. The result is that industry as a whole loses by reason of the rigid isolated pension scheme, however important and valuable it may be.
    Tremendous emphasis is put today on the necessity for the mobility of labour, and I would emphasise that that aspect is no less important in the field of occupational pensions schemes than it is elsewhere. Indeed, if these schemes are rigid, isolated and without the feature of transferability, there are some large problems looming up in the shape of recruitment to the new industries, which will find themselves in increasing difficulties because of the difficulty of obtaining the requisite people.
    The Phillips Committee expressed this danger and this need—and I quote from paragraph 247—in these words:
    "… under present day conditions the national interest in its widest sense requires industry to respond rapidly to changes in demand and technological advances. The readjustment of manpower which will be entailed ought not to be impeded by any artificial restrictions arising out of pension arrangements. If the economy as well as the individual is to benefit from the free circulation of ideas and talent, it is particularly important that the technical and administrative staff in the higher posts should be able to change their employment without undue difficulty."
    That is the essence of its general review of this problem, and I imagine that few of us would wish to quarrel with that judgment of the Phillips Committee. The principle is one which has been commented upon by the National Advisory Committee on the employment of older men and women, which emphasised that it was one of tremendous importance and one that merited full examination.
    272
    The Phillips Committee went a little further in paragraph 318 of its Report, in which it said:
    "The mobility of labour which is desirable if the economy is to remain progressive ought not to be restricted by the existence of occupational pension schemes. Many schemes already allow the retention of pension rights on a change of employment by granting a transfer value or a 'cold storage' pension. In our view, the time has not yet been reached when provision on these lines could properly be made a condition for tax relief;"
    The argument that was the justification for that latter opinion, unfortunately, has not been susceptible to debate in this House, inasmuch as we have not had the opportunity to discuss the Report of the Phillips Committee. Indeed, I think there are arguments for it.
    The important thing that I want to bring to notice is the emphasis the Phillips Committee gave to the importance of this principle. There has been a very considerable acceptance of the principle of the desirability of the inter-availability of pensions scheme by the Government themselves in the public services, and what seems to be good and proper in the area of the public services is, I believe, no less urgent and important in the field of industry. If anything can be done to encourage the adoption of this principle on a wider basis, that opportunity ought to be seized, and we can only regret that opportunity was not taken in granting this concession to make it a condition that there should be an acceptance of this obligation.
    I would draw the attention of the Chancellor to the fact that he need have no apprehensions on the workers' side about the extension of this principle, for there is a considerable body of support among the trade unions for its wider application, which was approved by the Non-Manual Workers Committee of the Trade Union Congress.
    7.0 p.m.
    The National Federation of Professional Workers, covering more than half a million black-coated workers, has repeatedly advocated it and made urgent representation for its expansion. So far, with private employers, it is largely a question of voluntary acceptance of the principle. If it is so imperative, as some of us believe, then it seems a pity to lose the opportunity of putting a little statutory encouragement, as could have

    273
    been done, in this Clause. I realise that there are difficulties attached to this principle, because of the various characters of the pension schemes, some contributory, some non-contributory, but I believe that if the inducement is there—and the inducement could have been provided in the Clause—many of those difficulties will be found to be by no means insuperable.
    If the Chancellor's hesitation to meet the arguments advanced is for the same reason that the Phillips Committee refrained from making more positive proposals than it did, namely, a lack of comprehensive information about the present basis of the various schemes of occupational pensions, I urge the Government to take the opportunity, with their very much wider resources, of undertaking an examination to secure the requisite information, for, whatever be done in relation to the Finance Bill, it still remains an important issue which the Government ought to be tackling and expressing in a wider context.
    If, in the course of that examination, the Chancellor feels that there are difficulties about it, as I freely acknowledge, I suggest that he direct his attention to the United States of America, Canada, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Belgium, and Denmark who, in this respect, I am advised, are well ahead of us in having met these difficulties and made provisions whereby the transferability principle is encouraged by statutory measures. I hope that the Government will think again about this broad principle, even though they have not found it possible, on this occasion, to give expression and encouragement to it in this Clause.
    Mrs. White: I want, briefly, to say how glad I am that we have support for this principle from my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead), who has had very great experience in these matters. I am very anxious that this evening we should have at least a slightly more positive reply from the right hon. Gentleman than we had when we discussed this matter earlier. After all, on at least two subjects of major importance the Chancellor has said that although he was not able to act this year he would do so in the near future. He positively gave a date for pioneer industries and he also gave a pledge about
    274
    Entertainments Duty in more general, but nevertheless specific, terms.
    When we previously discussed the matter, the Financial Secretary gave an undertaking in very much vaguer terms. He said there was to be a review, but he did not say, as I hope he will say this evening, that this principle will be an important part of that review and that it will be carried out, partly at least, with the intention of seeing, as my hon. Friend has suggested, how this principle can most effectively be put into practice. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be more specific about what is an extremely important principle and one which will become more and more important with the extension of private pensions schemes.
    The issue would be of much less consequence if these schemes were to be found only among a few benevolent firms, but their number is increasing very rapidly, as Professor Titmuss pointed out, largely because of tax concessions, and they are increasing in scope largely because, in general, the taxpaying body is contributing so much for the persons who participate in the scheme. It is a matter of justice that where such schemes are being supported out of public funds through these tax remissions we should most seriously apply ourselves to this very important principle which we have already discussed. I hope that we shall get the kind of answer from the right hon. Gentleman for which I have asked.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I should like very strongly to support the case put by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) and my hon. Friend the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), although I do not want to add to their argument, but to raise another matter. We have to face the question which they raised, or we will have a tied economy with people tied to their jobs in the way that serfs used to be tied to the land, and, of course, that is the last thing we want. We want a mobile and flexible economy.
    The issue which I want to put before the right hon Gentleman replies to my hon. Friends—I hope favourably—has worried me since we last discussed this subject. I am thinking in particular of subsection 7 (b), which admits schemes under the Finance Act, 1921, and which allows them to be handled by insurance

    275
    companies and the insurance companies to have a tax-free build-up. When the Bill was first before us, my right hon. and hon. Friends and I supported this provision. It seemed quite sensible. Of course, it was a considerable concession to insurance companies.
    Insurance companies will handle a great deal of business which they were not handling before, but that seemed all right because the 1921 Act schemes—the Section 379 schemes as they are called—did not have a tax-free lump sum. Therefore, it seemed to us sensible and to everybody's convenience to include them, but it is now beginning to enter my mind that maybe under these schemes which we admit in this Clause, allowing insurance companies to handle and get all the benefits of tax-free build-up, we do not exclude tax-free lump sums as much as I originally thought.
    As the right hon Gentleman knows, the insurance companies have been bringing a good deal of pressure to bear on the ground that Section 386 schemes should be brought within the ambit of the Clause as well, because otherwise there would be a massive switch from one to the other. In the course of arguing for that case they are giving me some alarm—and, I hope, giving the right hon. Gentleman some alarm, because he must have come across the arguments which they are deploying. Their argument is that it is silly to keep out Section 386 schemes on the ground that they will allow tax-free lump sums, because, if one is sufficiently skilful, one can have tax-free lump sums with Section 379 schemes. If that is the case, we are admitting tax-free lump sums which are meant to be excluded from the Clause.
    Well-informed insurance companies dealing with this say that a number of such funds—that is funds which we are admitting in this Clause, 1921 Act funds, for instance—can and do pay lump sums which are tax free if they are skilfully managed and if there is what is called "tax manoeuvre". I believe—at any rate these people ought to know, and they say so in support of their case—that it is possible for the trustees of these funds which we are admitting under this Clause to reinsure their funds with insurance companies, and for the insurance companies then to pay those pensions tax
    276
    free, but set them off against their own annuity funds. In other words, both the insurance companies and the funds themselves gain at the general taxpayers' expense.
    If it is true that by tax manoeuvre or manipulation it is possible to pay tax-free lump sums under either Section 379 or Section 388 schemes, we are very much more doubtful about the merits of subsection (7, b) than we were in Committee. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can assure us that the arguments deployed by some insurance companies in support of their case are false, because if they are true the situation is extremely alarming. It means that by admitting section 379 schemes we are creating a yawning gap, which should attract the appetite of the right hon. Gentleman. Everyone will support him in any endeavour he may make to stop up that gap, if it does exist.
    I hope that he can assure me that these insurance companies' arguments, with which he must be familiar—I am sure that these companies have been to him—are not true, or that, if they are true, he will do something about the question either now or in the next Finance Bill.
    Major W. Hicks Beach: I apologise to the right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) for not being here when he made his speech. I had an engagement elsewhere.
    I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a director of an insurance company. Those who are interested in the insurance business are very disappointed that the Financial Secretary has not thought fit to take more notice of the remarks we made in Committee concerning the great alarm with which we regarded the position of Section 379 and Section 388 schemes. The advice which I have received from many responsible people in the insurance world is that, if the Clause goes forward as it is now drawn, there will be a big switch over from Section 388 schemes to Section 379 schemes. In the long run, we say that the switch over will mean no tax saving for the Government and a vast amount of unnecessary work, in the re-submission of claims, for the Treasury and the insurance world.
    We accept the view of the Government, which has been put forward on several occasions, that there should be no tax-

    277
    free build-up for a tax-free distribution by way of death benefit or any other form of benefit, upon retirement or otherwise. We accept it, but we do not agree with it, because it is contrary to the Millard Tucker recommendations.
    During the Committee stage, we tried to impress upon the Government our view that Section 388 schemes should be allowed to have a tax-free build-up in relation to the annuity side of their pension schemes. That seems to us to be a reasonable suggestion. It would certainly assist a vast number of employees and others who are eligible for pensions, and I am very disappointed that the Government have not taken more cognisance of the very strong representations made to them by many insurance organisations and life offices concerned with Section 388 schemes.
    In the next Finance Bill the Government will probably have to bring in an Amendment to deal with the situation. It is a great pity they have not done so in this Bill. People who have experience of the insurance business are quite certain that the Clause will be largely unworkable, will create a vast amount of work for the Revenue, and do a great deal of damage to many pension and insurance schemes which, after all, are for the benefit of employees. The Government should have given much more careful thought to what was said on this matter in Committee.
    7.15 p.m.
    Mr. H. Brooke: The fact that it was necessary to make two small consequential Amendments to the Clause has opened the way to a debate which has ranged over much of the ground that we covered at about 1 a.m. on 13th June. Few new points have been raised upon this occasion. The difference is that we are now discussing the question at a very much more auspicious time of day. The hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Redhead) took up the point which was raised on 13th June by the hon. Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and once more called attention to the recommendation of the Phillips Committee that provision for transfer should be made a condition of approval of superannuation funds.
    I thought that I was quite definite in what I said to the hon. Lady upon that
    278
    previous occasion. This is not the right way to tackle the question. We are dealing here with the self-employed, and only in one small respect is it necessary to slop over, as it were, into the question of pension funds for the benefit of employees. On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, I have said that considerable work has to be done upon that other question. Recommendations set out in black and white must be further examined, and it may well be that some clearing up of the law upon that large subject will have to be done by Parliament in some future year.
    There was some question that I was not forthcoming upon the matter, or that the Government were trying to pigeonhole it. On the contrary, the Government are not overlooking its importance. I indicated—and I believe that it is common ground among Members on both sides of the Committee—that this would be the wrong place in which to tackle the question. Moreover, the Amendment put down in our earlier proceedings and again today would deal only with funds that reinsure their liabilities with life insurance companies. It would not touch other funds or pension schemes which are not operated by means of trust funds. I am sure that the prospective movers of the Amendment realise that.
    If we are going to grapple with this question, it would be quite wrong to put a special condition upon one rather narrow category of pension scheme while leaving the other categories alone.
    Mrs. White: I admit the force of what the right hon. Member is saying, but may we nevertheless have from him a declaration that the Government regard transferability as desirable in itself, even though the details of working it out may take some time?
    Mr. Brooke: There is no question whatever that provisions to assist the mobility of labour are good things in themselves but, as I said on the previous occasion, when we tackle this matter we have to bear in mind the fact that there is an alternative method, which is much more widely adopted at the present time than transferability of pension rights, namely, the cold storage pension system, by which the pension that a man has earned up to the date of his leaving a

    279
    certain firm, is kept in cold storage until he reaches retirement age. It is more use than the transferability provisions now being canvassed, if the employer to whom he is going has no pension scheme to which his rights could be transferred. But that is our approach to the matter. We recognise the importance of this, and I have made plain that in the future Parliament is likely to have to spend time on the law relating to pensions schemes for employees.
    The right hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Gordon Walker) asked me about subsection (7) of the Clause, because it had come to his attention that there might be means whereby insurance companies could drive a coach and four through what Parliament thought it was doing. I can give him an absolute assurance that, so far as I am any judge of the matter, the fund approved under Section 379 cannot possibly pay lump sums. Of course, it is quite possible to have a Section 388 scheme as well, and a 388 scheme can pay a lump sum. But the Clause, as we have drafted it, will, we think, effectively safeguard against the kind of thing happening which he is envisaging. Certainly, we shall watch carefully to see that it does, but we cannot perceive loopholes through which malpractices might arise.
    The right hon. Gentleman appears to be thinking of cases where the trustees of funds deliberately try to get round the intention of the law. These matters are extremely complicated, and I should be willing to discuss and examine the question further. I am ready to go so far as to say that, if any flaw is discovered here, we should be prepared on a future occasion to examine carefully whether that loophole should be closed. But we believe that the law is flawless in that respect.
    My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) referred to the substantial question, which he very properly raised during the Committee stage debates, of whether there was likely to be a large-scale switch over from the Section 388 schemes to the Section 379 schemes. There is a difference of opinion between my hon. and gallant friend and his friends and the Government on this matter. I hope that he will not press the phrase, which I think he
    280
    used, that the Financial Secretary appears to have taken all this very lightly. The Financial Secretary has given careful attention to this since we discussed the Clause before. I have discussed it personally with the Chancellor and with our advisers.
    Major Hicks Beach: I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman took this lightly, but I do say that he said that all his advice has been contrary to what is thought by those people knowledgeable in matters of insurance, and I wonder whether he would tell us who have been his advisers.
    Mr. Brooke: Not all those people knowledgeable in insurance matters share the views of my hon. and gallant Friend. We think that we have drafted the Bill rightly. The hon. and gallant Gentleman disagrees, and I understand that it will not be possible for him to move a Clause which he has put down for Report stage, because, technically, it is out of order. I can but add, as I was saying a few minutes ago, that the Government will carefully and meticulously study the law relating to pension schemes for employees. There may be changes which it will be necessary for my right hon. Friend to bring forward upon a future occasion.
    I strongly suggest to those people who are thinking of changing over, or advising their clients to change over without delay from Section 388 schemes to Section 379 schemes, to bear in mind the words which I used the other day and which I use again now: that the law relating to these pension schemes is not necessarily going to remain as it is indefinitely. If they are too hasty in switching, they may find that in fact they have made a mistake against their own interests.
    I cannot make any forecast. I cannot say what form any future Bill presented to this House may take. But I ask them to bear in mind that there is a greater element of uncertainty in the future state of the law on this matter than perhaps they may have realised when some people spoke with such assurance of the likelihood and indeed the great interest and great advantage to employers of switching over on a large scale.
    At this stage, neither my hon. and gallant Friend nor I can prove which of us is right. Experience will show that, and one or other of us may have to climb

    281
    down. But I must advise him that the Chancellor does not see his way to amend this Clause further. I hope that he will let it rest that there is a genuine difference of opinion between us, each of us very sincerely holding the view that we do.
    Mr. Frederick Gough: I wish to add a word to what has been said by my right hon. Friend. I have stated to this Committee before that I have an interest in this matter, as I am actively engaged in this type of business. I have also expressed my view, which is the same as that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach). There has been a great deal of concern in the professional insurance world about the fact that Section 388 schemes were not to receive the same benefit, but I am sure that everyone will be greatly relieved by the remarks which have just been made by my right hon. Friend.
    I wish to add these few points about Section 388 schemes if it is in order to do so. There are a large number of them and most apply to small firms and to lower paid employees. It is for that reason that those responsible have been so concerned, and I can assure my right hon. Friend that up to the very moment when he made his statement it was the intention of those responsible for this business of pensions schemes to seek ways and means whereby they could have transferred the non-commutable portion of such schemes into schemes which would have received the benefits now being given. I think and hope that what my right hon. Friend has now said will at least allay the suspicion of such people, and I am sure that they will be prepared to be patient for a year or so.
    I should like to add my plea to him to bear in mind that in this Section he will be dealing with a far greater number of pensions schemes than in the one with which he is now dealing, and that he will be referring to schemes which mainly provide pensions for the lower salary and wage grades in the country.
    7.30 p.m.
    Mr. Mitchison: I have been listening with wonder and amazement to what has been going on. I must dissociate myself from what I regard as a rash and hazardous charge; I should think it most unlikely that the Financial Secretary ever
    282
    took anything lightly, certainly, I hope, not this Clause.
    I feel that in this as in other respects we always benefit from the full and impressive weight of his intellect on these matters. Personally, I have not that sort of intellect, and I am a little encouraged to see that even the minority of the Millard Tucker Committee, when considering this matter, suggested a much simpler solution by increasing the relief on ordinary life insurance premiums. I do not know whether the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) voted against that simple solution when we made it the other night; perhaps they supported us and I did not notice them.
    One of the reasons given by the minority members of the Millard Tucker Committee was that
    "it would avoid the enormous administrative complexities inseparable from the recommendations"
    —those being more or less the recommendations which we are considering. They stated that
    "it would also obviate the risk of the extensive re-writing of existing assurance contacts which these recommendations, if adopted, might entail."
    Mr. Gough: I think that the hon. and learned Member misses the very point I made, which is that the majority of these schemes under Section 388 deal with people in lower income groups who would not benefit from Income Tax relief on life insurance policies. I know about the "top hat" schemes, but they represent a small section, and I am going back 20 or even 30 years. In my opinion, these schemes deal largely with people in the lower income groups, about whom I am particularly concerned.
    The Temporary Chairman (Mr. H. Hynd): Order. This debate is going rather wide of the Clause. I hope that hon. Members will confine their remarks to what is in the Clause.
    Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, Mr. Hynd, in this matter I am following in the footsteps of the Financial Secretary, who read his hon. Friends a rather stiff lecture about not rewriting existing assurance contracts because if they did there was always the possibility of the Treasury changing the law, and for once life insurance companies might almost make a loss

    283
    if they did not follow his advice. Perhaps it was not as bad as that; let me reassure the hon. Member for Horsham that the companies will probably struggle through, as they usually do.
    All I am saying for the moment—and I make no comments on the merits of the matter—is that I have every possible sympathy with the minority members of the Millard Tucker Committee when they refer to
    "the enormous administrative complexities"
    and consider as possible an
    "extensive rewriting of existing assurance contracts."
    I am engaged in mildly teasing the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Horsham, because I did not see them in the Labour Party Lobby the other day when the much simpler alternative was proposed.
    A second point which I desire to make relates to the question of transferability. It appears to be generally agreed now that there ought to be transferability. I should have thought that that was fairly obvious and I should not have thought we needed even the Phillips Committee, although that Report adds much weight to the point. What puzzles me is this: I entirely agree that in the Finance Bill as it stands we cannot deal with the whole question. Of course, if there were provisions which would enable us to do so, no doubt such an astute and intelligent Opposition as we always are would have put down Amendments to cover the whole shooting match.
    All we could do was to put down an Amendment to what the Government had put down about this type of contract—reinsuring with an insurance company. I take a very simple point about it. The poor life insurance companies, the people who will be in such difficulties, an impoverished lot as we all know—those who are doing annuities business—are now to get some benefit out of Clause 22. They may not like it, but they are supposed to be getting some benefit or another.
    When that was being done it was not altogether unreasonable, I should have thought, to impose a condition the necessity for which I understand the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to admit. I do not mean the taxation necessity; I mean the social necessity. If, of course, the right hon. Gentleman wants to make
    284
    a larger and more comprehensive scheme later, no doubt he can alter any concession he has made here in order to tailor it in with what I may vulgarly call the whole shooting match—and all will be well. After all, mere complication is no objection to a Finance Bill or we should hardly ever have one, except about very simple things. Surely the opportunity could have been taken when making this concession——
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. We must discuss now only whether or not we want to accept Clause 22 as it stands.
    Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, it is with relevance to that point that I pointed out one omission from Clause 22.
    The Temporary Chairman: It is not in order to point out omissions. We can discuss only what is in the Clause now. and whether we accept it or not.
    Mr. Mitchison: With great respect, I thoroughly realise that, but if I may say so, I cannot treat the Clause as perfect. I notice that it is deficient in one matter; and I am calling attention to that deficiency. I hope I have done so. Others besides myself have called attention to it. The question is whether we take it in the imperfect form or whether we wait for perfection.
    Mr. J. T. Price: I apologise for intervening for a few moments, particularly because I was unavoidably prevented from hearing all the remarks of the Financial Secretary. The remarks which I did hear seemed very prudent about the danger of any reckless chopping and changing at this stage, when legislation is in a tentative and experimental form.
    If I am in order—and I hope I am—I want to draw attention to a more serious anomaly than that to which the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough) drew attention. Whereas, under this legislation, it is proposed to give the self-employed person the advantage of complete relief on all his contributions in assessing his liability to taxation, there is a very large class of contributing members who are covered by insurance company schemes, not under Section 38 but under Section 225.
    I speak more particularly of many thousands of workers in industrial funds who do not, under existing legislation, obtain a full remision of tax liability.
    The Temporary Chairman: Order. It is not in order to discuss that, because it is not in the Clause, and we can discuss only what is in the Clause.
    Mr. Price: I expected your rebuke, Mr. Hynd, but, with the greatest respect to the Chair, it makes it very difficult to consider this Clause and what is in it in its right perspective, on Report stage—not Third Reading——
    The Temporary Chairman: This is not the Report stage; it is the Committee stage.
    Mr. Price: I plead guilty to error. Perhaps I may be excused, as, like others, I sometimes have to leave the Chamber to eat.
    Nevertheless, without making an elaborate case, I would point out that we are coming to a class of new entrants who will be able to buy annuity insurance from insurance companies or enter into schemes which are administered for groups of people who will be in a relatively better position than many thousands of people in existing schemes. I commend to the Treasury a close review and investigation of that situation, even if we cannot deal with it now in a formal sense.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: A good deal of the argument which we have been having has turned on the question raised by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Gough), that if this Clause stands part of the Bill in its present form there will be a great switch from insurance schemes under Section 379 to those under Section 388. The right hon. Gentleman, in meeting this charge amongst other arguments deployed the one that it would be unwise of anyone to switch in this way because he and his right hon. Friend the Chancellor had it in mind, in effect, to bring Section 388 schemes within the scope of this Clause at a future time.
    Mr. H. Brooke: I did not say anything of that character. I said that there would have to be a general review of this legislation. I could not forecast how it would turn out, but I said that it might be necessary to amend the law in some respects. I did not intimate any particular respects.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I think that the right hon. Gentleman must have meant that it was to be amended in such a way as to meet the charges made by his hon. Friends, otherwise what he said was entirely irrelevant to their remarks. He said that he did not recommend anyone to switch, certainly on a massive scale, because he hoped that those thinking of it would bear in mind what he was about to say. That must relate to a switch, and the things in the future must, I think, be designed to reduce the difference existing now between Section 388 and Section 379 schemes. If not, I do not know what he meant.
    I hope, however, that the right hon. Gentleman will bear in mind that we would be bitterly opposed to giving to Section 388 schemes this sort of benefit if they continued to pay tax-free lump sums or anything like that. We would be very strongly against that, and against anything that opened the door to the danger of tax avoidance; all the more so because I was not very satisfied with the answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave to me about tax avoidance under the Clause as it now exists—without altering a word of it or mentioning anything not in it.
    There is evidence that the Clause as it exists has some loopholes in it, and some of the interests, and the hon. and gallant Member for Cheltenham and the hon. Member for Horsham mentioned the interest they had—have been putting forward arguments which do, in effect, say that it is no good limiting it to these Section 379 schemes, because one can, in fact, do in these schemes all those things such as paying tax-free lump sums that it is said cannot be done.
    Some of the interests say that this applies in particular to partially unapproved schemes. It seems to be those that open the gap. The right hon. Gentleman said he would look into this. As I understand, it is the partially unapproved schemes which, if skilfully managed, can have a tax-free build-up—the partially unapproved schemes which certainly are not intended under the 1952 Act to be able to have a tax-free build-up but which, skilfully managed, can accumulate gross, as the term is. The benefit under this Clause will, therefore, accrue to insurance companies.
    The danger even goes so far as this, as I understand. It is the Section 379

    287
    schemes which offer the greater opportunities for tax manoeuvre, owing to the method of funding. That is very startling. It seems to me that the arguments now being advanced to support a case with which I have a great deal of sympathy have gone so far that they really make us on this side very doubtful indeed whether we still support subsection (7, b), because if these loopholes that allow insurance companies in under the Section 379 schemes exist then we really have let something into this Bill that we should not have let in.
    I hope that when the Chancellor considers what he is to do about Section 388 schemes he will give very serious attention to the possibility of loopholes now existing in his own Finance Bill and will, indeed, give priority to stopping such loopholes before beginning to try to stop switches——
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Gough: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but, for the record, I should like to correct one thing which he has said. I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Major Hicks Beach) and I were drawing attention to any loophole. We were merely drawing attention to the normal human factor that when someone finds that there is a better type of contract to be obtained, he merely ceases one contract—or that portion of it which is non-commutable—and goes to another. There is no loophole in that.
    Mr. Gordon Walker: I was not referring to that. I quite agree with the hon. Member that there is danger of a switch. How far it goes I do not know, nor would I call that an improper thing to do. What I say is that, in arguing for bringing in Section 388 schemes, certain insurance interests have gone so far that they are now proving that Section 379 schemes do not have the merits which we thought they had, but that, in fact, they allow tax-free lump sums to be paid out or a tax-free build-up if skilfully managed.
    That is a most disturbing thing. I did not say that either hon. Gentleman said that, but that some of the interests with which they are openly and freely associated have been saying that Section 379 schemes do not stop tax-free lump sums as we thought they did. It is extraordinary that, in their trying to prove that
    288
    Section 388 schemes should come in we discover these horrible things, which none of us on this side suspected, about Section 379 schemes. It really opens out a field of tax avoidance of a sort which, while obviously not illegal, does defeat the clear intention of the original 1952 Act—and, indeed, of the 1921 Act.
    That should be stopped, because it really does not go on all fours with the previous Clauses of Part III of the Bill that we have now passed. If they have not come to his notice perhaps I could pass on to the right hon. Gentleman some of the arguments that have been given, so that he will know where and what to look for.
    Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Second Schedule.—(OFFICES AND EMPLOYMENTS (PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO CASES I, II AND III OF SCHEDULE E).)
    Amendment made: in page 54, line 49, at end insert:
    (3) For any such year of assessment, the emoluments excepted from Cases I and II as foreign emoluments shall not include emoluments of a person resident in the United Kingdom from an office or employment under or with a person, body of persons or partnership resident in that Republic.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

    New Schedule.—(RETIREMENT ANNUITIES; ADJUSTMENTS OF LIMIT ON QUALIFYING PREMIUMS.)

      PART I HOLDERS OF PENSIONABLE OFFICE OR EMPLOYMENT
      1. Subject to the following paragraphs, in the case of an individual who is the holder of a pensionable office or employment, the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act shall have effect with the substitution for the references to seven hundred and fifty pounds of references to seven hundred and fifty pounds less one-tenth of his pensionable emoluments for the year of assessment.

      2. Where an individual is the holder of a pensionable office or employment during part only of the year of assessment, then—

      (a) the foregoing paragraph shall not apply if the condition in paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section twenty of this Act is not satisfied at any time during that part of the year; but

      (b) if the condition is satisfied at such a time and is also satisfied at a time during the remainder of the year, the foregoing

      289
      sub-paragraph shall apply but for one-tenth there shall be substituted therein such less proportion as may be just.

      3. For the purposes of this Part of this Schedule an individual's pensionable emoluments for any year of assessment shall be taken to be the amount, estimated in accordance with the provisions applicable to Case I of Schedule E, of any income of his for the year (but not including in the case of a married man income of his wife), being either—

      (a) income arising in respect of remuneration from any pensionable office or employment; or

      (b) income from any property which is attached to or forms part of the emoluments of any pensionable office or employment.

      PART II PERSONS BORN IN OR BEFORE 1915
      4. Subject to the following paragraph, in the case of an individual born at a time specified in the first column of the Table set out below, the proviso to subsection (1) of section twenty-one of this Act and Part I of this Schedule shall have effect with the substitution for the references to seven hundred and fifty pounds and to the fraction one-tenth of references respectively to such sum and to such percentage as are specified for his case in the second and third columns of the Table.

      TABLE

      Year of Birth

      Sum

      Percentage

      £

      1914 or 1915

      825

      11

      1912 or 1913

      900

      12

      1910 or 1911

      975

      13

      1908 or 1909

      1,050

      14

      1907 or any earlier year

      1,125

      15

      5.—(1) This Part of this Schedule shall not apply in relation to any year of assessment in which the individual, in respect of his past services in any office or employment formerly held by him (not being one in which he served part-time only), either—

      (a) receives any income in respect of a pension payable under or in pursuance of a sponsored superannuation scheme or otherwise purchased or provided for him by another person; or

      (b) has a right under a sponsored superannuation scheme to a pension which is not presently payable, whether because it is suspended or because it is to become payable only at a future time or on the happening of some contingency (but not including a right dependent also on service in an office or employment for the time being held by him).

      (2) In this paragraph, "pension" includes any superannuation or other allowance or deferred pay.—[Mr. H. Brooke.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Mr. H. Brooke: I beg to move, That the Schedule be read a Second time.
      We had a sort of preliminary run on this matter when we were discussing Clause 21, but at that time we were really addressing ourselves only to one particular point and I think that the
      290
      Committee would probably wish me very briefly to describe the two Parts of this Schedule, after which, if there are any questions about them, an endeavour will be made to answer them.
      Part 1 makes the necessary adjustment to the upper limit of £750 for those whose earnings consist partly but not wholly of pensionable salary. This is linked with the matter with which we were dealing a few moments ago, the matter which was originally brought to the attention of the Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). The effect of Part 1 is that a man with both a pensionable post and non-pensionable earnings will be allowed self-employed relief up to 10 per cent. of the pensionable earings, but the limit of£750 a year on the amount eligible for relief will be reduced by 10 per cent. of the pensionable emoluments.
      Perhaps it would be better if I were to give this explanation by a practical example. Taking purely hypothetical figures, let us consider a case of a man with non-pensionable earnings of £5,000 a year and a pensionable salary of £4,000 a year. He could get this self-employed tax relief on an amount of£350 a year, that is to say the full £750 a year minus 10 per cent. of his pensionable salary of £4,000. He could in that way add on top of the existing pension in respect of his £4,000 salary the pension which would be appropriate to further earnings of £3,500 to bring his total pension up to the maximum appropriate earnings of £7,500. That is the effect of Part 1.
      Paragraph 2 deals with complicated cases where a pensionable employment is held for one part of a year and non-pensionable earnings arise in the other part; in certain circumstances there may be an overlap between them. I hope that we have provided for all those rather special cases. Paragraph 3 defines what is meant by "pensionable emoluments".
      Part II of the Schedule gives effect to the promise which I was authorised by my right hon. Friend to make during the earlier stage of our debates, that we would introduce later a scheme which would increase both the percentage and the permitted upper limit for people born before 1916. It has throughout been the general view of the Committee on both sides that it would be welcomed if the Government could introduce into their

      291
      Budget proposals a provision of this sort for older self-employed people who have not hitherto been able to make provision for their pensions except out of taxed income.
      This is all based on the figure of £750 which has been the subject of controversy, but I do not think it is that that we are discussing now so much as the special arrangement which is to be made. This special arrangement would operate whatever the basic figure was for the older people. Part II increases the normal limits for this self-employed tax relief on a sliding scale according to age. The reason why there is no increase for those who reach the age of 40 this year or later is simply this, that they still have time to build up an adequate pension before they reach retiring age. The trouble was, as was pointed out earlier, that premiums limited to 10 per cent. of earnings would often not build up a pension having a reasonable relation to earnings in the remaining years available for the older people.
      It is proposed that the percentage shall be increased by 1 for each 2 years of age over 40, up to a maximum of 15 per cent. for those who will be 49 or more this year, and the overall limit of £750 is correspondingly increased. I ought to point out that these increases apply to the two-job man who is dealt with in Part I of the Schedule as well as to the ordinary self-employed person.
      The broad object of these arrangements is to compensate the older men for the fact that self-employed relief was not available to them in the earlier years up to now. Therefore, it seems to the Government that there is no ground for allowing these increases, that is to say the higher limits, to operate for those who, though they are self-employed now, were in pensionable employment in the past and are now either receiving a pension or have what is called a frozen pension which will become payable when they reach retiring age; though even there one has to make a further refinement, because we want to be as fair as we possibly can to everybody. There may be a case where the past pensionable employment was only a small part-time one, and in such a case it seems that it would really be unfair to exclude a person from these advantages. Consequently, Part II
      292
      is drafted so as to exclude those who have pension rights from past whole-time jobs, but not the others.
      Those who are excluded because of their past pension rights, will still be able to qualify for relief up to the normal 10 per cent, or £750 from their present self-employment; it is only the increase which they will not get.
      The Committee would, no doubt, wish me at this stage to give an estimate of the cost. Questions were asked when we discussed the matter before as to what this extension for the benefit of the late entrants would cost, and I said that at that stage it was really impossible to make any sufficiently reliable estimate. We have been examining this matter further and, though, of course, everything depends on the proportion of people who take advantage of the new opportunity—and everything I say must be subject to that safeguard—we estimate that the cost will be increased by this provision for the late entrants by something of the order of one-quarter. In other words, if the scheme as it stood before was going to cost £30 million, we think the cost will now be £37½ million, or, if it was going to be £40 million, we think it will be increased to£50 million. I think the Committee has appreciated throughout that it is not through any lack of arithmetical aptitude but solely through the sheer impossibility of prophecy that it is not possible to give firm figures. So far as we can see, bearing in mind that probably a good many of these late entrants will wish to take advantage of this arrangement, since they are the people who have been suffering most up to now, we are inclined to think that it will increase the cost of the scheme by about 25 per cent.
      Mr. Mitchison: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves that topic, would he just deal with one point? He has been talking about people of a certain age. This is calculated by reference to the year of a person's birth, and therefore the ages will differ. I should have thought that the cost of the scheme, or the proportion it bears to the cost of the whole scheme, is going to differ in succeeding years. Can the right hon Gentleman give any estimate of that?
      Mr. Brooke: I think we must speak in very general terms. I was not thinking so much of the first year, this particu-

      293
      lar short year which we are now in. I was rather forecasting that, when the scheme gets going, the cost may be increased by something like one-quarter. I would not like to carry my figures beyond that, because it will be possible when the scheme has run for a year or two to see how we are going. At present, all we can do is to indicate that, in the first full year when the new plan is operating, we think that if the Committee accepts the proposals for late entrants in the new Schedule, the cost will be increased by about one-quarter.
      8.0 p.m.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving a fairly full explanation of what, I am sure he will agree, is a very complicated provision. I should like to ask him one or two questions. First, am I right in thinking that Part I of the new Schedule departs substantially from the recommendations which the Millard Tucker Committee made on the same point?
      I am not going back to discuss the question as between £500 and £750, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the existence of the provision in Part I of the new Schedule meets at least some of the points which were put forward in support of the increase from £500 to £750. Without going back into the merits of that matter, it appears to that extent to make that increase less necessary.
      Part II of the proposed Schedule is intended to deal with the persons whom the right hon. Gentleman described as the late entrants. He referred to them persistently by their ages. I think—I speak subject to correction—that the Millard Tucker Report, when considering similar questions, also referred to them by their ages. What the Government have done, however, is to define those ages by reference to the year of birth. Consequently, it seems—I am not objecting to it; I want to know the position—that the advantage that is given to this type of entrant will diminish as the years go on. On balance, fewer and fewer of each group will be coming in.
      While I take all of the reservations made by the right hon. Gentleman about the difficulty of estimating what proportion of the total amount this will represent, it does seem to be a tapering proportion. If that is the case, so much the better. If we had had to consider this
      294
      type of provision in the light of the £500 figure, we should not have taken the same objection to it that we now take.
      I shall not discuss that now because, later, we shall come to some Amendments of our own which will involve references, if we are allowed to introduce them, to a number of Amendments to the new Schedule which appear in pages 3998 and 3999 of the Notice Paper.
      The Temporary Chairman: The hon. and learned Member will be aware that those Amendments have not been selected.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am well aware of that as regards the Amendments in pages 3998 and 3999 of the Notice Paper, Mr. Hynd, but I would point out that the Amendments on Report, to Clause 21, in pages 4008 and 4009 of the Notice Paper, seem to me to raise questions which involve consideration of the figures mentioned in those Amendments. I am not attempting to discuss those Amendments now——
      The Temporary Chairman: I am trying to help the hon. and learned Member. The position is that those Amendments could possibly be discussed on the Report stage when we come to those pages of the Notice Paper. If those Amendments are selected by the Chair, they could be moved then as manuscript Amendments.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am obliged, Mr. Hynd; I hoped that that was the position. All I was doing was partly to safeguard the position as regards the future Amendments and partly to point out to the Financial Secretary, who must be weary with obstruse mathematics, that if he wanted to avoid a little simple arithmetic he would find the figures corresponding to £500 on the next two pages of the Notice Paper, although, of course, as Amendments I could not refer to them.
      Those figures—I can, if necessary read them out as a matter of mathematics, but they are there on the Notice Paper—represent somewhat more reasonable sums. It is perhaps about as good an illustration as one can have of the difficulties into which the £750 limit gets us that when one comes to apply it on quite reasonable lines to the late entrants, one gets up to figures as high as those which appear at the bottom of the table at the end of Part II of the new Schedule.

      295
      When, in a year of financial crisis, notwithstanding the Premium Bonds, we are compelled to allow people to have special concessions in respect of tax up to amounts on either side of £ 1,000, we wonder whether we have not set the whole business rather too high. I make that comment accepting provisionally the fact that this appears to be an annually tapering provision. I should like to know whether I am right on this latter point.
      There is one other question I want to ask, similar to the one I wanted to ask about Part I. Here again, this seems to me to differ from recommendations made on exactly the same point by the Millard Tucker Committee. They appear, I believe, in paragraph 400, in page 111, of the Millard Tucker Report. As the right hon.Gentleman has been good enough to say that he would answer questions, perhaps he will answer one rather general question.
      It apparently required the assiduous efforts of the hon. Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn) to induce the Government to take account of these cases, but I feel certain that the Government did not stop reading the Millard Tucker Report at any point. It is not very long and they must have read it all through. Why did they leave the hon. Member for Carlton to remind them about these types of case, and why did they not follow up the Millard Tucker Committee when they came to deal with them? I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will answer these matters while the opportunity is still ready and ripe for him. He is to get more of them presently.
      Mr. Stevens: All I want to do, on behalf of my hon. Friends, is once more to thank my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for accepting the persuasive arguments which some of us used at an earlier stage of the Bill, partly for the two-job people and partly for the old boys like myself.
      I heard the how and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) express surprise that in a crisis year these large figures, up to £1,125, should be contemplated; but the hon. and learned Member has clearly forgotten what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer was so careful to point out—
      296
      that this is not consumer spending, but, on the contrary, is a form of saving, because the premiums are paid to insurance companies and go to swell the gross total of the national savings. I should have thought that that was a good thing for the nation as well as being a reasonable thing for the individual concerned.
      Welcome as I find these proposals, I do rather regret the limitations which have been imposed. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) was so right when he pointed out that the vast majority of self-employed persons, whether they be professional, or garage proprietors or shopkeepers, do not belong to the category of wealthy friends of hon. Members opposite who start with £7,500 a year when they are 21. We do not mix with that type of person who has been referred to in our debates today.
      Very few self-employed people reach £7,500 a year at all, and of the very few who do, I think that they earn it and deserve it, and they reach it only in the last three or five years of their working lives. The consequence is that these stories of people who have been working for years for £7,500 a year, or have worked for 10 or 15 years at £1,125, are so exaggerated they can be dismissed as untrue.
      No, far from feeling these figures are excessive, I look forward to a future Budget and Finance Bill in which my courageous and right hon. Friend the Chancellor will give full expression to what I think most of us feel in our hearts as being just to senior civil servants, just to the chairmen of nationalised boards, just to retired officers of the three Services, just also to self-employed persons, and put in figures substantially higher than those which we are considering at the present.
      Mr. Mitchison: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether I could summarise his speech in this way, by reference to another accountant, the turf accountant in the well-known book called "Love on the Dole," whose cry was, if I remember aright, "The sky's the limit"?
      Mr. Stevens: The hon. and learned Gentleman's choice of reading matter, of course, I must leave to him. I have not read that book. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] I would refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to a speech made by

      297
      his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross) at a meeting yesterday, and widely reported in the Press today. I am sure that he is of one opinion with his brother lawyer.
      As I say, I think my right hon. Friend is much to be thanked by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee for doing something for the self-employed even though at present he has not brought them up to the level of senior civil servants, retired officers of the three fighting Services, and the chairmen and members of the nationalised boards. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering suggested that Part 1 of the Schedule goes beyond Tucker. What he evidently has forgotten for the moment is that Part II does not go as far as Tucker. I once again express my thanks to my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. H. Brooke: I am very much obliged to my hon. Friend the Member for Langstone (Mr. Stevens) for what he has said. I shall try in a minute or two to answer the questions of the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). I think he was slightly confused about my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Mr. Pickthorn). It was not due to him that we discovered that there were potential late entrants. We certainly knew that all along. What I said was that my hon. Friend was the first person to draw the attention of the Committee to the problem of the two-job man.
      The hon. and learned Member asked whether, under Part I, we were departing from the Millard Tucker Committee's recommendations for the two-job man. I am not quite sure what the answer is, because the Millard Tucker Committee made no recommendations on that type of person. We have devised this scheme which we hope will do justice. All of us, on both sides, recognise the debt we owe to the members of the Millard Tucker Committee. I think that the hon. and learned Member, although he correctly spotted another item of the Report, will have to search long before he finds the two-job man there.
      Mr. Mitchison: Is not this really a case of the partially provided for employees?
      8.15 p.m.
      Mr. Brooke: No. The partially provided for employee is a different case where the man is in a pension scheme, but it is a scheme of a character which will produce a pension that is quite out of line with the type of pension for which a man in an ordinary, full pension scheme would expect to qualify.
      With regard to Part II the hon. and learned Member was entirely right in saying that we have departed substantially from paragraph 400 of the Millard Tucker Report, and that is primarily because, having examined with care and sympathy the Millard Tucker Committee's recommendations for potential late entrants, we found the recommendations impracticable. We could not have worked them. It would have involved, among other things, looking back over a period of 17 years and seeking definite evidence whether a person was self-employed for the whole of a tax year 15, 16, 17 years ago, with a good deal of money dependent upon the result. That seemed to us to be getting well beyond the range of practicability.
      We have devised this, as we think, much better and much simpler scheme, where there will be no dubiety, and where people will know exactly where they are. I hope that this improvement which has been made by my right hon. Friend will bring legitimate satisfaction to many people who can take advantage of it.
      The hon. and learned Member asked about the cost of Part II. If the hon. and learned Member addresses his mind to it he will see that any extra cost loaded on by Part II is bound to dwindle to nothing in 30 years' time because the only people who can take advantage of Part II are those who are over the age of 40. He criticised me for a moment for speaking in terms of ages rather than years. I was doing that for simplicity's sake. I thought I made it clear in my speech that all this was by calendar years and not by age, but 30 years hence all those people will be over 70 and will no longer be within the range of this scheme which allows tax relief.
      Therefore, there will be a tapering of the extra cost over those 30 years. I still stick to my statement that as soon as we have got the scheme running on a normal basis, in the first year of that character, the cost is likely to be 25 per cent. higher

      299
      than it would otherwise be by reason of the provision for the late entrants.
      Schedule read a Second time and added to the Bill.
      Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended (in Committee and on recommittal), considered.

      New Clause.—(SETTLED PROPERTY PASSING ON DEATH OF HUSBAND AND WIFE.)
      (1) In subsection (2) of section thirty-two of the Finance Act, 1954 (which relates to the exemption from estate duty of property passing on the death of a surviving spouse, when duty has been paid on the death of the other spouse or would have been if the duty were payable on estates of however small a principal value), for the words "but would have been if the duty were payable on estates of however small a principal value" there shall be substituted the words "by reason only of the property being or forming part of an estate of too small a principal value or of no principal value".

      (2) This section shall apply where the second death occurs after the commencement of this Act, whether or not the first death occurred after that commencement.—[Sir E. Boyle.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This new Clause is in fulfilment of an undertaking given by the Solicitor-General during the discussion of a new Clause proposed in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot). During the discussion then the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) raised a matter which the Solicitor-General promised to look at before the next stage of the Bill.
      Briefly, the point was this. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering asked how at any stage duty could be charged on an estate which appears to be a minus quantity. There is, of course, no duty payable on any insolvent estate. The new Clause is concerned with the case in which the estate of the first of two spouses to die is insolvent, but the estate of the surviving spouse is not insolvent.
      To take a concrete example, let us suppose that a man has left debts of £20,000, his only estate being shares of £15,000 which he settles on his widow by his will. The estate is insolvent and, therefore, no duty is payable, but we will suppose that, subsequently, the shares appreciate to a value of £25,000. The debts are paid off and at the widow's
      300
      death the settled property consists of shares worth £5,000.
      Under the law as it stands, the insolvency of the husband's estate involves a charge to duty on £5,000 on the widow's death, even though by reason of Section 32 (2) of the Finance Act, 1954, there would have been no such charge if the husband's estate had been not insolvent but below the exemption limit. All that the new Clause does is to assimilate the case in which the husband's estate is insolvent to the case in which it is solvent but too small to pay any duty.
      Mr. Mitchison: I should like to congratulate the Economic Secretary on such a singlarly lucid exposition. I suppose that he is professionally so alive to the possibilities of inflation and share appreciation that he was able to understand and explain a point to which my imagination had not risen. The Clause as originally proposed and as now drafted meets an obvious omission or error in previous legislation and, on this side of the House, we have no objection whatsoever to it.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO FRIENDLY SOCIETIES.)
      (1) In determining for the purposes of the exemptions from tax conferred on registered friendly societies and registered trade unions by section four hundred and forty of the Income Tax Act, 1952, whether any such society or union is by Act of Parliament or by its rules precluded from assuring to any person a sum exceeding one hundred and four pounds a year by way of annuity, there shall be disregarded any annuities under contracts approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under section twenty of this Act, being annuities payable wholly in return for premiums or other consideration paid by a person who (when the premiums or other consideration are or is payable) is, or would but for an insufficiency of profits or gains be, chargeable to tax in respect of relevant earnings (as defined in the said section twenty) from a trade, profession, vocation, office or employment carried on or held by him.
      (2) If, in the event of a dissolution of any such society or union, any such annuity as aforesaid ceases to be paid, or any contract for the payment of such an annuity fails in whole or in part, no payment shall be made in respect thereof out of the funds of the society or union to the annuitant or other person entitled to the benefit of the contract, but any sum which, but for this provision, would have been paid to him shall be applied in purchasing for the benefit of the annuitant an annuity (for the like term, and subject to the like conditions

      301
      against surrender, commutation or assignment) from a person lawfully carrying on in the United Kingdom a business of granting annuities on human life.
      (3) In the proviso to paragraph (1) of section eight and in subsection (1) of section forty-one of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896 (which restrict the benefits payable by a registered friendly society or branch by way of annuity), the word "annuity" shall be taken not to include any such annuities as are referred to in subsection (1) of this section; and, subject to the following subsection, where at the time when this section comes into force the rules of any registered friendly society or branch permit the society or branch to assure an annuity of one hundred and four pounds a year, the rules may within six months from that time be amended by resolution of the committee of management so as to permit the society or branch to assure additional amounts under such contracts as are so referred to.
      (4) No amendment of the rules of a society or branch which is made by virtue of the last foregoing subsection shall extend to contracts entered into more than a year after the date when the amendment is registered under the Friendly Societies Act, 1896; and no such amendment shall be so registered unless the registrar to whom it is sent for registration is satisfied that the amendment (in addition to complying with the other conditions of this section)—

      (a) could not, within the six months beginning with the date when this section comes into force, have been made in the manner authorised by the rules of the society or branch, or not without summoning a special meeting of the society or branch; and

      (b) has been certified by any such actuary as is mentioned in section sixteen of the Friendly Societies Act, 1896, to be free from objection on actuarial grounds.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The purpose of the Clause is to enable registered friendly societies and trade unions to assure to their members retirement annuities of more than £104 per annum under contracts approved by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue under Clause 20. The point about friendly societies was drawn to my attention by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. McAdden), who withdrew an Amendment on an undertaking that we would try to meet the point. The present law exempts from Income Tax the funds of registered friendly societies and the provident funds of trade unions on condition that they do not assure an annuity exceeding £104 or any gross sum exceeding £500. These limits are a condition of registration for friendly societies. They are part of the
      302
      basis of their system and not merely conditions of tax exemption.
      Under Clause 22, assurance companies are to be exempt from tax in respect of funds referable to retirement annuities of the self-employed and under the conditions which we have just been discussing. There is, therefore, no reason that we can see in logic or equity why registered societies and trade unions should not be allowed to provide similar annuities to their members with this exemption. Subsection (1) of the new Clause makes the necessary amendment to the Income Tax Act, 1952, and the following subsections deal with points which may arise.
      Subsection (2) deals with what happens in the event of the dissolution of a society or a union. Subsection (3) allows the committee of a society or trade union to make an amendment of the rules without waiting for the annual meeting or having to summon an expensive special meeting. This is a convenience which would help them. I commend the Clause to the House, because I think it equitable that these organisations should have the same position as insurance companies under the new schemes.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I rise only because on an earlier Clause I felt constrained to speak rather critically of the Chancellor's proposal and therefore on this Clause am even more pleased than I should otherwise be to be able to thank the Chancellor for bringing this proposal forward, particularly as it links the trade unions with the friendly societies. In handing over this small bouquet to the Chancellor, I should like to mention that the trade unions, alongside the friendly societies, have for many years administered provident benfits to the members of those organisations, generally in a very efficient and satisfactory manner. A stage has been reached in our social development when I should imagine that many of the trade unions, with the technical equipment and the highly efficient organisations which they have built up, will find it worthwhile at least considering whether or not they should enter this new sphere of providing benefits for those members who have not been otherwise given pension rights in their conditions of employment in various industries.

