Sitting of 2 May 1957

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PETITIONS

  British Museum
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked by the Trustees of the British Museum to present a Petition, which they have to submit to this House each year, explaining their financial position and praying for aid. The Petition recites the funded income of the Trustees, and points out that the establishment is, necessarily, attended with an expense far beyond the annual production of the funds and the Trust cannot, with benefit to the public, be carried out without the aid of Parliament. It concludes with this Prayer;
  Your Petitioners therefore humbly pray your Honourable House to grant them such further support towards enabling them to carry on the execution of the Trust reposed in them by Parliament, for the general benefit of learning and useful knowledge, as to your House shall seem meet.—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]
  Petition referred to the Committee of Supply.

  Rent Bill
  Mr. Collins: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I beg to present a humble Petition, signed by more than 5,000 of the citizens of the Parliamentary Division of Taunton, Somerset. The Petition protests against the provisions of the Rent Bill and suggests that some thousands of families will suffer misery, hardship and disruption of family life.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Bill be so amended that tenants shall not be evicted
  336
  from their houses unless equivalent alternative accommodation is provided: that rents shall not be increased unless dwellings are in good habitable repair with reasonable amenities: and that, in default of these amendments the Bill shall be rejected.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
  I beg you, Mr. Speaker, to instruct the Clerk of the House to read this Petition to the House.
  The CLERK OF THE HOUSE read the Petition, which was as follows:
  To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The Humble Petition of the undersigned citizens in the Parliamentary Division of Taunton.
  Sheweth:
  That in this area there are more than 2.500 families to whom, despite the serious overcrowding and unsatisfactory housing conditions from which they suffer. the local authorities can offer no hope of rehousing for years to come. Further, that the privately rented houses, built during the last century, are mostly in a condition of decay and it is doubtful if restoration by private landlords is possible. In these conditions, the proposals of Her Majesty's Government. in the Rent Bill now before Parliament,

  (a) To grant powers to the owners of a considerable number of those houses, to serve on the occupants, comprising a large number of families, notice to quit, or to rent increases without statutory limit, without any guarantee of necessary repairs.

  (b) To serve on the occupants of the remaining houses notice of rent increase, the effect in many cases to double the present rent, will inflict misery, hardship, and disruption of family life on a scale impossible to bear.

  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that the Bill be so amended that tenants shall not be evicted from their houses unless equivalent alternative accommodation is provided: that rents shall not be increased unless dwellings are in good habitable repair with reasonable amenities: and that in default of these amendments the Bill shall he rejected.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    County Police Force (Withheld Grant)
    Mr. Lagdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions in the last five years he has withheld the police grant to a county police force; and for what reasons.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Payment of Exchequer grant in respect of a county police force has been withheld on one occasion during the last five years. In that case the police authority had decided to restrict recruitment, although the strength of the force was substantially below the authorised establishment, and my predecessor was satisfied that this would prejudice the efficient policing of the county.
    Mr. Lagden: Is withholding the police grant for the county the only method by which the Home Department can bring pressure to bear upon chief constables and standing joint committees? Is it not a fact that if the counties themselves wish to make up the grant from their own resources they can do so and so defy the Home Secretary?
    Mr. Butler: I do not think that they would wish to defy the Home Secretary. The answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question is substantially "Yes, Sir."
    Mr. Ede: Has there been any case where this action has been ineffective?
    Mr. Butler: There has been no case where the action has been ineffective.

    Police Forces (Disciplinary Control)
    Mr. Lagdenasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will introduce legislation to give himself power to initiate disciplinary inquiries into the activities of provincial police forces and the activities of individual members of provincial police forces.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. It is an essential feature of the police system of
    338
    this country that disciplinary control is vested not in the central government but in the local disciplinary authorities.
    Mr. Lagden: Is my right hon. Friend aware that hon. Members whose constituencies are served by county forces have no means of raising in this House matters of indiscipline by police officers? Why are they denied rights possessed by hon. Members whose constituences are within the Metropolitan area?
    Mr. Butler: It is not for me to interpret the rules of the House. In short, it is because I am personally responsible for the police in the Metropolitan area and in their case for disciplinary matters, and not for the county police.
    Mr. Ede: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind, in giving consideration to this matter, the great danger to liberty that has occurred through the establishment of State police forces?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, and I am perfectly content to interpret the duties of Home Secretary as they have been handed down to me, namely, to keep the Queen's peace by a division of responsibility.