      303
      It would not be out of place, perhaps, in any reference to the wider matters if I said that I think this House would probably deplore any development, either in friendly societies or in trade union adminitration, which meant their going into the annuity business, a highly technical matter, without proper actuarial advice. I hope there will be no repetition of the kind of experience which some organisations have suffered in years gone by, of schemes being put forward with high hopes but without the necessary technical advice behind them.
      With those remarks, I thank the Chancellor for bringing the trade unions and the friendly societies into line with the facilities now open to the insurance offices. I hope the scheme will be administered not only with a view to the sectional interests of any of these organisations but to the wider interests of the social welfare of the citizens of this country.
      8.30 p.m.
      Mr. Stephen McAdden: If I am brief in expressing my thanks to the Chancellor for the ample way in which he has met the representations I made on this matter during the Committee stage of the Bill, it is only because I realise that the best thanks we can afford the Minister on this Measure is to assist him to get the Finance Bill through with the greatest possible speed.
      My thanks are none the less sincere because the Chancellor has done the most enlightened thing in this matter. He has gone as far as he could to meet the wishes of the friendly societies, he has shown that he believes they have a just and proved case, and he has gone all the way to ensure that they are able to compete upon equal terms with the large companies in this new method of saving, upon which my right hon. Friend himself has embarked, and upon which I am sure all hon. Members wish him every success. I thank him sincerely for what he has done in this matter.
      Mr. Mitchison: On this side of the Committee we welcome, as we welcomed at an earlier stage, the concession made to the friendly societies. I should like to take a small coal of fire and deposit it upon the devoted head of the Chancellor by reminding the right hon. Gentleman that it was I who pointed out that the right hon. Gentleman had forgotten
      304
      the trade unions, and the coal of fire is now to thank him for having ransacked his memory to discover somewhere in the depths of it some recollection that such institutions exist. The friendly society activities—if I may so describe them—of trade unions for these purposes are very close to those of the friendly societies. They are actually in the same Section of the 1952 Act. The right hon. Gentleman must have stopped reading it a little too early; but the Income Act is rather tedious reading. At any rate, I am glad that they have been included.
      I make one other comment which, I hope, will be corrected if I am wrong. I have been looking at the time provisions in subsection (4). They restrict the period during which the rules of a society or branch may be amended, "by virtue of the last foregoing subsection"—that is, by virtue of subsection (3). There is another similar restriction under paragraph (a) of that subsection.
      I gathered from what the right hon. Gentleman said that the object of those time provisions was simply to limit the operation of Amendments made under the special facilities given under subsection (3); that is to say, otherwise than in ordinary accord with the rules of the registered friendly society or branch; and that therefore the time provisions relate only to cases where the Amendments have been made by the committee of management itself. If that is so, that seems to be a thoroughly reasonable provision, and I suppose it will impose on the society or branch the practical duty of taking up the matter again at the next regular opportunity and repeating what was done by the committee of management the first time.
      Mr. H. Macmillan indicated assent.
      Mr. Mitchison: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman nodding. We had the following Amendments down to this new Clause—in line 33, leave out from "shall" to "registered" in line 34 and insert "be"; in line 35, leave out from "1896" to "unless", and in line 38, leave out paragraph (a). They have not been called, and I shall not refer to them in detail. We put them down because we were not certain about that point, and I am glad to hear that all is well.
      I make one more short comment. I believe that there have been alterations

      305
      in this limit before, although I speak from memory. I appreciate that the time has arrived for an increase. What has been done here—I am sure it will reassure hon. Gentlemen opposite—is in this case at any rate to take off the limit altogether. The sky is the limit this time. Icaros, was it not, who flew up there rather too rashly and got into trouble? My right hon. Friend was right in saying, "Now that you are no longer restrained within the limit of £104 annuity, do not fly too quickly lest you fly into the sun." All that is true but, after all, times have changed and certainly the trade unions concerned in this matter, and I believe, too, the friendly societies concerned in it, may under modern, conditions, and with no horrible shortage of actuaries and accountants, be relied upon to set their own limits in the light of prudence rather than in the light of Acts of Parliament. Therefore my hon. Friends and I welcome this Clause.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause.—(COMPOSITION FOR STAMP DUTY ON CHEQUES, &C.)
      (1) The Commissioners may enter into an agreement with any banker for the composition, in accordance with the following provisions of this section, of the stamp duty chargeable under the heading "Bill of Exchange payable on demand" in the First Schedule to the Stamp Act, 1891, on such instruments—

      (a) drawn on the banker by his customers on forms supplied by him, or

      (b) drawn by the banker on himself or another banker,

      as may be specified in the agreement.
      (2) Any such agreement shall require the banker to deliver to the Commissioners periodical accounts in respect of the instruments to which the agreement relates giving particulars—

      (a) of forms supplied by him to his customers with a view to their being completed and issued as such instruments by the customers, and of forms so supplied but returned unused or spoilt, and

      (b) of such instruments issued by him,

      and may contain such other terms and conditions as the Commissioners think proper.
      (3) Where any such agreement has been made with a banker, any instrument to which the agreement relates and which bears such indication of the payment of stamp duty as the Commissioners may require shall not be chargeable with stamp duty, but the banker shall pay to the Commissioners, on the delivery
      306
      of any account under the agreement, such sums as would but for the provisions of this section have been chargeable by way of stamp duty on such instruments issued during the period to which the account relates, it being assumed for this purpose that the number of such instruments issued by his customers was equal to the number of forms supplied less the number of forms returned as mentioned in paragraph (a) of the last foregoing subsection.
      (4) Where a banker makes default in delivering any account required by any such agreement or in paying the duty payable on the delivery of any such account, he shall be liable to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds for any day during which the default continues and shall also be liable to pay to Her Majesty, in addition to the duty, interest thereon at the rate of five per cent. per annum from the date when the default begins.—[Mr. H. Macmillan.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The object of the Clause is to make a reform, minor in a sense but not without importance. It is to enable the Commissioners of Inland Revenue to enter into agreements with the banks with the object of improving the present method of collecting Stamp Duty on cheques and dividend warrants.
      Under the present law, the 2d. Stamp Duty on cheques, dividend warrants, and so forth, has to be denoted by an impressed, or sometimes an adhesive, stamp. Under the proposed agreements, the banks' printers will print on the cheques a medallion stating that the Stamp Duty has been or will be paid, and the banks will account to the Revenue for the duty payable on the cheques which they supply to their customers or use themselves.
      Schemes on this basis are in operation in Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There will be a substantial saving of work. It is a much simpler system to operate and will mean smaller staffs. Although there will be a period of slight slowing down in respect of the banks accounting to the Revenue for the duty, I think the reform is one that we ought to make, because it brings the whole system into line with modern methods of operation.
      Mr. Mitchison: I thank the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary for having been kind enough to send my right hon. Friend a note about the practical reasons for the

      307
      Clause. I can only say that they seem to us to be good reasons.
      We hope that the right hon. Gentleman will have a nice medallion to state that Stamp Duty has been or will be paid and will not use it for propaganda of any sort. I do not think that he ought to take this opportunity at any rate of advertising Premium Bonds, and there will not be much room unless it is a very large medallion.
      Subject to points of that nature, we agree that this is an improvement, and that it will avoid the horrible picture in his letter of about 600 million cheques a year having to be transported to the Stamp Office. It sounds a bit funny, but it obviously represents a very great deal of unnecessary work. Our go-ahead cousins "down-under" have tumbled to it, and it is about time we did the same.
      Mr. Bottomley: Can the Chancellor tell us on what basis the penalties have been fixed? Are they in accordance with the practice in Commonwealth countries, or in accordance with another similar matter in the United Kingdom?
      Mr. H. Macmillan: The penalties follow what has been provided under analogous, although not exactly similar, schemes. I think they are reasonable. I do not think there will be very much difficulty about it. We cannot, of course, operate the scheme except with a very limited number of people. Business firms sometimes ask whether they can operate something of the same kind, but that is not possible. We shall operate it with the clearing banks. Although we have to put in a penalty, I do not think there will be very much likelihood of our having difficulty.
      Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause.—(FURTHER CONTINUATION OF MILLS, FACTORIES ALLOWANCES.)
      (1) The Income Tax Acts shall have effect, and be deemed always to have had effect, as if in subsection (2) of section seven of the Income Tax Act, 1945 (which provides that the allowances under section fifteen of the Finance Act, 1937, in respect of mills, factories and other similar premises shall cease in all cases after the year 1955–56), for the words "the next nine years of assessment" there had in both places been substituted the words "the next twelve years of assessment".
      (2) The reference in this section to section seven of the Income Tax Act, 1945 shall be construed as referring to that section as set out in Part I of the Eleventh Schedule to the Income Tax Act, 1952.—[Sir E. Boyle.]
      Brought up and read the First time.
      Sir E. Boyle: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The object of the Clause is to implement the decision of my right hon. Friend that the mills and factories' allowance should be continued for a further, and final, period of three years. I think that, without discourtesy to the House, I can be brief in moving the Clause.
      The allowance was extended by the former Chancellor, Sir Stafford Cripps, in 1950 for a further period of five years, and it was designed to end on 5th April, 1956. A new Clause designed to continue the allowance for a further five years was moved in Committee by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), and I then said that I was instructed to say that we would look into this allowance and see whether there was a case for a further extension. My right hon. Friend has examined this question, and he thinks that in present circumstances there is a case for an absolutely final extension of three years. It is for that reason that this new Clause has been tabled.
      Mr. Mitchison: On the whole, we regard the principle of this new Clause as reasonable. I need not go into it again, because it was discussed at an earlier stage. What was originally suggested, I believe, was the next 15 years instead of the next nine years, and the Treasury, which really at times becomes almost understandable, performed the operation known to the vulgar as splitting the difference, and this appears to be the result. In that spirit, and recognising that noble minds occasionally do quite ordinary things, we offer no objection whatever to this provision.
      Mr. Stevens: I rise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), who cannot be here, once again to thank my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for rather more than splitting the difference in this new Clause. Originally, my hon. Friend asked for five years, and we have got three years, which is three-fifths of what

      309
      we want, or rather more than 50 per cent. Actually, it is 60 per cent. In any case, I am very grateful and offer my sincere thanks.
      Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

      New Clause.—(ADDITIONAL EARNED INCOME RELIEF IN CERTAIN CASES.)
      (1) In relation to a claimant to whom this section applies subsection (1) of section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which subsection provides earned income relief), as amended, shall have effect with the substitution for references to two-ninths and to four hundred and fifty pounds of references to one-quarter and to five hundred pounds.
      (2) This section applies to a claimant whose earned income is chargeable to tax under Schedule E or who, if his earned income is chargeable to tax under Case II of Schedule D or partly under that case and otherwise under Schedule E, makes an election under the next following subsection.
      (3) For the purposes of this section a claimant may elect to have his earned income, if or in so far as it is chargeable under Case II of Schedule D, computed under Schedule E, so that Rule 7 of the rules applicable to Schedule E and appearing in the Ninth Schedule to that Act shall apply accordingly:
      Provided that any additional liability to tax imposed on a claimant by reason of such an election shall not in any case exceed the additional relief allowed to that claimant by virtue of subsection (1) of this section.—[Mr. Roy Jenkins.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      This Clause is an attempt to introduce into our Income Tax law the small beginnings of a new principle. The principle is broadly in line with one of the recommendations of the minority report of the Royal Commission on Taxation of Profits and Income, though the problem to which the Clause seeks to draw attention was recognised not only by the minority but also by the majority of that Royal Commission.
      The problem is this. There is at the present time a sharp difference, and a consequent unfairness, between the treatment of expenses which are allowed by the Revenue to be deducted by taxpayers who happen to be assessed under Schedule D and those who happen to be assessed under Schedule E. I very much doubt if any hon. Member in the House would seek to dispute the fact that there is a difference and an unfairness in the treat-
      310
      ment of these two classes at the present time. The unfairness arises from the fact that those who are assessed under Schedule E as carrying on an office or employment can have expenses allowed only if they are "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" incurred in order to carry on that office or employment, whereas those who carry on a trade, profession or vocation and are assessed under Schedule D are enabled to deduct expenses from their taxable income provided that they are "wholly and exclusively" incurred.
      The difference is an extremely important difference, because in the one case the word "necessarily" applies and in the other case it does not apply. This comparatively small difference in words without doubt makes a very great difference in treatment in practice. Those carrying on a trade or vocation and assessed under Schedule D are in any case in a very much more favourable position, in that they have, by capital allowances and other means, a possibility of safeguarding against the wearing out of the equipment which they use in earning the income, whereas that is not available to someone operating under Schedule E and carrying on an ordinary job.
      8.45 p.m.
      On top of that there is the difference to which I want primarily to call attention. It is the question of whether expenses are "necessarily" incurred. Without doubt, a great number of expenses which are allowed by the Revenue under Schedule D are not necessarily incurred in the sense that if they were not incurred in the year in question, it would not be possible in that year to earn the income on which the tax is levied. It may be argued that a great part of advertising and business expenses is not necessary even to earn future profits, but without any question at all a great part of expenditure of this type is devoted to the earning of future and not current profits against which the expenditure is offset.
      On the other hand, one knows perfectly well that anyone operating under Schedule E is certainly not allowed to charge as expenses some item of expenditure which he incurs with a view to increasing his future earning capacity. Certainly, someone assessed under Schedule E would not be able to take a future employer to lunch and charge that as expenses on the

      311
      ground that if he got on well with the employer he might get a better job and have a greater earning capacity as a result.
      It cannot be disputed that there is a great difference of treatment between someone assessed under Schedule D—he might be a businessman, someone carrying on a professional occupation, or one of a wide variety of vocations who can charge anything which is "wholly and exclusively" incurred—and someone charged under Schedule E who has to prove that it is "necessarily" incurred and is restricted in other ways in which the other persons are not restricted.
      The existence of this problem was recognised by all members of the Royal Commission on the Taxation of Profits and Income, but the two sides differed in the method by which they sought to meet it. The majority—I think wrongly, and I will indicate why in a moment—thought that the best thing to do was to widen the position of Schedule E taxpayers and to put them in a position approximately the same as that which Schedule D taxpayers already enjoyed. I think that that is a mistaken approach to the problem, because it would have opened wide avenues for further tax avoidance which we very much want to avoid.
      As a slight variant of that point, I think that it was mistaken even more strongly because we want to do nothing at present to narrow the tax base. Some of my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have tried to argue at an earlier stage that one of the disadvantages in our present tax structure is that we have a very high pyramid of tax rates constructed on a rather narrow basis of taxable income, in other words, that a great part of what is in fact income is excluded from the tax base and that as a result we have rates of tax which are nominally extremely high and which may bear extremely hardly on people who happen to be in the position that all their income constitutes part of the tax base, but bear less hardly on other people, a large part of whose income is outside the tax base. Thus it is undesirable to approach the problem by any further whittling away of the tax base.
      In this new Clause we have attempted to adopt in a slightly modified form, not
      312
      the proposal of the majority of the Royal Commission for opening up the amount of expenses which may be charged for Schedule E taxpayers, but that put forward by the minority. That is to recognise that there is a real difference and that it is a cause of unfairness and grievance. We have attempted to solve it not by allowing any more expenses to be charged by anybody, but saying to the Schedule E taxpayer, "You are in an unfair position and we will recognise that by giving you an additional earned income allowance which will not be available to the Schedule D taxpayer who is much more fortunately placed from the point of view of expenses."
      The Clause increases the earned income allowance for Schedule E taxpayers from two-ninths to one-quarter. In a sense this is a token increase. In moving the Clause my hon. Friends and I are seeking to establish the principle that unfairness exists in the treatment accorded to taxpayers assessed under the two Schedules, and we submit that this proposal is, broadly, the correct method of remedying that unfairness. We are not specially concerned about the difference between two-ninths and one-quarter.
      The Clause goes a little further in this direction by saying that taxpayers who happen to be assessed under Schedule D—the lucky ones from the point of view of expenses—can, if they so choose, receive the benefit of this extra earned income relief by allowing themselves voluntarily to be assessed, for expenses purposes, not under Schedule D but under Schedule E. It is therefore possible for anyone, provided that he is willing to accept the present rigours of the Schedule E rule upon expenses, to receive the benfit of the extra earned income allowance.
      This seems to me to be a reasonable and moderate approach to a problem the reality of which cannot be denied by any hon. Member. There is unfairness here, which is leading to a sharp sense of grievance. I do not think we need fear that the institution of a new principle will be specially dangerous. After all, we already have the earned income allowance itself. As I understand it, that allowance was introduced into our taxation law about 45 years ago, not because Chancellors then thought that there was any particular moral difference between earned and unearned income, but because

      313
      they thought that those with earned incomes were in a less favourable position than those with unearned incomes. They took the view that unless something went wrong those with unearned incomes received them indefinitely, and there was no question of a cessation of income at retirement, or of their having to make provision for the fact that their earning capacities were wearing out.
      The earned income allowance is designed to deal in a rough and ready way with an unfairness inherent in two types of income, nad the differential between the earned income allowance of one type of taxpayer under Schedule D and another under Schedule E would be a logical extension of this principle and would go some little way towards making our taxation system more fair that it is at present. I believe that it would also remove a real sense of grievance which exists in the minds of many taxpayers.
      Mr. Austen Albu: I beg to second the Motion.
      It is perhaps a little unfortunate that we should be discussing this important principle in a rather empty House, because it deals with the considerable disadvantages suffered by many professional people in salaried occupations—and the number of professional people in salaried occupations is growing every year. These professional people—whether they be lawyers, engineers, or accountants—suffer by comparison with their fellows who are self-employed, as I hope to show very briefly.
      We on this side of the Committee make no excuse for advocating measures which are to the advantage of earned incomes as against unearned incomes, and certainly this Clause would be of assistance to those whose incomes are derived mainly from work. To that extent it is in line with the views expressed recently in the Press, and even to some extent accepted by hon. Members on this side of the Committee during the course of the discussions on this Bill, that there is a need for a greater incentive to be given to the professional and technical classes.
      If I may give an example of the sort of persons who would benefit by this new Clause, I cannot do better than refer to an Amendment I moved on the last
      314
      occasion on which it was possible to move Amendments of this sort to this Bill. It related to the position of the professional civil servant who very often finds that he cannot attain his position in the Civil Service unless he is a member of a professional association. Advertisements for engineers, scientists, accountants, and so forth, all ask that applicants shall hold the qualification of a professional association as, for instance, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers.
      Once a man becomes a professional civil servant the Treasury is unwilling to say that it is necessarily part of the conditions of his employment that he should continue to be a member. This is a ludicrous situation. It means that the man is unable to obtain relief for his subscriptions to those professional bodies which are now quite high, and equally he is unable to obtain relief for the professional books which he needs in the course of his duty. It cannot be of any advantage to the State for a professional man, a technical man or a scientist, not to continue to be a member of an association established for the purpose of furthering science, or the particular technique of his profession.
      But the Treasury makes it more difficult for him to be so. Were he self-employed, he would be fully entitled to claim under Schedule D rules for all the expenses he incurs in maintaining membership of a professional association and in continuing to do those things which he has to do in order to advance his knowledge. The Amendment was negatived on the last occasion when it was moved, and it has been moved on a number of occasions. It must be a great disadvantage that in a period of rapidly changing ideas, particularly technical and scientific ideas, we should not give to the professional man the relief which he should have if he is to maintain his knowledge of his profession and keep up to date with new ideas.
      There may well be administrative difficulties—as I am sure was argued from the Treasury Bench on the last occasion when the matter was discussed—about applying this form of relief. There are only two ways to deal with it. One way, as has been said by my hon. Friend, is by accepting the proposal of the majority of the Royal Commission, and giving almost the same reliefs to those who

      315
      obtain relief under Schedule E as are now obtained by those who get them under Schedule D. The other way is that recommended in the minority report, which is roughly along the lines of the new Clause moved by my hon. Friend.
      Hon. Members on this side of the Committee are opposed to widening the whole range of expenses as relief from taxation, for the good reasons which have been advanced during the debates on this Bill. We think that already the tax base is too narrow and, therefore, the burden of taxation on the majority of people falls heavier than otherwise it would do. But there is a very good case for accepting this. After all, it is not a very great change in the law, and at least it would give as much advantage to the professional man in salaried employment as would be required to bring him into something like a position equivalent to that enjoyed at present by those who are self-employed.
      9.0 p.m.
      In order to make everything fair and to put everybody on an equal basis, we have the third subsection of the Clause, which would enable a person in self-employment, who gets relief under Schedule D, to make the choice for himself which form of relief he wishes to have. It cannot be said, therefore, that we propose to reverse the present disadvantages, placing them on the Schedule D man instead of the Schedule E man. We are giving the Schedule D man an opportunity to have exactly the same conditions as the professional man paying tax under Schedule E and in salaried employment.
      The new Clause would undoubtedly give a great deal of pleasure to a large number of very worthy professional persons who are in salaried employment. The present situation, as I said when I last spoke on the subject, is ludicrous. When I was in salaried employment, not in the Civil Service, all that was necessary was for me to get my employer to give me a note saying that for the purpose of my employment it was necessary that I should be a member of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers; and I was given Income Tax relief on the four or five guineas which I paid in subscription, without any question by the Income Tax authorities. If I had been a civil servant,
      316
      the Treasury would not have given me that statement and I should not have been given the relief. The situation is ludicrous, and the best way to deal with it is that which was so well described by my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford in moving the new Clause.
      Captain J. A. L. Duncan: I do not pretend to be an expert on this subject, but the fact that the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has moved the new Clause and talked about unfairness gives me the chance to say something about one section of the community with whom I am in fairly close touch. I am a member of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons and that body has brought to my notice the fact that there is unfairness in dealing with this matter. I hope the Treasury will look into the whole question with a view to dealing with that unfairness in the next Finance Bill, if they can do nothing about it in this Bill.
      The veterinary profession and the dental profession are both looked after by statutory bodies, and members of the profession have to pay a fee every year, before they are allowed to practise, in order to get the necessary letters after their names. That fee, whatever it may be—four, five or six guineas—is not allowed as an expense by the Income Tax authorities, on the ground that it is a condition precedent to practise and not an expense, wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the course of their practice. I believe that the case has been tested in the courts and that the decision of the Income Tax authorities has been upheld by the courts.
      It seems to me quite stupid that the Commissioners of Inland Revenue should be allowed to get away with this absurd position. I have referred to veterinary surgeons and dentists, but there are probably many others affected; and the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) has mentioned people in similar categories. In these matters some people get away with it and others do not. It seems to me that something must be done, one way or the other, to put this matter right and to eliminate the unfairness. I am really not qualified to enter into the high financial argument as to whether——
      Mr. Albu: I am not sure whether the hon. and gallant Gentleman is referring

      317
      to the veterinary surgeons whose membership of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is a statutory one, and who cannot practise otherwise. If that is the case, they are entitled.
      Captain Duncan: No, they are not entitled, and the reason is, as I have already said, that the Income Tax authorities take the view that their subscription is a condition precedent to practise rather than a part of expenses wholly, necessarily and exclusively incurred in the course of that profession.
      I am not prepared to dogmatise as to which is the right way to deal with it. I would only say to the hon. Member for Stechford that although I agree that the tax basis is narrow I do not think that, in order to eliminate an unfairness like this, it would be wrong to narrow it still further. What I think is wrong is that the whole weight of taxation is far too heavy on us all, and the answer that I would give to the hon. Member's new Clause, and the method of dealing with this unfairness, is not to narrow the basis of taxation but to lessen its weight.
      Mr. H. Brooke: My hon, and gallant Friend the Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan) has skilfully used this new Clause as an opportunity to express certain views to Parliament about the Schedule E law. That is a matter on which the Royal Commission made certain recommendations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor did not think fit to bring in proposals arising out of those recommendations, at any rate this year.
      I confess that I was somewhat puzzled by the speech of the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu). Having first of all criticised the restrictive character of the Schedule E tax relief for expenses, he proceeded to second this new Clause which would apply the Schedule E rules to an increased number of people. But I will seek to address myself to the main point of the Clause, which was moved by the hon. Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins).
      If I understood him rightly, the hon. Member said that he was moving this new Clause as a demonstration or a gesture rather than tightly binding himself to any of these proposals. That may explain why he was departing from what hitherto has been the general custom in this field,
      318
      which is that the age relief fraction should move along with the earned income relief. He would certainly be departing from precedent if he succeeded in getting this new Clause on the Statute Book, because it would give the one-quarter relief for earned income instead of two-ninths but would not extend that advantage either to the general age relief for people over 65 or to the small income relief for people with incomes under £300 a year, although, hitherto, it has been thought fit, and I am sure rightly, that the two fractions—or perhaps I should say the three fractions—should go together.
      The hon. Gentleman indicated that he was basing this Clause on the idea in the minority report of the Royal Commission, although he was not following it slavishly. The present position is that the earned income relief at the two-ninths rate is the highest figure at which the relief had ever stood. When this earned income relief was introduced 36 years ago following the recommendation of an earlier Royal Commission, the rate was fixed at one-tenth. It was gradually extended beyond that up to the time of the war; there was a cut in 1940, and there have been extensions since the war. It was raised to two-ninths in 1952.
      This new Clause proposes that it should be extended to one-quarter for those people who come under Schedule E, and for those people who are chargeable under Case II of Schedule D if they opt for the restrictive Schedule E expenses rule rather than the wider Schedule D expenses rule.
      The minority report of the Royal Commission was, of course, in some respects somewhat bolder. It recommended that earned income relief should be available to all Schedule E incomes without any upper limit at all—a most interesting and far-reaching recommendation—and then recommended, somewhat in line with this Clause, that a similar extension of relief should be given to individuals assessed in respect of professional earnings under Case II of Schedule D but who, as the Clause says, opt to be assessed on their profits by reference to the Schedule E expenses rule. It made a further recommendation relating to the case of trading and business profits of individuals and partnerships.

      319
      The hon. Member for Stechford has made a selection out of these recommendations, and I think that his main purpose has been to bring before the House the difference between the Schedule D and the Schedule E expenses rules, a matter which might also have come up on a later Clause which, I understand, is not likely to be called. In his speech, there seemed to me to be a hint that the rules for Schedule D are operated as a kind of special relief favourable to the Schedule D taxpayer. That, of course, is not the purpose of them. The purpose of the difference is to seek to reflect the essential feature of the separate cases.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: Does the right hon. Gentleman not consider that it is sometimes more important to have regard to results rather than purposes?
      Mr. Brooke: I did not interrupt the hon. Gentleman's speech, and I hope he will allow me to refer here to the purposes.
      The essential feature of the two cases is that the Schedule D taxpayer has to incur a variety of expenses in the course of earning his profit and for the purpose of earning his profit, whereas the Schedule E taxpayer is entitled only to deduct the expenses which are necessarily incurred at the behest of an employer in the performance of the duties of his office or employment.
      Let me say at once that I recognise the particular position of those people who are taxed under Schedule E but who have not, in the ordinary sense, an employer. The clergy is one example. If anybody wishes to take the point up with the Financial Secretary, let me say at once that when I sat on the other side of the House I myself moved a new Clause designed to give the clergy, who have not in the ordinary sense got an employer, something akin to the Schedule D rather than the Schedule E expenses rule. Certain right hon. Gentlemen opposite explained why that was quite unthinkable, and I remember that we went to a Division about it. I quote that, first, so as to be entirely frank with the House, and, second, to show that I, for one, certainly have not got a closed mind on these subjects.
      320
      9.15 p.m.
      I must address myself to the proposal in the new Clause. It is a proposal that the law shall be altered in a way that in certain circumstances will give earned income relief at the rate of one-quarter instead of two-ninths. If all the Schedule D people referred to in the Clause decided to take advantage of it and claim relief at one-quarter, while subjecting themselves to the more rigid Schedule E expenses rule—and it seems to me quite a reasonable assumption that they would—the cost to the revenue would be £72 million in a full year.
      I must say quite frankly that, from the context of the present Budget, it would be unthinkable for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to accept an erosion of that magnitude into his Budget surplus.
      Mr. Roy Jenkins: I am interested in the means by which the right hon. Gentleman has arrived at the figure of £72 million. He must clearly have made some offsetting assumption for the fact that Schedule D taxpayers who took this option would have to forgo expenses which they might otherwise have claimed and that to that extent their taxable income would be greater, even though they would have a bigger earned income relief to set off against it. Can the right hon. Gentleman take us through his calculations on that point?
      Mr. Brooke: I do not think I could give the precise calculation of gains and losses. I think the hon. Member will accept it from me that there is bound to be a certain element of assumption in any such calculations, but so far as we can arrive at a figure this would cause a loss of revenue of about £72 million.
      Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in arriving at that precise figure, he has in principle taken into account the offset by the increase in the size of the taxable income, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) has referred?
      Mr. Brooke: I am not suggesting that £72 million is a gross figure. I was giving it as a net figure.
      When I have given that figure—and it is the best estimate we can make—I rather hope that the hon. Member for Stechford, having made his demonstration and his gesture, will appreciate that his

      321
      Clause is not one which in present circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer could possibly accept.
      Mr. Jay: Although the Financial Secretary says that he does not have a closed mind, I am not greatly surprised that he has not accepted the Clause. As I think he realises, what we are really concerned with is not the age relief or the exact size of the earned income relief, or, indeed, the option, of which the right hon. Gentleman made a great deal, for the Schedule D taxpayer to move in certain circumstances on to the Schedule E basis. What we are concerned with, as is the hon. and gallant Member for South Angus (Captain Duncan), is the basic unfairness which exists between the Schedule D and Schedule E methods of treating expenses. If I say a few more words, it is only to try to persuade the Financial Secretary to think very hard about this, if not tonight, at least before the next time the Chancellor deals with these problems.
      The difficulty arises from the distinction between the words "wholly and exclusively" under Schedule D and "wholly and exclusively and necessary" under Schedule E. These sacred words go back for over one hundred years and they are very deeply embedded in the Inland Revenue system.
      The Financial Secretary gave what he called the purpose of the present distinction—the theory, so to speak, which has been operating for all this time—but we are more concerned with the actual results and the actual practice of granting these reliefs for expenses as they work out. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) gave the very familiar example of professional subscriptions, and so on, which the Schedule D taxpayer is able to make, as compared with the refusal of those deductions, for instance, to the civil servant or other worker, such as the clergyman an hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned, working under Schedule E.
      It works in even more extraordinary ways. One of the oddest anomalies of all is that in no case, or practically no case, can a trade union subscription be claimed as a deduction, even though it is a condition of employment in practice. My hon. Friend the Member for Edmon-
      322
      ton said he had been able with some Schedule E activity or other to get a deduction as the result of the employer's signing a piece of paper to that effect. Nevertheless, even where the trade union subscription is a necessary condition of employment, it is not allowed by the Inland Revenue.
      Mr. J. T. Price: I agree with my right hon. Friend's argument, but, for the sake of exactitude and the record, perhaps he will allow me to point out there is an exception. It ought to be said that if a trade union administers friendly society benefits, that portion of the subscription which is related to those benefits is allowed for deduction.
      Mr. Jay: My hon. Friend is right, and that is why I said in almost every case. In the normal case it is the curious fact that the subscription paid by a firm to a trade association is a deductible expense, while the subscription paid by a worker to a trade union is not.
      It happens, quite rightly and naturally, that when we have a General Election the Trades Union Congress, on the one side, puts out political manifestoes supporting one party and the Federation of British Industries, on the other side, puts out manifestos supporting the other party. It is always curious to reflect that the cost of that activity on one side is apparently paid for by the Exchequer while that on the other is paid for by the trade union contributions of the employees. One could give further examples of this curious distinction that exists.
      The question before the House is what can be done to remedy that. I think most of us have been really troubled by this when thinking about Income Tax and trying to find some possible solution. I think there are three possible ways out of the difficulty. One is to accept the proposal of the majority of the Royal Commission that we should introduce the latitude of Schedule D into Schedule E. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stechford (Mr. Roy Jenkins) that that would be, as he put it, narrowing the tax base even further. One may put it differently and say that it would be extending some of the present abuses in Schedule D to Schedule E. I do not think that most of us would wish to see that.
      Logically, of course, the alternative would be to take exactly the opposite course and propose that the Inland

      323
      Revenue should apply to Schedule D, to the profit area of taxation, the same rigid limitations and to introduce the word "necessary" applied now to Schedule E. Many of us must have wondered at times whether that would not be the right solution. The difficulty is, I understand, that the Inland Revenue has always held it would, in practice, be impossible to administer a rule of that kind. Suppose it were the duty of the tax collector to say, in the case of a business, what was or was not a necessary expense, in disagreement with the manager of the business. It has always been held that that would be administratively impossible. I am impressed by the fact that even the minority of the Royal Commission, who were very anxious to solve this problem, were not prepared to make that proposal. We read that, in the case of Lady Docker's mink coat, apparently the Inland Revenue was not prepared to say that that was necessary for a particular business. We are glad to see that apparently it is willing to draw the line somewhere, but, nevertheless, there is no great body of opinion which is prepared to argue that that is the general solution.
      That being so, it seemed to us worth putting forward an alternative way out of the difficulty. If we cannot bring Schedule D and Schedule E into line with one another in the matter of "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" the next best thing to do is to grant a special concession to Schedule E taxpayer by another method which will counteract the disadvantage which he is suffering under the expenses rule.
      I think that the proposal put forward by my hon. Friends is simple. It may not be the completely ideal solution and I can well believe that it may be that the right hon. Gentleman cannot spare that amount of revenue at the moment—but it presents a possible avenue of escape from this difficulty. If my hon. Friends feel able to press this suggestion, I hope that they will do so as a reminder to the Financial Secretary that this problem has not yet been solved and that we believe that if he cannot find another solution himself he should think hard on these lines.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 227.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Proctor, W. T.

      Thornton, E.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Pryde, D. J.

      Timmons, J.

      Mitchison, G. R.

      Randall, H. E.

      Tomney, F.

      Moody, A. S.

      Rankin, John

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Mort, D. L.

      Redhead, E. C.

      Wade, D. W.

      Moss, R.

      Reid, William

      Warbey, W. N.

      Mulley, F. W.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Weitzman, D.

      Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Oswald, T.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      West, D. G.

      Owen, W. J.

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Padley, W. E.

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Paget, R. T.

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Williams, David (Neath)

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

      Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

      Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

      Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

      Sparks, J. A.

      Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Steele, T.

      Winterbottom, Richard

      Parker, J.

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Parkin, B. T.

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

      Yates, V. (Ladywood)

      Plummer, Sir Leslie

      Summerskitl, Rt. Hon. E.

      Zilliacus, K.

      Popplewell, E.

      Swingler, S. T.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Taylor, John (West Lothian)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

      Thomas lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

      Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

      Probert, A. R.

      Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)

      326

      NOES

      Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Aitken, W. T.

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

      Alport, C. J. M.

      du Cann, E. D. L.

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Joseph, Sir Keith

      Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

      Duthie, W. S.

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

      Armstrong, C. W.

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Kaberry, D.

      Ashton, H.

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Keegan, D.

      Astor, Hon. J. J.

      Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Atkins, H. E.

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Kerr, H. W.

      Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

      Fell, A.

      Kimball, M.

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Kirk, P. M.

      Balniel, Lord

      Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

      Lagden, G. W.

      Barber, Anthony

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Lambert, Hon. G.

      Barlow, Sir John

      Foster, John

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Barter, John

      Freeth, D. K.

      Langford-Holt, J. A.

      Beamish, Maj. Tufton

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Leather, E. H. C.

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      George, J. C. (Pollok)

      Leavey, J. A.

      Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

      Gibson-Watt, D.

      Leburn, W. G.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Glover, D.

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

      Bidgood, J. C.

      Godber, J. B.

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Biggs-Davison, J. A.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

      Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

      Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

      Bishop, F. P.

      Gower, H. R.

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Black, C. W.

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

      Body, R. F.

      Grant, W. (Woodside)

      Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

      Boothby, Sir Robert

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

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Bossom, Sir Alfred

      Green, A.

      Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

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

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N. W.)

      Mackie, J. H.(Galloway)

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

      Braine, B. R.

      Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

      Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

      McLean, Neil (Inverness)

      Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hay, John

      MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

      Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

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

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

      Bryan, P.

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

      Maddan, Martin

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

      Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

      Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

      Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

      Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Campbell, Sir David

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Marlowe, A. A. H.

      Channon, H.

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Marshall, Douglas

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hornby, R. P.

      Mathew, R.

      Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

      Maude, Angus

      Cole, Norman

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

      Mawby, R. L.

      Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

      Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

      Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

      Howard, John (Test)

      Medlicott, Sir Frank

      Corfield, Capt. F. V.

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J.

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Crouch, R. F.

      Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

      Nabarro, G. D. N.

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

      Hulbert, Sir Norman

      Nairn, D. L. S.

      Cunningham, Knox

      Hurd, A. R.

      Neave, Airey

      Currie, G. B. H.

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

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Dance, J. C. G.

      Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Hyde, Montgomery

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

      D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Deedes, W. F.

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      New Clause.—(MINIMUM EARNED INCOME RELIEF.)
      In subsection (1) of section two hundred and eleven of the Income Tax Act, 1952 (which provides for earned income and old age reliefs), there shall be added after the word "rate" the words "on the greater of the two following amounts, that is to say, (a)" and at the end of the subsection the words "or (b) on one hundred and twenty pounds and, if the claimant is entitled to a deduction under paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section two hundred and ten of this Act or to a deduction under section two hundred and twelve of this Act including a deduction consequent on apportionment under section two hundred and thirteen of this Act), also on two-sevenths of the amount, on which tax at the standard rate constitutes that deduction or those deductions."—[Mr. Mulley.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Frederick Mulley: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      If the Financial Secretary found the previous Clause rather expensive, I am rather afraid that that is the argument he will deploy against this one. However, in moving it I am fortified by the knowledge that the principle has been suggested by the majority and minority reports of the Royal Commission. The matter was dealt with in the second report of the Royal Commission. In moving the Clause, we are concerned chiefly with the principle and not necessarily with the arithmetical calculation.
      The Clause is designed to introduce two new principles into the basis of the treatment of earned income for taxation purposes. First, we propose that there should be a minimum earned income relief. There is already a maximum earned income relief, and I do not see why there should not equally be a minimum. Secondly, we propose that there should be a differential minimum
      328
      according to the personal and family circumstances of the taxpayer. That is to say, instead of it being related solely to the amount of earned income, consideration should also be given to the marriage and child responsibilities of taxpayers.
      We suggest a minimum of £120, which means in the case of single persons that those below an earned income level of £540 will benefit. I apologise to the House if I get my arithmetic wrong, as I probably shall in the examples which I propose to put before the House. I am sure the Financial Secretary will be only too glad to correct such errors as I may make.
      The basis of the differential calculation is to take, in the case of a married person, two-sevenths of the personal allowance, which at the moment is £240, and, in the case of a married person with children, two-sevenths of the child allowances. In my calculation in the case of married men with two children, the classical example always used by Chancellors of the Exchequer, this would mean that the minimum would be £245. If my arithmetic is right, it means that the Clause is designed to help single persons with earned incomes of less than £540, married persons with no children with incomes of £760 and less, and married persons with two children with earned incomes below £1,100.
      The purpose of the new Clause, and the reason which in my opinion motivated the Commission in making this suggestion, is that only by a method similar to this can we give relief to the lower ranges of income without also at the same time extending it to the upper ranges, where the case for the reduction is less well made out. I think it is now thoroughly appreciated by all parts of the House that

      329
      special consideration should be given to family taxpayers with large commitments resulting therefrom.
      Already, the trend has been for personal allowances and children's allowances to be raised when Chancellors of the Exchequer have found themselves able to make some relief in the level of Income Tax, but we say that the flat rate itself is not always the appropriate way and is often not sufficient. Secondly, of course, the flat rates of personal and children's allowances cannot be increased without giving those at the top of the tax ranges more relief than those in the lower ranges, for whom perhaps such relief is primarily designed.
      The House ought to recognise that it is not only a case of helping those in the lower tax-paying groups, but, within the same broad income group, the financial circumstances of persons whose families or households vary very much according to the particular stage of life which they may have reached. In the case of a single person, he probably reaches at the age of 21 his maximum gross income. When he marries, he may, if his wife is also working, have a very reasonable and stable financial basis, but as soon as the wife has to stop working as the result of the arrival of children, and on account of the mounting costs of maintaining and taking care of them, there is a dramatic change in the fortunes of that family. Again, later on, when the children leave school and begin to work, especially if they remain at home, the total family income goes up very substantially. Yet again, there is the most dramatic change of all when the wage-earner ceases work and has to rely on the very low level of the old-age pension.
      I do not want to develop this theme in detail at this hour, but to make the point that in connecting the earned income relief with the particular family circumstances of the taxpayer, we are trying to meet not only the special problem of the lower income group ranges without giving even more money away to those who perhaps need it much less, but are also trying to deal with a special problem within one group of income because of the period of perhaps 20 years when people are bringing up a family.
      I hope, therefore, that since this principle has at least been blessed by both the minority and the majority of the
      330
      Royal Commission, the Government will give us a reassuring answer tonight. I would stress that we have heard a lot from the Government about incentives. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) said earlier, the incentives seem to be directed mainly at the higher managerial and bigger income classes, but if the Government want, as I am sure they do, production to go up, they should think much more of directing their incentives to the range of people on the factory floor and in the various sections of industry who would benefit from the reduction in tax that would accrue if this new Clause were accepted.
      I therefore hope that, for these reasons, the Government will say that they will accept the Clause, or, if they cannot accept the detailed proposals which we have set out in it, will approve the principle on which it is based.
      Mr. Albu: I beg to second the Motion.
      9.45 p.m.
      Mr. H. Brooke: When the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) rose, I thought for a moment that he was about to expedite our proceedings by moving the next new Clause on small lotteries and gaming, in which I know he has a parliamentary interest. I was a little disappointed, despite the hon. Member's excellent speech, that this Clause was not moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), because I thought that I detected in it the right hon. Gentleman's paternity. About 3½ years ago, an article over his signature appeared in the Daily Herald, entitled:
      "Five Million P.A.Y.Ers The Chancellor Would Not Miss."
      It was not I who invented that horrible noun, "P.A.Y.Ers," but the right hon. Gentleman.
      It was in that article that he adumbrated the idea of a minimum earned income relief. The minority and the majority of the Royal Commission thought on the same lines, and the right hon. Gentleman may have given important thoughts to the world in consequence. Perhaps we shall have the advantage of his views before the debate closes. Of course, a good deal has happened, as I am sure the hon. Member for Sheffield, Park, recognises, since the Royal Commission reported.

      331
      Let me first address myself to what the Clause would do. It would provide that the earned income relief should be a minimum of £120, if that amount exceeded two-ninths of the taxpayer's earned income. In other words, the allowance on an earned income of £400 would be £120 instead of about £89, as the law stands. That being the case, as there are very large numbers of taxpayers, I am sure that the hon. Member will appreciate that the cost would be very considerable. It would be further increased by a technical mistake in the drafting of the Clause.
      The Royal Commission advocated system of a minimum earned income relief, because that seemed both to the majority and to the minority the best means of taking out of the tax range a large number of small taxpayers. However, since the second Report was presented, a good deal has happened. The 1955 Budget increased the tax-free personal allowances and I am not sure whether hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who are still keen on this idea of a minimum earned income relief fully realise how much it will cost over and above the cost, which has already been granted by Parliament, of the increased tax-free allowances.
      If I remember rightly, the minority of the Royal Commission, on whose views the hon. Member is founding himself, accompanied its suggestion of a minimum earned income relief with a recommendation that the single person's tax-free allowance should actually be cut, that it should be reduced from £120, as it then was, to £100 and that a married man's tax-free allowance should be reduced from £210 to £200. However, the trend has been in the opposite direction. In the 1955 Budget, the tax-free allowance for a single person, instead of being reduced, was increased from £120 to £140 and the tax free allowance for a married couple was increased from £210 to £240.
      We devised a means by which we could do what the Royal Commission was seeking, while, at the same time, preventing the full benefit from running right up to the higher incomes. We accompanied the increase in the tax-free personal allowances with a cut in the band of income chargeable at the lowest of the three reduced rates. In the 1955 Budget we were achieving the main purpose of the Royal Commission by a separate device.
      332
      I do not want to slip out of answering the case made by the hon. Member merely upon the grounds that it is now out of date.
      Mr. Mulley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will not ignore the difficulties experienced by the Opposition because of the constitutional rules about moving Amendments relating to taxation. That is one of the reasons why we did not take up some of the other points he has made. I am sure he will not suggest that the 1955 Budget failed to pass on many additional advantages in the way of personal tax allowances to people in the higher income groups.
      Mr. Brooke: If the hon. Member were Financial Secretary—and I am quite prepared to share my work with somebody—he would find that an enormous number of taxpayers, not merely in the higher but also in the medium range of income groups, write to their Members of Parliament complaining that the cut in the band chargeable at the lowest of the reduced rates has deprived them of practically all, though not quite all, the advantages that they would otherwise have gained from the increased tax-free allowances. That expedient, introduced in 1955, was extremely successful in accomplishing the object of the Royal Commission.
      The hon. Member is now quite reasonably adumbrating to the House the idea of a tax-free minimum earned income relief. I should like to examine what that would mean in practice. It would exempt a considerable number of taxpayers from taxation, and would do so in a manner which, administratively, would be both complicated and expensive. In many cases tax offices would have to make forecasts of taxpayers' incomes a year ahead, so as to decide provisionally whether they would or would not be within the scope of this relief in that year, and then make the necessary adjustments to P.A.Y.E. codings where it was thought that the taxpayers concerned would be within the range of earnings affected.
      A great deal of work would be entailed in making those forecasts, and after that a great deal more would have to be done in correcting them and clearing up the liability. Moreover, the hon. Member will probably accept from me that this scheme would not be at all easy to explain

      333
      to the taxpaying public. He is thinking of it as a scheme which would benefit small taxpayers, whose numbers amount to millions. The present plan of an earned income relief amounting to a certain fixed fraction of earned income has become reasonably familiar to taxpayers.
      The proposal contained in the Clause is quite a new conception, and one which, for the reasons I have explained, would complicate P.A.Y.E. codings and lead to a certain amount of hit-or-miss work, and a great deal of clearing up work at the end of the year. Those were some of the reasons which led us in 1955 to seek a simpler method of achieving the object of the Royal Commission.
      In this case, the hon. Member has suggested a minimum earned income allowance of £120, which was the figure recommended in the minority Report of the Royal Commission. Of course, it was recommended by them in the light of the personal allowances as they then were and of the reduced personal allowances that they suggested at the time. In fact, thanks to the 1955 Budget, the figures at which tax becomes payable by individuals and by married people have risen substantially, so to that extent also there is not the same case for it.
      I must give the cost of this, of which I think the hon. Member himself stood in fear. He will not be unaware that the minority Report of the Royal Commission was setting itself to work out a scheme which would produce overall a rough balance, leaving the yield of revenue unaffected. I recognise at once that it is not possible for private Members to move new Clauses which can offset tax concessions with tax increases that may fall upon other people. But the cost of this is almost as fearsome in present circumstances as the cost of the last new Clause which I was obliged to reject. The cost of this one would be about £68 million a year in a full year, which is something that my right hon. Friend could not afford.
      Faulty drafting has somewhat increased the cost of the Clause. I am not sure whether the hon Member really intended to give relief to people who have no earned income at all. But were the House, by a mischance, to write this
      334
      Clause into the law I must advise that it would give an extra allowance not only to small earned income taxpayers, but to Surtax payers living on investment incomes. For that reason alone I could not recommend the acceptance of this Clause.
      But I do not rest on that. I recognise, perhaps better than most, the extreme difficulty of drafting Clauses which will achieve precisely the purpose in mind. I am asking the House to reject the Clause on two grounds, first, that in the 1955 Budget we have substantially, by a different method, fulfilled the Royal Commission's purpose, and secondly, that were we now to adopt this new Clause, it would cost over £60 million of revenue.
      Mr. Jay: I thank the Financial Secretary for his tribute to my consistency, and also for his attribution to me of the parentage of this idea. But, in all honesty, I must say that the latter compliment is not justified. So far as I can recall, it was one of the members of the Royal Commission who suggested the idea to me, and I made use of it before the Report actually appeared, so I think it had a common parentage.
      The Financial Secretary rightly told us that the cost of this change would be very large, and naturally that weighed heavily on him and the Chancellor. However, I will say to the Chancellor that when he said a few days ago that the total cost of all the Amendments proposed by the Opposition would amount to £600 million, I think he was overlooking the fact that since we discussed these matters one by one, they are, of course, alternatives. It is never proposed by an Opposition that when a whole lot of Amendments have been turned down we should discuss the later Amendments on the assumption that the earlier Amendments have not been turned down.
      10.0 p.m.
      In any case, I remember one hon. Member opposite—when the Conservatives were in Opposition—describing the various Amendments put forward to a Finance Bill as an annual parade set out in order that everybody should have a look at it. I would not go as far as that, but we have to remember that these are alternatives, and among the alternatives

      335
      we attach a good deal of importance and priority to the idea behind this proposal.
      I do not think the Financial Secretary disposes of the argument simply by saying that the Government went some way in the Budget of 1955 to achieve the purpose which the Commission had in putting this idea forward. To some extent, I agree, the same ground was covered, but the Financial Secretary will also agree that it is perfectly practicable to make a second instalment and to carry the general idea still further.
      The idea which we wish to put before the House at this stage is that there should be a reduction of Income Tax by way of the exemption of a number of people at the lower end of the scale, without extending it to the higher end and certainly not to the top of the scale. This is an idea, I feel, with which the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) would have some sympathy.
      At any rate, we see several strong reasons for some move in this direction. First of all, we on this side of the House believe that, particularly in an inflationary period, there is a strong argument for shifting the burden of tax somewhat from personal incomes to the taxation of business profits. In an inflationary period there is a tendency all the time for the real incomes of individuals to fall and for business profits to rise, and that in itself is an argument in this direction.
      Secondly, it seems to us—and this was an argument which I put forward in the article which the right hon. Gentleman quoted—that we are still collecting very small amounts of tax from a very large number of people. I still doubt whether it is worth the administrative trouble involved. The total revenue from Income Tax is now about £2,000 million. The total from Schedule E is only £500 million to £600 million. It is probably still true—and the Financial Secretary can say whether this is wrong—that from 5 million people, or about one-third of the Income Tax payers, we collect only about £40 million to £50 million. I should have thought that they could be given complete exemption with the loss of very little revenue and with the saving of a great deal of trouble. Does the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth wish to intervene?
      Dame Irene Ward: No.
      Mr. Jay: The hon. Lady looked so interested in what I was saying——
      Dame Irene Ward: I am very interested.
      Mr. Jay: —that I thought she was trying to make an interjection.
      If she does not wish to intervene, I will rapidly make the third point of my argument, which is that both the minority and the majority of the Commission argued very strongly that, as a result of the fall in the value of money since before the war, the tax was continually pressing lower down than before and probably lower than Parliament had ever intended. The minority put it this way:
      "In the first place, the starting point of liability is at a much lower level of real income than before the war."
      The majority of the Commission gave the actual figures—and this was two years ago since when, as we all know, the cost of living has risen considerably. They said that the single man with an earned income of £500 pays 11 per cent. of his income in tax. In 1938 conditions and at 1938 prices such a man could not have been expected to be earning more than £250, and at £250 on present tax rates he would pay less than 5 per cent. Therefore, there has been a considerable increase in the burden on the same real incomes of those at the lower end of the scale.
      For all those reasons, it seems to me that even allowing, as I think the Financial Secretary has shown, that the drafting of this particular Clause is not perfect, there are still strong grounds for accepting this proposal, and I hope that the Chancellor will bear this in mind in any future Budget he may be contemplating—either before or during next April—and will seriously consider giving relief of this kind to the large number of taxpayers at the bottom end of the scale who are paying very small amounts.
      Dame Irene Ward: I shall not detain the House very long, but I am grateful for the opportunity of saying a word about what I think the Government ought to do in relief of taxation for the small fixed income groups. I am very glad to be able to say straight away that, although it has not been my good fortune to have my proposals considered by the House, I am, nevertheless, delighted that an opportunity has arisen on which some

      337
      discussion at any rate of the plight of these people can take place.
      I have listened with very great interest to what my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary has had to say. Of course, he has great charm in the presentation of his case. He has great clarity in explaining the reasons why he cannot do anything, but I noticed—and I want to put this on the record, and that is why I have been trying to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker—that my right hon. Friend never gave any indication that he would consider whether anything could be done to help this section of the community. I must say that I took very great exception to that.
      The recent expressions of opinion that have fallen from the lips of the Treasury Ministers have all been in the direction of saying that the stemming of inflation will, of course, bring greater benefits to these people than will anything else. Of course, in considering the general security and financial stability of the country, I would agree, but what I want to put on the record is that in at least two major speeches recently made in the country the Prime Minister and the Chancellor—both important, indeed the important, members of the Government—went out of their way to select, to mention and to emphasise the position of the small fixed income groups, and to give specific pledges that something would be done.
      I can very well appreciate that from the point of view of the finance involved the methods that have been suggested by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite may not necessarily commend themselves to my right hon. Friend. That I well understand, but what I want to know is what is going to be done. What is going to be done?
      Mr. John Rankin: Do not trust the Tories.
      Dame Irene Ward: The hon. Gentleman says, "Do not trust the Tories." All I can say is that the Tories have done a great deal more for the small fixed income groups than have right hon. and hon. Members opposite. Believe me, I am not playing in the camp of the party opposite, because I think that they "pinched" this idea from me.
      At this stage I have only one further comment to make on my right hon.
      338
      Friend's speech. He drew attention to the effect of the action that had been taken by the Chancellor in the last Budget. I was very pleased about that, but he failed to refer to the mean little trick that was coupled with the increase in the personal allowance, and that was the reduction of the band of taxable income from £100 to £60. That reduction made a tremendous difference to the small income groups.
      I know that my right hon. Friend has on several occasions pointed out that the reason was that the Royal Commission had pointed out that the benefit of the level of Income Tax payment starting at a higher rate should not be carried on to the highest income groups. We accept that, of course. If it was the intention of my right hon. Friend to protect those living upon small fixed incomes and not to help those in the higher income groups, he could, of course, have put a ceiling at which that reduction from £100 to £60 came into force.
      I say again that I think it was a very mean trick indeed. Of course, what happened was that all the people who had reasonable incomes got the benefit of the reduction of the standard rate of Income Tax, and the people having between, say, £250 and £500 got very little benefit at all because the benefit that they did get was offset by the reduction in this band of taxation.
      I am waiting to hear from Treasury Ministers what they really are considering. I hope that my right hon. Friend is not just going to come down to the House and give all the reasons why he rejects the basic proposals of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, giving no constructive suggestions of his own. As I say, I do not want to go into this whole matter further tonight. I have noticed that the Economic Secretary is always referring nowadays to the speech which I made in which I said that I was going to take a hammer; I am going to take just one tiny hammer tonight—nothing will induce me to vote for my Government.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 170, Noes 217.

      Division No. 258.]

      AYES

      [9.27 p.m

      Ainsley, J. W.

      Crossman, R. H. S.

      Holmes, Horace

      Albu, A. H.

      Cullen, Mrs. A.

      Howell, Denis (All Saints)

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      Hoy, J. H.

      Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

      Darling, George (Hillsborough)

      Hubbard, T. F.

      Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Awbery, S. S.

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Baird, J.

      Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Balfour, A.

      Deer, G.

      Hunter, A. E.

      Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.

      de Freitas, Geoffrey

      Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

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

      Delargy, H. J.

      Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

      Benson, G.

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

      Irving, S. (Dartford)

      Beswick, F.

      Dye, S.

      Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.

      Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

      Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

      Janner, B.

      Blackburn, F.

      Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

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

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Boardman, H.

      Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

      Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

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

      Fletcher, Eric

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

      Boyd, T. C.

      Forman, J. C.

      Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

      Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

      Kenyon, C.

      Brockway, A. F.

      Gibson, C. W.

      Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Burke, W. A.

      Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

      Lawson, G. M.

      Burton, Miss F. E.

      Grey, C. F.

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Callaghan, L. J.

      Hale, Leslie

      Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.

      Castle, Mrs. B. A.

      Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)

      Logan, D. G.

      Champion, A. J.

      Hamilton, W. W.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Chapman, W. D.

      Hannan, W.

      MacColl, J. E.

      Chetwynd, G. R.

      Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

      McInnes, J.

      Clunie, J.

      Hastings, S.

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Coldrick, W.

      Hayman, F. H.

      McLeavy, Frank

      Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

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

      MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

      Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Mahon, Simon

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Hewitson, Capt. M.

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

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Hobson, C. R.

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Cronin, J. D.

      Holman, P.

      Mellish, R. J.

      Messer, Sir F.

      Proctor, W. T.

      Thornton, E.

      Mikardo, Ian

      Pryde, D. J.

      Timmons, J.

      Mitchison, G. R.

      Randall, H. E.

      Tomney, F.

      Moody, A. S.

      Rankin, John

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Mort, D. L.

      Redhead, E. C.

      Wade, D. W.

      Moss, R.

      Reid, William

      Warbey, W. N.

      Mulley, F. W.

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

      Weitzman, D.

      Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Wells, Percy (Faversham)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Oswald, T.

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      West, D. G.

      Owen, W. J.

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Padley, W. E.

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Wilkins, W. A.

      Paget, R. T.

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Williams, David (Neath)

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

      Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

      Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

      Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

      Sparks, J. A.

      Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Steele, T.

      Winterbottom, Richard

      Parker, J.

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Parkin, B. T.