    Persons Detained in Error (Ex gratia Payments)
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware that the principle and practice on which he at present proceeds in assessing and awarding out of public moneys ex gratia payments to persons wrongly detained in custody or sentenced are unsatisfactory in that such payments are not publicly heard and determined in a judicial manner on evidence and argument adduced by the persons concerned; and if he will take steps to improve the procedure accordingly.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: No, Sir. The procedure which the hon. and learned Gentleman proposes would be inappropriate where no question of legal liability arises and payments are made purely as of grace, I have, however, decided that in future where a decision is taken to make an ex gratia payment out of public funds to a person who has been detained in custody as the result of an error not involving legal liability the advice of an independent person of standing should be sought on the amount to be paid.
    Mr. Hughes: While thanking the Home Secretary for that part of his Answer, which is favourable to my idea, may I ask whether he will go a little further by giving accused persons an opportunity of adducing evidence and by changing what is now an ex gratia grant into something of the nature of ocmpensation which would bear a direct relation to the wrong which the acquitted person had suffered?
    Mr. Butler: That is going too wide. We must be content with small mercies as we get them.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, in obtaining the opinion of an independent adviser—a decision about which I think all hon. Members would like to thank and congratulate the Home Secretary—the person involved would have any opportunity of being heard on the point by such an inquiry?
    Mr. Butler: I would like notice of the question. In general, I would say that the answer would be "No, Sir." The only question to be settled by the outside assessor is the amount of compensation.

    Dr. Adams
    The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:
    Sir LYNN UNGOED-THOMAS: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make available for Members of Parliament a transcript of the shorthand notes of the trial of Dr. Adams.
    Mr. Speaker: Sir Lynn Ungoed-Thomas.
    Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: The Question has been answered in a most effective way—by the Attorney-General last night —and I do not intend to put it. I should like to express my thanks for that reply.
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he proposes to take to assess and award out of public moneys a payment to Dr. Adams, who was recently wrongly detained in custody for a considerable period on a charge of murder, tried at the Central Criminal Court, found not guilty and discharged; and whether he will set up a tribunal publicly to hear and determine in a judicial
    340
    manner on evidence and argument the correct amount to be so assessed and awarded to Dr. Adams.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: It is not the practice to make an ex gratia payment from public funds to a person who has been acquitted of a criminal charge unless there has been misconduct or negligence on the part of the police or other public officials. If a defendant is acquitted after trial on indictment the court has power under the Costs in Criminal Cases Act, 1952, to order the payment of such sums as appear to the court to be reasonably sufficient to compensate the accused for the expenses incurred in carrying on the defence. I understand that the court did not make any order in this case, and I can find no grounds on which I should be justified in making a payment out of public funds.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that I am interested in the principle and not on behalf of this particular person, but that there is great risk of loss and damage to a particular accused unless he is given an opportunity to make representations, adduce evidence and appear either in person or otherwise before the Home Secretary? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to see that justice is served in this way?
    Mr. Butler: I would draw the attention of the hon. Member and of the House to the power that the court has to make orders.
    The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:
    Dr. DONALD JOHNSON: To ask he Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether inspection of the Dangerous Drugs Register of Dr. John Bodkin Adams was made subsequent to 13th August, 1948.
    Dr. DONALD JOHNSON: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what evidence he has that Dr. John Bodkin Adams kept a properly entered Dangerous Drugs Register subsequent to 13th August, 1948.
    Mr. Speaker: Dr. Donald Johnson.
    Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order. I would cask for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, as to the propriety of putting these Questions on the Order Paper,

    341
    allowing an Answer to be given by the Home Secretary. I understand that proceedings are pending against the gentleman mentioned in the Questions. Therefore, this case is sub judice In particular it seems to me, with great respect, that Question No. 8 contains an innuendo against the person named in it. Is it proper that this Question should be asked?
    Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
    Mr. Speaker: The Question is in order. I understand that the proceedings which are pending against this man are not for murder, but are on other charges. It seemed that the Question was concerned with whether or not there should be a sum paid to him in respect of a charge of murder.
    Mr. Shinwell: I am referring to the next two Questions.
    Mr. Speaker: I misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman. I thought he was referring to Question No. 6. I should like to hear what the Home Secretary has to say on the point.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I was about to reply that as certain charges under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1951, were pending it would not be proper for me to make any comment.
    Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for drawing my attention to that point. I thought at first that the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was referring to the previous Question.
    Dr. Johnson: Further to that point of order, I understand that the charges against Dr. Adams are not actually in regard to this Question, but are in regard to supplies under National Health Service prescriptions. I am open to correction—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must be ruled by me. I think they come too near to the subject to be safe and proper Questions to ask.

    Anglo-Egyptian Refugees, Stonehouse (Rehousing)
    Mr. Kershawasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for the rehousing of
    342
    Anglo-Egyptian refugees in Brigend Hostel, at Stonehouse; and whether he will make a statement.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The Anglo-Egyptian Resettlement Board is authorised to help these British subjects to settle in permanent accommodation outside hostels, and deals with individual cases on merits. As part of its arrangements for payment of resettlement grants the Board can help in appropriate cases towards the deposit for the purchase of a house and has now been authorised to provide financial assistance to local authorities or housing associations which are able to find accommodation for these British subjects. The Board is also able to help with grants towards furnishing homes.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that part of his Answer which dealt with financial assistance to local authorities will be very welcome? Is he further aware that, rightly or wrongly, the efforts of a very large number of devoted people in favour of these Anglo-Egyptian refugees do not seem to be making the progress that one would hope? Lastly, is my right hon. Friend aware that at the Brigend Hostel, at Stonehouse, arrangements that could be quickly and cheaply carried out to turn these huts into units of family accommodation have been refused? Will he look into the matter?
    Mr. Butler: Efforts have been made to find accommodation outside the hostel. but I understand that 34 men and 11 women are in employment but still live in the hostel. I will certainly look into the points raised by my hon. Friend and any information he likes to give me. It is the desire of myself and those responsible to deal with this question of Egyptian refugees as expeditiously and humanely as possible.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: How much has been spent in this way already? In view of what the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) has said, can the right hon. Gentleman assure us that something more will be done to help these people who are, in a very special sense, victims of Government policy?
    Mr. Butler: The broad question has been debated both here and in another place. There are many different aspects of the matter which I could not deal with

    343
    by way of answers to supplementary questions. If the hon. Gentleman desires, I will answer any Question which he puts on the Order Paper.

    Street Betting, London
    Mr. Liptonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how far street betting in London has increased recently; and how many people have been prosecuted for street betting in London this year compared with last year.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Arrests during the first four months of 1957 totalled 1,773 and exceeded those for the corresponding period of last year by 406. This increase is to some extent due to the larger number of Metropolitan Police now available as compared with last year. It would not be safe to assume that the rise in the number of arrests reflects an increase in the amount of street betting.
    Mr. Lipton: Having told the House on 28th February that the law on off-course betting is unfair because it does not exist, how does the Home Secretary explain what looks like a renewed blitz on street bookies, especially in South London? Why not press on with new laws instead of trying to enforce either non-existent or obsolete laws which have not got the backing of public opinion behind them, and not make the police carry out duties which are not as important as other duties the public want carried out?
    Mr. Butler: The hon. Member will be aware that the Royal Commission reported on this matter, and the question of legislation is under consideration by the Government.
    Mr. Ede: When the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), was Joint Under-Secretary of State to the Home Department he announced to the House that legislation on this topic was to be brought forward. Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that if he wants some nice, non-controversial legislation to fill up the Parliamentary timetable, this would be his chance?
    Mr. Butler: I have quite enough legislation—so has the House—for this Session, and the question of including this in next Session's legislative programme must be a matter for later announcement. I am aware of the Answer given by my
    344
    hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes), to which the right hon. Member has drawn attention.