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

      Yates, V. (Ladywood)

      Plummer, Sir Leslie

      Summerskitl, Rt. Hon. E.

      Zilliacus, K.

      Popplewell, E.

      Swingler, S. T.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Taylor, John (West Lothian)

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

      Thomas lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

      Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons

      Probert, A. R.

      Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)

      326

      NOES

      Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Aitken, W. T.

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)

      Alport, C. J. M.

      du Cann, E. D. L.

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Joseph, Sir Keith

      Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

      Duthie, W. S.

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

      Armstrong, C. W.

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Kaberry, D.

      Ashton, H.

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Keegan, D.

      Astor, Hon. J. J.

      Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Atkins, H. E.

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Kerr, H. W.

      Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

      Fell, A.

      Kimball, M.

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Kirk, P. M.

      Balniel, Lord

      Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.

      Lagden, G. W.

      Barber, Anthony

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Lambert, Hon. G.

      Barlow, Sir John

      Foster, John

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Barter, John

      Freeth, D. K.

      Langford-Holt, J. A.

      Beamish, Maj. Tufton

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Leather, E. H. C.

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      George, J. C. (Pollok)

      Leavey, J. A.

      Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

      Gibson-Watt, D.

      Leburn, W. G.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Glover, D.

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

      Bidgood, J. C.

      Godber, J. B.

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Biggs-Davison, J. A.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

      Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

      Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

      Bishop, F. P.

      Gower, H. R.

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Black, C. W.

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

      Body, R. F.

      Grant, W. (Woodside)

      Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

      Boothby, Sir Robert

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

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Bossom, Sir Alfred

      Green, A.

      Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

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

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon. N. W.)

      Mackie, J. H.(Galloway)

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

      Braine, B. R.

      Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

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

      Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

      McLean, Neil (Inverness)

      Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Hay, John

      MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

      Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

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

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

      Bryan, P.

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

      Maddan, Martin

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

      Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

      Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

      Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

      Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Campbell, Sir David

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Marlowe, A. A. H.

      Channon, H.

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Marshall, Douglas

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Hornby, R. P.

      Mathew, R.

      Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

      Maude, Angus

      Cole, Norman

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

      Mawby, R. L.

      Conant, Maj. Sir Roger

      Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

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

      Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

      Howard, John (Test)

      Medlicott, Sir Frank

      Corfield, Capt. F. V.

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Hughes Hallett, Vice Admiral J.

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Crouch, R. F.

      Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

      Nabarro, G. D. N.

      Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)

      Hulbert, Sir Norman

      Nairn, D. L. S.

      Cunningham, Knox

      Hurd, A. R.

      Neave, Airey

      Currie, G. B. H.

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

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Dance, J. C. G.

      Hutchison, Sir James (Sootstoun)

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Hyde, Montgomery

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

      D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Deedes, W. F.

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Russell, R. S.

      Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

      Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

      Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

      Vane, W. M. F.

      Page, R. G.

      Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

      Vickers, Miss J. H.

      Partridge, E.

      Sharples, R. C.

      Vosper, D. F.

      Peyton, J. W. W.

      Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)

      Walker-Smith, D. C.

      Pitt, Miss E. M.

      Spearman, Sir Alexander

      Wall, Major Patrick

      Pott, H. P.

      Speir, R. M.

      Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

      Powell, J. Enoch

      Stevens, Geoffrey

      Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

      Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Profumo, J. D.

      Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

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

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

      Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

      Rawlinson, Peter

      Studholme, Sir Henry

      Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

      Redmayne, M.

      Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

      Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

      Remnant, Hon. P.

      Teeling, W.

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Renton, D. L. M.

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Wood, Hon. R.

      Ridsdale, J. E.

      Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

      Woollam, John Victor

      Rippon, A. G. F.

      Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

      Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Roper, Sir Harold

      Tilney, John (Wavertree)

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

      Turner, H. F. L.

      Mr. R. Thompson and

      Mr. E. Wakefield.

      Division No. 259.]

      AYES

      [10.12 p.m.

      Ainsley, J. W.

      Grey, C. F.

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

      Albu, A. H.

      Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

      Palmer, A. M. F.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Hamilton, W. W.

      Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

      Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)

      Hannan, W.

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

      Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)

      Parker, J.

      Awbery, S. S.

      Hayman, F. H.

      Parkin, B. T.

      Bacon, Miss Alice

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

      Popplewell, E.

      Baird, J.

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Balfour, A.

      Hewitson, Capt. M.

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

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

      Hobson, C. R.

      Probert, A. R.

      Benson, G.

      Holman, P.

      Proctor, W. T.

      Beswick, F.

      Holmes, Horace

      Pryde, D. J.

      Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

      Howell, Denis (All Saints)

      Randall, H. E.

      Blackburn, F.

      Hoy, J. H.

      Rankin, John

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Hubbard, T. F.

      Redhead, E. C.

      Boardman, H.

      Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Reid, William

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Roberts, Albert (Normanton)

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

      Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)

      Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

      Boyd, T. C.

      Hunter, A. E.

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

      Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

      Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)

      Brockway, A. F.

      Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

      Shurmer, P. L. E.

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Irving, S. (Dartford)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Burke, W. A.

      Janner, B.

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Burton, Miss F. E.

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

      Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Slater, J. (Sedgefield)

      Callaghan, L. J.

      Johnson, James (Rugby)

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Castle, Mrs. B. A.

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

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Champion, A. J.

      Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

      Sparks, J. A.

      Chetwynd, G. R.

      Kenyon, C.

      Steele, T.

      Clunie, J.

      Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.

      Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

      Coldrick, W.

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

      Lawson, G. M.

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

      Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch & Finsbury)

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Taylor, John (West Lothian)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Logan, D. G.

      Thompson, George (Dundee, E.)

      Crossman, R. H. S.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Thornton, E.

      Cullen, Mrs. A.

      MacColl, J. E.

      Timmons, J.

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      McInnes, J.

      Tomney, F.

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      McLeavy, Frank

      Warbey, W. N.

      Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)

      MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

      Weitzman, D.

      Deer, G.

      Mahon, Simon

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      de Freitas, Geoffrey

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

      West, D. G.

      Delargy, H. J.

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      Dodds, N. N.

      Mellish, R. J.

      White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

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

      Mikardo, Ian

      Williams, David (Neath)

      Dye, S.

      Mitchison, G. R.

      Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)

      Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

      Moody, A. S.

      Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)

      Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

      Mort, D. L.

      Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Moss, R.

      Winterbottom, Richard

      Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

      Mulley, F. W.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

      Yates, V. (Ladywood)

      Fletcher, Eric

      Oliver, G. H.

      Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

      Forman, J. C.

      Orbach, M.

      Zilliacus, K.

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

      Oswald, T.

      Gibson, C. W.

      Owen, W. J.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.

      Padley, W. E.

      Mr. Pearson and Mr. Wilkins.

      Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

      Paget, R. T.

      340

      NOES

      Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

      Bishop, F. P.

      Corfield, Capt. F. V.

      Aitken, W. T.

      Black, C. W.

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

      Body, R. F.

      Crouch, R. F.

      Alport, C. J. M.

      Boothby, Sir Robert

      Cunningham, Knox

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Bossom, Sir Alfred

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

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

      Dance, J. C. G.

      Armstrong, G. W.

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Ashton, H.

      Braine, B. R.

      D'Ayigdor-Goldsmid, SirHenry

      Atkins, H. E.

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

      Deedes, W. F.

      Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

      Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Digby, Simon Wingfield

      Baldwin, A. E.

      Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Balniel, Lord

      Bryan, P.

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Barber, Anthony

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Drayson, G. B.

      Barlow, Sir John

      Burden, F. F. A.

      du Cann, E. D. L.

      Barter, John

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.

      Beamish, Mej. Tufton

      Campbell, Sir David

      Duthie, W. S.

      Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)

      Channon, H.

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

      Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

      Biggs-Davison, J. A.

      Cole, Norman

      Errington, Sir Eric

      Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

      Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.

      Fell, A.

      341

      Fisher, Nigel

      Kirk, P. M.

      Pott, H. P.

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Lagden, G. W.

      Powell, J. Enoch

      Foster, John

      Lambert, Hon. G.

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

      Freeth, D. K.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Profumo, J. D.

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Langford-Holt, J. A.

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      George, J. C. (Pollok)

      Leather, E. H. C.

      Rawlinson, Peter

      Gibson-Watt, D.

      Leavey, J. A.

      Redmayne, M.

      Glover, D.

      Leburn, W. G.

      Remnant, Hon. P.

      Godber, J. B.

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

      Renton, D. L. M.

      Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Ridsdale, J. E.

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

      Rippon, A. G. F.

      Gower, H. R.

      Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Roper, Sir Harold

      Grant, W. (Woodside)

      Lloyd-George, Maj. Rt. Hon. G.

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

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

      Longden, Gilbert

      Russell, R. S.

      Green, A.

      Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

      Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

      Sharples, R. C.

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Shepherd, William

      Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

      McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

      Spearman, Sir Alexander

      Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Speir, R. M.

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

      McLean, Neil (Inverness)

      Stevens, Geoffrey

      Henderson, John (Cathcart)

      MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

      Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

      Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

      Macmillan Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

      Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

      Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

      Maddan, Martin

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

      Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

      Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

      Studholme, Sir Henry

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

      Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

      Teeling, W.

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Hornby, R. P.

      Marlowe, A. A. H.

      Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

      Mathew, R.

      Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

      Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence

      Maude, Angus

      Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

      Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

      Mawby, R. L.

      Tilney, John (Wavertree)

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

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

      Turner, H. F. L.

      Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

      Medlicott, Sir Frank

      Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

      Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

      Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

      Vane, W. M. F.

      Hurd, A. R.

      Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      Vickers, Miss J. H.

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

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Vosper, D. F.

      Hyde, Montgomery

      Nabarro, G. D. N.

      Walker-Smith, D. C.

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Nairn, D. L. S.

      Wall, Major Patrick

      Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)

      Neave, Airey

      Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Nicholls, Harmar

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)

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

      Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

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

      Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

      Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Wills, G. (Bridgwater)

      Joseph, Sir Keith

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Woollam, John Victor

      Kaberry, D.

      Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

      Keegan, D.

      Page, R. G.

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Kerby, Capt. H. B.

      Partridge, E.

      Mr. R. Thompson and

      Kerr, H. W.

      Paton, John

      Mr. E. Wakefield.

      Kimball, M.

      Pitt, Miss E. M.

      New Clause.—(SMALL LOTTERIES AND GAMING.)
      (1) The promotion and conduct of small lotteries and small card and gaming parties within the meaning of subsection (1) of section one and of subsection (1) of section four of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, respectively shall not be deemed to be the carrying on of a trade of business for the purposes of income tax and profits tax.
      (2) The proceeds of a small lottery within the meaning of subsection (1) and conducted in accordance with the provisions of paragraphs (a) to (m) of subsection (2) of section one of the said Act shall be exempted from income tax and profits tax if and insofar as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the said proceeds have been or are to be applied in accordance with the terms of paragraph (d) of subsection (2) of the said section one of the said Act.
      (3) The proceeds of a small card and gaming party applied in pursuance of paragraph (c) of subsection (1) of section four of the said Act
      342
      shall be exempted from income tax and profits tax if and insofar as it is shown to the satisfaction of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue that the said proceeds have been applied for purposes other than purposes of private gains.
      (4) Any claim for exemption from income tax and profits tax under the preceding provisions of this section shall be made to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in such form as they may prescribe and the said Commissioners shall, on proof of the facts to their satisfaction, allow the claim accordingly. Any person aggrieved by the decision of the said Commissioners may make an application as aforesaid and subsections (2) and (3) of section four hundred and fifty of the Income Tax Act, 1952, shall with any necessary modifications apply thereto.—[Mr. Ernest Davies.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

      343
      I move this Clause as a sequel to the passing of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, which I introduced as a Private Member's Bill last November and which received the Royal Assent last Thursday. It has come to light that certain small lotteries are at present attracting the attention of the Inland Revenue and have been subjected to Income Tax. As the House will recall, the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act was designed to legalise those small lotteries which are run for charitable, sporting or other purposes provided that in no circumstances are they run for private gain.
      The Measure received an unopposed Second Reading and Third Reading in this House and general support throughout the country. Having brought some order into the law on that matter, having succeeded in legalising those lotteries run for charity and other deserving purposes, having legalised small games such as whist drives, it is most unfortunate now to find that they may be subject to Income Tax.
      Those small lotteries are run by a very large number of organisations throughout the country, even by some religious bodies, by hospitals, by schools, and by political parties as well. No money can be made out of them except for the purposes legalised under the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act. The money raised by those lotteries has to be distributed as to 50 per cent. less expenses to the organisations which are organising the lotteries. The expenses are limited to 10 per cent. With the high cost of printing today, and postage, nobody can possibly make very much money out of the organisation of those lotteries. If, after the 50 per cent. at the maximum has been distributed in prize money, and after the 10 per cent. reduction for expenses on the remaining 50 per cent., the amount of money left available for distribution to the clubs or organisations organising the lotteries is subject to Income Tax or Profits Tax, then the amount left for the organisation is reduced substantially.
      It is not the intention of the Government, I am sure, that those organisations which are running those lotteries for deserving purposes should be subject to tax in this way. This new Clause makes it clear that any small lottery or game
      344
      organised in accordance with the Act shall not be subject to Income Tax or Profits Tax provided, of course, that the purposes for which the money is raised are those which are defined in that Act—charitable purposes, the support of sport and athletics—not being for private gain or for any commercial undertaking.
      In those circumstances, it seems reasonable that they should be exempt from all forms of taxation. I suggest to the Chancellor that there is no possibility of the Treasury losing any substantial amount if the Clause is accepted. At present, those organisations which are attracting the attention of the Inland Revenue are, for the most part, supporters' clubs, because it is claimed that they are not always run on a mutuality basis, that is, the members do not have a final say in the distribution of the moneys raised. They are run solely for the purpose of the organisation for which the supporters' club is founded and such supporters' clubs have been subject to tax.
      Those which have succeeded in proving that they are run on a mutuality basis have not been subject to tax, but in a number of cases there was an attempt to tax. The total loss to the Treasury cannot be considerable, though if it persists in making these organisations subject to tax it may well bring in a certain amount of revenue.
      It is rather unfortunate that, the House having made these lotteries legal and brought them within the law and thus brought the law into respect again and saved it from its former disrepute, the organisers of these lotteries should now find that the lotteries, being legal, are subject to tax whereas when they were illegal they were escaping it for the most part. I know that the Treasury has qualms about living on immoral earnings, but it seems unfortunate that in this case, having made the woman respectable, the Treasury is now taxing her because she is virtuous.
      I hope that the Chancellor will be sympathetic to this proposal in view of the fact that he himself has now gone into the gambling business and is launching the Premium Bonds. He should be sympathetic to these small and limited lotteries. The amount of money involved is very little. The amount that can be raised by any of these societies is

      345
      limited to £750 per lottery and they are confined to objects which the House has considered worthy.
      I ask, therefore, for an assurance from the Government that either these organisations will not attract the attentions of the Inland Revenue in future, or that the new Clause will be accepted.
      Mr. Mulley: I beg to second the Motion.
      I do not think that it would be the desire of the House that I should detain it very long at this late hour, but I think that this is an important matter. Subject to what the Solicitor-General may tell us, I believe that the law is now substantially changed as a result of the Small Lotteries and Gaming Act, 1956, which was so successfully piloted through the House by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
      Already, the Inland Revenue is apparently making demands for arrears of tax from the promoters of small lotteries which will now fall within the scope of the tax. I understand that the basis of the claim is that, although the lotteries were illegal by reason of the fact that tickets were sold beyond the limit of the Betting and Lotteries Act, 1934, it was held that the tickets were sold by non-members and, therefore, the lottery became a trading concern and subject to tax in that way. One of the main provisions of the 1956 Act is that now, for the first time, tickets can be sold to non-members of charitable or non-profit making organisations promoting a lottery.
      10.30 p.m.
      We are, therefore, very much concerned to have from the Solicitor-General either an assurance that this will not bring such lotteries within the general provision of the Income Tax law and make them liable for tax at the Standard Rate, or, alternatively that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept this Clause, so that the matter may be beyond doubt.
      Obviously, it was not the intention of the House when it unanimously passed the Small Lotteries and Gaming Bill, and agreed to the provision that 50 per cent. of the proceeds of such lotteries, after deducting the 10 per cent. allowed for expenses, should go to the charity concerned, that 29 per cent. only should go to the charity and 21 per cent. should go to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
      346
      While the Bill was going through its various stages concern was expressed that by increasing the maximum amount allowed for expenses we were reducing the amount that would go to these worthy charitable organisations. The small increase from 5 per cent. to 10 per cent. in the permitted expense is nothing compared with the reduction in the sum going to charity as a result of tax being deducted at the standard rate.
      In a sense it would mean providing revenue by the back door if, as a result of the operation of the tax collector, only 29 per cent. instead of the 50 per cent. provided for in the Bill, which had the support of all quarters both in this House and in another place, went to the charitable and other non-profit making organisations. I hope, therefore, that we shall have either an assurance from the Government on the lines I have suggested or an acceptance by them tonight of this Clause, so that we shall not be faced with the problem which some of us who are concerned with these lotteries fear that we might.
      Mr. Simon Mahon: I have no wish, any more than have my hon. Friends, to detain the House at this hour of the night, but in the part of the country from which I come the Measure introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is of vital importance.
      I think it will be generally agreed that though we are living in a Welfare State there will always be room for personal and private charity. My hon. Friend's small Bill has enabled the religious and charitable organisations to legalise what was a harmless form of lottery in connection with sporting and cultural pursuits. Such a form of lottery is no less deserving because of the way in which it is run, or because of the regularity of its collections. The purposes are still the same and are still very worthy.
      I desire to bring to the notice of the House two anomalies which exist in Liverpool. Quite recently I had reason to go into a hospital run by a religious order which takes in patients from State-run hospitals. These patients are cared for by the nuns of this order. They are people who may be dying of cancer or tuberculosis—hopeless cases. The nuns receive 32s. 6d. a week for looking after

      347
      them. Such treatment and nursing would not be possible but for the vocationalism and devotion of these excellent women.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Exchange (Mrs. Braddock) has given me some up-to-date figures. She is very knowledgable on this subject. In Broad Green Hospital the weekly maintenance figure is £13 18s. 2d. For the Park Hospital, which is run on similar lines for senile cases, the figure is £9 3s. Then there are the Newsham Hospital, £10 8s. 7d.; the Rathbone Hospital, £15 13s. 1d.; and the maternity hospital at Mill Road, £16 17s. 6d.
      If a hospital of the sort that I have mentioned—say, St. Vincent's Hospital for the Dying, among many of these excellent institutions—wanted to preserve its private vocationalism and was assisted by a group of charitable people who desired to organise a charity on the lines of this particular form of lottery, there would be nothing wrong with the idea. They would be organising a charity to help such an excellent body.
      I want the Chancellor to bear in mind that we are not dealing with a small number of people. I am a manager of all sorts of schools, including county schools, Church of England schools and Roman Catholic schools. I am a Roman Catholic myself, and I have taken a keen interest in voluntary education all my life. I am one of five brothers. I object to the fact that in this matter of education we, as Roman Catholics, are treated differently from everybody else. We were all in the Forces together. Never a ship went out of Liverpool without its Irish complement, or not fully manned. There was never a regiment that was not similarly fully manned. Yet when our people returned home after making our contribution to the war effort, we found that we had to pay twice for our schools.
      I realise that there are some here who will not agree with me, but in substantiation of what I have said I would remind the House that there were 38 Roman Catholic V.C.s on parade before Her Majesty the other day. I suggest that we, as Catholics, are entitled to equal treatment with everybody else in the matter of education. I know of one young parish priest—and I do not expect everybody to agree with me, but it has to be said—who is now caring for thousands of people from the City of
      348
      Liverpool but who has to pay £250,000 for schools, and the only way he can raise this money——
      Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): The hon. Gentleman is getting rather a long way from small lotteries and gaming.
      Mr. Mahon: I am trying to keep in order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
      I am sorry to have kept the House so long, but this sort of thing needs to be said because we are no longer dealing with minorities. Thirty-five per cent. of the children in Liverpool need to go to voluntary establishments, and this presents a great problem. I ask the Chancellor to give this proposed new Clause every possible consideration.
      Mr. L. M. Lever: I want, in a few words, to appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to have a heart. By the acceptance of this proposed new Clause, charitable causes affecting all denominations will be assisted. The Small Lotteries and Gaming Act received wholehearted support when it was before the House, because it was realised that it would assist good causes. I know that the Chancellor is conducting a credit squeeze at the moment, but there is no reason why he should squeeze voluntary effort. Ever since 1948 we have been told that what the State provides can only be of a limited character and that it must be supplemented by voluntary effort.
      The Measure that was passed recently is designed to assist voluntary effort. Many schools of all denominations and many charitable causes will benefit as a result of the Act promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
      I hope that the Chancellor will consider that this is a matter which stands in a category entirely of its own. A charity is not a business. It is something specially recognised by law, and it is exempted in many respects from ordinary taxation. There is no reason why efforts designed to assist a good cause should give the Chancellor the benefit of the work of the organisation concerned.
      If the Clause is not accepted it will mean that all the good of the Act which has recently been passed will be undone at one stroke by the Chancellor. I appeal

      349
      to the right hon. Gentleman. If he accepts this proposal his decision will command the universal respect of every section of the community. It will make people feel that, although the Chancellor has had to embark on certain courses to obtain revenue, he is, at the same time, prepared to give consideration to the voluntary efforts of the people. I appeal to him most fervently and hope that he will accept the new Clause.
      Mr. Denis Howell: I do not wish to detain the House for more than a minute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Such an incentive as that provided by hon. Members is likely to make me continue for much longer.
      This is an extremely important issue in the social life of our various communities, and it is because of that that I wish to submit a short plea to the Chancellor. Those who have anything to do with sporting organisations know perfectly well that it is almost impossible to run a social or sporting club on a financially self-supporting basis.
      Unfortunately, this is an age of canned entertainment and there was never a time when it was more important that social activities should be encouraged. People should be encouraged to support football and cricket clubs, and so on, none of which could continue without the help of small lotteries. Recently, in connection with Entertainments Duty on football, I have made a survey of many of the small clubs in the Midlands and I have not discovered one which is financially self-supporting. Not one could continue without the help provided by small lotteries. Although the hour is late, it is right that Parliament should be informed that football and cricket clubs provide the social centres in many small villages, and that we should consider how we can assist these organisations to continue. They cannot continue without the aid of small lotteries.
      The same applies in the hospital service where, in spite of the great strides made in the National Health Service, those who serve on hospital management committees see every week the need for Leagues of Friends, the need for people outside the actual organisation of the Service, to contribute funds to give extra benefits to patients and staff. These activities are not possible without the small bands of
      350
      people who get together to raise money through small lotteries and in other ways. In other words, these people can raise greater funds, as an organisation, than they can provide from their own resources.
      I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will be no less generous in his attitude to these well-worth-while charities than he has been in his attitude to Premium Bonds. It will be a sad day for the country if voluntary organisations like Leagues of Friends collapse. It will be a sad day for the country if football and cricket clubs and the like, which depend upon income gained from outside their own immediate circle, collapse. I hope that, in the light of the importance of matters which may be regarded by some hon. Members as relatively unimportant but which are important in the social life of the country, the Chancellor will show by his attitude to the Clause that he is prepared to encourage people in voluntary organisations in a no less generous manner than that with which he treats people who invest in Premium Bonds. Because I believe that our social life is important and is in danger, I hope that our plea to the Chancellor will not go unheeded.
      10.45 p.m.
      The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): We have here jovial jobs or sombre stints to discharge. I put this in the sombre stint class, because I acknowledge myself, as most other hon. Members do, a staunch supporter of the Act of the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies).
      Why I have not at once to receive the proposition with acclamation does not depend upon the good things that are done with the money raised. If it did, my cause would be hopeless. However, I hope that the House will think for a moment of another aspect of the matter to which no one has referred, no doubt for very wise reasons. I do not for a moment challenge, for instance, the kind of account that the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) was giving of the very good services rendered in one form or another by charitable organisations which derive funds from such activities as are here contemplated. However, putting the matter bluntly, by his Clause the hon. Member is asking for a body which is

      351
      not a charity a more sweeping exemption than, as a nation, we have ever granted to any charity. It is rather a tall order on the face of it.
      Perhaps I might adopt a phrase of the hon. Member for Ardwick (Mr. L. M. Lever) and say that a charity is not a business. Our principle, so far as I know, has always been that, if a charity chooses to descend into the realm of business, then it ought to be dealt with on the basis that it is doing business. Otherwise, it is grossly unfair to other forms of taxpayers who do not have equivalent advantages. If it chooses to enter the field of trade, it would be very unfair to other taxpayers to leave them in a comparatively grossly disadvantageous position.
      The bodies for which the hon. Member advances his Clause are, of course, not charities, but for the moment I am discussing the matter as if they were. We as a nation, under every kind of Government, have allowed a charity, if it chooses to enter the field of trade, to be exempt only subject to various strict limitations, which are known to hon. Members and which no one could suggest could apply to the kind of organisation that will run these small lotteries, and so we need not bother with them.
      Because the general idea that one should exempt from taxation money which is on the way to such very good objects in the end is attractive, it was put up to the Royal Commission. It had suggested to it the idea that the special exemption granted to charities, under very strict limitations, should be extended to any organisation trading by the use of unpaid labour—the House will recall the passage—and the Royal Commission, having considered it as sympathetically as anybody would who is concerned with the good things which are done with the moneys, came to the conclusion—and my reference is to paragraph 613 of the final Report—that it did not think that it would be sound to extend the exemption in the way sought.
      That was on the basis of charities, but of course the bodies with which the suggested new Clause deals would not be charities, nor does it necessarily follow that the moneys which they raised would go to charitable purposes. They might go
      352
      to a wide range of purposes, non-commercial purposes, sport, culture, but not necessarily charitable.
      I hope that with those few words, which I would not wish to extend at this hour, the House will agree that what is asked under the cloak of such an attractive destination is in fact a vast concession from the principle on which charities which have entered trade have always been taxed under our system and wholly inconsistent with previous concessions and something which a Royal Commission on careful consideration lately rejected.
      I do not want in the least to pose as someone who can suggest any ideas to right hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I am bound to say that whereas it may be difficult to bring these lotteries within the principles of mutuality trading—I have no doubt that hon. Members would like to go outside the realm of mutuality and get some money from outside—it seems to me, speaking as an individual, not very difficult to devise an arrangement whereby all the money paid over to the charity can be totally exempt from charge in the hands of the charity.
      I am not quite certain where my duty lies, but should an hon. Member or right hon. Member be sufficiently interested in what I am saying, I should like outside this place to give him a reference to a suitable case which I hope will help. That would not involve any departure from the underlying principle of that taxation and would involve an application of the general law to this particular case. I am afraid that on those grounds I feel it necessary to invite the House to say that it could not accept the new Clause.
      Mr. H. Wilson: The case to which the Solicitor-General referred was no doubt the Arethusa Training Ship case which, if my memory serves—I have not looked at it for some time—is on page 397 of the Tax Cases volume. I must express a very keen sense of disappointment, shared by hon. Members in other parts of the House—if I may say so without disrespect to the Solicitor-General—that he should have been put up to reply. That is not a reflection on him. We have appreciative recollections of his interventions in Committee, and he always answers our arguments with good humour and courtesy.

      353
      However, this was not a legal but a political point of considerable importance. I want to make this very plain, and I hope that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) will follow the argument as I proceed, although I want to be very brief. For some time the Board of Inland Revenue has been assessing for Income Tax—in some cases for six years back, at 9s. in the £ for the greater part of the period—a number of small charities run by charitable, religious and other bodies. I hope that we shall not waste too much time linking this debate with the Premium Bonds debate, I at any rate made it clear when we were discussing Premium Bonds that I saw all the difference in the world between small lotteries run by charitable, religious, political, sporting and other organisations and the intervention of the State, and certainly I do not want to go into the question of Premium Bonds. But for some time now, certainly for many months, there have been these assessments made.
      I heard about the matter purely from a constituency aspect, because I represent an area just outside Liverpool where there are a considerable number of these lotteries run by people for religious purposes, or at any rate, for raising money for purposes of denominational schools. I mentioned the matter to the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, who I think was as surprised as I was that the Board of Inland Revenue was acting in this way. I mentioned the matter to him some time before the Budget and said that I hoped he would consider it. I know that the matter has been inquired into by the Chancellor personally.
      It is a fact that under the law as it stood before the very helpful Measure of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) became law, it was possible, by various kinds of what might be called legitimate tax avoidance, to avoid paying Income Tax on the proceeds of these efforts chiefly by reference to the principle of what is usually called mutuality; the idea being that tickets were sold only to members of what might be called a community or family and they got the benefits from these efforts. Members of a parish clubbed together in one of these efforts to provide a school or hall or something of benefit to the
      354
      parishioners. There was an element of mutuality. It was not trade but a family effort, if hon. Members would care to look at it in that way.
      But after the passing of the Act of my hon. Friend, mutuality disappeared, as my hon. Friend made clear, because tickets could be sold to non-members. Therefore it is no longer possible to avoid the levying of Income Tax by recourse to the kind of procedure which I am sure the learned Solicitor-General has in mind. This is a very serious matter, and although the Solicitor-General naturally looks at this from a legal point of view, I hope that the Chancellor will examine it again and find some means of remedying the very difficult situation with which we are faced.
      Whatever the lawyers may say, this is not primarily a legal question. It is nonsense to talk about these things being trade. It is a different thing from profit-making or trading organisations, and in practically all cases the profits are applied to religious, cultural or legitimate political purposes. We may have different ideas of what are legitimate political purposes but, as a House of Commons, let us be impartial about that.
      I hope that the Chancellor will look at this again and realise that a considerable injustice is being done, and that by the mechanism of the tax law the purposes of my hon. Friend's Act are being frustrated. Until my hon. Friend's Bill became law, many of these lotteries were, or were deemed to be, illegal. But even so, they were being taxed, because the Board of Inland Revenue taxes a lot of things that are illegal. The Chancellor was shocked when I suggested that the Board taxes immoral earnings, but that has been admitted publicly and in the Press.
      So long as they were illegal, the Board of Inland Revenue did not tax many of these small lotteries. But now that they are legal, I am afraid there is a danger that many of them will be destroyed by the activities of the tax collector. As was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle (Mr. Mahon) it is particularly serious that taxes are being levied for several years back and there are no funds to meet the tax collector's demands. In the case of the schools referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Bootle, all the money raised has gone into bricks

      355
      and mortar. It is quite impossible for them to raise the money to meet this retrospective tax demand.
      11.0 p.m.
      I wish to conclude with reference to a rather broader issue which must be in the minds of all hon. Members. I do so with a great sense of delicacy, because it is a matter of which I do not want to make very much. But a considerable number of small lotteries which are now legalised by my hon. Friend's Bill are for the purpose of raising funds for denominational schools.
      Every hon. Member may have a different view about denominational schools, and that is not for us to argue, but in the 1944 Education Act a certain compromise was reached about denominational schools, certain estimates were then made of the amount of money likely to be involved. In fact, because of the inflation in building costs, those estimates have been to a considerable extent falsified. Again, purely as a matter of history, the money has been raised, albeit with great difficulty, through small lotteries, football pools and efforts of that kind.
      If the Chancellor by this new drive of the Inland Revenue against the proceeds of these efforts is to rob these organisations of their revenue, I for one am extremely alarmed about what may be the consequences. I do not want to overstress that, and none of us would want this to become a party political issue. I would be the last to want that. Speaking as a Non-conformist in a constituency with one of the largest Roman Catholic votes in the country, I know only too well what can be made, and what was made in 1950, of the incursion of this matter into politics.
      But I appeal to the Chancellor to consult the Lord Privy Seal about this and to realise what may be involved. Although I say this with a sense of responsibility, and in no party sense, I must warn him that if this particular source of revenue is to be cut off for these religious organisations, as a result of the activities of the Department of Inland Revenue, I am extremely alarmed about the possible consequences.
      I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor will get up now and say he will look at this matter again. I know he can do
      356
      nothing more about the Finance Bill, because it will go to another place, where amendment is not possible. But I hope he will undertake to look at it, and, if necessary, introduce a small amending Measure to put this matter right. It is a matter that transcends party, and although it may appear small, it is one of which the consequences are incalculable. I beseech him, and I ask the Lord Privy Seal not to let us have this matter dragged into politics again.
      Mr. H. Macmillan: I think it would be discourteous of me not to make some reply to the statement which has been made by the right hon. Gentleman, the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), which goes far beyond this particular Clause. I asked the Solicitor-General to reply to it because it raises very important legal points. But I should be the first to admit—and the right hon. Gentleman was good enough to write to me about this matter—that these are much broader problems that he has now brought in and which, he would agree, could not possibly be related to this Clause. This Clause goes far beyond the question he raised, both in correspondence with me and which he has raised again tonight, because it would include purposes such as were legalised in the Bill, and go far beyond the question of building denominational schools.
      I accept fully the right hon. Gentleman's statement that he does not wish to bring any party question into this, though I am as much aware and as much interested. I have spent a good deal of activity in my life, both at home and in other parts, in trying to face the problems put upon us by the education settlement for the church schools, and I know quite well the struggles we have to keep our schools in the hands of our own Church. I realise those are very heavy burdens on us, and at my own home recently we raised great sums, through considerable efforts, to keep our church school, which we regard as of vital importance to the future of our children.
      I admit that these methods, like fêtes, church bazaars, small lotteries, and so on, are used to try to bring us in money. Therefore, it was with a very friendly eye that I looked at this matter when the right hon. Gentleman wrote to me; but neither my advisers nor I have been able to find a method. This Clause would not do it

      357
      because it would go far beyond the circumstances with which we are concerned.
      Mr. L. M. Lever: Would the Chancellor be prepared to introduce an amendment to assist the denominational schools?
      Mr. Macmillan: We have here an amendment; but what I am trying to explain is that, first, we have the new Act which is just beginning to work and, by so doing away with the mutuality principle, we have a new situation in relation to the small lotteries. No responsible Government, or Chancellor, or any Law Officer, could recommend the acceptance of this amendment to the law either in its present form or in a modified form. We must watch the operation of the new Act, and we will do our best to see that this is properly and reasonably worked. Beyond that, I cannot go at present. We will see what possible help can be given
      in conforming with the views of Parliament when it passed that Act, but I cannot ask the House to accept a Clause which goes far beyond it.
      I promise to give further study to this subject, and will see that nothing harsh, nor that any heavy burden, is brought about by sticking to the principles of the law. What I cannot do is to ask the House to go far beyond those principles which, I remind hon. Members, successive Governments have for so long followed in the assessment of Income Tax in efforts of this kind—all of which are clearly laid down on a determined basis. I cannot advise the House to vote for a Clause which it is not possible in its conscience to do.
      Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time.
      The House divided: Ayes, 146: Noes, 200.

      Division No. 260.]

      AYES

      [11.8 p.m.

      Albu, A. H.

      Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)

      Oliver, G. H.

      Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)

      Gibson, C. W.

      Orbach, M.

      Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)

      Gordon Walker. Rt. Hon. P. C.

      Oswald, T.

      Awbery, S. S.

      Greenwood, Anthony

      Padley, W. E.

      Bacon, Miss Alice

      Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.

      Paget, R. T.

      Baird, J.

      Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)

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

      Balfour, A.

      Hannan, W.

      Palmer, A. M. F.

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

      Harrison, J, (Nottingham, N.)

      Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)

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

      Hayman, F. H.

      Pargiter, G. A.

      Benson, G.

      Herbison, Miss M.

      Parker, J.

      Beswick, F.

      Hewitson, Capt. M.

      Parkin, B. T.

      Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)

      Hobson, C. R.

      Pearson, A.

      Blackburn, F.

      Holman, P.

      Popplewell, E.

      Blenkinsop, A.

      Holmes, Horace

      Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)

      Boardman, H.

      Howell, Denis (All Saints)

      Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)

      Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.

      Hoy, J. H.

      Probert, A. R.

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

      Hubbard, T. F.

      Proctor, W. T.

      Boyd, T. C.

      Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)

      Randall, H. E.

      Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth

      Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)

      Redhead, E. C.

      Brockway, A. F.

      Hunter, A. E.

      Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)

      Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.

      Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)

      Silverman, Julius (Aston)

      Burke, W. A.

      Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)

      Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)

      Burton, Miss F. E.

      Irving, S. (Dartford)

      Sorensen, R. W.

      Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)

      Janner, B.

      Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank

      Callaghan, L. J.

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

      Sparks, J. A.

      Castle, Mrs. B. A.

      Jeger, George (Goole)

      Steele, T.

      Champion, A. J.

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

      Stewart, Michael (Fulham)

      Chetwynd, G. R.

      Jones, David (The Hartlepools)

      Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.

      Coldrick, W.

      King, Dr. H. M.

      Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.

      Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)

      Lawson, G. M.

      Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)

      Corbet, Mrs. Freda

      Lee, Frederick (Newton)

      Thornton, E.

      Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)

      Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)

      Timmons, J.

      Crossman, R. H. S.

      Logan, D. G.

      Usborne, H. C.

      Cullen, Mrs. A.

      Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson

      Warbey, W. N.

      Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.

      MacColl, J. E.

      Weitzman, D.

      Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)

      McInnes, J.

      Wells, William (Walsall, N.)

      Davies, Harold (Leek)

      McKay, John (Wallsend)

      West, D. G.

      Deer, G.

      McLeavy, Frank

      Wheeldon, W. E.

      de Freitas, Geoffrey

      Macpherson, Malcolm (Stirling)

      White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)

      Delargy, H. J.

      Mahon, Simon

      Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)

      Dodds, N. N.

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

      Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)

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

      Mann, Mrs. Jean

      Winterbottom, Richard

      Dye, S.

      Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.

      Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.

      Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.

      Mellish, R. J.

      Yates, V. (Ladywood)

      Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)

      Mikardo, Ian

      Younger, Rt. Hon. K.

      Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)

      Mitchison, G. R.

      Zilliacus, K.

      Evans, Stanley (Wednesbury)

      Moody, A. S.

      Fernyhough, E.

      Moss, R.

      TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

      Fletcher, Eric

      Mulley, F. W.

      Mr. Wilkins and Mr. Simmons.

      Forman, J. C.

      Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)

      NOES

      Agnew, Cmdr. P. G.

      Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)

      Moore, Sir Thomas

      Aitken, W. T.

      Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.

      Nabarro, G. D. N.

      Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)

      Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)

      Nairn, D. L. S.

      Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)

      Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)

      Heave, Airey

      Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William

      Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)

      Nicholls, Harmer

      Armstrong, C. W.

      Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)

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

      Ashton, H.

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

      Nield, Basil (Chester)

      Atkins, H. E.

      Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)

      Oakshott, H. D.

      Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.

      Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)

      Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.

      Balniel, Lord

      Hill, John (S. Norfolk)

      Orr, Capt. L. P. S.

      Barber, Anthony

      Hinchingbrooke, Viscount

      Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)

      Barlow, Sir John

      Hirst, Geoffrey

      Page, R. G.

      Barter, John

      Holland-Martin, C. J.

      Peyton, J. W. W.

      Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)

      Hornby, R. P.

      Pitman, I. J.

      Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)

      Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.

      Pitt, Miss E. M.

      Biggs-Davison, J. A.

      Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)

      Pott, H. P.

      Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel

      Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)

      Powell, J. Enoch

      Bishop, F. P.

      Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.

      Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.

      Body, R. F.

      Hughes-Young, M. H. C.

      Profumo, J. D.

      Boothby, Sir Robert

      Hurd, A. R.

      Raikes, Sir Victor

      Bossom, Sir Alfred

      Hyde, Montgomery

      Rawlinson, Peter

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

      Iremonger, T. L.

      Redmayne, M.

      Boyle, Sir Edward

      Irvine, Bryant Goodman (Rye)

      Rees-Davies, W. R.

      Braine, B. R.

      Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)

      Remnant, Hon. P

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

      Jennings, J. C. (Burton)

      Renton, D. L. M.

      Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry

      Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)

      Ridsdale, J. E.

      Bryan, P.

      Johnson, Eric (Blackley)

      Rippon, A. G. F.

      Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.

      Joseph, Sir Keith

      Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)

      Burden, F. F. A.

      Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot

      Roper, Sir Harold

      Butcher, Sir Herbert

      Kaberry, D.

      Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard

      Channon, H.

      Keegan, D.

      Schofield, Lt.-Col. W.

      Chichester-Clark, R.

      Kerr, H. W.

      Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.

      Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)

      Kirk, P. M.

      Sharpies, R. C.

      Cole, Norman

      Lagden, G. W.

      Shepherd, William

      Cordeaux, Lt-Col. J. K.

      Lambert, Hon. G.

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

      Corfield, Capt. F. V.

      Lancaster, Col. C. G.

      Spearman, Sir Alexander

      Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)

      Langford-Holt, J. A.

      Stevens, Geoffrey

      Crouch, R. F.

      Leather, E. H. C.

      Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)

      Cunningham, Knox

      Leavey, J. A.

      Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)

      Currie, G. B. H.

      Leburn, W. G.

      Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.

      Dance, J. C. G.

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

      Studholme, Sir Henry

      Davidson, Viscountess

      Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)

      Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)

      D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry

      Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)

      Teeling, W.

      Deedes, W. F.

      Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)

      Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)

      Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.

      Linstead, Sir H. N.

      Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)

      Doughty, C. J. A.

      Longden, Gilbert

      Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)

      Drayson, G. B.

      Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)

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

      du Cann, E. D. L.

      Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh

      Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)

      Duthie, W. S.

      Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry

      Tilney, John (Wavertree)

      Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)

      Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)

      Turner, H. F. L.

      Elliot, Rt. Hon. W, E.

      McLaughlin, Mrs. P.

      Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.

      Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn

      Maclay, Rt. Hon. John

      Vane, W. M. F.

      Errington, Sir Eric

      McLean, Neil (Inverness)

      Vickers, Miss J. H.

      Fell, A.

      MacLeod, John (Ross & Cromarty)

      Vosper, D. F.

      Fisher, Nigel

      Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)

      Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)

      Fletcher-Cooke, C.

      Maddan, Martin

      Walker-Smith, D. C.

      Foster, John

      Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)

      Wall, Major Patrick

      Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.

      Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)

      Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)

      George, J. C. (Polish)

      Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.

      Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)

      Gibson-Watt, D.

      Markham, Major Sir Frank

      Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.

      Glover, D.

      Marlowe, A. A. H.

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

      Gough, C. F. H.

      Mathew, R.

      Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)

      Gower, H. R.

      Maude, Angus

      Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)

      Graham, Sir Fergus

      Mawby, R. L.

      Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)

      Grant, W. (Woodside)

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

      Woollam, John Victor

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

      Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.

      Green, A.

      Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh

      TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

      Mr. Wills and Mr. Godber.

      Question put and agreed to.

      11.15 p.m.
      Mr. H. Macmillan: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be adjourned.
      We have made good progress today. There is every indication that we have got well ahead with the task we set ourselves. I would thank the House for the co-operation it has given. I think
      360
      we can adjourn now and hope to finish our labours at a reasonable hour tomorrow.
      Bill, as amended (in Committee and on re-committal), to be further considered Tomorrow.

  MENTAL HOSPITALS (INVOLUNTARY PATIENTS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Godber]
  11.18 p.m.
  Dr. Donald Johnson: I rise to raise the question of the admission of involuntary patients to mental hospitals. I must apologise to the Parliamentary Secretary if once again in a short space of time I have kept her late in the House. As she knows, occasions to debate the health services, or any aspect of them, seem to be few and far between. The exact occasion of this debate arises from the Answer to my Question last Monday concerning the admission of certified patients to mental hospitals, which revealed what seemed an alarmingly high figure of some 20,000 people annually being put into mental hospitals against their will, only some 15 per cent. of that number having been under outside observation in hospital beds.
  In other words, some 17,000 people are swept up, if I may use that word, in this way, mainly on summary reception orders, and detained in mental hospitals for an indefinite period up to a year. This is done on the opinion of two or three people who, though of official and professional status and empowered to sign certificates, are as liable to error as the remainder of mankind. This seems to be an extraordinarily large number of people in such a liberty-loving country as ours, to be detained on no other criterion. Such certificates are really the only criterion which warrant these detentions.
  In reply to my supplementary question last week, my right hon. Friend stated that the figure was not as large as all that, and that, in fact, a further 20 per cent. of patients, representing about 4,000 people, were annually placed in observation wards of mental hospitals.
  Before proceeding further, I wish to ask a further question on this point. If my hon. Friend cannot give me the answer tonight, or if she has not the figures with her, perhaps she could let me know at some future date what percentage of the number of those placed in observation
  362
  wards of mental hospitals were already certified under summary reception orders before they went to hospital, or whether they were admitted merely under three-day emergency orders, and, if so, what percentage of them were discharged from observation wards at the termination of such urgency orders.
  The reason I ask this is that it is my impression, rightly or wrongly, that once a person is in a mental hospital his or her transference from one ward to another is, on occasion, something of a formality and is by no means the same as if the patient were moved from a general to a mental hospital.
  To return to my main point, the matter of these 20,000 people annually entering mental hospitals is a vast human problem, and one with which I hope to deal later. My first intention is to convince my hon. Friend and also my right hon. Friend the Minister that, apart from anything else, the way in which people are placed in mental hospitals is really not particularly good business from their point of view.
  The real question at the moment is how we can solve the problem of our overcrowded mental hospitals. According to the figures given by my hon. Friend's Ministry at the end of 1954. 140,487 patients were occupying bed space authorised for only 121,555 patients, which represented an overcrowding of 15·6 per cent. There are, of course, two ways of solving the problem. One is by building more hospitals but that, as we know, in the present economic situation is practicable only to a limited degree, and the other and far more practicable and economical way is by exercising far more discrimination than at present over admissions.
  This can be done in the way I have suggested, by the establishment of observation wards in general hospitals in which patients can be viewed in surroundings as detached as possible from mental illness and where they can be seen by general physicians who are not quite so preoccupied with their own speciality as are psychiatrists. Such surroundings would provide a respite during which the patient could, perhaps, surmount an acute crisis and resume his or her place in the community without having acquired the stigma of having been an inmate of a mental hospital

  363
  which, whatever may be said, is quite inseparable from such treatment.
  What I have said is confirmed by the experience in the observation wards in the L.C.C. area. According to the figures supplied by the L.C.C. in their evidence to the Royal Commission, there were 4,746 patients admitted into the observation wards in the L.C.C. area during 1953. Out of these, 1,274, or almost exactly a quarter, were discharged at the end of the 17-day observation period, while a further quarter were moved as voluntary patients rather than involuntary patients.
  To keep to the point, concerning the quarter who were discharged, it is clear to anyone who has even the most superficial acquaintance of the ways of mental hospitals and the time factor which operates within their walls that these people were discharged very much quicker than they would have been once they were entangled in the mental hospital machine. It is equally clear that if a quarter of the admissions to mental hospitals in the country can be cut down, even if only with short-stay cases, it will go some way to solving this problem of overcrowding. Indeed, it seems to me that this policy offers a dazzling prospect to my right hon. Friend in that at a comparatively small cost he can solve the problem of overcrowding in mental hospitals.
  I will, however, turn from this splendid vision to the more sombre human angle. It is probably one of the most distressing experiences that anyone can undergo to be forcibly put into a mental hospital, and we must dispense with euphemisms for a moment and call a spade a spade, because force is the ultimate sanction of putting these unfortunate people into mental hospitals.
  As I have said, it is a most unfortunate experience to be put into a mental hospital, to be conducted there by a local authority official and perhaps also a policeman if there has been any show of recalcitrance. Such an experience as this is hardly conducive to the improvement of mental health which, after all, is supposed to be the object of the exercise, even in the best of circumstances. It behoves a civilised community to soften the blow and to ensure that, where detention is necessary, not only is justice done but also
  364
  that it is seen to be done, and this is far from being the case at present.
  The law of lunacy is antiquated, muddled and obscure. The Lunacy Act, 1890, has been amended and re-amended in such a way that practically nobody understands it at present, even the cleverest and most able people being at sea with it. The hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary may perhaps deny this, but I hope she will pardon me if I say that she is herself one of the most outstanding instances of this. We all admire her competence and grasp of her Department's work, yet when she comes to talk of the law of lunacy she seems to me to be at sea with the rest of us.
  On 19th November, 1952, when she spoke in the debate on geriatrics, in reply to the accusation of over-zealous certification of elderly people, she said that patients can only be certified first on medical examination and then on the order being signed by two justices. I hope she will excuse me correcting her when I point out that, according to the 1953 figures, there were some 20,000 people put into hospital by summary reception order and only 350 by petition. A summary reception order requires the signature of only one justice—any justice who is available.
  I think we can say that the Section 16 procedure, under which most people are sent into mental hospitals, itself is a direct inheritance from the Victorian Poor Law arrangements which were incorporated into the Act of 1890, and it is characterised by the same lack of humanity. This can only be softened properly with alteration of the law—and, of course, it is not proper in a debate such as this that I should make a suggestion in that connection—in such a way as I have suggested, namely, by the establishment of proper observation wards such as those which are working very successfully in the L.C.C. area and which could be made to work in other places equally well, so that there would be proper medical observation, proper diagnosis, before this dire and rather terrible step is taken.
  11.30 p.m.
  The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): The hon. Member for Carlisle (Dr. D. Johnson) has, I know, a very great interest in this topic, but I

  365
  think that he has done less than justice to the great work that has been done towards removing the stigma from our mental hospitals. In fact, the whole tenor of the debate has unfortunately been to put back the stigma which we have worked tremendously hard to get removed.
  The very substantial increase in the number of voluntary patients going into hospital over the last years, from 51 per cent. only of voluntary patients in 1946 to 75 per cent. in 1955, shows that there is indeed a new outlook on our mental hospitals and that great efforts have been made to remove any sense of stigma when people desire to get treatment and care in our mental hospitals.
  I should first like to correct a misconception which has grown up as a result of reference to Section 20 accommodation as "observation wards." Section 20 of the Lunacy Act, 1890, as amended, says:
  "If a duly authorised officer of the local health authority or any constable is satisfied that it is necessary for the public safety or the welfare of a person alleged to be of unsound mind with regard to whom it is his duty to take any proceedings under this Act that the said person should, before any such proceedings are taken, be placed under care and control, the officer or constable may remove the said person to any hospital or part of a hospital vested in the Minister (whether a mental hospital or not) which is designated by the Minister for the purposes of this Section, and the person in charge of the said hospital or part shall receive and detain the said person therein, but no person shall be detained under this Section for more than three days."
  There is no mention of "observation". A person is admitted to Section 20 accommodation when it is necessary for the public safety or for his welfare to put him under care and control while the justice, who in such cases has to be notified, puts into operation the steps required by the Act to enable him to inquire into the mental condition of the patient. The purpose is not to provide a period during which the mental condition of the person shall be observed.
  The suggestion that unless a person is dealt with initially under Section 20 he is deprived unfairly of his liberty by being sent to a mental hospital as a certified patient, is really not correct. Whether a person is certified in a Section 20 hospital, or in his home or anywhere else, the procedure is precisely the same.
  366
  The case is notified to a justice; the justice calls in a medical practitioner to examine the patient. On the basis of the medical opinion the justice makes up his mind. He may make an order or decline to do so. Even when the making of an order would be justified he may be content to allow the patient to go to the care of a relative or friend, if he is satisfied that proper care will be taken of him.
  The use of Section 20 does, of course, mean that a patient has been in medical charge for a period before an order is made, but a certificate for the purposes of the order is based on facts indicating insanity observed by the certifier at the time of his examination. The certifier may add facts communicated to him by others, such as nurses and relatives, about the patient's behaviour, but a certificate which included only such facts is not valid for the purposes of an order, and the Act expressly says so.
  It will, therefore, be seen that "observation" of a patient in a Section 20 case is really irrelevant to the making of an order. I would emphasise that the decision whether an order shall be made rests entirely with the justice and with no one else.
  I should also like to point out that practically every patient who is certified outside a Section 20 hospital has been under medical observation and treatment for varying periods previously, either by a general practitioner or through attendance at out-patient clinics.
  The primary purpose of Section 20 is to provide hospitals to which persons who need to be placed under control as well as given treatment without delay can be removed without formality beyond the action of the duly authorised officer. In other words, it is for cases of emergency where prompt removal of a patient has got to be made.
  Before the National Health Service Act, patients dealt with under Section 20 could only be sent to Public Assistance institutions. In those days the Section was specifically intended for use in urgent cases. It was, in fact, side-noted:
  "Removal of person of unsound mind to a public assistance institution in urgent cases."
  I realise that professional opinion about the use of Section 20 has been very divided for a considerable number of

  367
  years, but I think I can give my hon. Friend some of the figures for which he asked. There were at the end of 1954, 71 mental hospitals, 43 mixed hospitals and 26 general hospitals designated to which persons could be sent compulsorily under Section 20. Since 1949 the number of mental hospitals used for the purpose has increased from 67 to 71, and the admissions increased from 2,072 in 1949 to 7,141 in 1954. For other hospitals, the number of units had fallen from 118 to 69, but the number of admissions increased from 16,468 to 17,329.
  The number of Section 20 cases admitted to all these hospitals in 1954 was 24,470, of which 7,141 were admitted to mental hospitals, 7,638 to mixed hospitals and 9,691 to general hospitals. There is no clear evidence that the types of patient sent to the three kinds of hospital differed very much. For the most part, each had its own collecting area, and there seemed to be little overlapping.
  In the mental hospitals 82·2 per cent. of the Section 20 patients remained in hospital, but only 24·8 per cent. of the admissions were, in fact, certified. The corresponding figures for the other hospitals are 59·9 per cent. sent to mental hospitals and 35·1 per cent. of the total admissions were certified. Thus, more than half the patients sent from general hospital Section 20 wards to mental hospitals were sent as certified patients, whereas of those admitted in the first place to Section 20 wards in mental hospitals only one quarter continued under legal detention. It therefore seems that the proportion of voluntary patients is higher resulting from admissions into the mental hospitals than from admissions into the other hospitals.
  Mr. J. E. S. Simon: Can my hon. Friend say why that should be so?
  Miss Hornsby-Smith: That is a matter of medical controversy, and I would rather not give an opinion on it at this stage.
  Of the total Section 20 admissions, 12·7 per cent. were discharged from the mental hospital wards within the detention period, whereas the discharge rate from those of the mixed and general hospitals was 33·1 per cent. The differing
  368
  results indicated by these percentages support the view—the point that I made just now—that many patients admitted direct to mental hospitals are willing to stay on as voluntary patients.
  My hon. Friend suggested that the use of Section 20 accommodation in other than mental hospitals reduces the number of admissions to mental hospitals, particularly of certified patients. That is not really borne out by the facts. As I have already mentioned, more than half the patients sent from Section 20 accommodation in general hospitals to mental hospitals in 1954 were certified whereas of those admitted in the first place to Section 20 accommodation in mental hospitals, only one quarter remained as certified patients.
  I feel that this is largely the result of the new outlook which we have striven so hard to get in our mental hospitals and of the upgrading and the improved conditions in many of the hospitals which have resulted in removing the stigma formerly attaching to them and has made people look upon entry into a mental hospital as entry into a specialist hospital for the treatment required for mental illness comparable to their going into a general hospital for physical illness. It is important that nothing should be done to encourage the public to revert to the days when a stigma attached to mental hospitals. The facts that 75 per cent. of the patients go in as voluntary patients, that the rate of turnover is increasing every year, that many patients are discharged within two months, are trends in the right direction which hon. Members on both sides of the House will most heartily support.
  As to my hon. Friend's suggestion that we could save beds, a bed, whether in a general hospital or a mental hospital, will cost money, and it will not be easier vastly to extend observation wards than to continue with the deliberate priority hospitals, where 3,000 beds have in the past few years been included in the regional hospital boards' programmes. A like number has in the past few years been included in the regional hospitals boards' programmes.
  In any event, the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness, now sitting, can be expected to deal in its Report with all the procedures for

  369
  compulsory admission, including procedures necessary in emergency circumstances. The House will appreciate that I obviously cannot anticipate what this important Commission, at present taking its evidence and preparing its Report, will say. Certainly my right hon. Friend will give that most important document the fullest possible consideration when it is received. It would be premature to anticipate any suggestions which it may make.
  I should like to assure my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle that there is no lack of sympathy with these patients. Our desire is to see that they get early treatment wherever possible. There has been considerable extension of domiciliary work by local authorities and people can have psychiatric advice and treatment at home; there have also been
  370
  extensions in annexes for the old in order that they need not be certified if they become a little confused and no longer capable of staying in normal Part III accommodation.
  The whole trend has been to help people to avoid becoming certified. I do not think that the patients' best interests would be served by reducing in mental hospitals the importance of voluntary treatment or by moving away from the new approach whereby people look upon mental hospitals as somewhere where they can go for treatment and where only in absolute necessity will they be certified.
  Adjourned accordingly at seventeen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

MINISTRY OF WORKS
  Prefabricated Houses (Disposal)
  Prefabricated Houses (Disposal)
SCIENTIFIC AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH
  D.S.I.R. Estimate (Economies)
  D.S.I.R. Estimate (Economies)
BRITISH ARMY
  War Office (Personnel)
  War Office (Personnel)
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Anglo-Australian Trade Discussions
  Anglo-Australian Trade Discussions
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Diesel Motors (Log Books)
  Diesel Motors (Log Books)
  Argentine Meat Purchases (Currency)
  Argentine Meat Purchases (Currency)
  Uniforms (Tax)
  Uniforms (Tax)
  PRICES (STABILISATION)
  PRICES (STABILISATION)
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Loans
  Loans
  Planning Restrictions (Compensation Payments)
  Planning Restrictions (Compensation Payments)
HOUSING
  Slum Clearance Schemes (Playgrounds)
  Slum Clearance Schemes (Playgrounds)
  Council Tenants (Repairs Responsibilities)
  Council Tenants (Repairs Responsibilities)
EMPLOYMENT
  National Service Hostels Corporation
  National Service Hostels Corporation
  Scientific Manpower Census
  Scientific Manpower Census
  Steel Industry (Dispute)
  Steel Industry (Dispute)
  UNITED KINGDOM-U.S.S.R. (CULTURAL EXCHANGES)
  UNITED KINGDOM-U.S.S.R. (CULTURAL EXCHANGES)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Rabbits (Destruction)
  Rabbits (Destruction)
  Overhead Electricity Lines (Danger)
  Overhead Electricity Lines (Danger)
  Poultry (Nesting Conditions)
  Poultry (Nesting Conditions)
MINISTRY OF HEALTH
  Hospitals, Woolwich (Ancillary Staff)
  Hospitals, Woolwich (Ancillary Staff)
  Food Poisoning, Pontardawe
  Food Poisoning, Pontardawe
  Parentcraft Adviser
  Parentcraft Adviser
SCOTLAND
  Home Safety (Inter-departmental Committee)
  Home Safety (Inter-departmental Committee)
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels and Boards (Doctors)
  Pneumoconiosis Medical Panels and Boards (Doctors)
Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock. The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  LITTER IN PUBLIC PLACES
  11.5 a.m.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will introduce a Bill to provide that any person in Great Britain dropping or leaving litter in a public place, except in a receptacle furnished for the purpose, shall be liable to prosecution and on summary conviction to a maximum penalty of one month's imprisonment without the option of a fine.]
  THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (THE EARL OF MUNSTER): My Lords, the Answer is, No.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for that incisive Answer. May I ask whether nothing can be done to prevent these human pests from desecrating the countryside and the beaches with eyesores wherever they go? Is it not a shockingly bad example for the young to see their elders indulging in these disgusting and abominable habits?
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, I agree that it is a shocking example for the young to see older people leave litter all over parks, highways, commons and open spaces. I would, however, remind the noble Viscount that the great majority of county councils in this country, and at least three-quarters of the boroughs and county borough councils, have made bylaws under Section 249 of the Local Government Act, 1933, under which to leave litter about is an offence.
  VISCOUNT ELIBANK: But nothing is happening as a result of those by-laws. It is just going on.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, would the noble Earl not agree that so many local authorities have already made bylaws in this regard that the time is now
  678
  approaching when it would be preferable to make this a law for the whole country, and not only for many parts of it?
  LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, would the noble Earl also take into consideration the fact that the countryside is being despoiled by many authorities? This litter nuisance is so small that the Government might think of sweeping it up into a Bill to prevent the desecration of the amenities of the people all over the countryside today.
  THE EARL OF MUNSTER: My Lords, perhaps I might remind the House that on June 11 the Prime Minister said in another place that he, had arranged for the Minister of Housing and Local Government to assume responsibility in England and Wales for co-ordinating measures to deal with the litter nuisance. I think I need go no further today than to say that my right honourable friend is considering the matter.