    Sir Roger Casement (Confidential Documents)
    Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents are still in his possession relative to the trial of Sir Roger Casement; and if he will now agree to hand over all such documents to the National Library of Ireland, in Dublin.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: Certain confidential documents are among the papers of my Department but, like my predecessors, I am not prepared to disclose their nature. The answer to the second part of the Question is "No, Sir."
    Mr. Hughes: Could the Prime Minister [Laughter.]—my subconscious mind is working again. Could the Home Secretary tell us whether this collection of documents includes an alleged diary which is reported to have been found on the possession of Sir Roger Casement? Could he explain why a certain limited number of people seem to have been given, by the Home Office, access to these documents? Does he not think it would be wise and generous now to hand these documents over to the Irish people, who seem to think that they are slightly interested in this controversy?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I have considered this matter, but I am not prepared to disclose the nature of these documents, nor to hand them over to the National Library of Ireland.
    Mr. Hyde: Can my right hon. Friend say by what right the diaries which were seized with Casement's other effects before his arrest, but not used in evidence at his trial, are retained by my right hon. Friend's Department? Should they not be handed over to Casement's next-of-kin in accordance with the provisions of the Forfeiture Act, 1870, which states quite clearly that any effects of a person executed for high treason and not used at his trial should be restored to his family?
    Mr. Butler: I have not by me this afternoon the Forfeiture Act to which my hon. Friend has referred, but I will certainly examine it in the light of the

    345
    question which he has asked. For the time being, pending my examination of the Act to which he has drawn my attention, I cannot go further than my Answer today.
    Mr. Anthony Greenwood: May we deduce from the fact that the right hon. Gentleman will not make these documents available that he is holding them in his custody until a proper inquiry into the circumstances of the Casement case has been held?
    Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I am simply simply following the tradition followed by my predecessors in holding documents of this sort.
    Mr. Hughes: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Prisoner (Unused Grant of Parole)
    Mr. Keeganasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reasons were given to his officials by a prisoner serving a life sentence for murder, who was recently released on parole to permit him to attend the funeral of a close relation, who was looking after his children, for not taking advantage of the facilities afforded to him.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am sorry to say that the prisoner in question was deterred from attending the funeral owing to his fear of the presence of Press representatives and photographers.
    In the interests of the welfare of prisoners and their families I must, in the light of this incident and of the general issues involved, reconsider the policy relating to the release on parole of prisoners on any future occasions. I shall be glad of any help I may receive from the Press with a view to preventing the recurrence of such incidents.
    Mr. Keegan: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the action of the Press was reprehensible in this case? Does he contemplate not stopping prisoners from being paroled in those circumstances, but taking some steps to see that the Press do not behave in such a way in future?
    Mr. Butler: This matter has been brought to my attention only in the last two or three days, and I am making the contacts necessary before I make up my
    346
    mind, but I certainly do not want to prejudice prisoners and their families. I have made an appeal to the Press, which I hope will be noticed in the light of my Answer to this Parliamentary Question.

    Hungarian Refugees
    Mr. Wadeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will relax the restrictions on the admission to this country of Hungarian refugees from Austria.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave on 14th March last to my hon. Friend the Member for Armagh (Mr. Armstrong).
    Mr. Wade: Is the Home Secretary aware that there are 40,000 Hungarians still living in refugee camps in Austria, and that this is a tragic problem which Austria alone cannot possibly tackle? In view of the recent plea by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, could not Britain do something more to help in finding a home and work for these unfortunate people?
    Mr. Butler: I think that this country has been generous. In all, approximately 21,000 Hungarian refugees, including the Coal Board recruits, have come to the United Kingdom from Austria. So far 3,500 have gone to Canada, and that movement is still in progress. Until we see how far the movement in progress to other countries is carried forward, I could not undertake that we should take more.

    Terence Darken(Conviction)
    Brigadier Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make available the details of inquiries that have taken place regarding confessions of guilt that exonerate Terence Darken from complicity in the crime for which he has been jailed;
    (2) who conducted the inquiry into the conviction of Terence Darken; and what evidence was called by the court of inquiry;
    (3) what inquiry there has been into the case of Terence Darken; and what have been its results.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: The prisoner Darken pleaded guilty in January, 1956, to a

    347
    charge of larceny as a servant. His solicitors wrote to me in February, 1957, a letter in which, for the first time, it was represented to me on behalf of the prisoner that he had pleaded guilty in order to obtain a lighter sentence and that in fact the crime had been committed by other persons who had intimidated him, in view of his record, into taking the blame. The solicitors forwarded a statement of another prisoner confessing that he and two other persons had been guilty and not Darken.
    It is no part of my duty to retry a case, but I asked the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to make any necessary inquiries. I am satisfied, having considered all the representations made to me in the light of the police report, that there are not grounds on which I should be justified in recommending any interference with the conviction of the prisoner Darken and that no further action is called for on my part.
    Brigadier Clarke: Does the Home Secretary agree that although Darken's past is reprehensible it there is a shadow of doubt as to his guilt he ought to he interviewed if there is any sort of inquiry? I understand that no one has seen Darken, or his wife, or anyone connected with his side of the story. In all these cases there must be two sides, but I understand that the man has never been interviewed.
    Mr. Butler: I have made particular inquiries and find that the reason we have not done that is that we had such full representations from the prisoner's solicitors that we thought it unnecessary to interview the prisoner. I will pay attention to what my hon. and gallant Friend has said, but I think that we have all the information to make up our minds in this matter.

    Ku Klux Klan Sympathisers
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make inquiries in the Metropolitan Police district regarding the establishment and activities of a British branch of the Ku Klux Klan, which arc liable to result in breaches of the peace.
    Mr. R. A. Butler: I am informed by the Commissioner of Police that he is aware of the existence of Ku Klux Klan sympathisers. Their activities are on a
    348
    very small scale and appropriate action will be taken if any of their activities seem likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
    Mr. Brockway: Whilst recognising that we do not want to interfere with the rights of organisations or the expression of views, and that the response from British people is likely to be small, may I ask if the right hon. Gentleman is aware that this organisation has agents in seven towns in this country, that it has a membership of several hundreds already, and that it is planning guerilla action by small, anonymous groups. not only against coloured persons, but those of the Jewish race and certain Christian communities? In view of this plan, and the lynchings and beatings which have taken place in America, will the Home Secretary keep a very close watch on these activities?
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir, certainly. The authorities will keep very close watch upon their activities, as indicated in my Answer. If the hon. Gentleman cares to give me any information, I shall be only too glad to examine it.
    Mr. Snow: The Home Secretary says that it is a very small organisation. Does he not remember the time when Sir Oswald Mosley's skulduggery was stated to be very small? That led eventually to much disorder. This matter is very much in the minds of the people in the Midlands, where there has been a certain amount of activity by this organisation.
    Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir.

  EDUCATION

    Cost
    Mr. Vaneasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (1) what proportion of the total cost of secondary and elementary education during the current year represents the maintenance and improvement of existing buildings, new construction and the emoluments of the teaching stall, respectively
    (2) the cost of secondary and elementary education during the current year to the Exchequer and the local authorities, respectively.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education (Sir Edward Boyle): As the replies contain a large number of figures, I will circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Following are the replies:
    It is estimated that the expenditure of local education authorities on primary and secondary education in 1957–58 will be about £376 million. This includes direct expenditure on primary and secondary schools, the school health service, school transport and loan charges, but not school milk and meals, administration, aid to pupils, capital expenditure out of revenue or recreational activities. About £243 million will be met by grants from the Exchequer, including Exchequer equalisation grant, leaving £133 million to be met from the rates.
    Teachers' salaries and employers' superannuation contributions account for 60·2 per cent. of the total, upkeep of buildings and grounds for 6 per cent. and loan charges on previous capital expenditure for 8·1 per cent.
    Capital expenditure in 1957–58 on new schools and improvements to existing schools is not included in the above figures. It is expected to total £66 million (mostly met from loan), excluding capital expenditure on the school meals service.