THIRD PARTY INSURANCE PROSECUTIONS
11.8 a.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government if they will give details of the prosecutions and convictions for failure to hold a valid third party car insurance during the year 1955, or any other convenient yearly period.]
THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TEE HOME DEPARTMENT (LORD MANCROFT): My Lords, the latest figures available are those for 1954, which are contained in a document entitled Offences Relating to Motor Vehicles, a copy of which I am sending to the noble Lord. Briefly, the document shows that in 1954, 19,385 persons were prosecuted, and 18,011 were convicted, for failing to insure against third party risks.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, does it not indicate clearly that there is considerable evasion, and should not some steps, such as those indicated in an Amendment moved on the Road Traffic Bill, be taken to prevent it?
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, the figures are big indeed. As the noble Lord knows, we have given an undertaking to look into this matter most carefully before the Report stage of the Bill to which he has referred.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, if the noble Lord has the information available, could he say what happened to the victims, or their dependants, of the 18,000-odd offenders who were convicted of having no third party insurance?

DEATH PENALTY (ABOLITION) BILL
11.10 a.m.
Debate resumed (according to Order) on the Motion for Second Reading moved yesterday by Viscount Templewood.
LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, I must. first of all, apologise to the House because yesterday, owing to a long-standing engagement, I was unable to be here to hear the speeches that were made. I arrived last night only to find that the House had risen. That is a disadvantage made the greater because my name has been put first on the list of speakers today. I suppose that one of the most important factors in this dispute—for dispute it is—is the question whether the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life imprisonment. I feel that we must get it firmly into our minds that the question of whether the death penalty is a deterrent is irrelevant, because this Bill does not propose to abolish punishment for murder; it merely proposes to substitute one punishment for another. That being so, I submit that the only relevant question is whether the one is, or is not, a greater deterrent than the other.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack made it quite clear yesterday that, in his opinion and in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life imprisonment. But one of the things that I want to point out today is that, in my respectful submission, the evidence is to the contrary. The noble and learned Viscount said that the Government had reached that view after examining all the evidence. But all the evidence that I can find, broadly speaking, does not support the view of the noble Viscount; it supports the contrary view. I must ask this
680
question: what is the purpose of appointing Royal Commissions and Departmental Committees if the evidence which they produce is to be disregarded or held not to prove the case? I submit that a reading of the available evidence (which I have tried to do) supports only one view; and that is, to put it at its lowest, that it is not proved that life imprisonment would not be an equal deterrent to capital punishment. I know that yesterday there was a dispute as to upon whom the burden of proof lay. It seems to me that the arguments against capital punishment on other scores are so many that in this matter it may be fairly said that the burden of proof lies on those who say the death penalty is a greater deterrent than life imprisonment.
There is another matter which I wish to raise and which I have so far been unable to find was raised yesterday, though I have no doubt that it was mentioned by some supporters of the Bill. I feel more strongly on this point than on any other. The main reason why I support this Bill is that I am firmly convinced that if there were no death penalty there would be a higher percentage of convictions of guilty murderers. I cannot prove that—no-one can; and no-one can prove the contrary. It must be a matter of supposition and reasonable interpretation of court cases. But I am firmly convinced that that is so. If that should be so, it seems to me to be a very strong argument in favour of abolishing the death penalty. A minor result would be that the number of cases committed to Broad-moor would go down; the number of verdicts of "guilty but insane" would, in my opinion, decrease and would be replaced by verdicts of "guilty." I think that would be a desirable result.
I submit that it is not a question of what punishment is to be inflicted upon a man who goes out to commit a murder. What will affect his mind, if anything does, is not whether he is going to be hanged or kept in prison for life. What will affect his mind is whether he is going to be caught and, if so, whether he is going to be convicted. That, I firmly believe; and that, I think, is one of the strongest points in favour of this Bill.
What is the alternative proposed?—life imprisonment. We are often challenged about what we would put in place of the death penalty. I have no hesitation in

681
saying that life imprisonment it must be, and in proper cases—and there are a few such cases—I am perfectly prepared to keep a man in prison literally all his life. I think there are a few, but only a few, men who must be kept in some form of detention for the whole of their lives, and I am prepared to face that possibility. But there are those who say that life imprisonment is worse than death itself. That is quite a permissible view, but it is surely not permissible for those who hold that view also to say that the death penalty is a greater deterrent. I do not think they can have it both ways. If life imprisonment is worse than death itself, then I suppose a man who is reprieved would suffer death. That would be the logical consequence, and the only logical consequence; but nobody has yet suggested that.
I pass to another point which was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and, no doubt, by other speakers—it is a minor point, but one which might be of great importance in a particular case—and that is the question of punishment of innocent men. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said yesterday that there was no practical possibility of that happening, though there might be a theoretical possibility. We must be forgiven for pointing out the case that occurred the other day, when a man—or more than one—was sentenced to a term of ten years' imprisonment, and was suddenly released and compensated in cash because it was found that he had not committed the crime for which he had been sentenced. We are told that that could not happen in a case of murder. My Lords, why not? We are told that if the Home Secretary had a scintilla of doubt the man would be released. But why does that happen in cases not of murder, and not in murder cases? I cannot follow that argument, and I should be glad if some other speaker against this Bill, or for Her Majesty's Government, could make it quite plain to the House why there is no practical possibility of a miscarriage of justice in murder when there has been one recently in another case.
The question is: Will hanging deter more than life imprisonment? The noble and learned Viscount said it has a "uniquely deterrent" effect—by which I take it he means that hanging, above all
682
other punishments, will deter. But, as I have said already, in my submission experience shows the contrary. I should like your Lordships to think for a moment of this House in session perhaps 150 years ago, the Lord Chancellor of the day and the learned Judges all telling the lay Members of the House that it would be (to use the words that were uttered yesterday) a "disaster" if this Bill were passed; and the lay Members of the House all acting accordingly upon that advice, as indeed well they might. But there is a difference between now and 150 years ago. In those days they did not know that the prophecies to which they were listening would not be fulfilled. They did not know that the statement that it would be a "disaster" would not prove true. We now know that the statements then made were in fact incorrect—that is, the prophecies of what would follow from the abolition of the death penalty in such matters as stealing goods to the value of 5s. I apologise for reiterating this oft-quoted fact, but I think it is relevant.
We now know that what the House was told 150 years ago was wrong. We then look at the experience in this country and in other countries to see whether it will be wrong again. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we are told that we must take no notice of the experience of other countries. From Scandinavia to South America the death penalty has been abolished, and we are told that it is unreliable to base our judgment upon what has happened in those countries. Why? Are the people in this Island so very different, less phlegmatic, more excitable? I cannot understand it. As I say, the Government appoint Royal Commissions, which find out all the facts, but we are told that we must not take notice of those facts for our own country.
I should like to take, of the overseas countries, two cases where in one country, in a single country, there are two systems—namely, Australia and the United States. In Australia we have one abolitionist State out of the six. Are we not entitled to compare the results in that one State with those of the other five? What we find is that murder is no more prevalent since the abolition of the death penalty in that one State than it is in any other State. What of the United States, where six out of forty-eight States, I think it is, have long since abolished capital

683
punishment? We are told that the police in those six States are, if anything, safer as they go about than the police in the other forty-two States. Are we completely to disregard that sort of evidence? What of our own country? In 1948, as is well known, the death penalty was suspended for a matter of, I think, eight months. What happened? It was admittedly a very short time, but what happened? The number of murders did not go up; if anything, it went down. This year a Resolution was passed in another place clearly indicating that legislation would shortly be introduced to abolish the death penalty. In the next three months following that Resolution, what happened? The murder rate did not go up; if anything, it went down. I ask once more, are we completely to disregard the evidence that has been accumulated, with so much trouble and experience, from all parts of the world, including our own country?
We are told by many speakers that, if the death penalty is abolished, there will be an increase in the carrying of arms that criminals will go about armed and will use arms, and that it might be necessary to arm the police. None of those things has happened in other countries. I respectfully challenge any noble Lord to prove that they have, because I am firmly of the opinion, having read what evidence is available, that they have not. None of those things has happened. In fact, the only countries in Europe in which the police go about armed are now, broadly speaking, the States which have not abolished the death penalty—mostly France and Spain.
Finally, I would ask this question. This Bill legislates for an experiment for a limited time. I would earnestly ask, why not try the experiment? This is a difficult matter, a very controversial matter, a matter in which we have vitally opposed opinions. Here is an opportunity to see who is right. Why not try to see who is right? What could be the worst possible results from this trial? I have asked myself that question, and I think it is a fair one. What is the worst that could happen if we abolished the death penalty for five years under this Bill? The worst that can happen is an outbreak of murder and serious crime. It is possible—of course it is. But it is
684
highly improbable, because all previous experiments have not resulted in that happening. Therefore, I feel justified in prophesying that it certainly would not happen. But if it did, your Lordships could pass an Amending Act. I have been present in this House when an Act of Parliament has gone through all its stages in both Houses in one day. It could be done again.
I have spoken of the worst that could possibly happen if this Bill were passed. What is the best? We could see once and for all who was right in this matter. If I am wrong, I and all those who speak with me will be silenced for good. I say that without hesitation, because I am convinced that I shall not be wrong. But time alone will show. Time can show—your Lordships can allow it to show. I earnestly plead with you, therefore, to allow this experiment to see who of us are right—those who favour the retention of the death penalty or those who do not. I speak with confidence today, not because I think we shall win the Division tonight but because it is only a question of time, and not a very long time, either, before the death penalty is abolished in this country—of that I am firmly convinced. In that conviction I am supported by all the history that I can find upon this matter. It all points to the one direction that before long this blot on our civilisation, this relic of a barbaric age, will be removed from the Statute Book
11.27 a.m.
LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I hope it may be of some little help to your Lordships in coming to a conclusion on this difficult matter if I intervene now for as short a period as I can manage, to deal with one or two of the points as they directly affect my own Department which were raised in the most interesting debate which we had in your Lordships' House yesterday. If I begin upon the defensive, it is only because it is so often alleged that the Home Office is bitterly opposed to the abolition of capital punishment. The Home Office is even believed to be in favour of hanging for its own sake, and manages apparently to pervert (at least for a time) one Home Secretary after another. This suggestion would, if it were true, be of little credit to the strength of character and firmness of purpose of those who rise to the high and

685
honourable office of Home Secretary. In point of fact, it just is not true.
I wonder whether it may not be that, confronted with the special responsibilities, the heavy responsibilities, for internal peace and good order which rest with any Home Secretary, some of them hesitated about the wisdom of the course which they had formerly thought to be right. The question whether capital punishment should continue is not decided by officials, however able and experienced, or by the Home Secretary, however distinguished; it is a question of Government policy which is decided on the collective responsibility of the Queen's Ministers. The function of officials is no more than that of assembling the relevant facts and considerations, laying them before Ministers and, if needs be, suggesting a course of action. This much I have felt bound to say in defence of those officials who cannot speak for themselves.
I wish to make it clear beyond a shadow of a doubt that the policy which the Government are now advising your Lordships to adopt, and which I myself, after careful thought, support as strongly as I ever did, is their own policy, and one for which they take, and must take, full responsibility. It is, I think, also right for me to remind your Lordships—I am authorised by the Home Secretary to say this—that every effort is made in capital cases to find mitigating circumstances sufficient to justify a reprieve. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, reminded the House, in a most telling speech yesterday, the transcript of the trial, the medical reports, the police reports, the convicted person's character and antecedents—and indeed any representations made on his behalf—are all carefully studied, if necessary in consultation with the trial judge, to see whether there are any grounds which would justify a decision to interfere with the due course of law. If there are no mitigating circumstances, there may be, very occasionally, a flicker of doubt about the convicted person's guilt. If there is such doubt, even though it may not be enough to warrant a reversal of the conviction, it is enough to warrant a decision not to carry out the irrevocable sentence. Where there is no doubt of guilt, the fullest possible weight is given to anything that can be found to extenuate the crime.
686
My Lords, I think this will satisfy even the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that this is a very different state of affairs from that which affects any other crime than murder. It is my firm conviction that this meticulous examination not only provides a powerful safeguard against an innocent man being hanged, but also achieves a remarkably close conformity between the judgment of the public on the types of murderer who ought to hang and the infliction of the death penalty in actual cases.
I turn now to the position of the police and the prison officers, towards whom the Government, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, in particular, have a special responsibility. These are the public servants who may be at more particular risk if capital punishment is abolished. Already they perform a pretty tough and thankless task, and I feel that we ought not to increase their difficulties. If capital punishment is abolished, are your Lordships really sure that more criminals will not arm themselves. The Royal Commission recorded that the representatives of the police and the prison service, who, after all, know a good deal about the criminal class, were almost unanimous in believing in the uniquely deterrent effect of capital punishment on professional criminals. They thought that the existence of capital punishment was the main reason why criminals in this country not merely refrain from using lethal weapons but take care not to carry them, lest they may be tempted to use them. Not merely that; it does not take much imagination to see how strong the temptation might be if there were no death penalty. To the professional criminal, the policeman who catches him represents the certainty of a long stretch, possibly fourteen years' preventive detention. If he hurts the policeman he may win his freedom: at the most he will serve a few extra years. Freedom is obviously worth the risk.
We have been told in the course of the debate that American research has shown that their policemen are not at greater risk in abolitionist than in non-abolitionist States. That may be so; but I wonder whether that is really relevant to our own situation. As the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, pointed out in the course of a most powerful speech yesterday, the police in America are usually armed, and the most immediate deterrent

687
against shooting at them may well be the certainty that the police will shoot back. One cannot usefully compare the situation here, where killing policemen provokes no immediate retaliation but involves a high risk of conviction and execution, with the situation in countries where the immediate risk is great but the risk of ultimate conviction and execution may be less. The importance of capital punishment as a deterrent is entirely different in the two sets of circumstances. At present, one British policeman is murdered on the average every two and a half years. That is one too many, but at least it is only one. Are your Lordships quite sure that if capital punishment were abolished the number would not be higher?
In another place, a provision was at one stage inserted in the Bill preserving the death penalty for murder committed by a person serving the sentence of life imprisonment. One or two of your Lordships yesterday pointed out that there was no record of any such murder. I cannot give any particular weight to that argument. The records show that since 1920 there have been six murders by men in prison, and that two of them have been murders of officers in prisons or Borstal institutions. There have also been many violents assaults which might well have resulted in the death of the victim. While none of these murders has been committed by men serving life imprisonment, your Lordships will bear in mind that, hitherto, those criminals who are prima facie most likely to commit such a crime have, in fact, been hanged. If this Bill passes, the situation of course will be very different. Among those serving life imprisonment there will then be many more men with a latent tendency to violence. Are your Lordships sure that there will not then be much greater risk of prison officers being subjected to murderous assaults? This Bill, of course, does nothing to protect them. Your Lordships will, I am quite certain, think carefully before allowing the police and the prison officers to be placed in greater hazard.
There was much talk yesterday about statistics. The Royal Commission, after the most exhaustive inquiry, concluded that the statistics afforded no proof that capital punishment is a unique deterrent. But this does not mean that the statistics
688
prove that capital punishment is not a unique deterrent; it means merely that the statistics are incapable of proving either proposition. There are three reasons for this which I should like your Lordships to bear in mind. The first is that in a complex society the murder rate is affected by a number of factors—moral, social and economic—of which the penalty is only one. That one factor is impossible to isolate; it is impossible to tell whether a change in the murder rate after abolition occurs because of abolition or in spite of it, or is unrelated to it. The second reason is that in many countries capital punishment fell out of use long before it was formally abolished, and there is, therefore, no clear starting point for a comparison of the state of affairs before abolition and after it. The third reason is that in many countries the statistics are simply not kept in a form which throws light on this problem. The most relevant figure for the purpose is the number of murders known to the police, but that figure is not commonly kept abroad, and the figures which have to be used instead are less closely related to the number of murders that actually occur.
Finally on this point, even if the foreign statistics were more revealing than they are, they would still not necessarily be a guide to the effect of abolition in this country, where conditions are quite different from those in most of the abolitionist countries. But because statistics throw no light on the problem, that does not mean that no light is to be had. Surely we do not need statistics to tell us that men fear death and will avoid it if they can. Can your Lordships doubt that men fear death more than imprisonment, and that the prospect of probable death will deter those capable of being deterred more effectively than any other punishment we can inflict? The noble Lord, Lord Pethick-Lawrence, in a typically calm and careful speech yesterday, urged on your Lordships the view that if the death penalty cannot be proved to be a unique deterrent, then its maintenance cannot be justified. But I would respectfully submit to him that the onus should be the other way round. Common sense surely suggests that the death penalty is a unique deterrent. With it we in this country have the lowest homicide rate in the world. Surely it is for those who would abolish it to show

689
that we can do so without endangering the peace and order of the community.
I turn now to my right honourable friend the Home Secretary's responsibilities towards the pubic. One of his main responsibilities is for the peace and order of the community. In this context, I believe that "the Queen's Peace" includes the peace of mind of the public, and, in particular, of the elderly and the defenceless. I respectfully commend that suggestion to the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter. At present we have in Great Britain the lowest homicide rate in the world. Police and prison officers are, thank heaven! rarely murdered; and murder is regarded with peculiar loathing. We are now being asked to remove what the Government believe to be an important safeguard of this fortunate state of affairs; to accept assurances, based on experience of more than doubtful relevance, that no evil consequences will ensue, and to take the risk that, if the abolitionists are wrong, innocent people will pay for the mistake with their lives. The Government are just not prepared to accept this risk.
Finally, my Lords, may I offer a word on public opinion? Public opinion on this subject is peculiarly variable, and is liable to be influenced by some recent murder in which particular sympathy is felt for the victim, or by a recent execution in which particular sympathy is felt for the murderer. The fluctuations in Gallup Polls in recent years have illustrated this point quite clearly. For example, a poll in October, 1953 (just after the Christie case), showed 73 per cent. in favour of the death penalty; another in July, 1955 (just after the execution of Ruth Ellis), showed only 50 per cent. in favour and 37 per cent. against.
There is at least some risk that abolition would be followed by further increases in violence and sexual crime, possibly accompanied by some murders of a particularly shocking kind. Even though there might be no clear connection between the trends of these particular crimes and abolition, the public might nevertheless demand the reintroduction of capital punishment. Your Lordships may have noted the experience of those countries that have abolished capital punishment and have then had to reintroduce it. We do not want that to
690
happen here. Judging from the survey of the Royal Commission, what happened in some of those countries was that capital punishment was abolished before public opinion was ready for it; and public opinion made itself felt only after abolition. Then, shocked by a few brutal crimes, the public pressed effectively for the reintroduction of capital punishment, even where there was no direct evidence to suggest that abolition had been responsible for an increase in the number of murders.
Is there no danger of that happening here? At present, of course, we hear most from those who favour abolition; their voice has been eloquent, sincere and organised. After abolition we should probably hear most from those in favour of reintroduction. It is, I think, worth remembering that in several abolitionist countries, capital punishment had fallen out of use long before it was abolished in law, and public opinion had become accustomed to the idea of abolition gradually. It is a very different matter to make a sudden break with the past. and to do it at a time when, unhappily, the use of violence appears to be on the increase.
I believe that capital punishment ought not to be abolished unless there is overwhelming public support for the change; otherwise there may well be a revulsion of feeling, which will insist on the change being reversed. Public opinion is not yet overwhelmingly in favour of abolition. Public opinion, unorganised, but now more aware of the full implications of this dreadfully difficult and very personal problem, still seems to be strongly against abolition. I am not one of those who suggest for one moment that Parliament should always slavishly follow public opinion and never give a lead, but in this case I am convinced that public opinion is right.
11.45 a.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF CHICHESTER: My Lords, I am sure we must all be grateful for the very temperate way in which the noble Lord representing the Home Office has put his case, and I am sure also that we all feel the force of what he says about the officials of the Home Office and about successive Home Secretaries. No-one who knows the present Horne Secretary could be in any doubt about his great humanity or his

691
reluctance to consent to the retention of the death penalty as the sentence for murder unless he was profoundly and morally convinced.
But, my Lords, as the noble Viscount who introduced the Second Reading said, there has been since 1948 a great change in the information and in the opinion of the public. The Royal Commission sat for over four years. They acted with immense industry. They showed, I think, in the general opinion, very great judgment and wisdom. It is impossible to brush aside the Commission's arguments and their statements of fact. It is impossible to bring back, as some outside, as well as inside, this House have brought back, old pre-war arguments as though no Royal Commission had sat.
The foundation of the Royal Commission's findings, and of the position in which we are ourselves today, is the unanimous finding that it is impracticable to find a satisfactory method of limiting the scope of capital punishment by dividing murder into degrees, and the unanimous conclusion that the issue is now whether capital punishment should be retained or abolished. The Royal Commission were not asked to declare on capital punishment per se, but they assembled all the material bearing on, I think, all aspects of murder required to enable responsible citizens to form a considered judgment.
I agree that there are circumstances in which it is right for the State to take the life of a criminal citizen, for fundamental reasons, such as the real and ultimate security of the community. I also agree that it is essential that the penalty for murder should express public revulsion at the crime in no uncertain way. It is when we come to the question of whether the death penalty is the indispensable deterrent that we find ourselves in the region of greatest importance and difficulty.
This problem of deterrence was fully treated in the Report of the Royal Commission, particularly in Appendix 6. Murder is a terrible crime, but it is not a homogenous crime, and Table I, which gives an analysis of the motives or causes of murders committed by all persons convicted for the twenty years ending in
692
1905, has been examined by Sir John Macdonell. He points out in this Appendix that there are more murders committed on Saturday than on any other day of the week, that nearly half the murders are committed between 8 p.m. and 2 a.m. He says:
"I am inclined to think that this crime is not generally the crime of the so-called criminal classes, but is in most cases rather an incident in miserable lives in which disputes, quarrels, angry words and blows are common."
The short history of most, he says, is
"domestic quarrels and brawls; much previous ill-treatment; drinking, fighting, blows; a long course of brutality and continued absence of self-restraint."
He then says, however—and here is the problem—that
"There is … a clearly marked class of murders, of rare occurrence, the motive for which is robbery, committed by habitual criminals as forming the climax and usually the termination of a career of crime."
Table 2 offers an analysis of the victims of persons convicted of murder for the first fifty years of the present century. Of a total of 1,210 murders examined, murder again is shown not to be in general a crime of the so-called criminal classes. The wife or husband was murdered in 211 cases; the mistress or lover, in 180; 44 cases were murders involving sexual assault; 30 were murders of a woman for revenge or jealousy. There were also murders of parents and of children. The conclusion drawn is that, at most, about 20 per cent. of the convicted murderers were professional criminals. And it is for these that the practical question arises.
The noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack summed up the evidence, as has been already pointed out, in a very clear way. He gave his opinion in one direction. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, gave his opinion in the opposite direction. It seems that most people find it impossible to come to a conclusion either way on the basis on those statistics; but this is a very important fact to which the Royal Commission call attention, and accordingly it is important to view this question in perspective and not to base penal policy in relation to murder on exaggerated estimates of the uniquely deterrent force of the death penalty.
There is a powerful argument, which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, advanced very fairly, that abolition would

693
make it extremely likely for habitual criminals to carry arms. There is something to be said on the other side. It is a matter which is open either way, but I would call attention to some important evidence given to the Royal Commission by Professor Sellin of the United States, who is Secretary-General of the International Penal and Penitentiary Commission—a man who speaks with great authority. In answer to this particular question, put to him while he was being examined, he pointed out that in May, 1950, a few months before he gave evidence. Austria removed the death penalty from its Statute Book. He said that some of the strongest arguments for that came from the police. In recent years there had been several killings of policemen, and these police officers thought that the presence of the death penalty in the law was such a threat to certain types of offender that they would go to extremes in attempting to avoid capture. The police thought that if the death penalty were removed there would be less danger to them. It is an interesting argument in a quite contrary direction. The noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, also called attention to, and questioned the value of experience in the United States, where habitual criminals and gangsters carry arms regularly in all States, whether they are retentionist or abolitionist; but Professor Sellin adds this comment:
"The gangster is apparently not deterred by the existence of the death penalty. He relies upon possible immunity and the intimidation of witnesses. It is always the hope of escape which counts."
It is difficult to make a comment on the opinions advanced by the Judiciary but I am encouraged by what was said yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, who pointed out that the whole question is a social one. I should like to quote a statement made in 1819 by a Select Committee which was dealing with criminal laws raising these various questions. They 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 prevent their appearance, they can know nothing. From any opportunity of observing the influence of punishment upon those classes of men among
694
whom malefactors are most commonly found, the Judges are, by their station and duties, placed at a great distance."
I would also call attention to an important Memorandum of Evidence given to the Royal Commission by the Council of the British Medical Association. They suggest that there should be a really scientific inquiry into the efficacy of the deterrent theory of punishment, so widely held today. It might well prove fruitful and possibly have surprising results.
I conclude with a reference to public opinion, with which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, also concluded his admirable speech. Again it is a matter of opinion, but I believe one can detect a change in opinion and that dislike of the death penalty is steadily mounting. I believe that reflection is partly responsible for this; certainly the work done by the Royal Commission has a great responsibility. Much more study with regard to the facts is now possible, and the conversion of the Chairman. Sir Ernest Gowers, from a neutral to an abolitionist position, already often remarked upon, is very impressive. Charges of view have also been confessed to your Lordships in the course of yesterday's debate. It seemed to me that one of the most impressive conversions was that of the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara. I need not remind the House of how shocked he was by the absence of a much greater use of the reprieve and how he felt driven thereby to advocate abolition.
May I call attention to the Episcopal Bench? In 1930 Archbishop Temple was the only Bishop known to favour abolition, and he was considered a quite extraordinary person in this regard—an extraordinary exception to the common run. In 1948, in the debate in this House, the speakers from this Bench were three to one against abolition. Today I think it will be found before the debate comes to an end that, for different reasons, all the speakers from this Bench are in favour of abolition. We cannot neglect the evidence that there have been no adverse results from the abolition of the death penalty for lesser offences in the last century. The same arguments were used then as are now used; there was the same reference to the fact that, more or less, one could not change human nature and that the preservation of the penalty was essential in the interests of public

695
security. In the end the question comes down to the strength of popular belief and sentiment. Professor Sellin, after speaking of the lack of evidence that the death penalty has either a favourable or an unfavourable effect on homicide rates, said:
"When a people no longer likes the death penalty for murderers it will be removed, no matter what may happen to the homicide rates."
I hope that this House will agree to remove the death penalty from the Statute Book as a penalty no longer tolerable in a civilised State.
11.59 a.m.
LORD ELTON: My Lords, it will hardly have escaped your Lordships' attention, particularly after the speech to which we have just listened, that there are a great many Bishops in your Lordships' House. I sometimes wish that the Episcopal Bench would distribute its favours more evenly instead of leaving us for weeks at a time without a glimpse of a lawn sleeve save for the transitory appearance of the Reader of Prayers, and then descending in such goodly numbers on an occasion such as this. Not long ago we were discussing the Road Traffic Bill, an attempt to abate the road massacre, a moral problem at least as grave as this which we are discussing today—at any rate one responsible for many more deaths. But there were no Bishops present on the Bench. To-day there are six or more, and as the debate has shaped, as the right reverend Prelate has just told us, the odds are that the Bishops will vote one way and the lawyers the other.
I have a great respect for Bishops and lawyers. They are both eminently respect-worthy classes, and on the whole I respect Bishops, if I may say so, more than lawyers. Also, I am, I hope, a loyal Anglican, and as a loyal Anglican I turn naturally to the Episcopal Bench for guidance in moral problems. But on this occasion, despite my respect for Bishops (I sometimes remember the words of my old friend John Drinkwater who wrote: "When a Bishop looks at me I tremble with propriety"), I propose to vote with the lawyers. And since there will be a good many noble Lords who, like me, feel that the weight of the argument on secular grounds is overwhelmingly against
696
the acceptance of the Bill, yet feel uncomfortable about voting against the episcopal consensus, I propose to devote the very short draught which I am about to make upon your Lordships' patience to trying to show that there is ample and sufficient Anglican authority for voting against this Bill. Needless to say, I am not attempting to set up my opinions against those of the Episcopal Bench. All I am seeking to say is that on the secular controversy a Bishop, or even an Archbishop, is no greater authority than a Lord Chancellor and that on the moral and the religious aspect (if there is a religious aspect) of the controversy there is Anglican authority which seems to me on this particular problem to be higher than any of which we have yet heard in the course of this debate.
Surely it is of paramount importance in dealing with a problem of this kind that there should be first-hand experience of the raw and terrible realities involved in capital punishment. And when we come, as we can come, to a dedicated Christian who has spent many hours in the death cell and on the scaffold with condemned murderers, surely his opinion must count very heavily against that of however distinguished an armchair critic. The first authority—but very much the less important—which I wish to cite is that of a book which I should have thought would have been quoted by now in this debate. I do not think it has been, although I have not read Hansard fully and I was not here throughout the whole of yesterday. This book is the autobiography, published only a few months ago, of an Anglican priest, the Reverend Braden Ball. He was for twenty-five years prison chaplain at Dartmoor and later at Wandsworth, and consequently it fell to his lot to prepare many murderers for execution. The title of the book is Prison was my Parish. It is not a controversial document. It is a straight autobiography, and its author was evidently a dedicated Christian who devoted his life to this particular task because his chief concern was for the saving of men's souls. He makes it abundantly clear that he is convinced from his knowledge, not only of murderers but of the criminal classes in general, that capital punishment is a supremely effective deterrent.

697
Incidentally, he roundly denies certain statements which have been made more than once in the course of this debate. He flatly contradicts that the prison population—at any rate within his experience—is painfully affected by the taking place of an execution in the prison. He flatly denies that, within his experience, prison officers are brutalised by their duties. But these are only incidentals. My point is that here is a dedicated Christian who has had far ampler opportunities of observing the effects, good and ill, of capital punishment at close quarters than probably any of us in this Chamber, and he is convinced that capital punishment should be retained and that it is compatible with the teachings of his Church.
My second authority is far higher. Edward King, Bishop of Lincoln, who died in 1911, was mentioned by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, but he did not tell us why the opinion of Edward King on this particular topic is of unique significance. In the first instance, Edward King was an unmistakable saint. The Church of England does not canonize but it has got as near as it can to canonizing Edward King. Throughout the more than forty years which have passed since his death, his anniversary has been remembered at a service of solemn thanksgiving in his diocese. As Dr. Sangster in his recent study of sainthood wrote:
"To this day men and women kindle at the mention of his name."
Henry Scott Holland wrote of him:
"The room was lit into which he entered. Even to recall him for an instant in the bare memory was enough to set all the day alive and glittering."
Edward King was not merely a saint but he was also a very learned man. He had been for twelve years Professor of Pastoral Theology at Oxford. He might therefore have been supremely qualified to judge on this problem, even if—and this is what the most reverend Primate did not tell us—he had not had first-hand personal experience of the death cell and the scaffold. Two years after he became Bishop of Lincoln, Edward King heard that a young fisherman from Grimsby was lying under the death sentence in Lincoln gaol, and that the task of preparing this young man for his end was proving beyond the strength of the prison chaplain.
698
Edward King, characteristically, took the case into his own hands. He spent many hours with the young man in the condemned cell and eventually accompanied him to the scaffold. There is a man who, with his supreme holiness, his learning and his direct personal contact with the raw realities of this problem was surely qualified to tell us what should be the moral and the religious view.
And if Edward King had shown any sign of thinking that capital punishment should be abolished, I personally should have jettisoned all the conclusions at which I had arrived on the secular aspects of the controversy. But, on the contrary as the most reverend Primate told us, Edward King continued to believe in capital punishment. Indeed, after he had come to spiritual grips with that young Grimsby fisherman, the first murderer of whom he had experience, after he found that he had no knowledge of religion and scarcely any knowledge of right or wrong, after he had set himself to teach this young man the unseen realities of life and death, forgiveness of sin and from the parable of the prodigal son, after he had prepared him for confirmation, confirmed him, heard his confession and prepared him for his first and last Communion, it transpired that a petition for reprieve was afoot. The Bishop was gravely exercised as to whether he should sign it. He wrote:
"The prisoner must not think his punishment unjust. He must be made to know that he has incurred the just punishment for an awful crime."
Yet he felt that if he refused to sign the petition for a reprieve he might lose his influence over the prisoner. After consulting the judge, he signed the petition but the Home Secretary rejected it. King went with the young man to the scaffold. There is a saintly and learned man who was in closer contact with the problem your Lordships are discussing this afternoon, probably than any speaker who has addressed us. He was convinced that capital punishment should be retained. My Lords, there is much else I should like to say on this subject, but I hope I have said enough to suggest to some noble Lords who may be convinced on the secular arguments and doubtful as to the weight of authority, that there are at any rate some good Anglican authorities for a vote against the passing of this Bill.
12.10 p.m.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: My Lords, a remarkable fact about the proposal contained in the Bill is that it has twice been passed in another place after an interval of years in which there have been three Elections with a steadily increasing Conservative majority. Having fought in two of those Elections, I think I can say that the public were not violent on this subject one way or the other. At my Elections I made my position clear. I had only one question in the course of those Elections on this subject and I said that I was in favour of abolition. I am quite sure that the voters who returned me and turned the Socialists out were not deterred by that in any way whatsoever. I think there is a change in the younger Conservative element in this country on this point, because since the abolition of capital punishment was proposed in the Criminal Justice Bill (now the Criminal Justice Act, 1948), there has been serious debate among thinking people on the intellectual plane.
The evidence given before the Royal Commission, and the conclusions of that Commission, have given many arguments for thoughtful people who favour abolition. It has proved, or at least failed to prove, the main assumptions of the retentionists. There appears to be, over wide parts of the world, an irrelevance between the number of murders and the existence or otherwise of capital punishment. The Royal Commission say:
"The general conclusion which we have reached is that there is no clear evidence in any of the figures we have examined that the abolition of capital punishment has led to an increase in the homicide rate or that its reintroduction has led to its fall."
There is no evidence that this is a unique deterrent. Surely, otherwise, there must have been one of the many countries in the world where the murder rate would have risen after the abolition of capital punishment. They cannot all be different from this country.
Then the Commission held that there was no evidence that the abolition led to the arming of criminals, or that murderers were likely to commit offences in prison—in fact, they tended to be better behaved than the average. There was no evidence that the presence of murderers in prison raised any real difficulties for the prison authorities.
700
Although one noble Lord said it had been necessary to keep them in solitary confinement it was shown that in the country he mentioned it had been given up many years before. The increase in the prison population, if every murderer were reprieved, would be no more than 1 per cent. of the existing population of the prisons. Surely that is a figure which can be dealt with perfectly easily. There is no evidence that those other countries where abolition has taken place are pastoral countries with widely scattered populations and, therefore, different from ours. The evidence is that the murder rate is exactly the same in great cities and in the most remote parts of the country.
The other thing which I think has influenced opinion is that there have been three serious books written on this subject. The first was by Sir Ernest Gowers, an austere civil servant, no sentimentalist, who, having heard all the evidence, and starting with no prejudiced view, wrote a most weighty book. We have had another book by a leading Queen's Counsel. Mr. Gardiner, and a third by one of the most respected journalists, Mr. Arthur Koestler, who wrote one of the most remarkable anti-Communist books written in this country. He, of course, wrote with a certain amount of emotion, as he had been under sentence of death during the Spanish Civil War. I prefer to take the cool, dispassionate conclusions of Sir Ernest Gowers. There has been no rebuttal of the arguments and facts produced in those books; no book has been written on the other side and no serious critic has been able to make a dent in that massive body of opinion, fact and argument.
The evidence given before the Royal Commission showed that there appears to be a gap between judicial opinion and more modern medical opinion on these topics. While the Judiciary were in favour of sticking to the Macnaghten Rules, we have modern medical opinion saying that there has been an imperceptible gradation between lunacy and sanity. It really shocked opinion, I think, when a murderer who had been declared insane by the medical officers of two prisons was none the less hanged.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: Can the noble Viscount give the name in that case?
VISCOUNT ASTOR: The name was Rivett. With the utmost respect for the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues, there has been a shock to thinking opinion to find this very considerable gap when the Lord Chief Justice himself said, in the case of Mr. Ley, that he had no doubt the prisoner was insane and yet he thought it very proper that he should have been hanged. I am quoting from the actual evidence which the Lord Chief Justice gave.
There have been so many borderline mental cases that, 50 per cent. of the murderers executed, have had some case of mental abnormality in their history. We hear that every benefit of the doubt is given, yet in the five-years' survey, containing 85 cases, 14 murderers who had been recommended to mercy by the jury were, none the less, hanged. How can it be said that every possible excuse is seized to grant a reprieve when that happens? We all sympathise with Home Secretaries in this very distasteful duty. But I think the public would be shocked at the case of Ruth Ellis, the woman who had had a miscarriage induced by an assault from her lover who put her "in the family way." Women are disturbed enough mentally after the most normal childbirth, so that with a miscarriage she could not have been regarded as wholly sane and with no element of lunacy. We had the case of Bentley, a nineteen-year-old feeble-minded epileptic, who as a child had been dug out of a bombed house with head injuries. Then we have seen the long procession of executions of the mentally abnormal—psychopaths, epileptics, mental defectives, hysterics, sex maniacs, depressives, paranoiacs and schizophrenics.
It may be said, of course it was said by Hitler, that criminal and mental defectives are so absolutely hopeless that it is right to rid society of such abnormal people; but if there has been one sphere in which medical science has made great advances in our lifetimes it is in the treatment of mental disease. Shock treatment, insulin, leucotomy, provide the possibility that people who have been abnormal can, under treatment, have a chance of becoming perfectly normal people in the end. I think that those are some of the factors which have disturbed public opinion. I think that the Evans and Christie case, on which I do not pronounce a view, one
702
way or the other, was surely one in which, if all the facts had been known at the time, there must have been a scintilla of doubt. And that case rather worried the public.
While the thinking public opinion have been very worried about the administration of the law, about this gap between the attitude of the judges and the attitude of modern medical science and the way in which the Prerogative has been used, there is one major argument that supporters of this Bill have to answer—that is, that there is a class of professional criminal who will take up arms and start murdering the police and innocent people if this "unique deterrent" is removed. That is the grave question that was put so eloquently by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor yesterday.
There is the evidence of other countries that in no case where capital punishment has been abolished have the feared consequences followed. There is this further fact: a burglar who commits an ordinary burglary has a rather small police effort put after him. A burglar who kills anybody, in contrast, has the full, undivided effort of the entire police force after him; and therefore there is always that deterrent—the deterrent of a far greater likelihood of conviction. By the nature of things the police cannot put their whole manpower effort into every burglary as they can and do into every murder. That must always remain a deterrent. It makes the possibility of apprehension far greater. And I think it is well within the powers of the Judiciary to make a far longer sentence and of the Home Office to enforce a far longer sentence in the case of any professional criminal armed than in the case of one who goes unarmed.
It is right and proper, however, that the judges and the Home Office should, be cautious. They spend their lives dealing with crime, and it becomes a very important part of their experience. But we have to remember that every step taken forward in the reform and amelioration of our penal code has been taken against the very great weight of expert advice. I do not want to go hack to what judges may have said in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries; I want to give just two examples within the memory of every noble Lord in this House. In the First World War a soldier could be shot for cowardice or desertion.

703
All the experts said that we must have this unique penalty of the death sentence to make a soldier go forward to probable death, knowing that, if he did not go forward and ran away, he would face certain death. That was a logical argument, brought forward by honest Generals, Judge Advocates and others. That punishment was abolished by a Member of this House, the late Lord Norwich, a very gallant fighting soldier. Is there any Member of this House—and I have asked distinguished Generals and Admirals who took part in both world wars—who will say that the British soldier and sailor was more cowardly or more liable to desertion in the last war than in the previous one? No. That argument, which was perfectly logical, proved to be completely wrong and was disproved by fact.
May I take another case within our memory—the abolition of corporal punishment? We had a great weight of judicial opinion to say that there would be an increase in those crimes for which corporal punishment could be given if it were abolished. I would refer your Lordships to what the Home Secretary said, in answer to a Question in April of this year. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT (Commons), Vol. 551 (No. 141), col. 1942]:
"Before corporal punishment was abolished … the principal offences for which it could be indicted were offences under Section 23 (1) of the Larceny Act, 1916, that is, robbery with violence, armed robbery and robbery in company with others. Since 1948 there has been a fairly steady decrease in the number of such offences known to the police."
There has been a steady history of the de-brutalisation of punishment in this country, accompanied by a steady lowering of the rate of crime. We abolished those brutal punishments, not because they might not be a deterrent but because we lowered ourselves as a civilised country by inflicting them. I hope that this country will find that the time has come for another move forward. I hope that this House will not "die in the last ditch" on this issue. I hope that when we face another place—and I think that this House should stand up against another place if your Lordships consider it right to do so—that we shall do it on a worthier cause than the retention of hanging. I know that we may get arguments based on the emotions of revenge,
704
of righteous indignation and of fear. But fear is a bad counsellor. I feel that the time has come when we can safely take a further step forward in the civilising process which has been going on for so many years.
12.29 p.m.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, to have navigated a Bill of this importance through all its stages in another place is no mean achievement, but admiration for that achievement does not exempt us from the duty, which we would discharge if this were a Government measure, of obtaining the necessary assurances from those who sponsored this Bill and of questioning them about the precise method by which it is to be operated. That is a practice which is normal in all proposed legislation. We are not bringing on to the Statute Book a principle, but an Act of Parliament, which must be clear and definite in all its particulars. Of course, there is a principle involved here. Indeed, as in most cases which touch the conscience, there are two contending principles. One is, to put it in its extreme form, that the Biblical injunction, "Thou shalt not kill", is as binding upon States as it is upon their citizens. The other is that murder is so foul a crime that our detestation of it must be marked by the exaction of another life. Here is the last survival of the lex talionis.
On these questions of principle, as my noble friend Lord Elton said in his most persuasive speech, it is proper that we should listen to the guidance given from the Episcopal Bench and from Her Majesty's Judges, who are represented in this House. My noble friend Lord Elton raises a most interesting question when he asks which influence should prevail, that of the Bishops or the Judges, in a matter touching life and death and crime and punishment. I think that question was once argued upon a classical occasion when a Bishop claimed that he was more powerful than a Judge, for whereas the Judge could only say "You be hanged," he, the Bishop, could say. "You be damned." To which the Judge replied: "Yes; but if a judge says 'You be hanged', you are hanged." I agree with my noble friend Lord Elton that it is a great sustenance to us to have had this guidance from these two important quarters. We have learned, without qualification, from the Bench of Bishops that there

705
is nothing in the moral law or in the Scriptures which prevents the exaction of the death penalty where the interests or safety of the State are involved. That is quite clear. Therefore the Bench of Bishops, as the right reverend Prelate has just said, each of them individually, decided to approach this matter as a practical question. The Judges, on the other hand, warn us that there would be grave danger in any interference with the present law.
Now we are concerned with a Bill, and this Bill is quite clear and precise in one sense. Never has an important matter been disposed of so bluntly as it is in this measure. There is only one operative clause, and it says, in the first part of it, that,
"no person shall be sentenced by a court to death for murder;"
With the principle enshrined in that sentence many of us would agree; and if one were to look into the future, as other noble Lords have done, I think there can be no doubt that, whether sooner or later, the time will come when the death penalty will be abolished for murder, as it has been for other offences; and many of us would welcome that consummation as a landmark in the progress of civilisation.
But when we come to the second part of the sentence, I think it is our duty to elucidate precisely what is the minds of the promoters of this Bill. It is easy enough to say in a few words:
"and every enactment requiring a court to pronounce or record a sentence of death in any case of murder shall be construed as requiring the court to sentence the offender to imprisonment for life."
As I understand the matter, the practice of dealing with criminals charged with murder, and subsequently sentenced, is intricate and has grown up over a long period. There are recommendations to mercy; there is the exercise of the Prerogative; and these two together have resulted in a graduated treatment of the crime of murder. But no reference whatever is made to those matters here. We are just told categorically that in every case a life sentence will be passed. There can be no recommendation to mercy, because that is only applicable to a sentence of death; there can be no invocation of the Prerogative, because that likewise ensues upon a sentence of death. Therefore I
706
think we must ask the promoters of this Bill, before we agree finally to support it, precisely what system they envisage putting in the place of the existing system. We have to protect the public. We cannot take away a protection, such as they conceive themselves to have, whether rightly or wrongly, in the present law, and put nothing in its place except a sentence which says summarily that every convicted man will go to prison for life.
My noble friend Lord Templewood, whose sponsorship of this Bill was, to my mind at any rate, a guarantee that it had been adequately considered, told us that there were complex problems which are not solved merely by a sentence passed by a Judge. He advocated the institution of an establishment, as I understand it, somewhere between a prison and a hospital, where a body of experts would study these psychopathic cases which henceforward would no longer be executed. That requires to be established. If any Government were introducing a measure of this kind, I think that even those who were enthusiastic advocates and pioneers of the measure would ask what is to be done about the establishment of this institution. How many persons will it accommodate? What doctors will be available? What kind of treatment will be applied? I think it is a corollary of 1his measure that there should be some institution of this kind, and the promotors of the do not discharge their duty to the public merely by saying that they think there ought to be such an institution. Before we hand the public over to the dangers with which they conceive they are confronted, we owe it to them to make every assurance that proper safeguards will be instituted.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I was sorry to miss so many of the noble Lord's earlier remarks. But not only are the promoters, so far as I know their minds, most anxious to see this institution carried forward, but in fact there have been plans for some time for this institution. We understand from the Home Secretary, however, that, owing to the recent economy cuts, the Government are going to hold up the establishment of this institution. I thought the noble Lord should be in possession of those facts.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Yes, but I am dealing with the facts. The facts on one side are possibly as my noble friend has stated in that important intervention. But the facts with which we are dealing are that this Bill, if it be passed, will be the law of the land in two or three weeks. If this Bill goes through, it will be on the Statute Book in two or three weeks, and every Judge having a murderer before him who is found guilty, will have in the appropriate case to send him to this institution, or to some institution, and it is not good enough to say that the thing is not there, much as we would desire it to be there.
If the Government tell us today that these plans of which my noble friend speaks are going to be put into operation in order to assist the carrying out of this measure and to make it possible to carry it out, then I am with him entirely. But we have some responsibility not to put carts before horses in our legislation but to see that the two are provided together; otherwise we shall put the most important branch of our law into complete chaos, which will not redound to the advantage of the promoters of the Bill, because there will be a reaction against it nor, indeed, to the advantage of any section of the community.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt a very interesting speech, but I think in two or three sentences I ought to make the present position quite clear. If this Bill becomes law, the Home Office and the Prison Commission will have to deal with three classes of murderers: First of all, there is the class that would normally now be reprieved. They are being dealt with satisfactorily now. In course of time, most of these reprieved murderers have a remission of their sentence, and they have not proved a danger to the community. Secondly, there will be the class of murderers who would have been executed but who will not now be executed. I quite agree that they create a more serious problem. I divide them into two classes. In the first class, I imagine there would be the less dangerous of these murderers who, none the less, would be kept in prison for very long sentences—it may be up to twenty years. Lastly, there is the most dangerous class of prisoner—probably, to
708
judge from the investigations that have been made, a very small class—who might have to be imprisoned for the whole of their lives, just in the same way that dangerous homicidal lunatics are imprisoned or interned in Broadmoor. I do not believe that the Home Office contemplates that this class will be a large one. None the less, it will be a class against which the community has to be protected, and I contemplate that there will be some of these murderers who will be treated just as the internees at Broadmoor are treated now. I hope I have made the position clear.
I would only add that my reference yesterday to the special institution that is being built for psychopathic cases does not in any way mean that the Home Office and the Prison Commissioners are not capable of dealing with these three classes at once. They are capable of dealing with them, though they could deal with them much better if this specialised institution were built. They have stated this fact categorically in the evidence that they have given to the Royal Commission.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: My Lords, that is interesting and very enlightening, but it is not in the Bill, and we have no assurance that this scheme, if it can be described as a scheme, has been agreed by the promoters of the Bill. They may all have different schemes, and if this were a Government measure I think we should immediately ask for a White Paper to describe these methods. What does what my noble friend has said come to? He said there will be three classes of prisoners, although I heard him mention only two, with one sub-division. There will be one class who are now reprieved—but there will not be any reprieves henceforward. These people are going to be lumped together with the other classes, as far as the sentence is concerned. The Home Secretary will not come into it at all. There is no provision in this Bill for the Home Secretary to exercise powers such as he now exercises under the Prerogative in a death sentence. Then there are the classes, said my noble friend, who would have been executed, but who will not now be executed. Of course, in dealing with this class he has a very grave problem. I do not say that it is not soluble.