    Church of England School, Oldbury (Articles of Government)
    Mr. Moyleasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if, because of the delay experienced, he will now take the steps necessary to expedite the acceptance of the articles of government by the church authorities concerned with the St. Michael's Church of England Secondary Modern School. Oldbury.
    Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend very much regrets the long delay which has occurred and is doing all he can to settle this matter quickly.
    Mr. Moyle: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the continuous delay in securing agreement on the articles of government for this school is not only affecting the school's administration but is also acting to the disadvantage of the children concerned?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir, I am well aware of the difficulties. It is, of course, true that under Section 17 of the 1944 Act, the power to make articles of government for voluntary secondary schools rests with my noble Friend, but, as the hon. Gentleman is aware, my noble Friend is
    350
    always anxious, so far as he can, to secure the full agreement of the parties concerned.

    Scientific Manpower (Sandwich Courses)
    Mr. Parkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what estimate has been made of the increase required in the numbers of scientific and technical students taking sandwich courses to enable the Government objective of doubling the output of scientific manpower to be achieved; and what plans his Department has prepared to bring about this increase.
    Sir E. Boyle: The Government's plans for increasing the output of scientific manpower depend on the expansion of university facilities and of all types of courses in technical colleges. I cannot say precisely to what extent we shall require to increase the contribution made by sandwich courses in particular, but it may be by as much as five or six times the present number. The technical colleges are already making encouraging progress in developing new courses in consultation with industry, and the necessary accommodation is being and will be provided as part of the programme for the development of technical education.
    Mr. Parkin: Does the Parliamentary Secretary realise that it is six weeks since he promised to write to me on the subject of these sandwich courses, and that his Answer today does not sound as though he has mastered the arithmetic of the problem at all?
    Sir E. Boyle: I will certainly look at it again, and see if there is any further information that I can send to the hon. Gentleman.

    Teaching of Mathematics
    Mr. Parkinasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what plans his Department has for reviewing the methods and principles at present applied in the teaching of mathematics.
    Sir E. Boyle: The teaching of mathematics in schools and training colleges has been receiving the special attention of Her Majesty's inspectors, and my noble Friend is considering the issue of a pamphlet on this subject.

    Secondary Schools, Leicestershire (Experimental Scheme)
    Mr. Mossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education if he will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement on the pilot experiment to be undertaken by the Leicestershire education authority in the Hinckley and Wigston areas, so that hon. Members may have a clear knowledge of what is proposed.
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT the details of the proposals of the Leicestershire education authority concerning the organisation of secondary education.
    Sir E. Boyle: This is an experimental scheme for the reorganisation of a strictly limited number of secondary schools. The scheme, which is long and detailed, is in print and any hon. Member who is interested can obtain a copy from the Leicestershire local education authority. My noble Friend regrets that it cannot be accurately summarised within limits making it possible to publish it within the OFFICIAL REPORT, though various summaries have appeared in the Press.
    Mr. Moss: Is the Minister aware that newspaper reports on this scheme have been incomplete and inaccurate? Is he further aware that wide publicity has been given to Dr. Alexander's statement that the scheme is illegal? Will he say something more to indicate that this experiment is legitimate, significant, and welcomed by his Department?
    Sir E. Boyle: I must say that my noble Friend, as I have said before in this House, welcomes any well-thought-out scheme introduced experimentally and on a limited scale. The Leicestershire scheme does not require his specific approval under the 1944 Act, because it does not involve the opening, closure or enlargement of any existing schools.
    Mr. Stewart: The Education Act, 1944, requires education authorities to educate children according to their aptitude and ability. It does not require them necessarily to do that by holding a special examination at the age of 11 for the purpose of putting children into different schools. Does the Parliamentary Secretary agree, therefore, that there is no
    352
    legal obligation on any authority to do that?
    Sir E. Boyle: As this is a matter of the exact interpretation of a Section, perhaps the hon. Member could put down a Question on the subject.

    Secondary Modern Schools, Warwickshire (Courses)
    Mr. Mossasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education whether he will encourage the development in north Warwickshire of courses in secondary modern schools to meet requirements agreed between the principals of technical colleges and the heads of secondary modern schools; and whether, as part of these arrangements, he will agree upon examinations to be taken in the schools prepared by the technical colleges.
    Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend wishes to encourage the closest possible cooperation between the secondary schools and technical colleges in Warwickshire, as elsewhere, but the precise form which it should take is a matter for the local education authority.
    Mr. Moss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that discussions are taking place in north Warwickshire on the subject mentioned, and can he say whether it is true that Her Majesty's inspectors are the stumbling-block to the proposals which are at present under discussion?
    Sir E. Boyle: I know nothing of what the hon. Member has just said. All I would say is that I hope that this Question and Answer will draw attention to my noble Friend's keen interest in the matter, but the details of the organisation of school courses and local examinations are surely best left to the local education authorities themselves.

    Youth Leaders (Training Courses)
    Mr. M. Stewartasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Education what plans he has for the training of full-time youth leaders.
    Sir E. Boyle: My noble Friend is continuing to help Swansea University College and Westhill Training College to provide courses for this purpose.
    Mr. Stewart: Did the Parliamentary Secretary notice, when he addressed a

    353
    conference recently, that there is much concern amongst those active in the youth movement about the provision of proper training and standard of qualifications for full-time youth leaders?
    Sir E. Boyle: Yes, Sir; we keep these matters very closely under review, and I did notice what the hon. Member has referred to. We debated this subject in the House not long ago. As the hon. Member knows, my noble Friend's policy is to rely, as in the past, mainly on voluntary and part-time youth leaders.

  COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS

    Bases, Ceylon
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the result of the talks between officials from the Admiralty, Air Ministry and Treasury and the Ceylonese Government on facilities to be granted to Britain after the transfer of United Kingdom bases to Ceylon next October.
    The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): I have been asked to reply.
    I am not in a position to make any statement since discussions with the Ceylon Government are still proceeding.
    Mr. Brockway: When does the hon. Gentleman expect these discussions to be concluded?
    Mr. Harvey: I cannot give any exact date at the present time.

    Central African Federation (Discussions)
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations if he will make a statement on the official discussions with the Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland regarding the future of the Federation.
    Mr. Wadeasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement on the recent conversations between Her Majesty's Government and the Prime Minister of the Central African Federation.
    Mr. J. Johnsonasked the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations whether he will make a statement upon the recent discussions with Sir Roy Welensky, Prime Minister of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
    The Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. Alan Lennox-Boyd): In the absence in Ghana of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, I have been asked to reply.
    Her Majesty's Government were glad to welcome Sir Roy Welensky to this country as Prime Minister of the Federation, and his visit provided an opportunity for useful discussion of a number of questions concerning the Federation. A joint announcement and declaration by Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the Federation were issued on 27th April, and I will circulate the texts in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Brockway: In view of the importance of the decisions which were reached, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that a full statement should be made to this House? So far as the official communiqués are concerned, will the right hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, will there be consultation with the African populations of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia in 1960 before the Federal structure is maintained? Secondly, will he guarantee that before self-government is handed to the Federation, there shall be a democratic franchise in which the population will be able to express its views?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: It is difficult to answer questions of such importance within the compass of a Parliamentary Answer. We are to have a debate on colonial matters in this House on Monday, and I shall be very glad then to answer any points raised. If, however, the hon. Member has any specific points in mind, I will attempt to answer them now. With regard to his first point, I can assure him that it is, of course, our intention that the conference in 1960 shall be a fully representative one
    Mr. Wade: Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the British Government have not committed this country in advance to any modification of the safeguards of the economic and political interests of the African inhabitants