709
My noble friend said that the less dangerous will have very long sentences. What is "a very long sentence"? The more dangerous, he added, may have to be imprisoned for the whole of their lives.
I am sure that my noble friend has thought about this problem, but it is not quite good enough to take it in an intervention in a debate on an important Bill. I think we should know precisely what is proposed before we take away this protection from the public. I may say with great and deep sincerity, as I have said already, that I would welcome our ability to adopt this principle, but I do not think it can be adopted without great care and knowledge of what we are doing. Merely because it is a Private Member's Bill does not imply that we should withhold from it that very close examination which we apply to all other measures. I have said that there are these difficulties, and that if this were a Government Bill we should require some clear statement upon it. I can only hope that such a statement will be forthcoming from the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, or someone else identified with this measure. We pass with the introduction of a Bill from the sphere of generalities into the sphere of practice.
On the other side, I do think there is a case to be met, and that it would be of advantage to have a Committee stage if the Bill lends itself to such a stage. We have it, in that monumental speech from the Lord Chancellor, that, in his opinion, the prospect of hanging is a deterrent. On the other hand, much evidence has been adduced on the other side. I do not want to rehearse it, but we have been reminded of our own experience when we have taken off the capital punishment in other cases, and of the experience of foreign countries. Last night we had a speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, who said that if hanging were a deterrent, one would expect that the Scottish experience would have been harsher than the English experience, because the law is laxer in Scotland and yet there are there fewer murders. There is counter-evidence to rebut, or at any rate to put in issue, what the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has expressed as his opinion.
There is also evidence on the other side when he says that it is necessary for the
710
State to signalise by a serious and solemn act its reprobation of murder. In fact, the sensationalism surrounding murder cases and the hysteria attaching to executions completely undermine that solemnity. I think it is within the power of the Government to mitigate the situation in this particular, perhaps, to sonic extent without legislation. I ask my noble friend the Leader of the House if he will refer to this matter in his speech, because it may be within the power of the Government to take certain steps. In divorce cases, a restraint is put upon newspapers in what they can report, but murder trials are nothing more nor less than lessons in crime for the public. They certainly take away from the solemnity of that act of reprobation which the noble and learned Viscount found so important in any system of criminal law. So there is a case to be made for this Bill to go to Committee; but whether or not it goes to Committee must depend on the rest of our discussions this afternoon, on the assurances that we can be given in the matters of which I have spoken; and, on the other side, on some explanations from the Government as to whether they consider this Bill capable of amendment in the sense that amendment has been advocated in this debate, or, better still, of their intention to introduce their own considered legislative proposals.
Finally—for I do not wish to detain your Lordships any longer—I do not think that the threat of the use of the Parliament Act should have any effect whatsoever upon our speeches or deliberations. Could anything be more farcical? Surely the Parliament Act was instituted as a means for getting on to the Statute Book important measures of Government legislation which had been resisted by the Lords. It was not instituted in order to assist Private Members introducing Bills which did not have the support of the Government or of the Opposition.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I have forgotten whether the noble Lord was in the House when that discussion took place, but is not this a totally new view of the Parliament Act? The Parliament Act, in all stages of which I assisted, was passed to secure the ultimate supremacy of the House of Commons in all its legislation.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Technically, that may be so, but surely such a situation as this was never contemplated. When the late Labour Government was in office it did not support the clause which is now enshrined in this Bill. It advised against it. When this Government acceded to office, it followed a like course. Therefore, the two great Parties in the State are opposed to this particular proposal, and I say that it would be a little odd, to say the least of it, if the first Bill to be forced through under the Parliament Act were a Private Member's measure which had upon it the blessing neither of the Government nor of the Opposition. I content myself with making that observation, but the real point is that it is really the duty of the House of Lords—and that will not be contested—to give close examination to this measure in order that, when this new principle freeing the Statute Book from the penalty of hanging, is instituted, it will be instituted with all the necessary safeguards and with some assurance of its continuance in operation.
12.55 p.m.
LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH: My Lords, my intervention in this debate will be brief, because I am not concerned at the present moment about the ethics, the statistics or the legal niceties of capital punishment. As a Member of your Lordships' House, I ask myself, what is my personal responsibility at this present time? It is incontestable that the abolition of capital punishment must in the nature of things, so far as this country is concerned, be a great experiment. I ask myself, are the public of this country ready for that experiment or does the public consider the death penalty to be a deterrent to murder? To the best of my ability, I have come to the conclusion that public opinion is against this Bill. I have come to the conclusion also that, whether they are right or whether they are wrong, whether they are uneducated in the ethics of this matter or not, they are the British public; and the British public's paramount duty is to protect itself. Therefore, believing that that is the view of the British public, I shall vote against this Bill.
I am convinced that, as the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, quite rightly said, not only have we the responsibility of protecting the lives and the persons of the British public but there is one thing
712
which I think is even more sacred, and that is the public's peace of mind; and the peace of mind of the vast majority of the female population of this country would be greatly disturbed if we took the course at this time of doing away with capital punishment. Anybody who has studied the cases of that dreadful and most heinous of all crimes, rape, cannot but be impressed by the fact that there would be more murders after that offence when the only possible witness that stood between the criminal and the finding out of the crime was the poor unfortunate victim, if it were not for the supreme penalty which would face him. I have no views, one way or the other, on the ethics, but I think it is my responsibility, as an individual Member of this House, to come very definitely to a conclusion; on all the evidence that is available to me I believe that the British public is not in favour of this Bill. If your Lordships reject it as you did in 1948—and in 1948 your Lordships' House was manifestly interpreting the public opinion correctly—you will again be giving effect to the will of the public.
1.0 p.m.
LORD RAGLAN: My Lords, it is often assumed that murder is far and away the worst crime that there is, and it is often assumed also that the law clearly distinguishes between wilful murderers and other criminals. That is not so. If I were to form the intention of murdering the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and if, in pursuance of that intention, I were to waylay him as he left the Chamber and pump half a dozen bullets into his body, and if his surgeons were sufficiently skilful to save his life. I should be in no danger of the gallows. If, on the other hand, I were to try and steal the Mace, and in the scuffle which followed the noble and learned Viscount happened to get a fatal blow on the head, I should then be condemned to death. It is quite clear that in the first case I should be committing, a far more serious crime. It is this anomaly (because anomaly it is) which alone in my opinion would justify the House in giving a Second Reading to this Bill.
We are often told—in fact, we keep on being told—that hanging is a deterrent. Presumably, hanging is supposed to be a deterrent because it is an unpleasant death. One wonders why

713
those who advocate on those grounds do not advocate a more unpleasant death. Why should not murderers he burned at the stake? Why should they not be boiled in oil? Why should they not be put to the death of a thousand cuts? Surely, if, because it is an unpleasant death, hanging is a deterrent, it is obviously an insufficient deterrent. Let us have a sufficient deterrent on the same grounds. Why not torture the victim to death in the most horrible way that we can think of? The real reason is that those who advocate hanging have not got in their minds deterrence at all. They advocate something because for hundreds of years people have been hanged in this country, and they think that some obscure vengeance from the skies would fall upon them if hanging were abandoned.
We know well what was the origin of hanging. Our Saxon ancestors hanged men as sacrifices to the God Woden. We have forgotten Woden—unless weremember him on Wednesdays, which of course is his day. But the memory of the tradition of hanging victims every year to the God Woden has persisted, and it is really that tradition that is at the back of the minds of those who advocate hanging. I think it would be a tragedy if your Lordships were to vote for the continuance of this barbarous relic of paganism.
1.3 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF MANCHESTER: My Lords, as this is the first occasion upon which I have had the privilege of addressing this House, I crave your indulgence both for what I shall say and for the manner in which I shall say it. Were the noble Lord, Lord Elton, here I should thank him for the kind words he spoke in welcome to an increased number of Bishops on this Bench, even though his words of welcome were somewhat backhanded. He made a moving and interesting reference to the saintly Bishop King of Lincoln, and in regard to that I think it is pertinent to point out—to use a phrase that chink Oliver Cromwell used—that there is no opinion so foolish as has not at some time been advocated by some philosopher. And the same might also be said of good men, and indeed of saints. The Apostle Paul did not, so far as I can recollect, advocate the abolition of slavery, but that is no reason why in these days and in these
714
changed circumstances slavery should be retained. Because Bishop King did not advocate the abolition of the death penalty, I see no reason why, in this different day and in these different circumstances, we should not think differently from that saintly man.
At this stage in the debate it is difficult, indeed impossible, to bring forward any consideration or argument which is new; it is possible only to underline some of the things that have been said already. Prior to this debate I believe it was thought generally amongst the public that there would be division between those who were the sentimentalists on the one side and those who were the realists on the other. I think we should all agree that that has not been so. The facts of both sides have been argued closely and with cogency. It had also been thought, I believe, that the ethical arguments would all be on one side and the arguments from expediency on the other. Again, that has not been so. Men of good will, of experience and of moral insight we all know can differ very easily on the subject of our discussion, and I should be the last to wish, because I happen to be a Bishop, to adept a "holier than thou" attitude, or indeed to suggest that I could claim a deeper moral insight into this problem than any of my fellows. Nevertheless, I will vote for the Bill.
There is no need to retrace the various arguments on either side and to draw conclusions from the statistical data which have been put in front of us. Since time is late, I would simply wish to add two footnotes to the debate—I shall be brief, otherwise I fear there may be murder in the House of Lords. My only claim to speak is that I have in my diocese one of the largest prisons in the country—Strangeways. I make it a practice to keep in pretty close touch with that prison. I preach in the chapel there to all the prisoners twice a year. I have been in close touch with the prison officers and the chaplain. Secondly, for a time I spent some years in the Civil Service, and during that time I was responsible for a certain amount of prison administration and also for surveying beforehand the petitions received from various prisoners, including those under sentence of death. I may therefore claim some rather closer acquaintance with the

715
problem than some others of my brethren on this Bench.
Here are the two considerations which I would urge upon your Lordships in pondering this question. First of all, I cannot believe that we should ask others to do what, in certain circumstances, we ourselves would not do. I certainly feel that I should not wish to be responsible for the actual hanging of a man. Despite what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Elton, about the book of the prison chaplain, I believe—I have some ground for believing, in experience—that with those who are responsible for the actual hanging it hardens all within and petrifies the feeling. So far from saying that we ought to retain the death penalty because of our prison officers, I believe we ought to abolish it because of our prison officers. I do not believe it is fair or right to ask men to perform this task. Much more, it seems to me almost, I would say, criminal to ask men to do it in the case of women—to hang women.
It has been said that the death sentence has no real effect upon a prison. I beg to differ. I have been told repeatedly by prison governors that before a death sentence is carried out, and when it is carried out, an electric shock, as it were, runs through the whole prison. There is a feeling that is evil and bad for the prisoners. I am sure all noble Lords would wish for prison reform, but I do not see how it is possible to go forward with the general plan of prison reform so long as we retain on the Statute Book the death penalty. I have known two chaplains who have suffered nervous breakdowns, due entirely to their having to attend at a hanging. Both of those, it is true, were sensitive men; yet who but a sensitive man would be any use as a prison chaplain? Of course the scaffold and the actual procedure are hidden away from the public, but I have close enough knowledge to know that it has undoubtedly an evil and ill effect on the prison, on the prison officers and on the prisoners. It is unnatural, it seems to me, to ask a man in cold blood to kill one of his fellows, no matter how deserving of death that man or woman may be.
That is my first consideration. My second consideration may indeed seem strange and paradoxical. As we have already been reminded in this debate,
716
William Temple, my great predecessor in the See of Manchester, used to say that the fact that the State took life cheapened life, and was bound to cheapen life in the eyes of all citizens. That is a philosophical argument upon which we can differ. Mine is an analogous argument, but of a psychological nature. I believe that the morbid thrill and horror disseminated by a certain section of the Press concentrates the attention of pathological, mordid and semi-criminal types on this whole question of murder, and actually increases the chances of murder rather than decreases them.
As an illustration of that, although this is not a murder case, I would quote one happening in my diocese. This is taken from the report of it in the Manchester Guardian on March 27, 1953.
"A girl aged fourteen, who was said to have taken a dislike to the police since her father was dismissed from the force under disputed circumstances, was stated at Salford Juvenile Court yesterday to have 'hero-worshipped' Derek Bentley, who was hanged for his part in the murder of Police-Constable Miles. She ran away from home to see his house in London, and when taken in custody-after calling there was found to have in her handbag a mirror with Bentley's photograph on it and many Press cuttings relating to the case.
"She also had with her a revolver belonging to her father, a linoleum knife, a toy dagger, and a razor blade holder, but these, she said, were 'to protect herself while in London.' The Croydon magistrates acquitted her of any criminal intent, and remitted her to Salford, her home, to be dealt with for possessing the gun without certificate or licence."
That is a good illustration of the way in which all this publicity in the Press affects weak, adolescent and morbid minds. One further point I may add here in illustration is the number of people who year by year apply to become public hangmen in this country. That, again, is an illustration of the evil effects of this penalty.
There are the two considerations. Those, combined with various other arguments which we have heard in favour of the Bill, incline me to vote for it. I should like to add one further point. If this Bill should not reach the Statute Book and if the death penalty should be retained, I very much hope that the suggestion made by the noble Viscount. Lord Hailsham, yesterday will receive consideration by Her Majesty's Government. That was that the Prerogative of mercy and the conditions applicable to it

717
should be carefully scrutinised by the Government. I have had some personal experience in dealing with the Home Office in certainly one case where the Prerogative, was not exercised, and the impression which I gained was that the tradition in the Civil Service was that this was a Prerogative, not of mercy, but of justice. I entirely agree that every care was taken to look into the case from the beginning to the end, to see whether there was any ground in justice for removing the death penalty, but little consideration, in my judgment, was given in the case I have in mind to the home background—the cruel home background —to the social circumstances and, to the family life. I very much hope that if this Bill does not pass into law the Government will at any rate give serious consideration to the point which Lord Hailsham so adequately made.
1.16 p.m.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, it falls to very few of us to speak immediately after a maiden speech and I wish to say how grateful I am to the right reverend Prelate for his very able exposition of this subject, although I did not agree with him, except, perhaps, indirectly, occasionally.
I am rather shocked that every Bishop who has spoken so far has spoken in favour of this Bill. I should have thought there would be a great deal of divergence of opinion amongst the Bishops on this subject. But I will come to that matter a little later in my speech.
I do not want to repeat what other noble Lords have said, but it is almost inevitable that one should sometimes refer to what some of them have said. I am sorry—although I recognise that this is a bad moment for anyone to speak—to see that neither Lord Templewood nor some of the other speakers to whom I should have wished to refer are present in the House. There is one subject which I should have expected to be mentioned from the Bishops' Bench with great emphasis, but it has not so far been touched on. With the exception of my noble friend Lord Ailwyn, who touched on it slightly, I do not think that anyone has referred to the victim struggling against death. All the speeches have been concerned with easing the position of the murderer. I am horrified at the tone of the debate in that respect. The attitude
718
has been: how are we to ease the position of the man who has committed a most frightful crime? Have we heard anything in this debate—it is all right for the noble Viscount opposite to laugh, but this is true, and perhaps when he speaks he will deal with it—about the position of the victim struggling against a brutal murderer? That aspect has never been mentioned.
VISCOUNT STANSGNITE: I should like to assure the noble Lord, for whom we have so much respect, that I was not in the least deriding the deep sincerity with which he is speaking; not at all.
LORD TEVIOT: I realise that and thank the noble Viscount for his intervention. I fee] this matter very strongly. It is one of the things that, with great respect, I think the Press are not very good about. We see the picture of the murderer's mother, the murderer's wife, or the murderer's children, but how often do we see the picture of the victim's mother or child advertised in the same way?
Like many of your Lordships, I have had any amount of literature from those who promote this Bill. One of the things in that literature that rather—I will not say amused because one is not amused on a subject like this: I will say interested me, was the comment, usually put in this way: that if only the judge who had delivered the sentence on the murderer, and the Home Secretary, would attend an execution, there would be no more. My answer to that immediately is this: let the promoter of this Bill and my noble friend Lord Templewood go and experience what happened at the time of the murder and leading up to it. Do not let me be mealy-mouthed or have any "sobstuff" about this. Those are the facts that today occupy the minds of. I say, a very large, probably the largest, percentage of the public in regard to this matter. We hear of the ordeal of the prisoner, the murderer, going to the scaffold. What is that compared to the ordeal of the poor woman, generally old, in bed, who is seized by some frightful brute and murdered and robbed? What of the ordeal there? In my view, the people who do these things are not fit for this world and I have complete confidence in those who administer the justice in this country in this regard.

719
We have had a lot of talk in this debate about people who are abnormal, people who are insane. Of course they say they are insane once they are caught. My Lords, I say that they are not mad; they are bad, and should be punished accordingly. Of course they try every scheme, once they are caught, to avoid hanging—pretence of abnormality, stupidity, every sort of idiosyncracy that can make the prison authorities and others, before they are convicted, believe that they are abnormal. They say "I am not normal and therefore I ought to escape from what evil I have done." One of the things I read was about this craze on the part of some people for publicity; it is even said that they have gone to the extent of murder in order to get publicity. Well, I say at once to your Lordships' House: get rid of these people out of the world; they are not fit to be amongst honest, straight people. There are some things that are said that are not quite true. It has been rather intimated that it has never happened that murderers have, when they have had the chance, committed murder a second time. I take the instance of New Zealand, which did away with capital punishment but reinstituted it because it was found, in some most appalling case, that there was still this tendency to murder.
With regard to deterrent: I have any amount of evidence which shows, in my view—and I am only a simple man in the street—that hanging is a great deterrent. Why do murderers appeal? They all appeal today. Why? Because they would sooner go to prison than be hanged. A curious thing happened last night in regard to publicity and public opinion. I left this House with a noble friend of mine and we shared a taxi. We had not driven out of Parliament Square before the driver pulled back the window behind him and he said "I hope you two are all right", so we said, "Yes, we are very comfortable." He said, "Don't let them do away with hanging." I thought to myself, that that was exactly the view I had found throughout all my connections in all walks of life, from this City into my own county and up to Scotland, which is my country. The public are dead against this Bill, I believe in a percentage they have never been before. This morning, when I was called at my hotel by the maid, she asked me, "How
720
are you going to vote today"? I said "I don't know what you mean, but I expect you mean am I going to vote in favour of doing away with hanging?" She replied, "That is what I do mean." I told her, "You are all right. I am not going to vote for doing away with hanging." She said, "Thank God for that; now women and old people will be able to walk about the streets and not be terrified of what is going to happen." Therefore, I wash out altogether this sort of idea that some speakers have had that public opinion has changed. I should say it is stronger than ever in favour of retaining hanging.
A very serious question faces your Lordships' House. I believe that the people of the country look to us to protect them from brutal and vicious crimes, and if we pass this Bill or give it a Second Reading, or give any sort of support to its proposals, I believe that we shall lose our status. On occasions of this sort the public look to us to protect them. To give another personal experience, I happen to be President, being an old man, of the Old Contemptibles' Association in the district where I live. No sooner was this Bill and the idea of it put up, than I was telephoned by the secretary who wanted to come and see me. I said, "Certainly, come along." They had had an emergency meeting to find out how I felt about the abolition of capital punishment. To a man they were all in favour of continuing it. So I say to your Lordships that this House has a great responsibility at this moment in protecting the people against the continuance of certain things that are going on.
Now I come to something which I think the right reverend Prelate mentioned. I was immensely impressed with my noble friend Lord Chatfield yesterday. He told us that he had got, I think, a scholarship on his Bible knowledge. He quoted to us—and I knew it all, and I have been very much influenced in my opinion—parts of the Old Testament and the New Testament; and I hoped that some of the passages to which he referred would have been mentioned by other speakers. Your Lordships will be aware of the words in Genesis quoted by Lord Chatfield:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed".

721
Again, before His Crucifixion Our Lord told St. Peter:
"Put up again thy sword into his place; for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."
Finally, of those who are brutal to children Our Lord said:
"It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
I had hoped, as I say, that such quotations as these from the Great Book would have received some reference; but there has been none.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ELY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for permitting me to interrupt him. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, as your Lordships will remember, made a passing reference to the teaching of the New Testament. In fact he said that he was not intending to give a lecture on the New Testament. I may say that he is a most learned scholar, and he did say that he was satisfied, from his own study of the subject, that what was said on the other side was not entirely satisfactory.
LORD TEVIOT: My Lords, I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for reminding me of that, though I had not understood the reference in quite the way that he did. I think the noble Lord said he had had one reference about it. I can honestly say that I have had none. We have been told that one of the dreadful things about capital punishment is that ii is the final end to the individual—the murderer. Is it not the final end to his victim? So far as I know, no noble Lord has yet said anything of that. Why should not a man who ends the life of another man, or of a woman or child, suffer? Why should we have "sobstuff" about the end of this brutal class of person?
I come next to a question which has often been referred to, the suicide of some of those who have been caught and convicted. Is this not evidence that hanging is a deterrent? Why is it that, as soon as a man knows he is "for it", he wants to get out of it in his own way as quickly as possible, in order not to face up to the hanging to which he has justly been condemned?
My Lords, that is all I have to say, except that I am convinced that a great deal of what is said in the Royal Commission Report needs reflection. I believe that the Royal Commission were
722
"sitting on the fence" a great deal. I agree with the noble and learned Lord who sat in front of me. He seemed to take the view that one must be very careful dealing with a subject of this magnitude; that there was so much in it that one could not take any risk. On reading the Report of the Royal Commission it seemed to me that they were taking chances. I believe there is evidence that in countries where the death penalty has been abolished there has been no increase in the murder rate; but is there any evidence that there has been any decrease in the number of murders? Several noble Lords have pointed out that there is less murder in this country than in any other.
I feel that these are questions which have not been properly threshed out. We have to look at this problem far more carefully, not in an academic manner but deeply and from every point of view, on the religious side and also on the Government side. This is not a Bill which lends itself to thorough investigation on Committee and Report stages, as the noble Lord, Lord Hore-Belisha said; and I hope that the House will throw it out with a "thumping" majority.
1.37 p.m.
LORD DARWEN: My Lords, many of your Lordships have stressed the importance of approaching this question without emotion. Speaking to your Lordships as I do for the first time. I must confess to the fact that I labour under some emotion. That emotion may not be unknown to your Lordships, since you also made your maiden speeches. Nevertheless, I agree that emotion is out of place in considering this Bill—at any rate, emotion of a certain kind. Yet I would humbly submit that something more than a purely rational approach is required. So far as. I know, no speaker has attempted to play down the detestation and repugnance that we feel for the crime of murder, or has suggested that execution by hanging is not an awesome and a fearful thing, or that the suffering of the relatives of the murderer's victims or of the murderer himself should not be considered because it is a matter of emotion. In my submission we do ill to attempt to rid ourselves of all feeling in this matter, but we do well to allow our reason to test the appropriateness of our

723
feelings for making a judgment. It is no use our trying to dispense with feeling; for the more important our activity, the more important it is that we should be actuated by feeling—but feeling of an appropriate kind. Even a judge who presides over a murder trial must allow himself certain feelings: scrupulous loyalty to the law, the desire to be fair to the accused. These are feelings proper to the occasion. Under the direction of such feelings reason can operate freely, and because it starts with a correct bias of feeling it has a fair chance of arriving at correct conclusions.
In considering this measure to remove the death penalty for murder we have to use moral sense as well as reason. These together enable us to distinguish between our horror of the act of murder and our horror of the murderer. Both emotions may be equally strong, both are natural—but they are not, in my submission, equally valuable from a moral point of view. Nobody, so far as I am aware, suggests that murder should go unpunished or that society should not take appropriate action to protect its members from murderous attacks. But clearly the State can do both these things without recourse to the death penalty. The punishment of hanging is only incidentally also a means by which the murderer is restrained from committing the same crime a second time.
Moreover, the evidence provided by the Royal Commission, about which we have heard a great deal, does not confirm that the death penalty provides a unique deterrent. There are other ways in which society, acting through the State, can protect its citizens, just as there are other punishments for this dreadful crime. The most dangerous type of murderer—the insane killer—can be, and is, prevented from menacing society without its being found necessary to deprive him of his life. But granted that the State is bound to protect its citizens, and granted that not to punish severely would be to condone, neither of these conclusions necessarily indicates or justifies capital punishment.
Behind the many speeches we have heard, and shall hear, in your Lordships' House during this debate lie two quite different motivating thoughts, both held with great sincerity. Let us be clear about them, because they are all too easily confused. On the one hand, there
724
are those who, like myself, approach this matter from a purely moral standpoint. On the other hand, there are those who believe that in matters of legislation the first thing to be considered is what is best for society and the nation as a whole. The conclusion is often the same—but it is not necessarily the same, and I think it is important to be very much aware that a different scale of values is involved according to which attitude we adopt. I think I can make my meaning clear if your Lordships will consider for a moment the difference between a primitive society and our own. The difference does not lie in the principle that society must make its rules or laws for the general good of its members. That principle is common to both—the primitive and the civilised. The difference lies in the extent to which religious enlightenment permeates its laws.
In the case of a Christian society, this certainly means, in practice, consideration for the good of the individual, even when the individual's condition (for example, insanity) or behaviour (for example, criminal activity) is actually inimical to the interests of society. In a State in which the logical interests of the good of society are the sole consideration, the conscientious objector would be shot. Why do we not destroy useless and harmful members of society? Why are the most civilised societies those who go to extreme lengths to care for such people as the incurably insane, the mentally defective and so on? I suggest it is because we recognise that there is a right and a wrong which stand over and above the more obvious needs of society, a morality which is not in conditioned by what is expedient n a society's interests.
These are the very issues that are at stake in this Bill. In a matter of this kind, where moral considerations, if they mean anything at all, are paramount, they must be allowed to motivate our thinking. If, in considering moral questions, we allow ourselves to regard what is morally right as one with what is best for society, we tread upon dangerous ground. The mass executions, the Terror, of the French Revolution were carried out in the name of and for the sake of "the people". The atrocities perpetrated by totalitarian régimes in our own time were, allegedly, for the benefit of the nation. If morality in its

725
broad and proper sense were the same thing as the good of society, there would be no room for a conscience that ran counter to society's interests. Indeed, conscience would become meaningless and could be replaced by directions from the State. If this is a matter of right and wrong, then secondary considerations are out of place.
Even supposing that by passing this Bill we remove an effective deterrent to murder—which I do not believe—morally we have no option but to abolish the death penalty. The State condemns the killing of one individual by another. The moral law condemns it. Christian teaching condemns it. I believe that the State has no more right to deprive a man of his life than a murderer has to take the life of his victim. To execute a human being, however depraved he may be, however evil and vile his act, is itself evil. Moreover, it is evil for precisely the same reasons that it is evil for the murderer to take it upon himself to destroy another. George Fox, the Quaker said:
"There is that of God in every man."
This for me explains what is meant by the sanctity of human life. It applies to the most inhuman of men as to the most saintly. If there is, as it seems, a great difference in the degree of in-dwelling Divine Spirit as between one man and another, that is something we have no means of measuring precisely, and we are not called upon to judge it. To kill a man, whether judicially or in arty other way, is to treat him as if he were so far removed from God's grace as to become another thing, a creature beyond the pale of forgiveness and mercy and fit only for slaughter, a creature so far removed from his Creator that his life is no longer a matter of concern for God but falls within the jurisdiction of man.
The State does not show more reverence for human life by punishing murderers with death. To quote the late, Dr. Temple:
"Its action in taking life where murder is proved will do more to undermine regard for life, and therefore even to encourage murder, than the terrible nature of the punishment could do to check the murderous impulse."
Or, as John Bright, a member of my own little Christian sect, put it a century ago:
"A deep reverence for human life is worth more than a thousand executions in the prevention of murder; and is, in fact, the great security of human life."
726
The law of capital punishment, whilst pretending to support this reverence does, in fact, tend to destroy it. I shall vote in favour of this Bill.
1.54 p.m.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, my first and pleasant duty is to congratulate the noble Lord who has just spoken on his maiden speech, which I am sure conveyed the greatest possible sincerity to the House. To-day we are dealing with a serious subject; in fact, nothing could be more serious. I have looked at this problem in my own way and have come to the conclusion that the best thing I can do is to take the Criminal Statistics for the year 1954 and make some observations upon them. In 1954, nine infants under one year were murdered, but a number of the murderers were not discovered. Proceedings were taken against seventy-two persons, of whom one died awaiting trial; one committed suicide awaiting trial thirty-three were found to be insane, eight were acquitted, one detained during Her Majesty's pleasure and one, an expectant mother, was given life imprisonment. The number convicted and sentenced to death was twelve, and life imprisonment was imposed on ten. One of the convictions was quashed by the Court of Criminal Appeal. I think it is worth while asking the noble Marquess who is to reply to make clear what life imprisonment" implies. I am given to understand that in many cases it is a period of ten years, and not the actual duration of the individual's life.
The statement of facts I have given seems to me to be disturbing. Judging from my own medical experience, which has been fairly extensive in all fields, there are probably a good many more infants suffocated (presumably because it is the easiest way of killing them) than the seven referred to in this Report. That statement is hypothetical, but I think that it is based on reasonable assumptions.
I would also ask the noble Marquess what will happen in the Dominions and Colonies if, unfortunately, as I think, this Bill should be passed. Are they all to be compelled to follow us or what are they to do? I think that point deserves particularly careful attention because of the great differences which exist between, let us say, Great Britain and Rhodesia, or West Africa, or any of the other Colonies

727
which many noble Lords have visited. What machinery is there for putting into operation in those countries the possibilities of control which we have in this country? They simply do not exist in these countries. I have visited a good many of them and I foresee the greatest possible difficulty in putting control into operation.
For example, a large proportion of the population have not had the same standards of education and training in social understanding that we have had. I remember how, as a Member of another place, I toured the African Colonies with three other Members. I spoke to many chiefs in Nigeria and in Northern and Southern Rhodesia, and I particularly asked them what they proposed to do in their countries in the future. On no single occasion did I hear any suggestion that they wanted self-government. There have been rapid changes in those parts of the world, owing to circumstances to which I will not refer now, because it would take too long, but I am convinced that there would be great difficulty in operating control. In considering this Bill it is important to think of its effect not only on our own country but on the whole of the Commonwealth, and I think that the Government should give some lead to the House on this matter. I myself shall vote against the Bill.
2.0 p.m.
LORD MORRIS: My Lords, during my twenty-odd years of membership of your Lordships' House, it has always struck me as somewhat bizarre that when we are discussing a matter of some moment, be it either on the domestic front or on the foreign field, the attendance is somewhat sparse; but should we be discussing television, or the probable fate and future of a dozen or so criminals in the course of a year, attendance is phenomenal; the debate takes two days, and the heat engendered is "quite something". This is a mischievous measure, conceived in error, nourished in ignorance; and in my view your Lordships should undoubtedly throw it out, because it is devoid of merit of any kind.
Before we go into the Division Lobby this evening we shall obviously have to take counsel with ourselves. For my
728
part, I accept what has fallen from the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor about this matter. Everything he has said has been confirmed in terms by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, amongst others, and I shall indeed be surprised if it is not further confirmed later this afternoon by the Lord Chief Justice. We must ask ourselves who is likely to know more about this matter—people like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, or the rather woolly-minded sentimentalists who are in favour of giving the crooks, for whom the promoters of this Bill feel so solicitous, a licence to murder—because that is what it amounts to.
A week ago yesterday, when your Lordships were receiving this Bill formally for the first time, a client of mine, a woman of seventy-one, Miss Rachel Parsons, was battered to death at New-market; and a few hours later a woman who had only been married a matter of days was strangled in the Earl's Court district. Your Lordships are asked to believe that the scaffold and hanging, horrible as they are (I agree with that), are not a deterrent. Do your Lordships really believe that? I believe that it is not only a deterrent but, as has been said, wisely and rightly, a unique deterrent. I think the thought of that walk at nine o'clock in the morning does stay the hand of the criminal, and that imprisonment, however long it may be, does not have the same effect. I am not suggesting that Her Majesty's prisons are the "abode of the blest," but at least they have no unknown terror. It is, in my view, the unknown terror that stays the hand of the criminal, and that is why I think this Bill must be rejected out of hand. It is a bad Bill.
Furthermore, I am convinced, on the political side, that not a scintilla of evidence has been produced to show that the public are genuinely behind it. The Bill had a very small majority on Third Reading in another place—even if one accepts the other place as being representative of the views of the country, as a whole, which personally I do not. Accordingly, I shall vote against the Bill, and I hope that your Lordships will, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, preserve what status we have left in this country by rejecting this absurd Bill.
2.4 p.m.
LORD LAYTON: My Lords, I see from the time table that the heavy artillery is expected to open bombardment in about half an hour's time, and there are a number of speakers down to speak before that. Therefore, one must be brief and, in spite of the temptation to discuss the many arguments on all sides, I propose to follow the precedent common in Continental Parliaments of simply stating how I intend to vote, and briefly why. Eight years ago I voted against Clause 1 of the Criminal Justice Bill which proposed to suspend capital punishment for five years. Tonight I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Death Penalty (Abolition) Bill, and I shall do so both on the substance of the matter and on constitutional consideration.
As for the merits, I have always wished to do away with capital punishment. It is at best a ghoulish procedure that can be justified only by necessity. The experience of countries which have no capital punishment disproves the presumption that this deterrent is necessary for the safety of the State. I do not accept as they stand the validity of all the statistics brought forward in this context. It is difficult to compare the statistics of one country against the figures of another, particularly in regard to such a problem as this. However, I do not think that any of the comments made on the statistical case touch or destroy the point made so well yesterday by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, when he pointed out that if the fear of the noose was, in fact, not necessarily a unique deterrent, but even a very major deterrent, then when capital punishment was abolished there should have been some sign, at all events in some of the statistics of a rise in the murder rate. I accept the view put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Moyne, in the debate eight years ago, when he said:
"Whether the experiment is made or not, you will find in five years' time practically no difference in the number of murders."
In my opinion, the case is not made out on the ground of overriding necessity.
Secondly, though I am not one of those who believe that it is never necessary or permissible to take life, I am deeply impressed with the irrevocable nature of capital punishment and the possibility that we may make mistakes. It may be that I am particularly impressed with this
730
point because of the personal experience I had when the newspaper with which I am connected many years ago prosecuted a long campaign for the reopening of the Oscar Slater case, which was eventually done. After eighteen years' penal servitude the conviction of Slater was quashed and he was given £6,000 compensation. On this matter we had a specific statement yesterday from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor; and I want to say that I yield to no one in my respect for his integrity and his wisdom—and I am sure he knows that. But, with all respect to his great authority, I question whether the public will be satisfied to take the view that the risk of mistake is negligible or one that can properly be taken by a civilised community. Thirdly, I do not accept—I am not going to discuss the details—the argument that the State is, at least in the worst cases, called upon to exact retribution, and by so doing to uphold the majesty of the law. The effect in such cases may well be, and m my opinion is likely to be, and is being, to weaken belief in the sanctity of human life in the community.
But, though holding these views in general, I was persuaded in 1948 by my noble friend Lord Samuel and others that it was most desirable to proceed in this matter, if possible, by common consent. The debates showed a general desire gradually to restrict capital punishment, either by defining degrees of murder in the Statute or by the increasing use of the Royal Prerogative. The formula proposed to the House by the Government was not accepted, and the next year the Royal Commission was appointed. The opinion of that Commission is clear, and it is quite unnecessary for me to repeat it. After the most exhaustive inquiries, it was shown that there was no satisfactory half-way house between our present system and abolition. With that door closed, I shall vole for the Bill on its merits.
But I shall also vote for it on constitutional grounds. Even if the majority of this House disapprove of the Bill, I would suggest, as my noble friend Lord Rea has already done, that there are good grounds for giving it at least a Second Reading. According to the letter of the law, the House obviously has the right to reject the Bill, amend it or do what it wishes with it, and so prevent its passing until next year. But I suggest that it would be inexpedient for the House

731
to do this. Under the Constitution, this House has not equal powers with the elected Chamber, and rightly so; it has only a delaying power, and can ensure that second thoughts are given in another place to matters in dispute. In the case before us, this concept of insisting upon second thoughts has already been carried out on an extended scale, and, as I would say, to the limit of reasonableness. Eight years ago this House held up the action proposed in another place. The delay has lasted not one year or even two, but eight years, and in the interim there has been the most exhaustive inquiry. Finally, after eight years the other place, this time with a Conservative majority, has again voted in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. It would, I think, be straining the Prerogative of this House to the utmost to compel another place to wait yet a further year.
My noble friend Lord Sherwood pertinently asked yesterday how it is that a Government which so strongly believes in maintaining the death penalty has left the matter to a free vote in another place. If the public draw the conclusion that the Government are relying on its influence in this House to nullify the effect of a free vote in another place, it can hardly fail to underline the unbalanced political composition of this House, sharpen criticism of its role in the Constitution, and make it more difficult to get general agreement to the reform of the House, which, in common with many of your Lordships, I believe to be both necessary and desirable. For that reason, I reinforce the appeal of my learned friend Lord Rea to those who dislike the Bill to give it a Second Reading and reserve their opposition for the Committee stage.
2.14 p.m.
EARL WINTERTON: My Lords, as my predecessor in debate, the noble Lord, Lord Layton, has pointed out, through no fault of his or of noble Lords who have recently spoken, we are a little behind in the timetable, and I therefore wish to reduce my remarks as much as possible. I should, however, like to answer the main burden of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, and that is whether this House has or has not a right and a duty to reject this Bill. Before doing so, I should like to make some observations of a controversial kind. We have had in this debate,
732
if I may say so with respect to your Lordships' House, a very high level in every respect: of sincerity, of clarity and of the pros and cons concerning the Bill. It has also been, I feel, a very good-natured debate; But that does not mean that one should not put controversial points.
I will commence by saying that I think this is the most amazing example that I have ever known of the intense illogicality of British moral reasoning. Intense emotion has been displayed in another place, and by some Members of this House, over the fact that each year some twelve or fourteen persons (who, quite frankly, both for their own sake and for that of the public, are probably better put out of the world, in any event) have been hanged. Yet every year, on the roads, thousands of people are killed, maimed for life or injured in various ways. As one who is a director of an insurance company, I may say that some of the particulars of the injuries caused, especially to children in road accidents, are horrifying. What does another place and your Lordships' House do about that? From time to time there is a debate on the matter, and it ends in both Houses by people saying, "Well, it is just too bad, but there is nothing we can do about it."
I should like to give another example. I was the guest of the Army in Germany soon after the end of the war, and I stayed with a distinguished British officer near Hamburg. He said, "I am not a politician, and I make no comment upon whether or not our action was morally justified, but it may interest you to know that in three nights of bombing 60,000 civilians were killed or burnt to death in Hamburg." Did any of those who have protested so strongly, in your Lordships' House or elsewhere, or any of the right reverend Prelates, protest against that bombing? Why is it illicit, non-Christian or immoral to hang fourteen English murderers a year, yet perfectly right and proper to kill 60,000 people in Hamburg? I can understand the pacifist argument—I admire it in many ways—which says that it is wrong to take life in any circumstances. But why, to use a phrase used by somebody elsewhere, is it obscene to hang a murderer, and not obscene to kill 60,000 people with bombs? The only supporters of this Bill, from a moral point of view, should be the pacifists who are perfectly entitled to support it.

733
Now I turn to deal for a moment with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Layton, made, if I may say so, in his usual calm and dispassionate way, and put very clearly. I take exactly the opposite view on this question of the rights which we have as a Revising Chamber to reject this Bill if necessary. During the long years that I was in another place I had a reputation—though it was a slightly spurious one—for having a knowledge of procedure and precedent, and I should like, in the shortest possible time, to submit to your Lordships why I think we have a right to reject this Bill.
What are the facts? in the first place, the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary, speaking not only with the authority of their great offices, but, if I may say so in my noble friend's presence, as statesmen of great calibre, admitted so to be by their political opponents, as well as by their friends, urged, in speeches of complete directness and great vehemence, the rejection of the Bill. The immense majority of opinion in the Judicature, in the police service and in the prison service, is opposed to this Bill. The promoters have never claimed that they had the majority of the public behind them. They claim to be acting, not as representatives of their constituents but as crusaders for a principle.
Despite what some noble Lords have said, I maintain that there is no evidence whatsoever that there is a majority in the country in favour of this Bill. Yet your Lordships' House is asked to make a major change in the criminal law of the country because certain Members of another place conscientiously object to capital punishment. What pressure has there been for the Bill outside Parliament? Most of the Press opinion is against it. There is a small body of Press opinion, composed mostly of young editors of weekly and monthly journals, who are running a dual campaign at this moment. One is to make homosexualism legal and the other is to abolish capital punishment. There is no evidence that in either case they have public support on their side. I do not know what their object is in running this campaign. I am sure they are actuated by the best motives, but they certainly have not the support of the public.
The Third Reading of the Bill was carried by a tiny majority in another
734
place, with a number of Members, in ray opinion to their discredit, abstaining. I must say here (I am sorry to have to say it) that the Government also, in my opinion, to their discredit, followed the bad example of their Socialist predecessors and said that whether or not a major change should be made in the criminal law would be left to a free vote. Logically, if they are so concerned about the consciences of their supporters, they should also leave to a free vote the question whether it is right to shoot terrorists in Kenya, Malaya or Cyprus. Why is it right to shoot a terrorist in Malaya, Kenya or Cyprus and wrong to hang an English murderer? Why do not the supporters of this Bill, and especially the Conservative supporters in another place, go to their constituents and say "We are going to be logical. We are not going to support the Government any longer in what they are doing to put down violence in these countries"? As the noble Viscount, Lord Malvern, pointed out in his maiden speech yesterday, if this Bill is passed we shall find ourselves in a position of impasse and utter illogicality. I most sincerely hope that, if this Bill is rejected, the Government will be courageous and not afford it any further opportunities in another place.
My last point is this. Whilst all of us who are opposed to this Bill accept as perfectly genuine the conscientious objection to capital punishment which its supporters have, those who hold that opinion should also realise the conscientious objection to its abolition that some of us hold, on the ground that more human suffering and injury to social standards will be caused by the abolition of capital punishment than by its retention. I am convinced that the country is not in, favour of the greater part of this Bill. I return to my original point. If, in the circumstances which I have ventured to outline, we do not reject this Bill, if the majority of your Lordships are opposed to it, then we shall cease to have any right to be described as a Second Chamber. We might just as well, so to speak, to use a vulgar term, "pack up" and say we have abrogated our function. Either we are a Second Chamber or we are not a Second Chamber. We exist either to revise the legislation that comes from another place or to reject it. When we believe that that legislation has not the assent of the electorate, either we exercise

735
our duty or we cease to be a Second Chamber. For all these reasons, I sincerely hope that your Lordships will reject this Bill.
2.25 p.m.
LORD GODDARD: My Lords, I feel that I owe your Lordships, and especially the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, an apology for the fact that I was not here to hear him open the debate yesterday, but my duties called me elsewhere. Therefore, I shall ask your Lordships' indulgence if I am found repeating some of the arguments to which you have already listened. May I preface what I have to say to-day by saying that I recognise to the full the deep sincerity of those who support this Bill? I am not going to discount their arguments by saying that they are merely emotion or sentiment. In all such matters as these, emotion and sentiment must play some part, and it is none the worse for that. I myself confess to feeling some emotion or sentiment, whatever be the right expression, on this matter; but my sentiments, I am bound to say, are more in favour of the victims than of the murderers. I am perfectly certain that the sentiment of pity for the victims is felt by the noble Lords who support this Bill, but it seems to me that there is a tendency nowadays, when any matter of the criminal law is being discussed, to think far more of the criminal than of his victim.
I am well aware that the supporters of this Bill look with the greatest suspicion upon judges' opinions. The judges are always held up, as they have been in much of the propaganda which I have no doubt your Lordships have received, as I have, as opponents of all reform and as being interested only in upholding a Draconian system. That is due particularly, I think, to the fact that undoubtedly in the early years of the nineteenth century Lord Ellenborough, Lord Eldon and Lord Wynford did oppose the beneficent reforms which were advocated by Sir James Mackintosh and Sir Samuel Romilly, which we all now know in these days could not be possibly controverted in any way. It is now, therefore, thought that no judge can hold an opinion which is not reactionary. I am not suggesting that your Lordships who will support this Bill will take quite the same view of the Judiciary as some of the writers in some
736
of the well-known Sunday newspapers, the name of one of which has been mentioned in the debate to-day by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor.
I think perhaps the thing that sticks most in my mind is that I am denounced as a "bewigged obscurantist", an imputation which I must suffer with such fortitude as I can command; but I doubt whether it is really helpful in 1956 to be discussing the views which judges, of whatever eminence, held in 1817 and 1820, when, to do them justice, be it remembered, there was no police force and life and property were far less secure than they are to-day. But, still, no one would suggest that there should be any return, or any thought of return, to the penalties which in those days used to be given for larceny, burglary or any other crimes against property. I am open to correction. So far as I have read on this subject, neither Sir Samuel Romilly nor Sir James Mackintosh, and certainly not Sir Robert Peel, who was the architect of all the legislation which abolished those terrible penalties, was ever dealing with murder at all. It was never suggested, so far as I read the debates, that murder should be not visited with the capital penalty. That issue was not under debate.
What brought about the change that occurred in the 1820's and the 1830's was the force of public opinion, the fact that juries would not convict or, if convicting, would find the property to be only of such trivial value that the sentence of death could not be pronounced. If the supporters of this measure could satisfy this House that public opinion demanded it, then a wholly different set of circumstances would arise. But, so far as I can see, there is no real demand in the country for this Bill, and certainly it has never been submitted to the electorate. I do not see that, merely because one gets almost overwhelmed with letters and resolutions, and one thing and another, begging one to oppose this Bill, that is any real, accurate gauge of public opinion. I can find no indication anywhere that the country is really in favour of this momentous change.
But let me now come to a few arguments which are perhaps more germane to 1956 and to the subject which is under discussion to-day. At the present time the Metropolitan Police are approximately 20 per cent. under strength—

737
something like 4,000 men under strength. In all the great cities of England the position is the same. In Liverpool they are 25 per cent. under strength; in Birmingham 16 per cent., and in Manchester 15 per cent. Incidentally, I have it on the authority of the chief constable of one county that he has never known a time in which so many of his officers are taking out policies of life assurance. Your Lordships also know that the prison service is seriously undermanned, which perhaps accounts for the somewhat disturbing number of escapes from orison of which we read from time to time, and which certainly seem to be more frequent than was formerly the case. I ask your Lordships therefore, is this the time to remove what, rightly or wrongly, the police and the prison service believe to be their main protection against attack?
We must remember that the police of this country are armed with only a short baton—that is the only weapon they have against gunmen and other people who do not hesitate, if they think it necessary, to shoot and take the lives of policemen. I am sure that if this Bill passes it will encourage resignation from the police force and make recruitment more difficult—this at a time when, owing to the habit of carrying weapons in the street, gun warfare and so forth, Parliament only three years ago intervened and made it an offence for a person to carry an offensive weapon in the street without lawful cause and excuse. That Bill was commonly called the "Cosh Bill" and under it there have been a good many convictions. The reason for the passing of that Bill was that it is a short step from carrying one of those weapons to using it.
When the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, was before Parliament there were two main subjects of debate. One was the suspension of capital punishment and the other was the abolition of corporal punishment. Your Lordships will remember that at first in this House your Lordships rejected both those proposals. Afterwards, the other place gave way on capital punishment and your Lordships gave way on corporal punishment; and so it went out to the world that thereafter there was to be no such thing as corporal punishment—no whipping for any offence whatsoever. I then ventured to make a prophecy. I thought that
738
although the only form of violence for which whipping could be ordered was robbery with violence, the mere fact that it had gone out that whipping or any form of corporal punishment had gone for ever would encourage violence. Unfortunately, the prophecy which I ventured to make has been fulfilled, as I will show your Lordships in a moment. In recent years, since 1951, crime generally has shown a most happy decline. To the year 1954, from the peak year of 1951, crime generally has fallen by no less than 21 per cent. But crimes of violence have increased during that time, and so has sexual crime, which so often leads to violence.
Let me give your Lordships two or three figures—I am not going to bore you with long statistics. These are the criminal statistics down to the year 1954. In 1947, the year the Bill was passed although it did not become effective until 1948, the number of persons convicted for violence against the person was 2,504, a shocking increase over the last year before the war, 1938, when the total was only 1,583. The next year, 1948, the figure had risen to 3,183; in the year following that to 3,303, and there has been a progressive rise in violence ever since; so that in 1954, the last year for which I have the official figure (the 1955 criminal statistics are not yet published) the number had risen to 4,584. That is a matter which should give one serious thought. It may be—I cannot tell, because now the criminal statistics do not distinguish between robbery with violence and other forms of violence, but these are the convictions for violence against the person. It is now known that in 1954 4,580 people were convicted for some shocking form of violence.
But it is said that experience in other countries indicates mat the abolition of the capital sentence does not lead to an increase in murder and is no effective deterrent. This point was dealt with by the Lord Chancellor yesterday, and I do not propose to dwell upon the difference existing between other countries and this country. For instance, I think it is common knowledge that the police in all Latin countries are armed, and it would indeed be a sad day for this country if we had to arm our police. But I agree —and so would anybody else who has thought about the matter—that the

739
presence or absence of capital punishment on the Statute Book will not affect certain forms of murder. It will not affect the man who kills his young woman because, as he puts it, "If I cannot have you, no one else shall have you." It will not have much effect, ex hypothesi, on murders by lunatics, and I do not know that it will have very much effect in regard to wife murders. I do not know whether any of your Lordships saw a reference to a particular case the other day when a man was convicted of a dreadful assault against his wife. It was given in evidence that he said to her, "If it was not that I could 'swing' for it, I would do you in." That is the sort of crime that I think the death penalty prevents.
But I should agree entirely with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, that the greatest deterrent against crime is, naturally enough, the certainty or high probability of detection and arrest. Why? That must be followed by conviction. And why again? Because conviction will lead to punishment. It is no good arresting people or telling them that they will be liable to arrest, if no punishment is to follow. I do not wish to make a joke of the subject, but what would be the effect on the people who are arrested if they knew that all that would happen to them is that they would be sent away to a sanatorium or to some other equally convenient or comfortable place? As it is, if this Bill is passed, judges will not be able to give any greater punishment for deliberate, wilful murder than they can give now for burglary, for the offence of sacrilege (breaking into a church) or for forgery of a will. Though I do not say that it is likely that, except in very exceptional cases, the maximum sentence of life imprisonment is given for those offences, from time to time it certainly is given for violence and wounding, although it may be perfectly certain from the nature of the wounding that death was not intended.
Why is it that these ruffians who use razors, coshes, knuckledusters and broken bottles—and of all the horrible weapons a broken bottle is about the worst when it is jammed in another man's face—always stop short of murder in these cases? They can wound—and they can horribly wound; wounds which very
740
likely require the insertion of twenty or five and twenty stitches into a man's face, and which mark him for life. But they stop short of murder. I am convinced that they do not stop short of murder out of any principles of humanity. The people they fight or attack in this way are men they hate, men they want to put out of action if they can—they loathe and hate them. Although very likely the injured person is another gangster, and no better than the man who attacks him, we certainly do not want to have London, or parts of the greater industrial cities, turned into the sort of shambles that has been attributed to some cities in America in the past.
I had a very striking instance of this matter last year, and although I know the danger, very often, of arguing from the particular to the general, this case was such a remarkable case that I think I am justified in reminding your Lordships of it. Three men, two of whom had just come out of a long sentence in Dartmoor, with another man who was a younger man but with a very bad record, armed themselves with two revolvers and a motor car—and it is disturbing to think how easily some of these men seem to be able to get revolvers; and of course the motor car has introduced new problems into crime. Having armed themselves in this way, the three of them went at half past twelve in the afternoon to a jeweller's shop facing Earl's Court station, which they robbed at the point of the revolver. Fortunately, the number of the car was taken and was circulated, and in a very short time—it shows how extraordinarily efficient the police are in these matters—a patrol car in Hyde Park picked up the bandits' car and chased it. As they were leaving the Park—they managed to get out of the Park by Stanhope Gate—one of the men leaned out of the window and fired twice at the police car. One bullet went wide and might have killed any person walking in the Park. The other shattered the windscreen, and one of the policemen was rather badly cut.
The chase continued, and as the men turned from South Audley Street into Curzon Street they fired again, twice. They had made a mistake in going into Curzon Street at that time of day, because the block of traffic prevented them from getting any further; and they

741
jumped out and ran away. One of them ran along and ran down Queen Street, firing his revolver. He shattered the window of a refreshment house in Queen Street. The other man—and I took this into account in the sentence I gave—followed him, shouting, "Don't shoot." Of course he was now shouting "Don't shoot". They had been Shooting from the car, but now, if they shot, it was almost certain that they would kill someone, and he knew what the result would be then.
When a young policeman, with the greatest possible courage, ran to tackle this armed ruffian, he shot at him; but he shot deliberately, aiming low at the policeman's leg. It brought the policeman down, of course, and he was badly wounded. The shot missed his femoral artery by about a hair's-breadth; if it had hit it the policeman might have died. That man, I am convinced, fired low in the way he did because he did not want to murder a policeman when he knew the consequence. He shot his way out. He got away at the time, but he was arrested two days afterwards, and the first question he asked the chief inspector who arrested him was "Give us a break, guvnor. Is the 'copper' dead?" That was what he was afraid—was the 'copper' dead? Fortunately he was not. Still, the man was put away for some time in a place where I do not think he will be found. But as I say, it was a case in which one was justified in accepting a verdict of "shooting with intent to avoid arrest," and not "with intent to murder," because I was quite certain that the last thing he wished to do was to kill, although he wished to maim. If it had not been for his knowledge that if he did kill a policeman the death sentence would inevitably follow, I do not believe for a moment that young policeman would have been alive to-day.
My Lords, these instances which are brought home to one in one's life make me say, with all the earnestness I can command; do not gamble with the lives of the police—because I believe it will be gambling with the lives of the police if this penalty is taken away. The police themselves think it is, and they are pretty good judges of this subject. Indeed, it must be a gamble, because it can only be a matter of opinion as to whether or not the abolition of the death sentence will increase murders, or encourage
742
people, when they find themselves in a tight corner, to shoot. As I have shown your Lordships, from indisputable figures, that was the result in the increase of crimes of violence which the abolition of corporal punishment seems to have had. Even if it was not the abolition of corporal pulishment that had that effect, or caused the rise in the convictions for violence, it is a serious enough state of affairs that nowadays there are getting on for 5,000—I will not exaggerate; the figure is 4,600—people in this country being convicted of serious crimes of violence against their fellow citizens.
I do not mean for one moment to shirk the ultimate question. It is not only the police that I am speaking for. What about the poisoner, the man who, over a period, administers poison to a member of his family or somebody else, and sees the victim dying. What about the small shopkeeper? There have been so many crimes in the last two or three years in which the victims were poor women, old women in shops, and people like that. There was a dreadful case a few weeks ago which came before us in the Court of Criminal Appeal, of a little spinster, four feet nine inches in height, living on the edge of some mining village, I think it was, and so afraid of being attacked that she had had all the windows of her cottage screwed up. A young brute of about twenty-three, I think he was, broke into that house. He got in. He battered that poor little creature to death; all her ribs were broken and he cut her throat. All he got out of it was a small quantity of rather trivial jewellery which he managed to take and went away. Are those people to be kept alive?
LORD RAGLAN: That man was reprieved.
LORD GODDARD: My noble friend Lord Raglan is perfectly right. The man was reprieved, and he was reprieved after I had seen the report of the medical men who were sent up to examine him by the Home Secretary. Their report was that neither on legal nor medical grounds was there any reason to say he was insane. And yet he was reprieved.
I do not want on this occasion to get into conflict with the Executive, and I do not want to discuss how far it is constitutional, merely because one House of Parliament has passed a Bill like this, for

743
a general dispensation to be given for crimes of murder. I would only say that if anybody takes the trouble to pull down the Statutes and reads the Bill of Rights he will see that it is there declared, on the Motion of the House of Commons, that the exercise of a general dispensation, as it has recently been exercised—that is to say, on every occasion—is contrary to law. And I believe it is. However, I am not going into that matter now.
Now, my Lords, I ask one other question. How is it possible for the law to be a deterrent, or for there to be a deterrent in arrest, unless there is an element of retribution also in the punishment that is to be given? Why is it wrong, I ask, to avenge criminal conduct? Why is it wrong for a civilised country to say that they will avenge criminal conduct? I believe it is a sign of a healthy conscience in a country that they are determined—if they are determined—to avenge crime. Once one begins to palter with that sentiment then crime will increase. There may be, as there always have been, many matters on the Statute Book which were regarded as crimes and which public opinion revolted against or would no longer consider as crimes and which, in consequence, became obsolete or were repealed and removed from the calendar of crime. But I do not see how it can be said to be either non-Christian or can be regarded in any other way than as praiseworthy that the country should be willing to avenge crime; for, so far as I understand, that is the only way in which the community can show their detestation of crime and their resolve that, if possible, it should be stamped out.
There are many other topics on which one could talk on this matter. There is, for instance, life imprisonment. I say at once that life imprisonment, although passed as a sentence, is one which can never, in fact, be carried out. It would be a terrible sentence—to tell a man of five-and-twenty or thirty years that for the rest of his life he is to be kept away from his fellows, except fellow criminals, and in prison. It is terrible to know, as one does know from talking with prison governors and other people who have great experience in these matters, of the utter, spiritual, mental and physical deterioration that sets in after a man has served a long term of imprisonment. I should shrink from the very idea of
744
saying that for murder there should be life imprisonment, in the full sense. Therefore, the decision as to the proper penalty is thrown back on to the judge. The judge will be able to pass no different sentence for a cruel, wicked or deliberate murder than he can now pass upon a burglar, a forger or those guilty of far less serious crimes.
Let me say, however, as I said in my evidence to the Royal Commission, that I think the time is ripe for consideration of the amendment of the law of murder. It will be a difficult task, but difficulties exist to be overcome, and I believe that the law of murder can and ought now to be amended in many respects. No judge likes passing sentence of death in a case in which he knows quite well that the penalty will not be carried out. I believe that there are many amendments which may be made to the law relating to provocation and implied malice. Those are all matters which ought to be taken in hand, and I believe that if they were, public uneasiness on these questions would be greatly assuaged.
It is often said that the matter is too difficult. I have always wondered why there has not been more recourse to the Report of the Criminal Law Commissioners, which was published as long ago as 1879 and suffered the fate that the opinions of most Royal Commissions appear to suffer. It was an attempt by the Criminal Law Commissioners to codify the criminal law. They produced a very remarkable report in which they endeavoured to codify the law of murder; that is to say, they put forward a code which, had it been adopted, would have been the law to-day. The Report is, of course, in existence and no doubt may be in the Library of this House. At any rate, the law of murder, as suggested in the code of the Criminal Law Commissioners, will be found in Volume 3 of Stephenson's History of Criminal Law of England. If that code were adopted, I believe a very great and beneficent change in the law could take place.
I believe that the present system works well because of the exercise of the Royal Prerogative in all cases where any mitigation is perceivable. I believe noble Lords can remain assured (and here I am not talking of just recently, when everybody has been reprieved, but generally) that no murderer was ever hanged if there was

745
any matter of mitigation at all to be found. Every case is examined not only by the Home Secretary himself but by his trusted and experienced advisers, and I believe the result is that the only people who are hanged in England are those, who are guilty of cruel, wicked and deliberate murder.
May I before I sit down, say a word on a matter which was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, this morning—suggestion that in my evidence before the Royal Commission I said that I thought the man Ley was insane but that nevertheless I considered that he ought to have been hanged. Put like that, without knowing the facts and the context in which I speaking, it sounded as if I was suggesting that insane murderers should be hanged. Ley was a man who had at one time been a Cabinet Minister in New South Wales. He left New South Wales for the good of that State and had been operating over here. When I tried him I thought there was no doubt that there were traces of insanity, although he would not allow a defence of insanity to be put up. He was reprieved because it was found that he was suffering from that particular form of insanity called paranoia, which means that a man will argue logically from wrong premises.
Ley had a delusion that his victim, a young man who happened to be lodging in the same house as the woman with whom Ley had formerly lived, had had a liaison with this woman. In fact she was twice the age of the young man. That idea was entirely wrong, for in fact the young man had never even spoken to the woman; but that was in Ley's mind. He therefore determined that he would have that young man murdered, and hired bravoes to kidnap the youth and to bring him to a basement in South Kensington. He hired another man (who I hope is still in prison) to murder him and bury his body on a chalk pit at Woburn. The reason why I said Ley should have been hanged was this: he knew perfectly well what murder was He knew perfectly well that murder was wrong; he knew it was wicked and against the law. The reason why Ley wanted the young man murdered was simply that he thought he had been carrying on a liaison with his (Ley's) former mistress. If that is to excuse murder, then any man who honestly believes he has suffered a wrong, even though the belief
746
turned out to be quite unfounded, ought also to be reprieved; for what is the difference?
It may be that owing to a defect of reasoning this man had some fixed idea in his head that he had been wronged; but he had no fixed idea in his head that murder was right or that murder was not forbidden by law. He came exactly within the Macnaghten Rules. He may have had this defect of mind, but, even though he had nothing to do with carrying out the crime, if he was not to be executed then every soldier who came back from the war and was told, often quite untruly, as many were, that their wives had been unfaithful to them, would have been justified or could have been reprieved if they had gone out and deliberately murdered either the man whom they suspected was the seducer, or the wife. That was the reason why I said, and still think, that it would have been perfectly legitimate to hang Ley, because except on that one matter he was apparently as sane as any other person might be.
I felt it my duty to put my views before your Lordships. I know I have put them before you strongly, because it is a matter upon which, from experience, one does get to feel strongly. And I believe it is right that one should not be afraid to express one's belief. I still believe that a man who deliberately murders another has committed the supreme crime and should pay the supreme penalty.
3.0 p.m.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTER-BURY: My Lords, I think I shall best serve the interests of this debate if I state, as briefly as I can and with as little argument as I can, the final and conclusive considerations which will direct my vote to-night. And in doing so I take some account of the moving and weighty speech, based on vast experience, to which we have just listened. First, I accept the doctrine of the Church that the State has the right, in the name of God and of society, to impose the death penalty. There are those who regard the death penalty for murder as the last surviving relic of a particular kind of barbarism. Indeed it has been ill-used and barbarously used in the past. Churches have used it to punish heresy. States have used it to protect the trivialities of property.

747
But in our day the death penalty is used in the one legitimate way open to it. Society may use it in defence of society itself. A murderer contradicts and violates the fundamental first principle on which society rests: that every member of it will respect the life of every other member and will at least allow him to live. Where murder exists, it is the first duty of society—I particularly put it in this way—to repair the damage done by murder to its own integrity, and to bear witness to the majesty of its own first principles. That, I would say, is its sole duty in this matter. That is Christian doctrine, and, like my fellow Primate, I disagree profoundly with those sincere but mistaken people who regard the death penalty as a thing altogether and always un-Christian and wrong. The progress of this Bill owes not a little to those who hold these mistaken views. If I vote for it, it may seem that I agree with them when, in fact, I totally disagree with them. If I vote for the Bill, it will be in spite of them and for quite different reasons.
Next I ask myself this question: if society may legitimately employ this penalty, ought it to continue to do so? And I find my answer to be: Yes, but not without certain changes in its application. I say "Yes" for one sufficient reason—that with which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice concluded his speech. The death penalty is a witness to the sacredness of human life and of social order, which no society, perhaps, should ever altogether dispense with, and which our society to-day certainly cannot afford to dispense with altogether. I say, "a witness to the sacredness of human life". For, in fact, to require a man to surrender his life (as in defence of his country), or to take it from him because of his evil use of it, may be the greatest possible tribute to its intrinsic value. And there is evidence that the imminence of death has a very great power in opening the eyes of a condemned man to that truth and so to God.
I say we cannot afford to dispense with it. It is always difficult to assess public opinion, but I think, as many others do, that general opinion requires that in some form the terrible, irrevocable and cleansing witness which this penalty gives
748
against the crime of murder should continue. I agree, and I think it would be dangerous and wrong to frustrate that requirement. But while I am not an abolitionist, I find it very difficult to give a vote which would appear to support the continuance of the present system unchanged. For I believe that it is too clumsy to continue as it is in an age where scientific accuracy is a primary requirement, where everyone is more sensitive than he used to be to the chance of cruelty and error in punishment, where there has been revealed to us most embarrassing knowledge about the way in which the human mind works, and where, I would add, sensationalism can and does exploit this topic in unwholesome and repulsive ways.
May I explain what I mean by calling this method too clumsy to continue as it is? It is certainly clumsy as a deterrent. No one can tell for certain how much deterrent effect it has. And this very uncertainty leads to endless argument and makes any conclusion based upon it doubtful. In certain societies—and the noble Viscount. Lord Malvern, had this properly very much in mind—its deterrent effect could be quite obvious and its retention justified on that ground alone. But the evidence does not make me think that the abolition of the death penalty here would in fact increase the number of murders. Certainly, there is no scientific basis of ascertained fact here upon which we can rely, and as I listened to the Lord Chief Justice referring to the dreadful rise in crimes of violence I could not but say that in one sense that is an argument in itself against the ineffectiveness of the death penalty as a deterrent. But I cannot rest myself on deterrence.
Then the argument of retribution is brought in. That is not only clumsy, too, but a very dangerous argument. To defend society against murder is one thing. To repay the murderer for what he has done, which is the strict meaning of retribution, is a far more perplexing and dangerous undertaking. In fact. it cannot be done at all. Nothing equivalent to the evil the murderer has done can ever be inflicted on him. And the attempt to do it, the desire to do it, even the lust to do it, attacks us all on our weakest side. The more repulsive the crime, the more violent is our desire that the murderer should

749
hang. But that is, or may easily be, nothing more than a surrender on our part to emotionalism and an indulgence by us in a vengeful passion. Scripture was right when it said:
"Vengeance is mine, I will repay, saith the Lord."
For man cannot repay. In fact we cannot balance evil done with punishment endured and we should not attempt to build our system on that. We must, I think, frankly recognise, that some who are less evil than others may yet have to hang, and some who have shown themselves far more evil may yet escape with their lives. This system as it is now cannot rest itself on deterrence, except in some particulars I shall come to in a moment, or on retribution, but only on its general accuracy in defending society and in defending the moral law.
Here comes another great evidence of its clumsiness. Something like 50 per cent. of those who are condemned to death are reprieved. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has referred to this. The death sentence is passed, and most rightly it is invested with all the solemnity that the occasion demands. The judge, in the name of the whole community and before God, sentences the murderer to death by hanging, and in the most solemn and searching words sends him to face the judgment seat of God. And almost as often as not a reprieve follows, and the solemn form has become an empty form. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice said, in delivering it a judge may know that in the very words he uses he is using an empty form. That seems to me a most dreadful situation.
The Home Secretary is brought in, very properly, to correct the errors of the present system. He does it with immense care; but should it be required of him? A 50 per cent. margin of error in the operation of the system is certainly evidence of clumsiness, and that at a point where it can least be tolerated in the quiet mind. I may say that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice immensely increased my uneasiness on this point by a passing remark he made just now, that a reprieve could be granted in spite of the fact that there was no medical or legal evidence calling for it.
So, by this system, uncertainty is introduced where, above all, finality should
750
be final. The way is opened for all the doubts and hesitations of which the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and all of us are acutely aware. The death penalty is no longer left as it should be, clearly and decisively the voice of the community, bearing its witness purposefully, deliberately and prayerfully to solemn laws of society and of God. It becomes instead a matter of controversy and thereby loses its power to speak as it should speak. Whatever we may do to-day, that power has already been largely lost, and neither a change of majority in another place nor an overruling of the other place by your Lordships' House can restore to this penalty the moral value that it should have. Only a general agreement amongst us all or a reasonable adjustment in the system can do that. And if all I have said were not enough, those organs of publicity which drown murder and hanging in a flood of emotional and sensational exploitation have robbed the system as it stands, as they have robbed so much else in our lives and social order, of all its proper dignity and sense of eternal worth.
What then, since I cannot happily altogether abolish or altogether retain the present system? There seems to be afforded to us in this House at this moment a real opportunity of retaining the true place for the death penalty in the moral order of our society, while removing some of its features which seem clumsy or dangerous or specially open to criticism. We are told on the highest legal authority that it is impossible to introduce "degrees of murder". It may be so: I am not sure. But I am sure that it is possible to introduce categories of murder for which the death penalty shall remain, categories so clearly and conclusively defined that all uncertainties in this field are removed and the need for reprieve almost totally abolished. By this means, many of the fears to which the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice rightly directed our attention would be at least alleviated and largely abolished. There are murders committed against society itself in the person of its appointed guardians—the murder of a policeman on duty, the murder of a warder. There are murders which show deliberation and premeditation and some preparatory action, certainly when the murderer is

751
carrying arms or a lethal weapon, possibly when the murderer employs poison, perhaps when it can be shown that over a period of time the murderer has planned and plotted. Any category which is capable of an exact definition could be included as liable to the death sentence.
Within these given categories the deterrent power of the death penalty obviously would have its maximum possible effect, for a murderer would have to put himself into the reach of the death penalty by deliberate act. He would have openly declared war on society, and that not in a moment of passion but of choice. In such cases there would be no room for self-delusion, for uncertainty or for reprieves. The death sentence would be passed with all its solemnity and there would be a final and decisive proclamation of the moral truth of society. I must make one observation. It is true that some murders, some of the most abominable murders, would fall outside the categories and would escape the death penalty. They would be murders chiefly of a specially beastly and passionate kind. I think that if any are to be excepted from the death penalty, it had better be these. Society already repudiates them sufficiently by its own reaction of horror. There is nothing attractive about them and it is just in them that the temptation to indulge in this dangerous passion of "making him pay" or of "making her pay" is at its strongest and its indulgence most likely to be harmful to our own moral sense. Their exclusion from the death penalty will make them less valuable for exploitation by sensational journalism.
I believe that there is an opportunity before us so to amend this Bill as to make it of real service to the common good, and that we ought to take it. Thereby we should lift this matter, as it should be lifted and, I would say, must be lifted, above the issues of majority voting in one House or another and above clashes between Lords and Commons, on to a firm basis of reasoned action and of respect for the majesty of the law and the true voice of the community. I do not call this a compromise, for it will be abhorrent to the root and branch abolitionists. I do call it a course of wisdom. Most other people, apart from the abolitionists, could come to a common mind.
752
I believe that if we were to take this line, the Commons very likely would agree with us on it, and so we should avoid the confusion of conflict between our two Houses. If they did not agree, at least we should stand then on much firmer ground than we should by simply rejecting this Bill, and on ground which, having taken, we could properly refuse to abandon.
I cannot simply vote to retain the present system; I cannot simply vote for its abolition, though I may find myself in the uneasy position of appearing to do so. I shall vote for the Second Reading of the Bill, hoping earnestly, and believing that, if it is given a Second Reading, it will certainly be amended in Committee—the function which this House exists specially to perform. I believe that by amendment this may be made a wise measure on the merits of the case; one that would bring relief of conscience and judgment to many who are unhappy with the present system. And by bringing the two Houses into agreement it will refound the death penalty on its only secure and legitimate foundation as an act expressing the general will of the community for the defence of society and for the solemn vindication of the laws of God.
3.22 p.m.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: My Lords. I think it a little hard that a mere elder of the Church of Scotland should have to join issue with the most reverend Primate on a measure of this kind. I may perhaps take some comfort in the thought that it will not be the first time that a Scottish Presbyterian had found himself in conflict with a Bench of Bishops. I have to say at once that I do not agree with the conclusion to which I understand the most reverend Primate has come in regard to this Bill. I think it will appear in the course of my speech how fully I agree with him in the substance of what he had to say, but I believe—although I do not claim to be an expert in these matters—that there are technical reasons why we could not effectively, after passing the Second Reading of this Bill, take the course which I understand him to advocate. I think that by passing the Second Reading we should be accepting the principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill undoubtedly is total abolition, and that is a principle that I unhesitatingly reject.

753
deeply regret that in this matter I find myself at variance with my old friend and former colleague, Lord Templewood. I listened carefully to his speech yesterday. I found that I could agree with much of the detailed argument he put forward as to the unsatisfactory features of the present situation—and here, of course, I agree with the most reverend Primate. My noble friend Lord Templewood spoke of the existing law as being" evasive and sophistical"; he referred to what he regarded as the "too frequent use of the Prerogative" and the difficulties arising in connection with the application of the Macnaghten Rules. He said that those features tended, in his view, to diminish the certainty which I am sure we should all recognise as an essential element in deterrence. He pointed out that it is the existence of the death penalty that constitutes the main difficulty. Broadly, on that point, I am in complete agreement with my noble friend; but his arguments, like those of the most reverend Primate, seem to me clearly to be arguments for amendment and not for abolition.
I will take up as I go on, if I may, the other points raised in the course of my noble friend's speech. For the moment, I should merely like to say in regard to that speech that I am left in a position of some bewilderment. As Home Secretary, my noble friend Lord Templewood, I know, did his duty, as others had done before and have done since. I was a little concerned, I confess, at what he said about his attitude when, as the holder of another position, that of Secretary of State for Air, he had to deputise for the Home Secretary. His experience and mine in that matter have not coincided. I have had, on occasion, to submit a capital case, with all the concomitant material, to another Secretary of State, and I certainly did not go to that Secretary of State with any idea of merely obtaining a signature.
Be that as it may, I should like, before I pass from my comments on the speech of my noble friend, to say a word or two about the state of affairs in India when my noble friend was responsible to Parliament for Indian affairs. There the capital sentence had not merely been retained; it had been enlarged to cover other offences—attempted murder, and the carrying of arms in certain circumstances. With that experience behind him, I find it, I confess, a little difficult
754
to understand how my noble friend can argue against the deterrent effect of the death penalty. If your Lordships will pardon a personal reference, when two miscreants attempted to murder me and were sentenced to death my noble friend could have moved the Crown to exercise clemency. That matter was left to me—and I make no complaint. I reprieved one; I let the other pay the extreme penalty. I am sure that my noble friend must recall that from that time terrorism in Bengal abated, and within a short time it disappeared entirely, never to return. I End there, in those circumstances, strong evidence in support of the deterrent effect of the death penalty.
I pass now to other points, some, though not all, of which were stressed by my noble friend. I was very glad indeed that the most reverend Primate, with other Lords Spiritual, unequivocally rejected the extreme ethical argument which would carry inevitably the implication that for centuries and up to the present day our forerunners had themselves been little better than murderers. I would repeat what I have said many times before (I have spoken so often on this subject that I can be quite brief), that the justification for the death penalty, as for other sanctions of the law, is to be found in the protection of society. In that matter I agree entirely with the most reverend Primate. I myself have absolutely no doubt as to the deterrent effect of capital punishment.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, said in his speech yesterday that he thought the argument as to deterrents had been "shot to pieces"—those were his words—by the evidence quoted in the Report of the Royal Commission. I cannot find any justification for that comment in the Report itself. In paragraph 68 of the Report we find these words—I will not quote in exuaso—
"We recognise that it is impossible to arrive confidently at firm conclusions about the deterrent effect of the death penalty … Prima facie the penalty of death is likely to have a stronger effect as a deterrent to normal human beings than any other form of punishment, and there is some evidence (though no convincing statistical evidence) that this is in fact so. But this effect does not operate universally or uniformly,"
This is the final sentence, with which I respectfully agree:
"It is accordingly important to view this question in a just perspective and not to base

755
a penal policy in relation to murder on exaggerated estimates of the uniquely deterrent force of the death penalty."
May I, as I have referred to the noble Lord's speech of yesterday, say just one word incidentally about a comment that he made on a classification of capital cases which has been circulated widely? He found in that classification, if I understood him aright, strong grounds for condemning the past action of the Home Office in regard to the exercise of the Prerogative of mercy. I absolutely and utterly disagree. I have studied with great care the document in question. I impute no improper motive to those who were responsible for its circulation, but in fact in the catalogue of offences which is there contained there is no balanced perspective on all the essential features.
Take the case that was cited by my noble friend Lord Astor this morning, the case of the man Rivett—No. 17, I think, in the catalogue of offences. Reading the description of that man's crime, as set out in that document, anyone would be horrified to think that that man had been allowed to go to execution. But the true facts of the case are quite different. The true facts, which could not have been known to the authors of this pamphlet—and that ought to be a warning against the unguarded circulation of general statements—are that three prison medical officers had given evidence that Rivett was insane, suffering from schizophrenia. The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, and the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, could not have known that the medical inquiry (and the Home Secretary is under a statutory obligation to hold a medical inquiry in every case of a person lying under sentence of death who might be thought to be insane) found no trace of any mental disorder or of organic disease of the brain, and could find no medical grounds for leniency. The three prison medical officers who had found evidence of schizophrenia were, after further consideration, no longer of the opinion that the person suffered from that condition, whatever it may be. That is only one case. I could go on to cite others, but I will merely say that I most emphatically repudiate the adverse reflections that my noble friend Lord Brabazon of Tara based upon his study of that particular document.
VISCOUNT ASTOR: May I ask whether the facts the noble Viscount has produced were available for the authors of this pamphlet, or whether he received private information which was not generally available?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I had no private information, but I have been given the opportunity of studying the facts since. As I say, I make no imputation against the authors of this pamphlet; in fact, they did not have any knowledge of the facts which I have brought forward. But what alternative had I but to call attention to the true facts? As I say, I could cite in detail the other cases which are set out in that pamphlet.
It is a fact, of which I am sure the noble Viscount was not aware, that not only in every case where a person under sentence of death could reasonably be thought to be insane is the Home Secretary under a statutory obligation to hold an inquiry (if the medical inquiry finds the person to be insane the Home Secretary has no alternative but to commute the death sentence), but also in all other cases where there may be reason to suppose that a person, though not insane, is suffering from some defect of reason, he holds, as an invariable matter of practice, an extra-statutory inquiry and is guided by the results.
As I have said, I have no doubt at all in my own mind as to the deterrent effect of the capital sentence. I recognise, as other speakers have done, that there is force in the argument that capital punishment is a blot on our penal system, and that if we can get rid of it we may be able to build a better community with a more humane tradition. In that matter I agree, very respectfully, with what the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York had to say yesterday.
It is often said that one of the main arguments against the retention of the death penalty is that it is irrevocable. That is put forward by abolitionists as an argument against the capital penalty. In my view, if the risk of mistake can, for practical purposes, be eliminated, the fact that the death penalty is irrevocable is its main merit. Yesterday my noble friend Lord Templewood and the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave their personal experiences in handling the problem of capital sentences in relation to the question of exercising the Prerogative.

757
The noble and learned Viscount made no secret of his conclusion, after the most careful consideration, that, for practical purposes the risk of mistake can be regarded as non-existent. I have had experience throughout periods extending in all to no less than eighteen years, during which I have been in close contact with this problem, and during which I have had, as a matter of duty, to consider every case of capital penalty and endeavour to form a personal judgment. So far as I am aware, there was no case during the whole of that period, or those periods, amounting, as I have said, to no less than eighteen years, in which a mistake had been committed. Naturally, of course, the possibility of mistake can never be excluded from human affairs, but so far as this particular matter is concerned, I feel justified, for what it is worth, in giving my full support to the conclusion which the noble and learned Viscount gave to the House yesterday.
I believe that the question to which we have to come to a conclusion is mainly a matter of balance of advantage and disadvantage. I think a day may well come when it may be safe to abolish the capital penalty. I should welcome that. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hore-Belisha in that respect, but I am quite convinced that at the moment the balance lies heavily on the side of retention. I stress the words "at the moment". What are the arguments for and against acting now? It has been said that there is ample experience now available of abolition in other countries and that no ill-effects have ensued.
Let me put briefly to your Lordships why, in my humble opinion, any such comparison is inevitably fallacious. I agree in that respect with the noble Lards, Lord Milverton and Lord Tweedsmuir. Take the Scandinavian countries. There, they have a community far more homogeneous than ours is here. As in America, we have a considerable immigrant population still not completely assimilated. Then, as has been pointed out by the noble Lords to whom I have just referred, we have, unlike the Scandinavian countries, a responsibility for good government over a wide variety of dependent territories Finally—and this is a point which has not been stressed before, I think—the incidence of political crime, crime committed with a political motive, is liable
758
to become much heavier in this country by reason of our history and the nature of our external relations. I shall refer again to this matter before I sit down. Foreign experience, therefore, in my opinion, is not a valid argument for acting now. It offers no sure basis for action.
Then again, as has been pointed out more than once, the police are very gravely concerned. They are carrying a very heavy burden at the present time. I myself would certainly not be a party to adding to their anxieties at present. I agree in that respect fully with the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft. Prison authorities, to whom reference has also been made, are affected in a different way. I myself have never been able to see how the régime of penal administration could be adapted to deal with the problem of real life sentences without risk of an unfavourable impact on the traditions of humane administration which have been and are being so carefully built up. I myself believe so far as that aspect of the matter is concerned that more experience is required of the working of special types of institution.
Finally, in regard to political crimes, I am recorded in the Royal Commission's Report as having said that in our regard of the criminal law conceptions of retribution and atonement had been eliminated. I had in mind, of course, the old-fashioned conception of retribution as mere vengeance, the application of the lex talionis. I recognise that I ought to have qualified that statement by pointing out that in a limited class of case the extreme penalty may still have a retributive effect as expressing the community's abhorrence and condemnation of capital crime. That was rightly emphasised before the Royal Commission by Lord Justice Denning and others, and it has been emphasised in the course of this debate. All that leads me to say that, even if I were convinced, as I am not, that the general arguments for abolition on balance outweighed the arguments against, I should still hesitate before admitting justification for an amendment of the law that would remove entirely the one sanction by which a political crime can be visited, where there is no question of reform, where imprisonment carries no stigma and has no deterrent effect since, according to universal experience, it is

759
invariably curtailed by some amnesty or act of oblivion.
People have said to me rather lightheartedly in that connection, "Oh, the risk of political crime can be disregarded." My Lords, can it? I have in mind, as I am sure some noble Lords have, the comparatively recent assassinations of Sir Henry Wilson and Sir Michael O'Dwyer, the latter almost within a stone's throw of this place. I have in mind, too, a case which most of your Lordships will probably have forgotten, the case of the Coventry murders by men called Barnes and Richards, I think, in 1940 when I was Home Secretary. I had to refuse to exercise the Prerogative of mercy in those cases although I received repeated representations from the other side of the Irish Channel and some representations, if the truth must be told, from my own colleagues, who held that the atmosphere would be sweetened if clemency could be shown. That was just the argument that was addressed to me many years ago by the aged Archbishop of Dublin when he was carried up to my room in Dublin Castle to plead for clemency for young Kevin Barry who had murdered a British soldier. I had to tell him, to my sorrow, that to do what he had asked would be to proclaim the helplessness of the law.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: May I ask the noble Viscount this, because I remember all these circumstances? Is he claiming now that the policy he pursued of strict observance of rule was a success in the settlement with Ireland?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I would claim that, but it is not the moment to go into the whole matter. I should be very glad to talk about it to the noble Viscount. I know exactly what happened. The facts are not known to the public.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: That is always the case.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: The law was very effective. However, my argument in regard to political crimes stands by itself, and I have been greatly surprised that in the course of this debate there has been no reference to that aspect of the matter. Therefore, for all these reasons, I am going to vote against the Second Reading of this Bill. I should be very glad indeed
760
at a suitable opportunity to see the law amended to bring it more into accord with practice, to give effect to some of the points that were put so forcibly and so powerfully by the most reverend Primate. I believe that we are here confronted with a perfectly straight issue: for or against abolition. Abolition is the principle of this Bill and we have to decide whether or not we accept it. I believe that there are technical reasons why we could not conveniently use this Bill as a vehicle for amendment. For one thing, if, having passed the Second Reading of this Bill, we were to take the opportunity to endeavour to amend it, the amendment would have to proceed by way of bringing various offences back within the ambit of capital punishment. The proper course is to start by taking various categories of offences outside the scope of capital punishment.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: The noble Viscount agrees that it is possible to do it the other way?
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I think it may be. It would lead to a great deal of confusion if we at first declared against capital punishment in principle. But I may be wrong; I am open to argument about that. I have an open mind. I have said quite clearly that I would value an opportunity of taking part in a considered attempt to modify the law as it stands to-day. I do not think that that opportunity presents itself now, but I may be wrong. At any rate, so far as I am concerned, as at present advised, I would vote against the Second Reading.
LORD AMWELL: May I be allowed to intervene to ask a question? It is rather an important point. Is is not possible for that matter to be resolved, so that we may know whether it is possible or impossible, for the reasons given, to amend the Bill in Committee? Cannot the Lord Chancellor tell us?
LORD HORE-BELISHA: I was going to make exactly the same point. I ask the Lord Chancellor if he can tell us whether technically this Bill is capable of amendment in the way proposed by the most reverend Primate and others, or whether the contention put forward by the noble Viscount who is speaking, that it cannot easily be amended, is correct.
VISCOUNT WAVERLEY: I do not profess to be speaking with any authority on this particular matter.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Before the Lord Chancellor answers, I should like to ask him this particular question. Has he any authority to limit the power of Parliament in this particular matter? The Speaker certainly has not. This is governed by the practice of Parliament. Is is proposed, therefore, that the Government—and the Lord Chancellor is part of the Government—should strive to limit the legislative capacity of this Chamber?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, I am a servant of your Lordships' House, and I am always prepared to give any assistance for which I am asked. I have no right, and I have never arrogated to myself—and I do not think that the noble Viscount, or any Member of your Lordships' House, has any right to suggest that I have—any further right of reply. I assure the noble Viscount that I speak in that spirit, as someone who has been asked that I give my view. I am not putting to the House any dictation from the Government, but it would be a poor day, I say to the noble Viscount, if noble Lords cannot ask me for my view. On that basis, I am prepared to answer it. If the noble Viscount objects, I will not.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: On the contrary, I never suggested any impropriety by the Lord Chancellor. What I am suggesting is improper is that the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, should suggest to the House that an obiter dictum by even so eminent an authority as the Lord Chancellor could carry the force of constitutional procedure—it cannot. I think that the Lord Chancellor has correctly stated the case, that any judgment of his must be confirmed here by the vote of the House. That is the only authority that exists as to the procedure of the House.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: He can give an opinion.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May we get back to the question that was asked of the Lord Chancellor and have an answer to it, and ignore these irrelevancies?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As I understand the position, there are two matters which we must consider. The first is the amendment of the law in regard to murder which has been mentioned in the course of this debate. That involves such things as removing the death penalty for suicide pacts, provocation, constructive malice and the doctrine of diminished responsibility. As I understand it, it would be extremely inconvenient, to say the least of it, and technically very difficult to discuss these matters on the present Bill. I have not in mind the question of the Title of the Bill, which would have to be considered by both Houses, but I see great difficulty in doing that. With regard to the other matter which the most reverend Primate has suggested, of making exclusions, for example, in the case of armed criminals and the shooting of a policeman, the murder of a prison officer, and the like, that would, as I understand it, be possible in your Lordships' House, just as it was possible that the Amendments should be discussed, and were rejected, on two occasions in another place.
I think one is then met by two points. One is the point that my noble friend Lord Waverley made, about the convenience of legislating by double exclusion; that is a matter of convenience which must be considered. The other matter, which is one entirely for your Lordships to consider, is, when the issue of abolition or no abolition has been put to your Lordships, whether you think it is a suitable occasion to take the other course. That is a matter of political Judgment on the whole of the circumstances. My Lords, I think I have put the position accurately, and I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, who I am sure has really no ill-feeling towards me, as I have not towards him, that it is simply done in the spirit of helping the House; and I hope the House will consider that I have, complied with my duty in so doing.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am obliged to the Lord Chancellor. I am perfectly certain he intended nothing else, and I am entirely satisfied—
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Order, order!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: What I object to is the attempt to prohibit the amendment of this Bill. I should like to see amendment.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: My Lords, as the Bill stands in my name, perhaps I might make an individual comment upon the situation. I say at once, without going into the merits of the particular Amendments that might or might not be moved, that I have always imagined that, supposing the Bill received a Second Reading here to-day, it would be possible for Peers to move the kind of Amendments that were moved in another place. If I heard the Lord Chancellor aright, it seems to me that he agrees with that view. As I say, I am not arguing upon the merits of any of these Amendments; I merely state my own view as the promoter of this Bill upon the present situation.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: As my noble friend Lord Templewood mentioned me, may I just make clear that I was asked whether, in my view, it was possible. I thought that it was possible. I am not saying, and I hope your Lordships will not take it from me that I am saying, that it is desirable. It would be quite outside my province so to rule. Your Lordships must take that from the general line of the debate on which I I have already spoken.
EARL JOWITT: May I say that I entirely agree with every word that the Lord Chancellor has said?
3.57 p.m.
LORD CRAIGMYLE: My Lords, I wish to apologise to Lord Waverley for rising during his speech. I hope that he will not think that I was discourteous; but I thought he was resuming his seat. Rising so late on the second day of a debate like this makes one feel apologetic. If an apology is due, mine is this: that the cause of the abolition of capital punishment was one that was most dear to the heart of my grandfather and, as I feel about it as strongly as he did, and he was never able to campaign actively for it during his life, it seems to me particularly fitting that it should be the subject of my maiden speech in your Lordships' House.
As we have been reminded most properly from the Episcopal Benches, the subject matter of this Bill, or rather the principle behind it, is intimately concerned with the sanctity of human life. The law of the land in condemning murder is, of course, merely upholding the
764
general moral principle that we should not kill another man. If human life is so precious that the taking away of it is an abominable crime, it is clear that it is also so precious that the taking away of it is an abominable punishment. In other words, the law of the land is making an exception of itself. In this particular matter it is raising itself above the general moral law. It is therefore up to these who support the present state of the law to justify it.
Certain speakers in the debate have attempted to throw the onus on to the abolitionists to show positively, not just generally, that the changes they propose would cause no actual ill. It seems to me clear that the onus is, in fact, on those who wish to preserve the present state of the law to justify the position whereby the law makes itself an exception to the moral law. I think we must also examine the statistics of rates of murder, and so forth, in so many countries, which have been most carefully compiled and so fully quoted, with this in mind: that if the statistics are to support the retentionists' case, they must be very clear and decisive in favour of it. If, as appears to be the case, the statistics are neutral in their tenor, if they are inconclusive, then they must be held, by their very inconclusiveness, to support the abolitionists' case, because the retentionists still have the fundamental difficulty of justifying their exception to the general moral law. In other words, it is not right or proper to hazard human lives upon doubtful statistics.
Now, if the argument from the sanctity of human life is strong, the argument from the incapacity of human judgment seems even stronger. It is not only the simple question which we are considering—what is the value to be placed upon a human life: we have also to go below even that to the deeper question: what right have we to set a value upon human life? To my mind, fundamentally speaking, no man has the moral authority to say to any other man, "You are not fit to live". Clearly, in certain circumstances, one man must take another man's life, but there must always be certain special circumstances justifying it. The most common of those circumstances, of course, is self-defence; and in self-defence one includes, in the end, warfare, and I think that the noble Viscount's particular point about political crime would also

765
come under the heading of warfare. Political crime and high treason seem to me very clear cases where one may take human life to prevent worse outbreaks.
The second justification for taking life is that the State should take life rather than allow a murdered person's relatives to seek private vengeance. I have even heard or read that historians consider the frustration of private vengeance, the preventing of blood feuds, to have been historically the cause of princes' stepping in and insisting that all criminal matters should be judged by their own appointed judges. I do not know whether or not that is supported by learned scholars, but it seems to indicate that society may develop from a condition where the civil power has to step in to prevent private vengeance to a condition where the possibility of private vengeance is so remote that the State, while continuing to punish the crimes, need no longer punish them by death.
Several of your Lordships, speaking in this debate, both in support of the Bill and against it, have, I think, had in their minds that society may evolve in this sense, and one or two noble Lords who have been against the Bill have ventured the opinion that, sooner or later, the time may come when it will be possible to abolish capital punishment. From those noble Lords I differ merely on the question of timing. To my mind, the time has already come. I do not think for a moment that if the capital sentence were abolished for murder the relatives of the victim would take vengeance into their own hands. It may happen in gang warfare, but the people who indulge in gang warfare seem to be self-styled outlaws in any event—certainly the present law appears to have no terror for them.
Another point of which much has been made is the accusation—I feel that it is a very unkind and unfair accusation—that abolitionists are all fond of murderers and have no sympathy at all with the victims of murderers. I doubt if anyone would entertain that opinion for a moment. My own view is rather more strongly to the contrary. I do not believe, on all the facts that have been quoted, that hanging is, in fact, a unique deterrent. That it is a deterrent, and a considerable one, there is not the slightest doubt; but I do not believe that it is unique. I do not believe that no other
766
punishment could be devised which would have as great a deterrent effect. I myself, feeling as strongly as I do how appalling these crimes of which one reads are, have no sympathy with the murderers at all. I find a line of poetry running through by head:
"Hanging is not good enough and flaying would be fair."
Certainly I am convinced that hanging is not good enough as an answer from society to this problem.
The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, quoted the book of Genesis earlier, and he omitted, I think, to make mention of the sentence passed upon the first murderer. It was that he should not be killed, but that he should bear the mark of his deed for the rest of his life, and a modern playwright has put that in appallingly strong words:
"Nowhere Cain, nowhere, escape the fear of what men fear in you,"
to which Cain, in the play, replies:
"The punishment is more than I can bear."
It is not correct to say that there is no punishment which could be devised that would be equally as great a deterrent as hanging. One noble Lord earlier mentioned that whereas, on the one hand, abolitionists are assailed with being too "soft" to murderers, on the other hand, they have also to face the argument that the imprisonment of a man for a very long time is a far more cruel sentence than death. So, assailed, in one breath, for being too lenient to murderers, and too harsh on them, in the next, it is difficult for the abolitionist to steer a course between the two.
I venture to think that a safe course between those two was pointed out to us yesterday by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter, who suggested that the sentence for murder should be as it were, a compound one: the first part of it a peculiarly severe and rigorous form of imprisonment, subsequently modified to a milder form of imprisonment. This seems to me to satisfy all the requirements. The harsh part would satisfy the retributive necessities of justice and provide the great deterrent, whereas the milder part, by giving the man hope throughout his suffering of the severer part, would present him from despairing and therefore make much more probable his reform.

767
Above all, my Lords, such an alternative to the death sentence would be one which we as a society have full moral authority to inflict; it would restore to the law of murder the dignity which, as so many speakers have said to-day and yesterday, has been lost to it by reason of the complications that hedge it about. And, lastly, that solution would do far more honour to the claim which we consistently make to be a civilised Christian community.
LORD TEVIOT: Before the noble Lord sits down I should just like to ask him this question. I do not want to embarrass him at all; I think he made a good speech and I congratulate him on it. Does he think his quotation from Genesis is stronger than mine:
"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed."
LORD CRAIGMYLE: I am not prepared to bandy texts with the noble Lord, but my own reading of that particular text is that it refers more to warfare than to individual murders.
4.10 p.m.
LORD TEYNHAM: My Lords, I am sure all noble Lords would like to congratulate the noble Lord who has just sat down on his maiden speech. We should all like to hear him often in this House. He was certainly quickly off the mark and wastes no time.
First, I would say how much I appreciated the speech of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack yesterday, a speech which set not only my own mind, but, I am sure, many other minds, at rest. I feel, however, that Her Majesty's Government have made a great mistake in failing to take a much firmer hand and direction when this Bill was first introduced into another place. Surely this is a matter that should be determined by the Government with the full force of its power rather than be left to the emotions of a few in another place. This Bill has been aptly described by a Member of another place, a late Minister of the Government, as "an hysterical and unwanted Bill" and I have little doubt that the ordinary man in the street feels the same way about it.
I wonder whether your Lordships realise that the minority in this country
768
in favour of this abolition has been supported by large funds, running into some five figures, provided by a certain person who has always carried on ceaseless propaganda against capital punishment. Just think of the jubilation among those criminals who would stop at nothing to gain their end if this Bill were to become law! Then, whatever these hardened criminals might do, they could only be classed with the ordinary "riff-raff" of crime, such as blackmailers and thieves, and would merely lose their liberty for a number of years. The dreadful fear of the last morning at the gallows would be no more.
We have heard a great deal about the murderer but what about the victims? That aspect has been touched on very slightly by the last speaker. Have we forgotten the terrible Haigh murders when old ladies were lured to their doom and their bodies decomposed in sulphuric acid? Have we forgotten the murderer who raped a series of young women and strangled and mutilated them at Bournemouth? I believe it is only right that we should remember these sordid details and not be swayed by emotion and sickly sentiment such as we have seen happen in another place.
What has happened is that the abolitionists have perhaps succeeded in establishing the principle that the suggested change is right unless it can be proved to be wrong. I suggest that it would be far better for those who wish to abolish capital punishment to show why the change in law would be beneficial; and I maintain that that has not been done in this debate or in another place. We have read in the Reports of another place lurid descriptions of hanging and the death cell, and even what a condemned man has said, and other irrelevant details. We have even been asked to see a film in which Miss Diana Dors stars—all this, I suppose, with a view to raising peoples' emotions against retention of capital punishment.
Like the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, I should have liked to see emotions raised in another direction—in the direction of the mangled body of the victim, perhaps that of a little child whom a murderer has set upon and done to death. Think of the distress in that child's family at the loss of such a precious little person. Are we not to have

769
our emotions stirred in that direction rather than towards the beastly, low type of individual who, for lust, has just carried out an abominable murder? Why should we maintain this inhuman brute at the expense of the taxpayer when we can hardly pay sufficient money to keep old age pensioners alive? There is only one place for these brutes—the death cell. And I suggest that we do not fall into the mistake of always considering this type of murderer to be insane, for it is not so. In some quarters it is said that such individuals have a governing passion and need the assistance of a psychiatrist. I suggest that it is not wise to risk the lives of women and children by allowing such murderers to stay alive and perhaps to escape from prison and carry out their nefarious business again. Not very long ago we had the Straffen case when a guilty man escaped and within a short time strangled another small child.
We must always legislate for the habitual criminal whose whole life has been spent in crime. If this Bill becomes law, we should find these brutes carrying weapons, not to protect themselves but to assist their escape, possibly by shooting a witness. There is no doubt that the problem of the police will be made vastly more difficult. Already we have gang warfare in our midst, and the police would have to be prepared to attack armed criminals. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, has said that crimes of violence have been decreasing, and he used that as an argument for doing away with capital punishment. I would remind the House that quite the contrary is the case. I have looked up the figures. In 1938 crimes of violence against the person amounted to 2,721, but in 1954 they were 7,506—hardly a reduction in numbers. There are very many old people who live alone, and it is our duty to protect them as much as possible from violence. Surely this is not a matter for the individual conscience of Members of your Lordships' House. I should say that it is a matter for the security and well-being of the public, and that should be our first consideration.
It has been argued that the death penalty is not a deterrent to murder. I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, mentioned one paragraph in the Report of the Commission. May I draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 59 of the Report, which reads:
770
"We think it is reasonable to suppose that the deterrent force of capital punishment operates not only by affecting the conscious thoughts of individuals tempted to commit murder, but also by building up in the community, over a long period of time, a deep feeling of peculiar abhorrence for the crime of murder. 'The fact that men are hung for murder is one great reason why murder is considered so dreadful a crime '."
Surely from this statement it is clear that the Royal Commission felt capital punishment was a deterrent.
I maintain that this Bill indicates that murder is no longer to be regarded as the most abhorrent of crimes, because the very special penalty will have been taken away and there will be other crimes carrying almost the same punishment as the convicted murderer will receive. I suggest that the case for the abolition of capital punishment has not been proved. I am sure it is quite wrong to attempt to bring about such a fundamental change in criminal law by means of a Private Member's Bill, and I hope your Lordships will refuse this Bill a Second Reading, not only because it is a Private Member's Bill but because you do not believe in the principle of the Bill.
4.18 p.m.
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, in his able speech this morning, said statistics can never be taken as a reliable guide. Will he agree with me that if he studies the figures something significant can be drawn from the statistics of murders known to the police in England and Scotland and referred to in Table 3, page 303, of the Royal Commission's Report? I believe that this matter was dealt with to a certain extent by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith, yesterday, and I have no wish to reiterate what he said. The point I wish to make is, I believe, pertinent to this question of deterrence. As the noble and learned Lord explained, criminal law is more lenient to the criminal in Scotland than in England, because diminished responsibility can reduce a charge of murder to one of culpable homicide. Why, then, in a country where it is easier to escape the hangman, are there fewer murders per million of the population than there are in England? Still more significant is the fact that in Scotland during the twenty years, 1929 to 1950, when there was the greatest number of reprieves—that includes the sixteen years, 1928 to 1944, when there were no

771
hangings at all in Scotland—there were far fewer murders than in the previous ten years. So I think that in Scotland the story is this: the more reprieves the fewer the murders. Surely there is no pointer there to show that hanging is a deterrent to murder. Rather I think it means that violence breeds violence and cruel punishment tends to produce cruelty in the people.
LORD SALTOUN: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but may not the question of which he speaks have something to do with the fact that there are fewer large cities in Scotland—fewer large centres of population?
THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I do not see what that has to do with it. What I am speaking of is the ratio: so many murders known to the police per million of the population. These figures impress me very much. Another fact which has impressed me is that three ex-Home Secretaries and the Chairman of the Royal Commission, whatever their views were before, have now become ardent abolitionists. They are men who were closely in contact with all this ugly business of criminals and the death penalty. To me the issue is clear. I see capital punishment, which allows no reform and no redemption for the criminal, as being quite futile, and merely a philosophy of vengeance and despair. I see hanging as an ignoble and primitive survival of the Middle Ages, and if we in the 20th century can find no other means of checking crime in this country than by liquidating the criminal, if we can show the world no higher example than this, then I do not think we can hold up our heads and call ourselves a great, enlightened and civilised nation which leads the world in progress.
The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, seems to think that abolitionists have no pity for the victims. Of course we pity the victims. But we know also to what extent heredity, upbringing and environment are responsible for the majority of crimes. Nearly all criminals are, in some form or another, abnormal. In any case, what right has any man to send another human being to eternity? It is not the judge, it is not the jury, it is not the Home Secretary who is responsible for this; it is you and I who have to make this decision. It has been said again and
772
again that this is no time to make an alteration in the law. It has been said in this House. It has been said by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice, and I think also by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. It has been said time and time again for a hundred years and more, ever since men and women sought to make some reform in the penal law, ever since little children seven, eight or nine years of age were hanged for pilfering a few shillings with which to buy a little bread to keep themselves alive. Every time any reform such as this has been brought before Parliament, it has been opposed, and every time it has been passed the Jeremiahs have been proved to be wrong.
When will be the time for altering the law? The lawyers seem to have it both ways. When crime increases they say: "It is too dangerous to make such an experiment." When crime decreases they say: "Look how well hanging is acting as a deterrent to murder. Let us keep things as they are." I intend to vote for this Bill. If hanging is a degrading death for the criminal, how infinitely much more it degrades the country which practises it and allows it to continue.
4.26 p.m.
THE EARL OF MANSFIELD: My Lords, it is unfortunate that the shortness of time at one's disposal prevents one from alluding to many of the important and interesting speeches we have heard. To-day almost my only allusion will be to the excellent speech made yesterday by the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack, who, in a few words, expressed my own opinions on this Bill in a way that I shall find it hard to imitate. With your Lordships' permission, I will quote a very few sentences from the noble and learned Viscount's speech. He said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 198 col. 581]:
"What is the position to be if capital punishment is abolished? A man going out to commit 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. … 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

773
is caught and convicted, a sufficient deterrent to prevent him from taking a revolver with him?"
I would not take one syllable from that quotation; I would add to it. It is not merely a question of a revolver; it is not merely a question of a man who is determined to resist arrest. There are many men who may commit a crime and suddenly find themselves confronted with the virtual certainty of being captured if they do not kill the person who has come upon them. In some cases such a person will recognise and know the murderer, and in such cases the murderer has only one way of escaping being brought to justice. I submit that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack is perfectly correct: in all too many instances there will be a strong temptation for the wrongdoer to risk a few years' extra imprisonment when there is, on the other side, the chance of complete escape.
And this does not apply, of course, only to crimes of violence connected with robbery of various sorts. The noble Lord, Lord Teynham, has referred to attacks upon women and young girls. It is true that, on occasion, a man who has made a criminal assault upon a girl, when he comes to his senses kills her. More often, he does not. I submit that there is only too grave reason to believe that murder following rape is likely to become more prevalent if this Bill becomes an Act. It is well known that such sexual crimes are, of all crimes, about the most difficult to detect, because there is so often no evidence pointing to the person who has committed them. His character is often apparently a good one and there is no reason to suspect him.
What of the police? It is no answer to say that we should arm more of our police. It has been our pride throughout the ages that we have the finest police force in the world and that they are seldom armed with anything more lethal than truncheons—if that. If this Bill goes through, our police will have to be armed. At the same time that will not greatly lessen the risk which they will run, because almost always the criminal will put in the first shot. It is inconceivable that, in any ordinary circumstances, it will be the policeman who fires first. The criminal will shoot first, and if his aim is accurate there will be no return shot from the police. Our police forces to-day are carrying out their
774
arduous duties with too few personnel, and this is not going to make their task easier. It will make their very existence when on duty much more perilous.
I listened with great sympathy to the speech of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, and were he or the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in a position to make sure that reasonable Amendments made in your Lordships' House would be accepted when they returned to another place, I should be tempted to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill. But have we any reason to suppose that such would be the case? Every attempt to compromise in another place was turned down. Even the small Amendment that was made on the Committee stage, that the death penalty should remain for convicted murderers who killed a warder, was rejected upon Report. For that reason I cannot feel sufficiently sanguine that any of the Amendments your Lordships might make will be accepted to permit of my following the advice of the most reverend Primate.
I agree with most of what he said, and I think that there are few in your Lordships' House who would not welcome a substantial modification in the present position. I would make this suggestion: that, as I hope and believe will be the case, should a Second Reading be refused to this Bill, then Her Majesty's Government should make an approach to those who have sponsored the Bill here and in another place and endeavour to get them in a more reasonable frame of mind, so that in a subsequent Session an agreed Bill can be introduced to which a great majority of your Lordships will be able to give their approval If this Bill goes through, Parliament as a whole will certainly be flouting the will of the people. If your Lordships reject this Bill, you will certainly be acting more in accordance with the will of the people than another place has done. The Bill has been pushed through, "steam-rollered" through, by very narrow majorities, and a Bill making an immense constitutional change—as this one certainly does—ought not to be inflicted on the country when the voting was almost level in another place and when the country is certainly not less than six to four against. It is for those reasons that I cannot support this Bill, however well-intentioned it may

775
be. It is in effect the "Murderers' charter", and as such has nothing to commend it to your Lordships.
4.33 p.m.
LORD MATHERS: My Lords, I am glad to have an opportunity of adding to the size of the Scottish patch in the debate. I would begin by referring to what fell from the lips of the noble Lord, Lord Layton, towards the end of his speech, when he talked about the possibility of a clash between the two Houses of Parliament. I am jealous of the honour of your Lordships' House, though I say it as a very young Member, and I think that it would be more in keeping with the dignity of this House to give this Bill a Second Reading and deal with it in a sensible way, rather than reject it and find that, later on, the working of the Parliament Act would compel our acceptance of a measure of this kind. Progress will continue, however much people may stand in its way, and there is no likelihood of the position which we have reached vis-à-vis the death penalty receding. I believe that your Lordships would be wise to give a Second Reading to the Bill to-day and allow it to be dealt with in a proper manner.
I feel proud at having the opportunity of taking part in such an eventful debate in your Lordships' House. I have a simple faith, and I have been moved to feel pleased that I am not a theologian and that simple faith will serve me well, even if I am not able to reason things as they have been reasoned by theologians. I was pleased that the noble and learned Viscount who sits on the Woolsack brought us yesterday up against the issue of whether capital punishment was to be abolished or retained. Although I consider his speech unprogressive, it was made with great force, and had I been undecided I might have been persuaded by it.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Tweedsmuir, in the concluding speech yesterday evening, put up a powerful case, from his point of view, of what might happen in the Commonwealth countries if we passed this Bill. But I do not accept his assumptions. What he thought would result is by no means inevitable or certain. I think that the other countries of the Commonwealth will take their own line,—as they are entitled to do—about
776
whether they will follow our lead or not. I would answer his contention by asking: what is to happen here at home if this Bill is rejected after many months of the suspension of the death penalty? Do we immediately revert to hanging? That is a question which the Government spokesman must answer before the end of this debate. I was glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, made reference to the Scottish doctrine of diminished responsibility. That is now firmly established in practice in Scotland. Apart from anything else, I think it would be worth while to give this Bill a Second Reading in order to legislate for the southern part of the island, if legislation be needed, to bring Scottish practice into wider use.
One point which the opponents of the Bill have sought to make against us who support it is that we are more concerned about the murderer than we are about his victim. That is an entirely wrong assumption. We agree that it is wrong to take human life, and assert that it is no service to the sorrowing relatives of a murdered person to take another life in retribution. That savours of vengeance, which is not for us to inflict, and I question its value as a deterrent. I was glad indeed that the most reverend Primate reminded us of the words:
"Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord."
If we pass this Bill, it will still be necessary for us to protect the citizens of this country by taking steps to prevent a homicidal maniac from further opportunity to kill by whatever period of detention is necessary—it might even be to the end of his life. That is a heavy task for prison officers, but I am convinced that it is less repulsive than inflicting the death penalty, which is one of their duties while hanging is retained.
To me the question put forward by this Bill is one of principle, upon which there is not possibility of compromise. Presented with an opportunity of voting, which I look upon as an obligation, I declare my total opposition to the imposition of the death penalty. As a matter of conscientious belief I find myself with no alternative. Having accepted the free gift purchased for me on Calvary, I wish every one of my fellow sinners to have the same opportunity, and feel that I must not take

777
the risk of causing that opportunity to be lost by assenting to the cutting short of an unredeemed life. God alone can give life; he alone should have the responsibility of taking that life away. As I see it, man cannot command the gift of life, and he should not arrogate to himself the function of God by taking it away.
I am ready to pay tribute to the extreme care taken by judges and juries and by the police under the present arrangements in murder trials. But in seeking to arrive at a fair verdict in accordance with human law, they are almost entirely limited in their considerations to the tragic result with which they are dealing. They have not complete knowledge in order properly to assess the crime and its causes; there are probably psychological reasons in the background of which they are quite unaware. I propose to read to your Lordships words that express my feeling much better than I could hope to do, from one whom I describe as a great Scottish philospher, Robert Burns. He wrote:
"Who made the heart, tis He alone
Decidedly can try us;
He knows each chord, its various tone,
Each spring, its various bias.
Then at the balance let's be mute,
We never can adjust it.
What's done we partly may compute,
But know not what's resisted."
With such thoughts in my mind, I am anxious to see that some approach is made along the line of getting rid of the barbarity of the death sentence. Passing this Bill into law would be a step in that direction, and we might then hope to go forward to the point of obeying the Sixth Commandment. That may seem a long way ahead. It would involve the abolition of war and all its trappings. But that should hold no terrors for us. To reach that desirable goal we must travel. Let us do so in faith and hope, making this Bill another stepping stone on the road of progress.
4.43 p.m.
LORD GIFFORD: My Lords, I have listened to the many speeches which have been made both yesterday and to-day and they have certainly strengthened my determination to vote against this Bill. Before the debate began, I must admit that I was rather impressed by one or two arguments in favour of abolition which seemed to me to be cogent. I
778
should like to tell your Lordships in a few sentences what those arguments are, and why I now feel that they have little substance. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, have taken us back 100 to 150 years when the crime of stealing any object valued up to 5s. was punishable by death, and they have assumed that, because the Judiciary at that time were against any relaxation of the death penalty, and have since been proved to be wrong, those arguments are applicable to-day. To my mind, that is a fallacy.
Perhaps I might, without irreverence, use a proverb to illustrate this fact. At that time was coined in our language a proverb that:
"You might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb."
That has lasted throughout the ages. What is the position with regard to that proverb to-day? A man can be hanged only for "a sheep," and therefore he has the temptation to save his neck by committing only the lesser crime. But if this Bill is passed, surely that proverb will return with as great force as it ever had, except that the words may be:
"You might as well go inside for a sheep as a lamb."
I think that refutes that argument. Many speakers have quoted the statistics given by the Royal Commission, and I think it has been generally accepted that they are inconclusive. However, there was one statistic quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, yesterday which is incontrovertible—namely, that at present this country has the lowest homicide rate in the world.
With regard to deterrents, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, used words which impressed me: "Fear of death by disgrace." I think those words are a tremendous deterrent. I was particularly glad to hear the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chief Justice, tell us that he was in favour of some amendment of the law of murder; and, with the greatest respect, I felt that the arguments put forward by the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of Canterbury, were in favour of some amendment of the law of murder and not arguments in regard to the Bill now before the House. I now only want to quote words that have

779
already been quoted, which were used by the late Lord du Parcq
"If, in the future, one innocent man is murdered as the result of the removal of the deterrent of the death penalty, this House will have a heavy responsibility to bear."
For those reasons, I propose to vote against this Bill.
4.48 p.m.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, after listening with, I hope, as little intermission as possible to the marathon debate that has taken place in your Lordships' House yesterday and to-day, it seems to me that your Lordships' judgment on this Bill, when the time comes for it, as it shortly will, will be decided on the relative importance you attach to three different sources of information. If your Lordships decide that the view of Her Majesty's Government, as expressed on the first day by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, and no doubt later on by the noble Marquess who leads the House, and the views of Her Majesty's Judges, as expressed yesterday by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey, and this afternoon by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, are more important in their bearing on this issue than the evidence and the conclusions of the Royal Commission, then undoubtedly you will be against the Second Reading of this Bill. If, on the other hand, your Lordships regard the evidence submitted to the Royal Commission, and the conclusions they came to, as being more significant than the views of Her Majesty's Government and Her Majesty's Judges, then I think there is little doubt that you will be in favour of giving the Bill a Second Reading.
I, for my part, have no hesitation in backing the Royal Commission. Their four years of intensive study of this problem of capital punishment was, to my mind, far more comprehensive and thorough than the personal experience of any individual connected with the administration of justice in this country, however long and however varied that experience could possibly be. I am convinced that anyone who studies the Report of the Commission with an open mind—and, of course, it is always difficult to have an open mind—will arrive at the same conclusion as that of the Chairman, Sir Ernest Gowers. This conclusion about
780
capital punishment will have been reached by dispassionate consideration of all the facts given in the testimony, and not from any a priori or sentimental belief in the iniquity of the death penalty. Noble Lords, of course, are perfectly entitled to entertain such a belief, and we all respect those who do. But I do not think that beliefs of that kind are entertained by the average Member of your Lordships' House. Therefore, I think judgment will be swayed by other considerations.
It is hardly necessary for me to remind the House that the views of Her Majesty's Government are based largely on the advice of the Home Office, and the Home Office, in turn, base their advice largely on the opinions of the police and the prison service. I have only one comment, because many comments have already been made, on the views expressed by Her Majesty's Judges; that is, that it was of the greatest interest and encouragement for me to hear the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avon-holm, say yesterday that, in his view, on a matter of this kind—a matter of penal reform—the opinion of a learned judge was of no more value than that of any lay Member of your Lordships' House.
Of course, the Royal Commission took fully into account the views of the police, the views of the prison service, and the views of Her Majesty's Judges, several of whom gave evidence before the Commission and recorded their conviction that the removal of the death penalty for murder would result in an increase in the number of murders committed. But the Commission's own conclusion, on all the available evidence—which included this, among other items of evidence—directly contradicted that of all these persons engaged in the administration of justice. The Commission took the view, after studying the relevant figures, that if the death penalty were removed or reintroduced its removal would not lead to an increase, and its reintroduction to a decrease, in the number of murders committed; so that the murder rate was not affected by the presence or absence of the death penalty. The view, therefore, that death is the greatest of all deterrents—even, in the commonly used phrase, "the unique deterrent"—is therefore a dogma, held no doubt most sincerely by its proponents, but flatly contradicted by the facts of experience. If, therefore,

781
capital punishment is not the unique deterrent and can be replaced as a deterrent by other forms of punishment, such as a life sentence, then surely there can be no justification for continuing what I think we all regard as being a barbaric and undesirable practice, the practice of hanging.
The argument has been advanced that there is no satisfactory alternative punishment. A very long spell of prison will lead, it is maintained, to a depreciation in the personality of the prisoner, who will become unfit for ordinary society. But those European countries that have abolished the death penalty have found no difficulty about the alternative. The two factors that enable a prisoner not only to survive a long term of imprisonment, but, in many cases, to become later a useful and honest citizen, are the length of the sentence and the conditions under which he serves his sentence. A sentence of life imprisonment, as your Lordships have on several occasions been reminded, is not, in practice, confinement for more than a period of eight, or perhaps twelve, years' imprisonment. This is not so long a time that a person serving a life sentence becomes incapable of adapting himself afterwards to normal life. I think that, clearly, such a period of imprisonment is the minimum that could be imposed on anyone who had committed the horrible crime of murder. Moreover, the improvements in our prison system that have taken place in the last twenty years, with their emphasis on remedial treatment, make it possible nowadays for prisoners to develop habits of industry, and, indeed, responsibility, that will serve them later on in the outside world.
There are, of course, the murderers who are mentally abnormal but not certifiable, who must obviously be detained so long as their abnormality is a danger to the public. For these cases, the Royal Commission recommended treatment in a special institution, presumably something between a mental hospital and a prison. I believe that this advice has been accepted by Her Majesty's Government, and that it is the intention that such an institution should be built. I hope, as several noble Lords, and I think at least one right reverend Prelate, have said in the course of the debate, that reasons of economy will not prevent the erection of this most desirable new institution for the treatment of criminals.
782
Therefore, the alternative to the death penalty is really quite simple—for the mentally normal, life imprisonment, tempered by the usual liberation after a term of years; for psychopaths, detention in an institution until their abnormality is cured, or, indeed, for life—because clearly they cannot be released; they are a menace to society, and they cannot be released if no cure is effected.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: Will the noble Earl allow me to interrupt him? The fact is that that institution is not there, but that this Bill, if passed, will be on the Statute Book in two or three weeks. What is the procedure for correlating the cause with the effect?
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I do not profess to be an expert, but I am told by those who have studied these penal matters that it might be possible, for the time being, until a proper institution is built and started, to use a wing of Broad-moor for these persons.
LORD HORE-BELISHA: It might be.
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I have wearied your Lordships with views which I hope will be accepted because they are sincerely held, even if they have been repetitive. I should like now to make one comment which I think has not been made before. As I have had some little experience of colonial administration, perhaps I may be permitted to answer several noble Lords who, both to-day and yesterday, expressed alarm about the influence of abolition in this country upon the Colonies. I think there has been a good deal of misapprehension about this. Some noble Lords seemed to imagine, and possibly still imagine, that abolition here would inevitably result in abolition in our overseas territories. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor will remember that he asked the House to consider the effect of abolition on Cyprus, Malaya, and Kenya. I believe the answer is quite simple. Most of the Colonies already have their own Legislatures, and the laws they make are quite different from ours. We do not interfere in their domestic affairs, otherwise they would not be able to learn how to govern themselves; and it is a principle of our colonial policy which is shared by all Parties that the Colonies are being encouraged on the road to self-government.

783
To give your Lordships a simple example, the Colonies do not have income tax at 8s. 6d. in the £ merely because that is the law in this country. Indeed, I cannot think at the moment of any Colony that pays income tax at this rate. What, in fact, would happen if the death penalty were removed in this country? What would happen in the Colonies is, surely, that they would retain, or not retain, the death penalty, in the light of their own local conditions and requirements. Of course Cyprus is a special case. She does not have a Legislature, but so far as she is concerned I should be surprised if the noble and learned Viscount disagreed with my view. I have no doubt that the Governor, with the full authority of Her Majesty's Government, will continue to impose the death penalty in respect of all the offences for which it is at present imposed, so long as he feels that it is needed for the restoration of law and order.
My Lords, I should like, in conclusion, to make one rather general observation. There are only three countries left in Western Europe—which, after all, is still the main repository of Christian civilisation—the United Kingdom, France and Spain, that still retain the death penalty for murder. I have always taken the view, which I think may be shared by many other noble Lords, that the British character is more Scandinavian than Latin; and I think this holds good in spite of our predominantly urban way of life. I cannot believe that we are, on the whole, less self-disciplined or more prone to violence than our Scandinavian neighbours, and I venture to think that this may be just as forcible an explanation of the low murder rate, to which frequent reference has been made, in the United Kingdom as the explanation that it is accounted for by the existence of the death penalty.
Of course, the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor took the view that this low rate was due to the deterrent effect of the death penalty. Here, however—though, of course, he may well be right—he differs from the Royal Commission. The Report of the Royal Commission, commenting on the figures for the United Kingdom, expressly pointed out—and here I should like to quote their words
784
"that this does not prove that capital punishment has a deterrent effect."
If, as I think, there is no valid reason to suppose that the British character is such that the removal of the death penalty will release its pent-up violence, let us join the most civilised countries in Europe at the present time by putting an end to a practice that has not been justified by experience and is certainly not approved by conscience.
5.3 p.m.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I think it would be fair to say (though I have only fourteen years' experience of this House) never have I known a more illuminating or more cordial, and, if I may say so, more fraternal discussion. I have been very much afraid particularly of the Bishops, for a very long time; but after the speeches that have been made in this free debate and the hard hitting and the absence of the rather oily complimentation which is a scum on the debates in ordinary meetings, I feel that this is really a House of Parliament, and it is to a House of Parliament that I propose to address my remarks.
Now, my Lords, if you listen to the debate it really comes down to this despite all the learned speeches that have been made. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York put his finger on the spot when he said, "It is a hunch". You do not like murder; you hate a man who kills somebody, and you want to get after him and give him as good as he gave. That is really the hard core of the case against this Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, was here for a short time and he repeated, with trimmings, what we have heard before—how horrible murders are, and what a lot of experience he has of their repulsive details. We know all that. We all agree about that. What we want to know is: how we are going to stop it? The noble and learned Lord made no suggestion whatever in that direction.
There was added a patriotic touch to this matter in some of the speeches from the Back Benches which I thoroughly enjoyed. One of the noble Lords said, "Live the British way of life. After all, Tyburn tree and Jack Ketch are part of our tradition. Remember this: it may be true that we were hanging little girls and little boys in 1810 and 1811, but we were beating Napoleon at the same time.

785
They were the great days of the Empire. Do stick to the flag and to Tyburn Tree. After all, as the debate is between Billing-ton and Freud, can you hesitate? Billington was born and bred a Britisher; Freud was a foreigner—and not only a foreigner but a neutral foreigner. The answer, surely, in a choice of that kind is obvious". That is the impression that I get of the broad line of debate.
There are one or two points that I want to mention before I come to the only reason for which I intervene, and that is the constitutional position in which we find ourselves. The first is what I consider a most sinister element in the debate, and that was the suggestion that we should lower our moral standards to the moral standards that are imposed in the Colonies. That, I think, is perfectly dreadful. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, dealt, with all his knowledge, with the legal aspect of the matter. Of course, people have the right to do this and that; but the argument was, "If you stop hanging whites, it will be more difficult for us to go on hanging blacks"; and, putting that in the broadest possible way, it is a sinister and a dreadful argument. I will not go into reasons, which certainly would be controversial, but in no Colony has "the rope" been more industriously applied than in Kenya. If you are going to say that you must not abolish capital punishment here because of the effect in Kenya and Cyprus, then you are getting on very difficult ground which deserves debate and certainly has divided opinion.
Now, as to the general look of the thing (because I shall not be very long), there are several points that I noticed as a lay observer. One is that Scotland has cone splendidly out of this debate. I listened to the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm—because I have "written off" the judges completely—with immense pleasure. When I found it supported by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, and by my noble friend Lord Mathers, I felt very proud that I had twice represented a Scottish constituency in the House of Parliament. The second point I would mention concerns the Bishops. The last time we asked Lord Goddard what he thought of Ellen-borough, he never said that Ellenborough was a brute—which he was. He never said that he lived in an age of brutality—which he did. What the noble and
786
learned Lord said was, "Well, after all, Ellenborough erred, if he erred, in good company. All the Bishops voted for him." That cannot be said any longer. The thing that has signified the victory of this Bill is the support of the Bishops.
There is only one thing I would add. I am not a member of the Church of England, I am a Congregationalist; but I do regret the attack on Christian Action. If it had not been for Christian Action and people of the like kind, it is doubtful whether we should ever have had a debate of this quality, and I doubt whether we should have had the unanimity between the Bishops that we find to-day.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: The noble Lord was really quoting from the right reverend Prelate the Lore Bishop of Chichester, who said that all the Bishops were unanimous on this subject. He had no authority to say that whatsoever.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: Does the right reverend Prelate mean that?
THE LORD BISHOP OF ROCHESTER: That is as it seems to me. Nobody seems to have changed his mind on this subject. I have heard nothing from the Bishops or anyone else in this House that makes me change my mind.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I apologise; I was going too far. I was expressing the great choice that was made with the authentic voice, as I understood; but it is not for me to judge. The right reverend Prelate, of course, is quite right to assert his opinion; it is the great privilege of any Member of this House to do so. I apologise, and I except him from anything I said about the Bishops' Bench. But I do say that if your Lordships are able to say that the two or three Bishops and the two Archbishops who supported this Bill are right, then our case is won.
The third thing I want to say is that I think the judges have come out of the debate very badly. Indeed, I am waiting to hear what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker—
LORD COHEN: May I put in another protest, rather on the lines of that of the right reverend Prelate? The noble Viscount has heard only two judges. I have endeavoured to shorten the debate by not speaking, and perhaps I might

787
intervene to say that I find myself in complete agreement with the right reverend Prelate.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: I am most obliged to the noble Lord. It is better than ever. We are getting more and more allies every moment, and his authority to the Bill, I think, is a glorious victory to the abolitionists.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I say that if the noble Viscount goes on talking much longer I shall vote the other way.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: My Lords, I have never had a moment of glory like this in my life, that what I say should influence the vote of the Metropolitan. May it ever be so! I thank him for the compliment. But, broadly speaking, the argument I am advancing, which is a serious argument dealing with the drift of opinion and the solidification of opinion in different quarters, I think really corresponds with the facts, with the exceptions that have been stated. A point I want to put to your Lordships in connection with the free vote is this. There has been some attempt to pretend that a free vote in another place has not the authority of a Government vote. I want to examine that, because I was in another place for a very long time and many House of Commons friends are here to-day. What do we say on this issue? Do Members of the House of Lords who have never been in another place know what the control of the Whips is like? Here it is light, but there, even when I entered the House in 1906, the control of the Whips was serious. When Members became paid, it became far more serious, and when the membership of another place became a profession, and an honoured profession, it became vital. If a man opposes the Whips in another place, he runs the gamut; he is "sunk", he is out, he is economically ruined. Do your Lordships think that that is a power that we should support by saying it is the only thing we recognise?
Surely your Lordships remember the famous passage in Burke's address to the burgesses of Bristol, in which he said: "I am sent there to do my duty. I am no delegate". Surely if we believe in the glory of Parliament, we ought to support the man who has the courage
788
to stand up for what he believes to be true, even though the majority of his Party may not be with him. I do not want to use our famous phrase "pay tribute", but I should like to express my heartfelt admiration of that lady—I do not know her name—
LORD PAKENHAM: Mrs. Emmet.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: —who went and faced a hostile Conservative conference. Fifty-four Conservatives said, "This is a matter of conscience and we will support it." That is why we find this Bill here to-day, and those who profess to believe in Parliamentary democracy should accept it. That is the vital point. If you say that the machinery provided by an Act of Parliament for making the will of another place prevail cannot prevail when you are acting on conscience, then you are dealing a serious blow to the vitality of Parliamentary institutions. Finally, I would refer to a point that was touched upon in the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. I believe he is—I may be wrong; I have been wrong two or three times in this debate—the Chairman of the Independent Peers.
A NOBLE LORD: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: He speaks for the Independent Peers: is that right?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: It is so extremely difficult to know what to do or say. I understand he is an independent man. Is that right?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear!
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: He got up and said: "Here am I, an independent man"—I fear he is not—"Tell me what to do." That was the gist of his speech. He said "I do not know what to do, being independent, until the noble Marquess has told me what to do." That is a very sad case. I hope the noble Marquess will do something to put him out of his loyal pains.
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY): He said he would be glad of my advice. I am always delighted to give my advice to anybody, even to the noble Viscount opposite.
VISCOUNT STANSGATE: The sunshine of cordiality seems to be spreading to every quarter of the House. I hope it will lead to some good results, though I am not so certain that it will. The real point is that, when another place in 1948 passes the Bill and in 1956 passes the Bill two or three times with decisive votes, are we to say that because it is a Private Member's Bill we will not take it? It is a very important constitutional point. If you say "The Parliament Act does not apply to Bills that are passed without the Whips", then you are constructing a form of steel-hound Government control which is not compatible with a free Parliament. That being so, you will have to vote.
Now we come to the next point. Most people in this House and very many in the country—I do not agree with them—think that on this basis something should be done. The most reverend Primate said so too. I was afraid—and that was the only reason I ventured to intervene in the debate—that the doctrine was going to be given that the Lord Chancellor or the Leader of the House in some way could tell us whether it was constitutionally possible to amend this Bill in this House. Neither of them has any such power. In another place the matter would be decided by the Chair. In the House of Lords the matter is decided by the House, and there is no other authority. It would be very dangerous indeed if we were to let pass without protest the contention that in the Front Bench or even on the Woolsack there resides this authority. I believe that within the limits of this Bill you could make Amendments. I would not support them, but I believe it could be done. The Title of the Bill would have to be changed, but it was twice changed, I am informed, in its passage through another place. If your Lordships want to do these wonderful things which everyone has suddenly thought of and then gone away, it is possible to do them in this House.
What is the alternative? The alternative is that we should "ride our high horse", stand up straight and say, "This is the House of Lords; and we will vote as our consciences direct," and "chuck it out". What happens then? In a few months' time it is again washed up on the shore, and it is washed up again
790
in the same form, ipsissima verba, as it left your Lordships amidst universal contempt. What will you do then? You will have to swallow it and you will then be in the ridiculous position of having said, "We have a great vision of law reform but we will do nothing about it. We will not produce anything; we will not suggest anything; we will only kill the one thing that has been suggested. Having killed it, we shall then find that under the Parliament Act we have to pass it". That is the situation that faces us to-day. It was to draw attention to that that I rose to my feet. I wished to point out to those of your Lordships who may not be abolitionists—I am an abolitionist and of course I shall vote for the Bill—what are the inevitable constitutional consequences of rejection of this Bill this afternoon.
5.19 p.m.
LORD McCORQUODALE OF NEWTON: My Lords, in this brilliant debate I have great pleasure in being able to follow the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate. If I may say so without offence, he shows that he has lost none of the wit, vigour and mischievousness which we used to know well in another place. I am going to be very brief, but there are two points I should like to put before the House which have influenced me more than any others in making up my mind on this measure. The general opinion in the House seems to be that we should vote as our consciences dictate. The view which is advanced in some Sunday papers, and appears to have been advanced by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, was that from a constitutional point of view we should not oppose the opinions of another place. I regard that as a most unworthy argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, there is no public mandate for the abolition of the death penalty and no Party put it forward in their Election manifesto.
I have heard no claim that the majority of the public support it. On the contrary, many speakers in another place have admitted that they were supporting abolition contrary to the wishes of their constituents. Apparently, if you act according to the wishes of your constituents you are acting democratically, but if you act contrary to their wishes you are acting most democratically and courageously.

791
But such close study as I have been able to give to this question of public opinion appears to show beyond doubt that between 60 and 90 per cent. of the people of this country—that is, according to all the polls, official and unofficial, and all the inquiries made, by newspapers and others—are against the abolition of the death penalty. I believe, and have always been brought up to believe, that in matters such as this the general consensus of opinion in this wise old country of ours is usually right.
I should like just to refer to New Zealand. As the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, said yesterday, between 1935 and 1950 the death penalty was abolished in New Zealand. It was restored in 1950. During the fifteen years in which it was not in force the average number of murders was nine. The noble Earl went on to say that since it was restored in 1950 the average has been three. But what is interesting, apart from that, is, I think, that the New Zealanders have now decided that at the next Election, at the same time as the citizens go in to register their vote, they will hold a poll or referendum on this specific subject, so that a decision may be come to. I think that is a point well worth consideration.
I must admit that my sympathies in this matter are all with those who may be murdered, and with their relatives and dependants, rather than with those who commit the murders. But in my judgment the crux of the matter is this—and it seems to me to be a simple one. Surely it is our duty as legislators so to order the affairs of the country that the people entrusted to our care are protected to every possible extent from murderous attack. I believe that that is our first duty. If, by our action, we do anything which may make the murder of innocent citizens more probable, we are failing in our duty. The question then is this: is the removal of the deterrent of the death penalty likely to do this? Surely that is the main question that we have to ask ourselves.
To the best of my ability I have endeavoured to study the Report of the Royal Commission, the examples from abroad, the figures given, and the great mass of literature which has been sent to all in your Lordships' House before this debate. I have honestly tried to bring myself to believe that the abolitionists'
792
claim is true, and that the death penalty is no deterrent. But, in all honesty, such reason as I could bring to bear compels me to the belief—indeed, I would say the certainty—that the ultimate possibility of the death penalty must act as a unique deterrent. The knowledge that there is a skilled police force to detect the murderer, and then the possibility of the death penalty, surely must be deterrence in a unique degree—deterrence such as no other punishment can bring forward. I am fortified, of course, by the advice which successive Home Secretaries have given while holding the responsibility of their office, the advice of that most weighty speech of the Lord Chancellor, and what I thought was a most admirable speech, with every word of which I agreed, from the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I, too, should like to quote what Lord Clitheroe quoted yesterday, the words of Lord Wright on this matter in the debate in 1948. He said:
"The sudden ending of human life by the process of law is the most terrifying thing that can be devised."
In face of this, I cannot bring myself to believe other than that the death penalty is the ultimate deterrent, and is therefore more likely than any other to protect our citizens against murderous attack.
My Lords, over the week-end a rather remarkable think has happened. The right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, referred yesterday to other heinous crimes, such as the selling of drugs to young persons. I have a quotation from last week-end's issue of that admirable American factual paper, Time, and I have no doubt that your Lordships heard on the radio this morning that the Congress of the United States have unanimously sent forward to the President for his approval an amendment to the criminal law which, in the words of Time
"will permit juries to direct a death sentence for dopesters"—
or those who sell dope—
"convicted of selling heroin to minors under the age of eighteen."
In America this is regarded as a most serious social evil, and the American Congress are unanimous in bringing forward an extension of the death penalty. Why? Surely it is because they believe that that is the only deterrent which can deal with this evil, in which ordinary

793
prison sentences have failed in action. That this should have happened over the week-end is, I think, a most remarkable coincidence.
I should much like to see the present law in regard to murder amended on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, but unless we can persuade ourselves that no one is deterred from murder by the fear of hanging, surely we must keep available for use the ultimate weapon to protect the lives of those entrusted to us. Remembering this, and also remembering that at present we have the lowest homicidal rate in the world, and believing, as I have said, that the death penalty is and must be the unique deterrent, I feel that for the protection of the people I must vote against this Bill.
5.29 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, has spoken to us with deep feeling, and I have no doubt that he found it difficult to reach the conclusion that he has just described to us. I need hardly say—I know this applies to everybody on this side—that we respect the conscience of those who disagree with us, just as we know that our own conscience is respected in this matter. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCorquodale of Newton, that this is a matter of conscience. I am not concerned with what the Press say is the duty of the House of Lords; I think we are all capable of forming our own opinion. The Government, I think, most properly and, it may be said, generously, made it plain yesterday that they are not going to call on any noble Lord to support their attitude for reasons of Party loyalty.
It is a little difficult, I appreciate, for someone as highly respected as the noble Marquess to find that his advice is taken lightly: it would be asking too much of him. Obviously, if he indicates his own attitude many will be inclined to follow him. But this is a question of conscience, and I think the whole House treats it as such. I myself speak—though at half past five after a day and a half of debate I should not be forgiven if I spoke at length—as an active abolitionist. I am not going to argue the question of capital punishment in other countries at other times. I have been an active abolitionist
794
in relation to our country in the immediate future. I have been associated with various campaigns for abolition, including the Christian Action campaign. While I greatly admire (it would take me too long to say how much I admire at this time) the speech of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York, I regretted—perhaps, speaking as the patron of Christian Action I might be allowed to regret—his reference to Canon Collins. I personally, and I am sure others, are proud to be associated with that indomitable priest.
I have had some connection with this problem. We have all to state our credentials, and I do so briefly. I have been concerned in the last few years with a prolonged inquiry into the causes of crime, an inquiry that has led me into many prisons. I think the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, may be "one up" on me, but only one; and, apart from him, I have been inside more prisons in the last few years than any Member of the House. I have made a number of acquaintances and a few friends among the prison and ex-prison population. I know one young man, in my opinion unjustly convicted of murder, who is now serving a life sentence. Therefore when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Oaksey (his position in this country requires no flattery from me, and I hope he will not mind my speaking a little sharply) assumes, as he did yesterday, that those who are supporting abolition are those who are more remote from the criminal world than noble Lords like himself, I venture to think he is very much mistaken.
Be that as it may, I want to address these few remarks, in particular, to those noble Lords who have still not made up their minds. Obviously, noble Lords of vast experience—at least three ex-Home Secretaries, two judges, and indeed a third, because Lord Cohen has indicated his view—have given us their guidance and told us what their experience has brought them to believe. Great deference, no doubt, will be paid to their opinion, but I am thinking particularly of those noble Lords who are trying to weigh up this matter for themselves, who have never perhaps assumed, any more than Sir Ernest Gowers had assumed when he became Chairman of the Royal Commission, a definite line. May I be forgiven

795
for trying to wrestle with their consciences.
It seems to me that noble Lords in that position are perplexed by three points in particular. I will not try to deal with the colonial question, which has been so well handled by my noble friend Lord Listowel, who knows much more about it than I do; and I will not deal with the constitutional aspects, which were brilliantly dealt with by my noble friend Lord Stansgate, and no doubt will be authoritatively dealt with at the end by the noble Lord, Lord Silkin. But, taking just the merits of hanging as a punishment in this country, I think, as I say, that some noble Lords are still unsettled with regard to three points.
First of all, what is to happen to the prisoner if he is not executed? We have had a brief but very careful explanation of the point this morning by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who speaks with vast authority about it; and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has explained it more fully this afternoon. I am not going to deal with the question in detail, but I do venture to say, with tremendous emphasis, that, with British prisons, as they are, or asylums as they are, or intermediate institutions in this country, I cannot believe there is anything in the argument that those who have the interests of a murderer at heart would rather see him hanged than enjoy a life imprisonment; whether by life imprisonment is meant five years, ten years or the whole life. I have seen stricken families facing the situation of execution and afterwards the prospect of life sentence. I cannot imagine, if any one of us found himself in that position, and had a child or someone he was fond of, or an employee, faced with that situation where there was a choice between destroying him, so far as this world is concerned, and giving him the chance of life imprisonment, that he would rather see that person, in his own interest, destroyed by hanging.
Let us come to the question of deterrence. One might think this matter had been gone over thoroughly enough, and yet I know there are noble Lords who are still uncertain how the balance lies. The noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, quoted passages from the Report of the Royal Commission, as he was fully entitled to do—and, heaven knows! if
796
Lord Waverley has no right to speak on this subject, who has? The Lord Chancellor and other speakers also quoted passages. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, though he did not carry me with him (that is perhaps due to old political conflicts, which never interfere with personal friendship) said that it was accepted as a fact that the Report is inconclusive. There we reach an argument about words. I cannot, I am bound to say (and I hope Lord Oaksey will not mind my referring to him again for a moment) accept the contempt that appears to be thrown from some quarters on statisticians as such.
Lord Oaksey says that, on the one hand, we have the judges. But that is not altogether true: the judges seem very agreeably divided; so far the majority indicate approval of our view. We have on the one hand, he said, the judges, the legal profession and those engaged in the prison service; and against them those who rely on statistics—that is treated as something disreputable—and those who rely upon emotion and upon their political views. It rather reminds one of Burke's statement that
"the age of chivalry has gone. That of sophisters, economists, and calculators, has succeeded; and the glory of Europe is extinguished for ever."
I cannot accept this antithesis with the same contempt falling on the second bracket. I am bound to say, in passing, that to claim that noble Lords who favour abolition, or the extensionists—and I think we have had at least one extensionist in this debate—do so mainly because of their political views, seems to be quite falsified by recent history. It was pointed out by a Conservative Member of Parliament, at the end of the debate in the other place, that what has made the difference between the majority in favour of hanging in the last Parliament and the majority against it in this is the large number of young Conservatives who have come in, who have studied the matter and have come down against hanging. I salute them. If there are any medals to be worn they should be worn by them. Certainly their political views cannot have helped them towards this conclusion, but in fact they have decided on the evidence against the continuance of hanging here.

797
Let us come back to the statistics. The noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, said the undoubted fact is that statistics are inconclusive. My Lords, I, and others present, I think, have at different times conducted, and helped others to conduct, various social inquiries; and all noble Lords are agreed that at the end of an inquiry of that kind no columns of statistics are ever conclusive. 'There is never a mathematical proof, never a scientific proof. You can never verify a course of action recommended in advance. Therefore the proof will always lack coercive force. It will always be possible for an honest and intelligent man to say, "I do not accept the evidence". But if we take this collection of evidence here in the Report—not just the observations made by the members of the Commission in the introduction—and if we read right through the relevant Appendix, I cannot believe that anybody with an unbiased mind will feel that it is very inconclusive.
The facts point strongly in one way, and that points strongly to the conclusion that the abolition of capital punishment is not a material factor in increasing crime. It points still more clearly to the conclusion that abolition has not led the criminal classes to carry arms more than previously. The Royal Commission themselves say in paragraph 61:
"Moreover we received no evidence that the abolition of capital punishment in other countries had in fact led to the consequences apprehended by our witnesses in this country."
Surely if they received no evidence, it was not for want to looking for it but because there was no evidence. That kind of evidence did not exist; and however much deference we pay to arguments however brilliantly presented, there is the fact, as most of us must agree, that in other countries none of these dire consequences have followed.
Then it may be said: "But what about Britain? Britain is different." If we are always going to say that Britain is different, then no inquiry can ever throw light on the course to be followed. We are told on the one hand that in Belgium the police are always armed so that there are no comparisons. Then we are told that Norway, where the police are not armed, is a sparsely populated country, so we cannot judge by the conduct of Norwegians. I can only say that the distinguished visitors from Scandinavian
798
countries who have been here recently do not at all understand this argument about arming the police and capital punishment. They see no connection between the two things. One very learned man said he had been talking to Danish judges and asked about armed robbers. They laughed and said, "Oh, we had that argument years ago. It simply does not happen."That is the experience in other countries. Does the House not prefer experience to calculation and surmise, even by uplifted minds?
Finally we have Sir Ernest Gowers, who started as a mild retentionist and moved to a clear Abolitionist position. If anybody wants the bearing of the evidence which he collected stated succinctly they can find it in the last page or two of his book, where on page 137 he tells us:
"There remains the argument that without the uniquely deterrent value of capital punishment more murders would be committed. As we have seen, such evidence as there is goes to show that the abolition of capital punishment does not in fact have this result."
That is the view of Sir Ernest Gowers, Chairman of the Royal Commission, who did four years' work on the subject and must know it better than anybody in this country or even in the world. For that and other reasons, during or as a result of his inquiries, he has moved from a retentionist to an abolitionist position.
My Lords, I approach my last point. I am aware that when I sit down there will be a number of noble Lords who, after hearing what I have said, will still hang back and wonder whether they can vote for the Bill or can honestly refrain from voting against it. I feel that at the back of the minds of many such noble Lords there is the problem of retribution. I am not criticising that. There is the thought that a man who commits a deliberate murder, perhaps a very disgusting murder, has earned the death penalty. We have had theological expositions on the theory of retribution which have interested us greatly. I could not help observing that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury rejected retribution, while the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York accepted it.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: My Lords, the noble Lord is perhaps misled by a slight difference in the use

799
of words. Both my fellow Primate and myself were upholding punishment as condemnatory action by the State, to be meted out to persons who have deserved it. The most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury was repudiating vindictive punishment, and I, of course, heartily concur with him in that repudiation.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am much indebted to the most reverend Primate, and I am sure that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury would have said the same thing, no doubt in slightly different terminology.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: No, my Lords, in the same terminology.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I was not trying to drive a wedge between their Lordships; no sabotage from a Roman quarter! I was in fact going on to try to offer much the same explanation of the apparent divergence now presented to us. I feel that this element of retribution cannot be rejected from punishment. It can be presented differently, and I am fully aware that, with the development of modern psychology in which I and so many others are deeply interested. Lord Stansgate is perhaps a little hard on your Lordships' attitude to Freud. I have no reason to think that everyone here is against Freud. I am sure many noble Lords are very much interested in the development of psychology which indicates the handicaps under which so many people labour from birth and throughout their lives, but I stand absolutely with those speakers who have insisted on the freedom of the will of the individual and who therefore insist that as long as a man is sane we in this life must assume that he commits an offence freely. None of us can judge as God can judge; but if we are to remain a civilised State at all we must establish some connection between punishment and guilt. I accept that. Here in the last resort each must surely speak for himself, and I am bound to say that when we try and fit that idea of retribution (I am not speaking now of deterrence: I hope I have already dealt with that aspect) to what is just treatment of the murderer I cannot adopt anything except the abolitionist position.
800
The idea of forgiveness is not unique to Christianity, but surely we are entitled to regard it as a distinct characteristic of our religion, and it seems to me that on this point we must each interpret the Gospel in our own way. I offer your Lordships only one quotation:
"If thy brother trespass against thee rebuke him and if he repent, forgive him.
And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying I repent, thou shalt forgive him."
Can the most reverend Primates, can any of us, say that one can use that language without the grossest hypocrisy to a man one is sending to the gallows?
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, that is a very serious question which I would answer equally seriously. I could.
LORD PAKENHAM: I am grateful to the most reverend Primate. We can only offer our opinions; the most reverend Primate's opinion is far more important than mine, though I would say not more strongly held.
I am afraid that we abolitionists on this side of the House become irritated by only one charge: any suggestion that we pity the murderer and forget his victim. We believe that two wrongs do not make a right and that we can protect no one by hanging anyone at all in this country. We are therefore left with the problem of what is Christian justice towards the murderer. While this British society of ours may, in some ways, have slipped back in recent years, I hope that at least we have progressed in our readiness to recognise our common nature with all humanity, our concern for even the number who, by human standards, are most despised and abhorred. We are told that:
"…when thou makest a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou shalt be blessed."
I believe that if we pass this Bill we in this House may be blessed far beyond our personal deserts. I implore noble Lords to give it a chance to go foward.
5.50 p.m.
VISCOUNT SAMUEL: My Lords, I had not intended to take part in this debate. I did not ask for my name to be included in the list of speakers yesterday because I have no clear-cut conclusion to offer to your Lordships. I feel very fully the doubts and difficulties such as

801
were described by the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I cannot accept the advice of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to throw out this Bill on Second Reading with no alternative policy to suggest. I cannot, on the other hand, accept the plea of Lord Templewood, to pass it with a view to its becoming law as it stands. And I am more unfortunate than the Archbishop because, while he found a third alternative acceptable, and would like the Bill to go to Committee (which, indeed, was the advice of my noble friend Lord Rea) in order that it should be amended then and reconsidered in its amended form or Third Reading, I cannot, for reasons which I propose to state briefly to your Lordships, accept that plan either.
Therefore, being in the somewhat ignominious position of being compelled to abstain from voting—a position I detest: it has no glory; it is as a rule, a feeble position—I thought of preserving a somewhat ignominious silence. But several of my noble friends yesterday who felt very much the same doubts (and there may be many in this House even at this moment who are still not happy with any one of the three alternatives which are offered) pressed me to bring before your Lordships another and different solution of this problem which I presented to the Royal Commission when invited by them, as an ex-Home Secretary, to give evidence. It is the purpose of my speech to-day to do that.
I must first say why it is that I cannot accept any of the other three courses. I am convinced that the present law and practice of this country in the matter of capital punishment needs a very large alteration. There has undoubtedly been a swing of public opinion towards the abolitionists in recent months, and in your Lordships' House there has been a far greater measure of influential support for abolition than when we debated the subject in 1948. And I believe that that change in public opinion which has occurred recently is due largely to two, or perhaps three, cases—capital cases—where a reprieve was refused. I am not saying anything about the merits or otherwise of that refusal, but a reprieve was refused, and executions took place which were very unwelcome to an exceedingly large section of people in this country.
802
I think that this Bill, coming before your Lordships' House after protracted debate in the House of Commons, and representing undoubtedly the views of a very large section of our fellow citizens, ought not to he merely negatived without some other attempt being made to meet these feelings which I have just described and which may be quite legitimately held. Therefore, I cannot vote for the mere rejection of this Bill, subject, no doubt, to the possibility of legislation on some minor points such as those which were mentioned by the Lord Chief Justice. On the other hand, I have never been an abolitionist. I have always taken a view which is not that of the total abolitionist, who regards it as an absolute first principle of the moral law that we must never take the life of a fellow human being. That is what I regard as the fallacy of the pacifist and, sometimes, of the religious fundamentalist.
Having been in close touch with this subject most of my life (it is fifty years since I first went to the Home Office as Under-Secretary), I dc believe that capital punishment may be a deterrent, and a very effective one in the minds of those who belong to the class from which murderers often come, and also in the minds of those who belong to other classes—for this is not by any means a class question. I have studied the Report of the Royal Commission. I am not shaken in the view that is held by almost all those who are most closely in touch with this matter. The highly technical statistics which have been presented deal with numbers which are often so small, conditions that are so different, factors involved that are so many, that I do not think we can draw from them amt decisive conclusion. And, after all, with all its faults, our British law results in a much better showing and a much lower murder rate than in other countries. And I think that we should, on the whole, desire to rely upon our own experience, to handle our own conditions and our own problems.
I believe also that the element of retribution comes in, and I agree with the views that have been expressed from the Bishops' Bench: that retribution should play a part. When I consider criminals like Crippen, for example, or Haigh, who murdered one woman after

803
another in order to obtain their property, and then disposed of their bodies in vats of acid; or when I think of the French criminal, Landru, or when I think of a man like the American who, a few months ago, insured his mother's life for a large sum and then planted a bomb in a suitcase in the aeroplane in which she was travelling,. with the result that not only she but all the crew and passengers were killed, I feel that it is not enough to allow such people after a term—certainly a long term—in prison (and prisons have been reformed and are to be reformed more, so as to make them more humane) to re-emerge among other people as ordinary citizens. And as for those bestial persons who kidnap little girls, and first outrage them and then strangle them, it is not enough to say that we should send them to prison in order that they may have an opportunity to reform and repent. For these reasons, I cannot rank myself as an abolitionist.
Crime is a hideous thing. It is treated far too lightly. I deplore the present tendency to treat crime as a joke, as a parlour game, and for "crime clubs" to plan elaborate murders, making a jest of murder. Advertisements appear in the Press: "If you want to read a really funny murder, read So-and-so." All that attitude of mind spoils and poisons the social atmosphere. Crime is a hideous thing. It is a dread disease of the body politic. Certainly let us try to educate it out, but if education fails, then the duty of any Government is to do what they can to stamp it out.
Then there is the question that has been raised by several noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord Milverton and Lord Tweedsmuir, of the British Colonial Empire. Those who are absolute abolitionists and regard it as an inviolable principle of moral law would not be able to agree that this Parliament, in so far as it is responsible for the fortunes of those territories, should refrain from applying the same rule of morality to the population in its charge that we apply to our own people. That would present very great difficulties. Others not holding the same strength of principle might be able to say that they would have to consult local opinion on the ground of self-determination and take their view, but it is difficult to see what
804
the position of a Labour Government might be which abolished the death penalty on the principle of morality and applied it straight away to conditions at levels of civilisation so entirely different from our own.
Nor do I feel inclined to agree that this Bill should be passed because it has been passed by another place and if we do not pass it now it will be passed again under the Parliament Act. It happens that I am the only survivor in your Lordships' House of the Cabinet that passed the Parliament Act of 1911. At that time we strenuously defended our position and denied the accusation that was brought against us, that we were trying to establish a single-Chamber Constitution. We said: Not at all. We recognised that there should be a Second Chamber, and we provided adequate powers suited to the conditions for that Second Chamber. And this seems to me to be precisely the kind of case that was contemplated, when we passed that Act, as properly coming before your Lordships' House.
The Bill we are now discussing has gone through another place without being in any way authorised—and no one claims that it is authorised—by the mandate of the people. At the last General Election it was never heard of. Moreover, it was passed by a vote in another place, not on the responsibility of the Government of the day but by the votes of Members as individuals; and, as has already been mentioned in this debate, several of them have not only asserted but taken pride in the fact that they voted for the Bill although they knew that a majority of their own constituents were against it. That being so, surely it is the duty of the Second Chamber to give a further opportunity to the people to consider what their views should be.
The most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, said that he thought we ought to give this Bill a Second Reading and amend it in Committee; and then, if it was thrown out by another place, pass it again and stand by our Amendments. I am afraid that the most reverend Primate is not bearing in mind the terms of the Parliament Act. Our standing by it would have no effect whatsoever. If the Bill were introduced a second time and we amended it, it

805
would still go through without our Amendments and without our consent. So that would not be a feasible policy.
The new fact that has emerged since we discussed this matter in 1948 i3 that soon after that debate the Royal Commission were appointed, and since then we have been awaiting their Report. Much has been made of the fact that the Chairman of that Commission, who presided over that long and arduous and most valuable inquiry into the facts of the case, a man of renowned and sober judgment, had begun the inquiry inclined against abolition and ended as an abolitionist. He has written an admirable: little booklet, called A Life for a Life?, which is by far the best statement that I have seen of the abolitionist case. Nevertheless, I feel some doubt about his own judgment, because the main substantive recommendation of the Commission, passed unanimously, was that the problem should be solved by giving powers to juries to determine not merely the fact of guilt or innocence but also whether or not the sentence should he one of death. To me that seems to be far the worst of the proposals that have been made, and in his book Sir Ernest Gowers says:
"It found almost no friends and is clearly dead."
That having been the case with regard to his principal recommendation, I think we must look very carefully at the position on its merits.
The alternative has been suggested that the judges should be given power to decide. That proposal has been strongly opposed by all the judges, for very good reasons, and has now been universally abandoned. I come, therefore, to the third alternative—which is, that we should endeavour to provide some statutory definition of murders and divide them into two classes. That is the proposal of the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. For that reason, he said, he proposed to vote for the Bill. The Commission inquired most carefully into that proposal. They gave a great deal of study to the possibility of devising a form of words that would cover the murders to which those who believe in some measure of capital punishment wish to see the capital sentence applied and those to which they do not. Personally I have never been in favour of that idea, because I have been
806
convinced that it is not possible to devise any such form; and I cannot vote for this Bill and send it to a Committee in order that that should be done, when I feel quite convinced that, when the Committee came to study the wording of such a formula, they would be unable to find it. That was the judgment of the Gowers Commission.
In his book Sir Ernest said:
"To devise a statutory definition of the more heinous sorts of murder and to restrict the death penalty to those who commit these—this is what the Government of 1948 tried to do and failed."
We debated this in your Lordships' House at that time. He went on to say about his Commission:
"The object of our search is chimerical and must be abandoned."
It is not a question of technical procedure in the Committee stage, whether we can do it in conformity with the framework of the Bill passed on Second Reading; to my mind, it is a question of the possibility of adopting a form of words which would carry out that purpose. I think it was Rousseau who said:
"Definitions would be very good things if only we did not have to use words to make them with"
I agree, therefore, with the verdict of the Commission on that head.
But at this point I differ from them. Sir Ernest Gower says:
"The conclusion to our mind is inescapable: that the real question is now whether capital punishment should be abolished or retained."
He held that as the only alternative to a statutory definition. There I entirely disagree. I think it is untrue to say that if it cannot be done by Statute it cannot be done at all. It is being done all the time. There is such a discrimination; there is that differentiation; and it is done under the Royal prerogative by the Home Secretary. Every week or every month, there come before him these cases and he decides either for capital punishment or against capital punishment. Therefore that discrimination is now being exercised.
Sir Ernest Gowers, says:
"No one questions that it would be outrageous to let the law take its course in all cases."
The most reverend Primate seemed to think it a wrong thing that there should be any doubt or uncertainty as to whether

807
the murderer should be executed or not. Certainty is an excellent thing, and everyone is always praising it in the application of the criminal law—certainty of detection, certainty of arrest, certainty of punishment. But I do not know that you need necessarily know in advance precisely what is going to happen to a particular murderer in order to enable him to make up his mind whether he shall commit his murder or not. It may be a wholesome thing to keep the doubt existing in the criminal classes. One execution might be enough to deter ten possible murderers.
We have in this country the inestimable advantage—no student of history can praise it too highly—of living under an unwritten Constitution, which most of these other countries do not enjoy. We have not only the Statutory Law but we have also the Common Law, and we have the Prerogative of the Crown. The Crown has reserve powers which frequently in the course of our constitutional history have been brought into operation, sometimes in ways that were unforeseen, and have got us out of difficulties. There have been controversies about your Lordships' House, when your Lordships' House has behaved very naughtily, and it has been necessary to threaten the creation of Peers. That was a reserve right of the Crown which was actually employed in the reign of Queen Anne, and nearly had to be employed at the time of the Great Reform Bill and the passing of the Parliament Act. But that is not part of the Statute Law or of the Constitution. Then, again, when it was necessary to constitute a supreme court of law for the whole Empire, it was done by utilising the ancient Privy Council, who were invited to form their Judicial Committee.
The suggestion that I venture to submit to your Lordships—and it is the purpose of my speech and the reason why I have ventured to intervene in this crowded debate—is that in our difficulty we should deliberately turn to the Prerogative of the Crown and extend its application in the form of reprieves to capital cases. The processes of law are dealt with by the courts of law, who do justice. But the Crown, the Sovereign, personifying the nation, includes mercy as well as justice; and the Home Secretary, as the agent of
808
the Crown, can bear in mind factors in any individual case which are not legal evidence, which relate to the personality of the criminal and to all the circumstances of the case but which cannot be defined in any Statute, if only he is free to exercise his own judgment. It has been well said that a miscarriage of mercy is as much to be avoided as a miscarriage of justice. I do not think the Home Secretary is to be criticised for those particular refusals of reprieves a few months ago that I have mentioned, because he is not free to exercise his own judgment on the whole merits of the case; he has to find some ground for interference with the course of law. It is to that point to which I would ask your Lordships to direct your attention. Is it not desirable that that restriction should be removed?
The most reverend Primate thought it wrong, and the Lord Chief Justice was, to some extent, inclined to agree with him, that there should be this discretion in the hands of an Executive officer, the Home Secretary, and that it was an interference with the course of law. I do not see that at all. Why should we not say that the law depends upon evidence, but that there are other things besides evidence which are necessary? That is, indeed, done, because where there is what is called a scintilla of doubt, then at once there is a reprieve. I know that my own rule was: if there is a doubt, there is no doubt—there must be reprieve. But even when the guilt is clear, there are circumstances which ought to be taken into account and which are not of a legal nature.
Therefore, to my mind, we should take such steps as may be necessary—and by "we" I mean the nation as a whole—to ensure that the discretion of the Home Secretary should be unfettered and that he should be able to report to the Crown what the combined influences of justice and mercy should require in a particular case. I believe that that would reduce the number of executions, which already is extremely small. Nearly half the death sentences are commuted, and that would reduce them still further, while still the power would be kept in reserve as a deterrent and would occasionally be used.
After all, who is it who is really responsible when an execution takes place: when that dread procedure is gone through of which we have read and of which we have been told—the condemned

809
cell; the execution chamber; the pinioning of the prisoner; the pulling of the lever; a living human being and, a moment after, his dead body? Who is responsible for it? It is not the jury who have tried him, because their responsibility is only to discover the facts of guilt or innocence. It is not the judge, because once the murder has been ascertained and the sentence comes to be pronounced, he has no alternative. Murder is the only crime in which the penalty is fixed beforehand, and there is a single sentence to meet a multiplicity of different cases. The most reverend Primate spoke of the dread solemnity of the passing of sentence when it is known that in a large number of cases it will not be carried into effect. But that point was met by the judges themselves as soon as the reprieves became general after the action taken in the House of Commons, and the form of sentence now includes the words, "unless Her Majesty should otherwise direct." It may be that the form of pronouncing sentence may have to be still further modified.
It is sometimes said that you are putting upon the Home Secretary too heavy a burden; that no one should be asked to act by himself individually in cases like this, and still more so if you widen largely the scope of his jurisdiction. I suggested in my evidence to the Royal Commission that it might well be thought advisable that he should be provided with a panel of consultants, and that is now the law all over the Colonial Empire. I have had experience of both systems, as Home Secretary, where one had sole responsibility, and for five years in Palestine under the British Mandate as High Commissioner, where, as in all the Colonies at the present time, the Governor or High Commissioner has to consult his Executive Council on every death sentence—three or four members, whoever they may be—who can give their opinions, which, however, he is not bound to accept. Only where there is a difference of opinion has he to communicate the facts to the Colonial Office. Having worked under both, of the two I think I prefer the latter. There was never any difficulty; we were always unanimous, and it was a great relief to the mind of the High Commissioner or the Minister responsible to have his opinion confirmed or criticised by others. If this is practicable—and I suggest it is—then we should have to consider only the
810
question of procedure of how it could be brought into effect, It need not be done by a Bill such as this.
Let me say in passing—I forgot to mention it earlier—that those who attach so much importance to the experience of foreign countries should always hear in mind that in hardly my of them did they begin with a Bill such as this. In almost every case they allowed capital punishment to fall into desuetude, and we should be following the practice of many countries whose actions have been discussed in the Commission's Report if we did not proceed with this Bill but left the matter to be dealt with by executive action with the approval of Parliament. Parliament must be consulted, and I have in mind the possibility that, after suitable discussion in the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the Government of the day, it they favoured a measure of this sort could, through the Prime Minister, advise the Crown that the Crown should be ready to exercise the Prerogative of pardon, not only as now, but over a wider range of cases. If that is practicable, then the nation would not be divided into two as it is to-day, with millions of conscientious-minded people feeling deeply their responsibility for the executions that take place when they disapprove of them, while millions of others equally conscientiously would deplore the entire disappearance of this dread penalty in view of the shocking cases which from time to time occur.
The worst that could happen would be that this Parliament should take one line and the next Parliament should take another. A few outrageous cases might affect public opinion the other way. There might be a political assassination, as has been mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. We have been fortunate in this country not to have had political assassinations. Suppose some great public figure were to be murdered in this country: what should be done with the murderer? Should it be nothing but the same sort of punishment as is meted to a persistent offender? In France where the capital punishment was suspended for years under two Presidents, the country reacted strongly against it, and under the pressure of Parliament it had to be restored. In New Zealand, as has been mentioned, capital punishment has been abolished and restored, and the same thing has happened in nine of the

811
States of the American Union. We do not want our policy here in Britain to be other than well-considered and stable. We do not want it to fluctuate now one way and now another. Your Lordships' discussions will indeed have been useful if they help statesmanship to arrive at some measure of common agreement in the nation and thereby avoid the division of the whole people into two parts on an issue on which so many feel, and rightly feel, so deeply.
6.27 p.m.
LORD TUCKER: My Lords, it is through no choice of mine that I find myself speaking at this late stage of your Lordships' deliberations, and speaking amongst such "heavy artillery" just at the moment of time when your Lordships are all anxious to bring these deliberations to a close. I shall be very brief because, with one slight reservation, I heartily and completely agree with everything that has been said to your Lordships by the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel. I am not sure that I quite followed the precise procedure which he recommended with regard to the death penalty, and, for myself, I should have thought that the Home Secretary at the present moment had sufficient power and scope, and that there was sufficient flexibility in the exercise of the Prerogative which—I speak for myself—I should never regard as an overruling of anything that had been done in passing sentence in the courts. But those are minor matters, and if it is practicable to devise some form of procedure, or some alternative in the form of sentence, which will leave the final conclusion to the Home Secretary, provided that the sentence takes the form of "death unless," and not the other way about, I, for myself, would see no grave objection to that course.
I have been wiped off the slate in advance by the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, but some of my colleagues have apparently reinstated the Law Lords, to a certain extent, with the Benches on my right. That is a good example of the fact that when someone says something with which you agree, you say that his opinion is weighty; but when you do not agree with what he says you wipe him off the slate. On every occasion that I have had to address your Lordships' House on any matter—though
812
the occasions have been few—I have been haunted by the ghosts of Lord Eldon and Lord Ellenborough, who are always dragged up, and their misdeeds paraded, in order to discount anything that any judge ever says. I had hoped that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, the Lord Chief Justice, had laid the ghosts of those venerable judges. But not a bit—the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, has resurrected them and brought them into play again.
I do not think that any Law Lord has ever presumed to address your Lordships' House with a view to suggesting that his words carry any greater weight than the words of any other person, provided that that other person has had some experience of the subject matter with which he is dealing. Some greater weight may have been attributed by some of the Law Lord's supporters to what was said, but I do not think that any Law Lord himself has ever ventured to suggest that he should lay down the law to your Lordships, or lecture your Lordships on what decision you should come to, in this matter or any other.
But, my Lords, I think there are only some four or five Members of your Lordships' House, putting aside those who have had court-martial experience, who have ever had the solemn task of trying a murderer and the grave task of passing sentence of death in certain cases. Surely those who, over a period of years, have had to perform that task are entitled at any rate to express their views to your Lordships on these matters. And be it borne in mind that most judges do not come to that task afresh. For myself, I had spent twenty-two years at the Bar, a considerable proportion of which was work at assizes, appearing for prisoners and appearing against prisoners of all kinds. In the course of that experience, one comes in touch with the police of all grades, with prison doctors, with prison chaplains, with probation officers and, to a certain extent, sometimes, with the criminals themselves. One cannot help getting an impression as a result of an experience of that kind.
My own impression was, and remains, that the death penalty is a unique deterrent in the case of a hardened criminal and in the case of the young man who is about to set out on a life of crime.

813
Those are my views, and that is the experience upon which they are based. My experience of eight years in the King's Bench Division, as it then was, in no way modified the views on that subject that I had when I went on to the Bench. But that is dealing with what I may call the short-term deterrent effect. I regard what I call the long-term effect as far more important, and it is in that respect that I find myself fortified by the views on this subject which were expressed by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury, when he said that there must be some witness before the public, some witness of the enormity of this crime; and that for this purpose the death penalty in some shape or form must be retained.
One speaker from these Benches said something about the Sixth Commandment. A great number of the generation which is growing up have never heard of the Commandments; and if they have, they regard them as meaningless and without authority. Even those who go to church do not often hear the Ten Commandments read these days. In that state of affairs, something has to be done, in my opinion, to focus public opinion on the enormity of this offence; and I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel: that it is quite wrong to let the potential murderer know beforehand the particular categories of murder he can commit without forfeiting his life and those which will imperil his life. The whole deterrent effect of the penalty as it is to-day is the fact that there is always the possibility that a man who commits murder may hang. And that, to my mine, is a most salutary deterrent. I agree that in these days the extreme penalty should be enacted only in a lesser number of cases as time goes on and as the pulse of public opinion can be felt and the reaction on crime can be estimated.
So much with regard to what I call the long-term deterrent. What is it suggested should be put in its place? We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, exactly what "life imprisonment" means. What does it mean? It means that in a very few exceptional cases it may extend for the whole life of the man. In the other cases the murderers are either going to be treated
814
as psychopaths, in some sort of institution, or they are going to be put in some prison and treated in exactly the same way as reprieved murderers are dealt with.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: No: I made a distinction. I made a distinction between those who are reprieved at present and those who would have been executed.
LORD TUCKER: I quite appreciated that distinction, but the point that I have in mind is that the public think that the proposal is to put in place of the death sentence a real life sentence. To my mind, to call this an administrative application of the sentence is—I do not want to use offensive language—almost a sham. It is not going to be a life sentence at all. It would be much better and more honest to put in the Bill: "In place of the death penalty the sentence shall be such imprisonment as, in the discretion of the Home Secretary, he may think fit." That would be a more honest way, in my view, of dealing with this matter. The public are misled if they think that there is really being substituted for the death penalty a real life sentence. If it were a real life sentence it would be cruel, brutal and destructive of the man's moral fibre, and it would not be tolerated for long by the very people who support this measure. They are genuine and real humanitarians, and they would be the first to see that very few people, if any, were ever allowed to serve a life sentence; and I should admire them for taking that course.
My Lords, I have detained you too long. I will conclude by saying only this. I entirely agree that one cannot define murderers in a satisfactory way. You cannot put them into categories. If you attempt to do so you will be making the administration of the law extremely difficult. You will be making it more clumsy than it is at present—with all due respect to the most reverend Primate. And, furthermore, I do not understand the proposals which are contained in these suggested' Amendments. Who is to decide in which category the man comes? Is it the jury, or is it the judge, after verdict? Criminal procedure provides that every fact in dispute must, and can only, be decided by the jury. Therefore I presume that the proposal under these Amendments must be to create a new kind of crime, a crime in the first degree,

815
or something of that kind, of which the jury will either have to find the prisoner "Guilty" or "Not guilty". And that will only introduce still further difficulties and complications in the administration of the law. It is difficult enough, in all conscience, for the judge adequately to direct the jury on issues of insanity, provocation, self-defence and onus of proof. If, superimposed upon that, they must have pointed out to them all the various categories within one or other of which the man may come before he can be found guilty of the major penalty—
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I just correct the noble and learned Lord? What I suggested was that there were certain categories, easy to define, for which the death penalty would remain. Whether a particular man came within that category or not would be a pure matter of evidence. Thus, if the category was that any person who, in committing a crime, took a weapon with him, then the evidence would be whether or no he took a weapon. If he did, then he would be sentenced to the death penalty. So would the person who murdered a policeman on duty. That would be a pure matter of evidence. If the victim was a policeman, and he was murdered, then the murderer would suffer the death penalty. I do not see any difficulty. It is a pure matter of evidence, the categories being completely defined.
LORD TUCKER: Yes, but who is to decide it? It must be the jury. A judge cannot decide a question of fact.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: But that is what the Court is there to try—whether (a) the accused man murdered the person; (b) in murdering him he carried arms; or (c) the person murdered was a policeman. That is a pure matter of evidence.
LORD TUCKER: Very well. I understand what the proposal is, and it remains as I thought it did, an issue for the jury. In many cases, after all, the issue is a fairly simple one if it is merely whether he was carrying a weapon, but I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, that it is impossible to define those categories satisfactorily. If such a change were made it would add difficulty to the task of the jury and would make
816
the administration of the law clumsy and difficult. If there is to be any change in the law on vital matters of this kind, surely this is not the way to do it. If the Government desire to make some radical alteration of the law of this kind they must introduce some measure, after having taken thought on all these matters.
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear! Hear!
LORD TUCKER: For these reasons, I think and submit to your Lordships that there should be no question whatever but that your Lordships should show by your vote that you reject this Bill and refuse to give it a Second Reading. I would only conclude with this one observation. References have been made to Cyprus, Malaya and Kenya. What sort of sense will there be in the law of this country if one of the Governors of those territories is murdered in this country and his murderer is not hanged, whereas if he is murdered in Cyprus the murderer will be hanged?
6.42 p.m.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, I shall seek your Lordships' indulgence for only two or three minutes, and then only to ask the noble Marquess who leads this House if he can give us some help. I have listened right through the debate and it seems to me that not only would it be undesirable that there should be a conflict between this House and the other place but it would be undesirable, if it can be avoided, that the large number of Members of this House who broadly want the same thing should vote in opposite directions. There is very clear evidence from what has been said that it is very likely to happen.
I am sure there is a broad measure of agreement here, although, of course, it does not include every noble Lord. Most of us regard judicial hanging as a horrible thing. We believe that it reduces the majesty of the law, for it is invested not with majesty but with squalor—and squalor of the most horrible kind. We believe that it has a very bad effect on certain people, and that it gives rise to a most unhealthy and morbid excitement which has a most undesirable effect upon unstable people who are likely in future to become criminals. It invests the whole business of murder and execution with a hideous, livid light of exhibitionism which we can see quite clearly exploited, for

817
commercial reasons, by films, journals, books and papers. That that element exists is beyond doubt, and it is impossible to measure the harm which it does.
In most of us, the process of trial for murder—the "black cap", the condemnation, the condemned cell and the rest of it—induces in us a personal sense of guilt and shame, for we cannot escape the personal responsibility for what is done. In other people, in many cases, it actually induces a most undesirable state of mind. It induces, though not in the most horrible cases of murder, pity for the criminal. Sometimes the spectacle of the whole weight and apparatus of the State being turned in pursuit of some person who has committed a murder in circumstances less than horrible evokes in so many people—and who of us can say that it has never evoked it in us?—a sense of pity for that man or woman. Nor can we be quite sure, if we are honest with ourselves, that more mistakes are not made than are admitted. For, after a man has been hanged, there is a pressure not to reveal any new evidence which may throw doubt upon the justice of that execution—a pressure that that evidence ought not to come to light. I do not say for one moment that any responsible statesman or official would suppress such evidence; but since it can do no good, and since it must awaken unspeakable thoughts, there is a very strong pressure against its coming to light. I do not feel satisfied that we know there have never been, in living memory, any mistakes, and so I think it right to say that most of us would like, if we dared, to get rid of this thing.
Now, dare we? I do not believe that the death penalty is such a deterrent as some noble Lords have made out. I think it is far too uncertain that murder will be followed by a particular penalty, and the fact that there is latent in everybody this sense of guilt or reluctance is shown by the fact that, as the years go by, juries, lawyers, judges, psychiatrists and statesmen try to find every reason they can for not carrying out the sentence. In fact in more than half the cases of murder the sentence which has been passed is not carried out. That would be tolerable if the public and the criminal classes knew the reasons, but I must confess that to me, and I am sure to most laymen, the workings of the Macna2hten Rules—the considerations which lead to
818
a decision not to hang a person, the principles upon which the Home Secretary advises the exercise of the Royal Prerogative—are not known. I doubt whether they are known to many Members of this House. They are certainly not known to the criminals in a form which would deter them from taking arms on a criminal expedition.
Therefore, it seems to me that this deterrent fails. On the other hand, many of us—I think I speak for others on both sides of the House—are worried about alternatives. That the present state of affairs is unsatisfactory would be the opinion of most people. What is the alternative? It seems to: me that the noble Marquess the Leader of the House can do a real service, net only to this House but to the country as a whole and to the future of our Parliamentary institutions, if he can possibly say that, if this Bill is given a Second Reading by this House, the Government will mobilise all their resources, legal and otherwise, to revise the whole system of the law with regard to murder in order that we can, so far as possible, obtain a unanimous opinion behind the right solution.
6.50 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, it falls to me, as Leader of the House, to say a few words in the closing stages of what has been to me, and, I am sure, to others, a deeply moving and, as I think we shall agree, in the fullest sense of the word an historic debate. I do not suppose that there is any noble Lord who has attended through these last two days who will forget the experience for a very long time. I assure your Lordships that I will be as brief as I can, for I know very well that the House is really ready to come to a decision. But there are certain things which I think I must say, certain things on which I have been asked by various speakers to express a view.
The question with which we have been concerned—whether capital punishment, the death penalty, or whatever you would call it, is to be abolished or retained in this country—is one of very peculiar delicacy, in view of the deep feelings which it arouses among noble Lords on both sides of the House. It is just because it does raise such great questions of principle that it has been decided by the Government that it shall be the subject

819
of a free vote. Of course, the Government have their own view, and I think it is right that they should have their own view. That view was stated to your Lordships yesterday by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. That was the position in another place and that is the position here.
A free vote means exactly what it says—it means a vote given according to the individual conscience of the individual Member of the House. I certainly do not intend to advise your Lordships to-day not to vote the same way as the House of Commons if that is your convinced view. Equally, I certainly do not intend to advise you in a contrary sense. My intention in these few closing words is not so much to give advice as to say how I personally would propose to vote, if there is to be a Division, and to explain the balance of considerations that has led me to my own conclusion. That is the course which, with your Lordships' permission, I would propose to take.
I do not pretend, any more than any others of your Lordships, that I have found it easy to come to a decision on the extremely complicated issues that we have heard debated during these last two days. There are those who feel that all the arguments are on whichever side they may conscientiously support—and I think they are extremely fortunate. On one side there are those who feel that murder is so atrocious a crime that all murderers, save in exceptional circumstances, should be hanged, as not being fit to live; and there are others who have so passionate a feeling for the sanctity of human life that in their minds it outweighs all other considerations and makes them feel that the sacrifice of life by the community in the defence of the community can never, in any circumstances, be justified. We have heard contributions from some of those noble Lords to-day.
I, personally, do not share either of those two more extreme views. For me, as for the most reverend Primate, the Archbishop of York, it is a balance of considerations. I cannot feel, as do some retentionists, that murder is so terrible a crime that, for that reason alone, murderers are not fit to live. No doubt murder is a crime in a class of its
820
own. Equally, no doubt, there are gradations of murder, and, moreover, as has been said by several noble Lords—I think the noble Lord, Lord Wilmot of Selmeston, said it just now—the taking of life by the community is a terrible decision. I think we should all agree with that. Therefore I should not feel justified in supporting capital punishment merely on the grounds that the murderer was not fit to live. Taken in isolation, that seems to me to require an assumption by us of far too heavy a responsibility.
On the other hand, I cannot, like some, feel so passionately about the sanctity of human life as to be driven to the conclusion that the sacrifice of life is never justified. Like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel. I believe there are circumstances in which the community may have to assume even that dreadful responsibility. After all, we do not think it wrong to kill our fellow men in war if we believe that to be necessary for the preservation of international law and order. How then is it necessarily morally wrong, as some noble Lords seem to think, to adopt the same view in our own national life with regard to the commission of the most hideous of all human crimes? I would have thought that a man who had taken the life of another human being could not, by any stretch of reason, claim immunity for his own, nor can anyone else claim it for him. I am bound, therefore, to reject argument on the extreme sanctity of life.
At the same time, I would agree that to take a fellow man's life is a very terrible thing which may call for some special reason to justify it. But the only adequate justification, as I think many of us feel, is if it is likely to deter others from committing the same type of crime in future. For me, as for many others, in spite of what I think the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, said, it is on the deterrent value of capital punishment that the whole balance of the argument must turn, and on that the main controversy has raged both in 1947 and now.
My Lords, we have had innumerable figures quoted by people who have found them quite convincing on one side or the other. By selecting figures from an immense document like the Report of the Royal Commission, one can produce very

821
much the kind of effect one wants. I do not say that in any criticism of those who use them; it is human nature that we should do so. I should like to take just one case which has not been mentioned in any detail—the case of New Zealand. There, capital punishment was in abeyance from 1935 to 1941, and during that period the number of murders went down. That would seem to be a very strong argument for abolition, and might well be produced on that side. But in 1941 capital punishment was abolished, and then the numbers were more than doubled, and it had to be reintroduced in 1950. I am not quoting these figures in favour of retention of capital punishment. I am only saying that, like the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, I find it impossible to draw any firm conclusion one way or another from this mass of figures. Therefore, in assessing their value, it seems to me that we have to take account, to some extent at any rate, of differing conditions in different countries, and the conclusions one draws are never likely to be really effective.
As a result, I have been driven back, like many other noble Lords, to one broad, simple consideration which I should like to put in your Lordships' minds. No one so far as I know, even among the most ardent supporters of the retention of capital punishment, has ever suggested that all murderers are deterred by capital punishment, because, after all, if that were true, in countries where capital punishment exists there would not be any murders at all. We have to decide whether any murderers, or any appreciable number of murderers, are deterred by capital punishment. Are we really to accept the thesis that capital punishment never deterred anyone, which I understood was the thesis of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, as I listened to his speech? If that be true, if we accept that thesis, of course we shall vote for this Bill; it will be the right thing for us to do. But I personally find it very difficult to accept that thesis, and I have found it increasingly difficult to do so as I have listened to this debate during the last two days. I would have thought it was extremely difficult for anyone to accept it after he had listened to the powerful speech made to your Lordships by the Lord Chief Justice this afternoon.
Of course, there are cases, those of violent passion, lunacy, sexual mania and
822
so on, where nothing deters the murderer; but in those cases it is rare for the penalty to be carried out. But in other cases of murder, the cold-blooded murder or even ordinary cases of violence, I find it impossible to believe that the thought that one may be executed will not have some deterrent effect; that there are not some people, at any rate, on whom the thought: "If I do this, I shall probably be hanged" does not have some moderating influence. That, at any rate, as your Lordships have heard, has been the considered view of a great many who have to deal with criminals. It is the view of a large number of Her Majesty's Judges, who have spoken to you to-day. It is certainly the view of the Prison Officers Association, from whom I have had a telegram (I will not trouble your Lordships with it because the hour is late) expressing their views in no uncertain manner; and, I believe, too, from such indication as I have had, and it has not been denied by anyone to-day, that it is broadly the view of the police, on whom our protection against these violent, lawless people largely depends.
But in any case, if I may say so in their presence, it is not the Judges, the police, the warders or any other limited section of the population who, under our Constitution, should finally decide a great question of this kind. We all know that it is the British people who should decide. What is the view of the British people on this particular question? The most reverend Primate and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter spoke, and very naturally, of their sense of unease. I think it was the right reverend Prelate's own impression that he felt to exist among people on this subject at the present time. But, my Lords, do they, or does anyone, think that that unease is on one side alone? Such evidence as I have had, from the largest postbag I have had on any subject in a great many years (1 have it here and it is very large), is all on one side—except one single letter from a Conservative Peer—and it seems to indicate exactly the contrary. The vast majority of those letters—ane they are not the result of any intensive propaganda, so far as I know—are against the Bill; and they come almost entirely not from the rich and the great, who are cushioned by wealth and position from fear of attack, but from

823
humble folk, and particularly, from elderly folk, who have often only a frail latch between themselves and violence.
I do not pretend that the letters are conclusive. I fully recognise that there has been a movement of opinion since 1948, but how great a movement I do not know, and I do not believe anyone does. That, in my view, presents your Lordships in this House with a constitutional problem of the first importance. It has been my privilege to lead the Conservative Party in this House now for fifteen years. That is a very long time in anyone's life. During the first part of that period, after the 1945 Election, your Lordships were faced with a new and extremely delicate position, with a large majority for one Party in one House of Parliament, and a large majority for the other Party in the other House. That was the position which I, as Leader of the Opposition, had to tackle, and I came to the conclusion—I hope and believe rightly—that in such a situation it would be constitutionally wrong for your Lordships to throw out every Bill with which we disagreed. It would indeed bring the whole machinery of government to a standstill. We must act on the assumption that anything that had been included in the programme of a Party which had been successful at the previous General Election had been approved by the electorate; and I recommended that view to my supporters in this House and they accepted it. It was on that basis that we gave a Second Reading to all the nationalisation Bills, though we did not like them; and we did our best to improve them and make them more workable on the Committee stage.
But there was a corollary to that policy, and it was this. Where issues had not been before the electorate we had to regard it as our function not to oppose the will of the people, the electorate, or even to interpret the will of the people, but very definitely, where we could, to give a breathing space to enable public opinion to crystallise on issues on which they had not been consulted and on which their views were not known. This seems to me exactly one of those cases. This question of capital punishment and the death penalty has quite definitely not been put before the electorate at the last or, so far as I know, any other General
824
Election. I know, of course, that there are, on occasions, questions, it may be great questions, which blow up suddenly between elections, and on which the electorate cannot, in the nature of things, be consulted. In such a case it has always been, I believe I am right in saying, the traditional practice of Parliament that Members should use their best judgment in the interests of their constituents and the country. That, as the House knows, is the practice that has been invoked, I think very wisely, in another place in this case.
But, my Lords, I cannot believe that this is one of the cases to which that practice should properly be applied. After all, this question of the abolition of the death penalty is no sudden issue, utterly unforeseen, which could not possibly have been raised at the General Election. It is not a new issue at all. Moreover, my Lords, it is known to be one about which the British people are at best doubtful. If no Party liked to tackle it—and no Party, either Liberal. Labour or Conservative did put it on their programme—one would have expected at any rate that those Members who are now promoting the Bill as a matter of such urgent importance that it brooks no delay at all would have made it, so far as they could, an issue at the Election. But I had the curiosity to inquire what mention of capital punishment there had been in the Election addresses of those Members in all Parties who have supported this Bill in another place. What did I find? Not one single one had ever mentioned the subject in his Election address. The noble Viscount, Lord Astor, said that he mentioned it to his constituents, and I think it does him great honour and shows considerable courage on his part; but I am sure he would not claim that that amounted to the matter being formally before the electorate at the Election.
I do not say what I have said in any spirit of criticism of those Members concerned. It is open to any Member, as we all well know, to put anything he likes in his Election address. But I want merely to make it clear—and this, I may say, is emphasised in nearly every letter I have received against this Bill—that the British people have never been consulted at all on a matter in which they are deeply and personally concerned. If I

825
am told that consultation at a General Election on an individual issue of this kind is valueless, because the decision at an Election is reached not on a single issue but on the programme of a Party as a whole, I should reply that there was a great deal of truth in that, but that it was equally true with regard to other measures said to have been approved by the electorate in recent history. For instance, in the case of the nationalisation Bills to which I referred earlier, the electors were given a chance of knowing what was contemplated, and might, if they felt strongly enough, have made it a dominating factor in their decisions as between one candidate and another. That was not so in the present case. They have had no opportunity of any kind of testifying to their views. To my mind that is a very important factor, and it has given us a certain responsibility, in my view a considerable responsibility, for giving them time to enable their mind; to crystallise; and, if they think good, to express their views.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in the speech with which he introduced the Bill, enunciated a doctrine which I must confess was new, and slightly shocking to me. It was (the noble Viscount will correct me if I am wrong) that where Parliament considers that the British people are not competent to judge on a subject, because they have not the necessary information, Parliament can quite properly ignore their views. That is what, in effect, he said.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD: I could not hear the last sentence.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI said that the doctrine enunciated was that where Parliament considers the British people are not competent to judge on an important subject, because they have not adequate information, it is quite proper for Parliament, in effect, to ignore their views—that is to say, to come to a decision without consultation with them. I think he said that, without that, it would have been impossible to make any advance at all in reforms of various kinds. I entirely reject that doctrine, and I hope that your Lordships do too. It seems to me quite impossible for Parliament in this country, or in any other, if it is a free Parliament, to pay lip service to democracy in theory and not accept its implications in practice. To say that we
826
trust the people when the people happen to agree with us, and to fail to trust the people in practice, when the people happen to take a rather different view—that way, to my mind, lies the destruction of free democracy, and all those other evils with which we are very familiar in other countries.
In conclusion, I would say that I believe that there are very strong arguments in favour of amending the law on murder. That, indeed, has already been clearly recognised by the Government in a debate in another place on February 16 this year. And even if I personally had not thought so before, I should certainly think so in the light of these two days of debate. Indeed, if I may say so, I agreed very much with what was said on this particular point by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury. I can therefore assure the House that the Government will give every attention to all the points made. I emphasise that to the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who seemed to think that: only a few rather minor and superficial points might be considered. Consideration will be given to all the points which have been made with so much weight. and so much authority by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keith of Avonholm, by the Lord Chief Justice, and by the most reverend Primate, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury in this House during the present debate. And, in particular, I can assure the noble Viscount. Lord Samuel, that I shall be happy to put before my colleagues the points which he raised in the very remarkable speech which he delivered to your Lordships this afternoon.
His proposal, as I understood it, is that the discretion of the Home Secretary in matters of this kind should be unfettered. I should be very happy to put that proposal—assuming that I have understood the noble Viscount correctly—to my colleagues. Clearly I cannot say more, and he will not expect me to say more than that to-day. But I can assure him, and the House, that the matter will have the fullest consideration, as also will the procedure he suggested by which Parliament mi3ht pay attention to it. I felt, as I listened to him, that such matters as that—I am not tying myself to acceptance of these proposals—are much more likely to bring us a

827
satisfactory solution of the present difficulties than can a Second Reading of the present Bill, and then an attempt to "tinker about" with it on the Committee stage. In any case, from the advice which I have received, this particular Bill would be a very awkward vehicle for amendment. If you start with a Bill to abolish the death sentence, and then import into it Amendments dealing with, perhaps, such things as provocation, constructive malice, and possibly with diminished responsibility, or perhaps also Amendments to preserve the death penalty for particular types of murder (if these can be satisfactorily defined) which may not be distinguishable in their gravity from other murders outside the definition, you might at the end of the day have a Bill of bits and pieces—in fact a Bill unsatisfactory in practice, lacking the certainty and clarity which all your Lordships recognise as most desirable.
I am not going to rest my case on that argument alone. It seems to me that there is one overriding argument against the whole procedure of giving this Bill a Second Reading, and then amending it in Committee—especially in the conditions in which it now comes before us. I hold, with the noble Viscount. Lord Waverley, that if we give a Second Reading to this Bill we shall be regarded by the British people as having accepted the principle of absolute abolition inherent in the Bill. This, in fact, many of us, including the most reverend Primate himself, reject. As I said, I do not in any way rule out the possibility of alternative action as a subject for proper consideration. Indeed, I should think that that was implicit in what I have already said, when I explained that the Government will give every attention to the arguments put forward by those noble Lords I have mentioned. If we give a Second Reading to this Bill we shall, I repeat, be generally regarded as having given the support of this House not to reform of the law of murder but to the abolition of the death penalty. And, moreover, we shall be held to that in the future. That, I understand, is certainly not what most of us want. I do not think it is what the most reverend Primate wants.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: May I ask the noble Marquess one question? What he has just said relieves me very greatly. As I said, I am terribly anxious lest I should appear to be voting with people with whom I totally disagree. May it be taken as a firm pledge that the Government will introduce a measure under which it will be possible for such proposals as I mentioned to be discussed, because if I knew that that would be within the ambit of a measure sponsored by the Government, I should refrain from voting to-night.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: It is a little difficult to give an absolute undertaking, because I have been sitting on this Bench all afternoon and I have not had the opportunity of consulting my colleagues. I promise the most reverend Primate that I will put it before them. I thought that what I said indicated that we did not in any way rule out alternative action as soon as we possibly can. I cannot go further than that.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: Would it be next Session?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have said that I will put what has been said to-day before my colleagues. The noble Viscount really must not jump at things of this kind; he must wait and see in a proper manner. I am sorry to have kept your Lordships for so long. I am not going to ask any other noble Lord, for motives of loyalty either to myself or to the Government, to follow me into the "No" Lobby. This is a free vote, and in that vote every noble Lord must do whatever his conscience directs. But for the reasons I have stated, and especially for this last reason, which I believe to be fundamental—unless the Bill is withdrawn, and I am afraid that that is too much to hope—when the House proceeds to a Division, I shall find myself compelled to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill.
LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTON: My Lords, may I venture to ask the noble Marquess one question? If the majority of this House should follow the course which he is going to take, does that mean that the Government would then reintroduce hanging?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I explained to the noble Viscount,

829
Lord Alexander of Hillsborough, yesterday that we must see what the result of this Division is going to be, and, when that result is known, the Government must consider all the implications of it. I cannot give answers to questions of that kind.
7.21 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, it is with a feeling of deep humility that I rise to make the last speech in this historic and momentous debate. I believe that the last occasion when this House had a gathering of this kind was during the debates on the Irish Home Rule Bill. I do not pretend that I can draw any moral from that, except that your Lordships' House de-clared itself firmly against Home Rule and were eventually obliged to give it in due course. I believe that during these last two days the House has heard both points of view put at their best. I think that no noble Lord has any reason for not appreciating the point of view put both by the abolitionists and by those who, for the sake of brevity, I shall call the retentionists. I suppose that never has the quality of speeches in this House been higher, and I imagine that at this moment I am addressing one of the most critical audiences in the world.
What is the case for the Bill? We put our case primarily, as many noble Lords have explained, on our view of the sanctity of life. We believe that it is fundamentally wrong for the State to carry out an act which it is punishing other people for doing. On the other hand, if I am asked whether I take that view in all circumstances, and whether in no circumstances is it right for the State to take life, then I am bound to say that, in my view, there may be circumstances in which it would he right to do so. One of those circumstances would be if it were necessary for the safety and security of the population of this country. Therefore, obviously, the case of war arises, when the taking of life is justified. If it could be shown that only by the taking of life was it possible to deter people from committing the foul act of murder, then I personally would be in favour of the retention of the death penalty in that particular circumstance. I speak for myself; in this debate we can only speak for ourselves. I have no organisation or Party to speak for on this issue.
830
Naturally, a great part of the debate over these two days has ranged round the question of whether or not the death penalty is an essential deterrent against murder. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and many others, have stated fairly, although others have taken more extreme views, that they do not contend that the deterrent is present in all cases. It is present in a certain number of cases—that is, a certain number of people are deterred from carrying out murder because of the fear of capital punishment. How many, nobody can say. The noble Marquess cannot say; of course not. He cannot say to what extent the fear of capital punishment is a deterrent nor can he say whether it is a necessary deterrent. Noble Lords in all parts of the House have indicated that in their view it is only capital punishment which is the deterrent and that life imprisonment is not a deterrent. I profoundly take the opposite view. In my view, it is not true—and I believe that it is incapable of proof—that capital punishment, taken by and large, is a greater deterrent than imprisonment or imprisonment for life. Indeed, there is some ground for suggesting that owing to the glorification of capital punishment there are a number of people who actually commit murder in order to figure, as they think, in the centre of events—possibly it is their oily chance of doing so in life. It is quite impossible to say to what extent, if at all, the number of capital crimes would be increased or diminished if capital punishment were abolished. It is because a number of my friends and I, and a number of noble Lords on the other side of the House, do not accept that this is an essential deterrent that we propose to vote in favour of the Bill.
Like the noble Marquess, I am not going to quote figures—or, I should say, unlike the noble Marquess, because he said that he was not going to do so and proceeded to quote some figures from New Zealand. I agree that figures can be misleading, especially if it is desired to select figures and make a case on those. I do not put the Report of the Royal Commission any higher than that, having over a number of years made an exhaustive inquiry, as exhaustive as it was possible for them to make, the conclusion that they came to was that there was no evidence all over the world—I think they consulted something like forty countries—that the !number of cases of murder had

831
been increased as the result of abolition; and their general view was that the abolition or retention of capital punishment made no difference to the number of crimes committed. Noble Lords can agree or disagree with that, but I submit that that view is entitled to great respect. It is entitled to the respect which should be given to the conclusion of a number of men and women who, having given four years of their time and travelled all over the world to test the experience of other countries, and having talked to people and taken evidence, unanimously came to the view that the question of a unique deterrent by hanging is irrelevant.
Capital punishment has been abolished in a large number of countries throughout the world; in fact, so far as Europe is concerned, we are in a minority. I recognise that in a limited number of countries it has been restored, and in some countries it has been abolished once more after restoration. But in every country that has abolished capital punishment there must have been a debate of this kind before it was actually carried into law. Whether it was as spectacular and as peaceful as this debate I could not say; but there must have been great heart-searchings, a great many speeches and a good deal of opinion one way and the other before each of those countries separately arrived at the conclusion which it did. Again, we can scoff at that and say that we are not like other countries and have no business to take much notice of what they do. Nevertheless, it is a significant fact that the kind of case that I imagine they were satisfied with is the kind of case which we have been putting forward yesterday and this afternoon.
It is perhaps hardly necessary for me to say this, but as it has been said by the Lord Chief Justice and by others I do want to say quite categorically that the view that we take has nothing to do with any sympathy for the murderer. I hope that that idea can be completely eliminated. I would not have mentioned it, but for the fact that the Lord Chief Justice thought it right to mention it and to suggest that those who take the view I am taking are taking it because of sympathy for the murderer and no sympathy for the victim. I also want to make the point that, although I am winding up the debate, I am not doing so on
832
behalf of my Party. This is not a Party issue on my side of the House, any more than it is on the other side. Therefore noble Lords who will be deciding how to vote need have no compunction about going into a Division Lobby in which they may find a certain number of my friends; they will feel quite at home, because I imagine that they will be meeting a number of their own friends, too.
A number of noble Lords have taken the view that we have no right to jeopardise the safety of individuals by abolishing capital punishment, and no right to give additional apprehension to lonely people in lonely parts of the country and so on. I recognise—and I think in fairness we are bound to recognise—that, in spite of the Report of the Royal Commission, and in spite of the views which we hold, the abolition of capital punishment may involve some risks. But at every stage of the improvement in our penal law the same fears have had to be faced and the same risks run. I am not going to quote Lord Ellenborough again, but the Lord Ellenborough approach has been present throughout every step that this country has taken in the direction of amelioration of the penal law. Even as late as the 1860's, when public hanging was abolished, it was feared that the deterrent effect of public hanging was so great that it would be running grave risks to abolish it. One of the subsidiary effects of public hanging, even in the days when pickpocketing was an offence punishable by capital punishment, was that at these public hangings pickpockets had their heyday, and more pockets were picked during public hangings than at any other time. So much for the deterrent effect. Of course, as each amelioration has taken place none of the feared effects has been seen. The abolition of public hanging did not result in any increase of capital crimes. I believe that if we take this step, in spite of the risks involved, we need have little fear that, on balance, the number of capital crimes will be increased.
We are not taking an irrevocable step, in any case. This Bill is stated to be for a limited period, and if at the end of a limited period the fears that many noble Lords have expressed are realised, there is no reason why we should not take the same line as has been taken by a number of States in the United States of America

833
or by New Zealand and reintroduce capital punishment, or reintroduce it in the form in which the most reverend Primate and others would wish it to be reintroduced. It is not an irretrievable step that we are taking, although many of us sincerely believe that it will, not be necessary to reintroduce capital punishment in any form.
The noble Marquess, the Leader of the House, spoke of public opinion. I came to the House prepared for another line that he might take, and I have taken the precaution of bringing with me Hansard for 1948. On that occasion the noble Marquess made much the same kind of speech as he made to-day, except, that then he thought that the time was not ripe and that there ought to be some delay. Well there has been delay. There has been the opportunity since 1948 for public discussion and discussion in the two Houses of Parliament. We have had several more decisions of the House of Commons on this matter. The noble Marquess might have feared in 1948 (although then it was not a decision on a Bill, but on a clause in the Criminal Justice Bill which sought to abolish capital punishment), possibly with some justification, that this thing had been rather sprung on the public anti on Parliament, and that it was right that Parliament and everybody else should have the fullest opportunity of giving further consideration to it—and perhaps, also, it was because there was a Labour Government.
Nevertheless, since that time eight years have elapsed. Parliament has conic to the same conclusion on no fewer than three or four separate occasions, by a majority vote consisting of Members from all Parties. I do not think it can be said to-day that this matter requires further consideration, or needs to be delayed, because the facts are not known. So to-day the noble Marquess takes the view that public opinion is against us. How does he know? How does he judge public opinion?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I did not say that: I said that neither I nor anybody else knew.
LORD SILKIN: I am of the same opinion. I think it would be very rash for anybody to say to-day what public opinion is on this matter, although a number of noble Lords have presumed to
834
say so, quite definitely, throughout this debate. They have claimed that public opinion is with their view. I am sorry if I misrepresented the noble Marquess, because I have no desire to do that; but if he really means that he is uncertain of public opinion, and that he has no idea what public opinion is on the matter, then I would agree with him completely.
I believe there is an inference to be drawn from that. After all, the public know what is going on, and I should think that if public opinion were strongly against this measure it would have made itself felt. Public opinion has a way in this country, if a view is strongly held, of making that view felt and heard, and there is no suggestion at all that public opinion takes a strong view on this matter one way or the other. Indeed, the view seems to be very much that of the Royal Commission: that the effect of abolishing capital punishment in these various countries has been hardly noticeable. It is true that the noble Marquess has received a great many communications. Of course he has. He is the natural target for communications of all kinds, and I have no doubt that he has a very big postbag at all times. But when one takes the number of people who have taken the trouble to write to him, I do not think he would claim that that has any special significance. In judging of this matter, have we not to do the best we can on the assumption that public opinion is not very vociferous on this issue, and that Gallup Polls change so rapidly that they can hardly be relied upon at any particular moment? Indeed, if the noble Marquess were relying on the Gallup Poll—
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I never saw the Gallup Poll.
LORD SILKIN: Some noble Lords did, but I will refrain from saying what it was going to say about the Gallup Poll. This question of public opinion is significant, because a number of noble Lords have niacin the point that we have no right to legislate on this matter because public opinion is against us. If the noble Marquess does not take that point, then I can only say that we have a right to legislate on this question on the merits.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to keep interrupting the

835
noble Lord, because I know the House wants to come to a conclusion, but what I said was that public opinion had never been consulted. That is what I think is important. If public opinion came down in favour of abolition, I should accept that in a moment; but it has not been consulted at all.
LORD SILKIN: I can only say that there is no machinery for specific consultation on individual matters—it is not part of our Constitution. But I do say that if public opinion felt strongly about this, both the noble Marquess and I would have heard a good deal about it. Whether the noble Marquess takes the view that, because public opinion has not been consulted, therefore we ought to take one line or the other on this Bill, is not clear.
I submit that the only duty of the House this evening is to vote on this Bill on its merits. This Bill is before us. It has been passed through all its stages by the House of Commons by a majority vote, and we are obliged to examine it entirely on its merits and without any question or consideration as to what public opinion might be if there were some machinery for taking that opinion. Of course, if we had a referendum we could have it on a great many other questions. But some indication of the way public opinion has moved since 1948 has been provided by what has happened in these last two days in this House. In 1948, there was not a single member of the Judiciary who had any kind of approval for abolition, qualified or otherwise. Every single learned Lord who spoke expressed unqualified disapproval of the abolition of capital punishment and made no suggestion whatever at any time that the law regarding capital punishment required any kind of amendment. Indeed, the impression one got was that, in so far as amendment was required, it was required in the sense of making the law more stringent.
So far as the Bishops are concerned, in 1948 hardly any of the Bishops spoke in favour of abolition. I do not remember whether the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chichester spoke or not. If he did, I naturally assume that he spoke in favour of abolition. But I doubt whether any other Bishop spoke in favour of abolition. Now, the position has
836
changed. I know that the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury has spoken in very qualified terms—I accept that—and so did the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of York. I do not think he spoke in wholly unqualified terms in favour of abolition—he had certain reservations to make.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF YORK: I regret having to interrupt the noble Lord. I said without any reservation at all that it was my intention to vote for the Second Reading of this Bill, and that I desired its passage into law on the grounds that it would be good for the country.
LORD SILKIN: I am delighted at that correction. It strengthens my point that the move of public opinion has gone much further than I had anticipated when this debate started. We have the support both of members of the Judiciary and of the Bishops in this matter, and I believe that when the vote is taken—although I have no false optimism about the matter—it will be found that a great many more noble Lords are in favour of this Bill than would have been the case in 1948. So if one can judge of the movement of public opinion in that way, then I would submit that public opinion is moving slowly, perhaps too slowly for some, in the direction of abolition.
I had intended to say a few words about the unhappy position of the noble Viscount, Lord Samuel, who finds himself unable to vote in either Lobby or, so far as I can gather, to agree with any of the contentions that have been put forward by any noble Lord in this House. I quite understand and respect his intellectual dilemma, and I do not know what he can do to resolve it. But certainly he cannot resolve it by taking any view on this Bill. But it is a difficulty which I imagine few noble Lords will find themselves in at the end of the day. At the end of the day we have to decide either that we support the Bill and agree with abolition in principle, or that we do not agree with abolition and have to oppose the Bill.
Finally, I want to say a few words about the constitutional position. I do not think that is very difficult. We have this evening a free vote, and the noble Marquess has been at some pains to confirm that every noble Lord, at any

837
rate on his side of the House—and I say the same for every noble Lore on my side—is perfectly free to vote as his conscience directs. The noble Marquess has given a lead as to his opinion, as he was entitled to do, and he knows very well that whatever he says and every opinion that he expresses carries a good deal of weight with his friends. I hope that the views that I am expressing may carry a little weight with some of my friends. That is only natural. But I doubt whether he has convinced all his friends, and I am quite sure that I have not convinced all of mine. So we are entering into this Division completely free—there is no doubt about that. But that does not end the matter. After all, this Bill has been passed by a majority of the House of Commons, and we have been told that that is a factor which Her Majesty's Government must take into account and that their actions must be dictated by that fact.
Now what are those actions? Assuming that this Bill is rejected to-day, it will doubtless come before us again in the near future. If the House of Commons is of the same mind as it was then (as, of course, it must be if it comes to us again), it will inevitably come before us next Session and then we shall be compelled to accept it. It would be an ignominious position if this House far the first time were faced with the operation of the Parliament Act in a measure of this kind, which I would have thought should essentially be carried with the general good will of Parliament as a whole. I would ask noble Lords, therefore, to consider carefully how they vote.
But there is another point which I put to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. Pending the decision of your Lordships' House there have been a number of reprieves. I have no doubt that each case was considered on its merits and that, by an extraordinary set of circumstances, each case has been found worthy of reprieve since the House of Commons decided upon abolition. Suppose that we reject this measure to-day: what happens in the future about reprieves? Is this to be a question of cat-and-mouse? Is it to depend entirely on how this House votes to-day whether reprieves in the future will come about as consistently as they have in the past few months? Suppose that the Home: Secretary, after we have rejected this Bill,
838
decides that he finds himself unable to reprieve to the extent that he has been doing and he will go back to dealing with each case strictly on its merits. Will he then start granting reprieves again if the House of Commons gives another decision in favour of abolition? Can we really go on in this way? Is it not reducing the whole thing to a farce? Whatever we do to-day, are we not virtually in the position of having abolished capital punishment?
SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: No.
LORD SILKIN: Noble Lords may say "No"; but I ask them to face up to this dilemma; there has been no capital punishment since the House of Commons approved this Bill or, I believe I am right in saying, since they passed the Second Reading of the Bill. For a good many months every case has been reprieved. Can we really go back? I submit that it is quite impossible to go back on what we have clone, and that, whether we like it or not (and obviously a number of noble Lords do not like it) we have taken an almost irrevocable step in the direction of abolishing capital punishment.
Now I want to say a few concluding words. This is a very remarkable occasion. We are concerned with a limited number of deaths, not more than twelve or thirteen executions in a year, and one might ask—a view taken during this debate—what all this fuss is about. Why are we making all this fuss and taking all this interest in a matter of twelve or thirteen executions in a year, when in fact there are thousands of casualties on the roads which create nothing like the same amount of interest or excitement and which are at least as avoidable as the executions that take place? I feel that the answer really shows this House at its best. We are here concerned not so much with a practical day-to-day issue as with a moral issue. This House is very concerned with moral issues. We are all delighted that it should he so. I believe that to-night is one of the climacterics in the history of penal reform. What we do to-night will he quoted and remembered in the centuries to come.
This country has witnessed a continued march in the direction of progress towards a humanisation of punishment. We have not abolished punishment—and I take the same view as the right reverend Prelates on the value of retribution—but we have moved from stage to stage along a road

839
towards constant amelioration of the brutalities of punishment. I regard this as merely one stage along that road. I think that this movement is inevitable, and I could not help deducing from the speech of the noble Marquess that he himself thinks so too; the real difference between us is whether we have actually arrived at this stage or not. In my view we have arrived at the stage when we can take this further step in the humanisation
of punishment. The noble Marquess and others possibly take the view that it is at this moment premature; but it will come, and I should have liked to see this House in the van of progress rather than lagging long behind it.
On Question, Whether the Bill shall be now read 2a?
Their Lordships divided:—
Contents, 95; Not-Contents, 238.

CONTENTS

Canterbury, L. Abp.

Manchester, L. Bp

Keith of Avonholm, L

York, L. Abp.

Newcastle, L. Bp.

Kenswood, L.

Ripon, L. Bp.

Kershaw, L.

Devonshire, D.

Wakefield, L. Bp.

Layton, L.

Lyle of Westbourne, L

Lothian, M.

Adrian, L.

Macdonald of Gwaenysgor, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L

Mathers, L.

Airlie, E.

Amulree, L.

Melchett, L.

Amherst, E.

Amwell, L.

Merthyr, L.

Attlee, E.

Archibald, L.

Meston, L.

Baldwin of Bewdley, E.

Boyd-Orr, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Cranbrook, E.

Brabazon of Tara, L

Mottistone, L.

Haddington, E.

Burden, L.

Moynihan, L.

Haig, E.

Carnock, L.

Ogmore, L.

Harewood, E.

Carrington, L

Pakenham, L.

Listowel, E.

Cawley, L

Pethick-Lawrence, L.

Lucan, E.

Cohen, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Perth, E.

Coleraine, L.

Raglan, L.

Waldegrave, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Croft, L.

Rea, L.

Addison, V.

Darwen, L

Ritchie of Dundee, L.

Alexander of Hillsborough, V.

Dickinson, L.

Rothschild, L.

Astor, V. [Teller.]

Douglas of Kirtleside, L.

Rusholme, L.

Esher, V.

Dowding, L.

Russell of Liverpool, L.

Hambleden, V.

Evershed, L.

Sherwood, L.

Ridley, V.

Foley, L.

Silkin, L.

Stansgate, V.

Glenconner, L

Somervell of Harrow, L.

Templewood, V.

Grantchester, L

Strabolgi, L.

Thurso, V.

Greenhill, L.

Terrington, L.

Harmsworth, L.

Wilmot of Selmeston, L.

Chichester, L. Bp.

Harvey of Tasburgh, L.

Winster, L.

Ely, L. Bp.

Henderson, L.

Wise, L. [Teller.]

Exeter, L. Bp.

Hore-Belisha, L

Wrenbury, L.

London, L. Bp.

Hungarton, L

NOT-CONTENTS

Kilmuir, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bathurst, E.

Iddesleigh, E.

Beauchamp, E.

Ilchester, E.

Salisbury, M. (L. President.)

Buckinghamshire, E.

Inchcape, E.

Clarendon, E.

Limerick, E.

Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lonsdale, E.

Sutherland, D.

Craven, E.

Macclesfield, E

Wellington, D.

De La Warr, E.

Mansfield, E.

Devon, E.

Morley, E.

Aberdeen and Temair, M.

Dudley, E.

Normanton, E.

Abergavenny, M.

Dundee, E.

Onslow, E.

Bristol, M.

Eldon, E.

Poulett, E.

Cholmondeley, M.

Ferrers, E.

Radnor, E.

Lansdowne, M.

Fortescue, E.

Rosebery, E.

Ormonde, M.

Glasgow, E.

Rosslyn, E.

Reading, M.

Gosford, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Willingdon, M.

Halifax, E.

Selborne, E.

Halsbury, E.

Selkirk, E.

Albemarle, E.

Home, E.

Shaftesbury, E.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Howe, E.

Southesk, E.

Spencer, E.

Birdwood, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Stair, E.

Blackford, L.

Leconfield, L.

Stanhope, E.

Brand, L.

Leigh, L.

Swinton, E.

Brassey of Apethorpe, L.

Lloyd, L.

Westmorland, E.

Braye, L.

Luke, L.

Winterton, E.

Brocket, L.

Mackintosh of Halifax, L.

Woolton, E.

Broughshane, L.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

McCorquodale of Newton, L.

Barrington, V.

Chatfield, L.

Mancroft, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Cherwell, L.

Merriman, L.

Bruce of Melbourne, V.

Chesham, L.

Middleton, L.

Caldecote, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Milne, L.

Camrose, V.

Colgrain, L.

Milverton, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Colwyn, L.

Moncreift, L.

Cilcennin, V.

Colyton, L.

Monk Bretton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Conesford, L.

Monson, L.

Cowdrav, V.

Congleton, L.

Morris, L.

Crookshank, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Morrison, L.

Cunningham of Hyndhope, V.

Cranworth, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Davidson, V.

Cunliffe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

De L'lsle, V.

Denham, L.

Newall, L

Elibank, V.

Deramore, L.

Oaksey, L.

Falmouth, V.

Derwent, L.

O'Hagan, L.

FitzAlan of Derwenr, V.

Digby, L.

Palmer, L

Furness, V.

Dinevor, L.

Pender, L.

Gage, V.

Dormer, L.

Quibell, L

Goschen, V. [Teller.]

Dovercourt, L.

Radeliffe, L.

Hailsham, V. [Teller.]

Ebbisham, L.

Rathcavan, L.

Hampden, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Remnant, L.

Hereford, V.

Elton, L.

Rennell, L.

Hudson, V.

Ennisdale, L.

Rochdale, L.

Kemsley, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rockley, L.

Knutsford, V.

Forester, L.

Remilly, L.

Long, V.

Forres, L.

Rotherwick, L.

Malvern, V.

Fraser of North Cape, L.

Sackville, L.

Margesson, V.

Freyberg, L.

St. Levan, L.

Maugham, V.

Geddes, L.

Salter, L.

Monsell, V.

Gifford, L.

Salioun, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Gisborough, L.

Sandford, L.

Portman, V.

Glentanar, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Scarsdale, V.

Godber, L.

Savile, L.

Simonds, V.

Goddard, L.

Save and Sele, L.

Soulbury, V.

Gorell, L.

Sempill, L.

Stonehaven, V.

Grenfeil, L.

Sinha, L.

Waverley, V.

Gridley, L.

Strung, L.

Hacking, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Rochester, L. Bp.

Haden-Guest, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hailey, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Aberdare, L.

Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

Swaythling, L.

Ailwyn, L.

Hampton, L.

Templemere, L.

Airedale, L.

Hankey, L.

Teviot, L.

Aldenham, L.

Hardinge of Penshurst, L.

Teynham, L.

Allerton, L.

Harris, L.

Thurlow, L.

Ammon, L.

Hatherton, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hawke, L.

Tucker, L.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Hayter, L.

Tweedsmuit, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Hindlip, L.

Waleran, L.

Baden-Powell, L.

Hothfield, L.

Walpole, L.

Baillieu, L.

Hylton, L.

Walsingham, L.

Balfour of Inchrve, L.

Jeffreys, L.

Webb-Johnson, L.

Barnby, L.

Jessel, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Belstead, L.

Keyes, L.

Wolverton, L.

Bennett of Edgbaston, L.

Killearn, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

House adjourned at twenty-four minutes past eight o'clock.

[From the Minutes of Monday, 9th July, 1956]

MANCHESTER SHIP CANAL BILL
The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES informed the House that the opposition to the Bill was withdrawn; the Orders made on the 19th and 26th of June last discharged, and the Bill committed.
CHERTSEY URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL
Reported, with Amendments.