    355
    of these territories? Secondly, is it likely in the near future that there will be any increase in African representation at Federal level?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: In regard to the first part of the Question, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I and my colleagues found the Federal Prime Minister, and his colleague, Mr. Greenfield, fully conscious, as we knew they were, of the importance of the African population in the Federation, and of their obligations to them. There was no need for us to stress the need to see that responsibilities are properly discharged. In regard to the second part of the Question, it has been made clear I think, that in the 1960 conference the whole field of Federal problems, including franchise and representation of different races, will be open for review.
    Mr. Johnson: Is the Colonial Secretary fully aware of the tension in the Federation, and the anxiety felt by the African leaders regarding Sir Roy Welensky? They feel that some matters discussed are a violation of the agreements of 1953 entered into by the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor, Lord Chandos. Is he further aware that the Africans place most emphasis upon a fair franchise, and that anything like the Tredgold Commission, which will not send to Salisbury an appreciable number of black M. P. s, will be surely looked on as a sham and hypocrisy? Will he give an assurance that in that event he will use his power of veto, if such legislation is placed before him?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I wish that the hon. Member—whose interest in these matters I fully recognise—would do all he can—and he could do quite a lot—to reduce the tension. I would suggest to him that the statement that was made as a result of the conference, that the Prime Minister of the Federation
    " could assure the United Kingdom Ministers that a Franchise Bill would be introduced and would ensure that British-protected persons otherwise qualified would not he required to change their status in order to he eligible for the Federal franchise."
    is a matter of very great importance; and if—as I am sure he is—the hon. Gentleman is anxious to reduce the tension, I wish that he would sometimes concentrate his attention on definite undertakings of that kind, for which, I think, the Federal
    356
    Government deserve a great degree of credit.
    Mr. Creech Jones: In view of the fact that it was understood that there would be a standstill arrangement in regard to the Constitution, how did it happen that the Government have now agreed to the abrogation of Section 29 (7) which diminishes the powers of the British Parliament and at the same time increases the diplomatic rights of the Federation and in other respects modifies the Constitution as we understand it at the present moment?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman is really correct in either of his assumptions. In regard to the question of United Kingdom legislative powers, the powers of Parliament remain unaffected. The passage in the statement merely states what is the accepted practice, that the United Kingdom Government do not initiate any legislation on matters within the Federal sphere except at the request of the Federal Government. The powers of Parliament in regard to the territories remain quite unaffected. As to the second question, on matters of external affairs that are to be entrusted to the Federation, I think it is reasonable, in view of the achievements of the Federation and its importance in the world, that proper recognition of that fact should take place in the field of external affairs; and I shall be very ready in the debate next week to develop this argument and to give illustrations of the increased scope which will quite properly now be open to the Federal Government.
    Mr. Callaghan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a clear answer to the question put by the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade) [Interruption.] We do not know what we shall be debating on Monday. May I ask the Colonial Secretary this question? is there anything in the agreement which has been reached with the Federal Government or anything in the impending legislation which will lessen the degree of protection which this House at this moment exercises in regard to African inhabitants of the Protectorates?
    Mr. Lennox-Boyd: Nothing whatsoever, Sir.
    Following are the texts of the joint announcement and declaration:

    1. Discussions were held in London from 12th April to 17th April, 1957, between Sir Roy Welensky, Prime Minister and Mr. J. M. Greenfield. Minister of Law, of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and Lord Home, Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, and Mr. A. T. Lennox-Boyd, Secretary of State for the Colonies, about certain aspects of the constitution of the Federation.

    2. They reviewed the progress made by the Federation since it was established in 1953. They agreed that this progress had justified the hopes of its founders and provided a sound basis for further development of the policy of partnership between races which the Federation is pursuing.

    EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
    3. The Federal Constitution provides that matters of External Affairs may, from time to time, be entrusted to the Federation. The Federal Prime Minister represented that the time had come for the Federation to assume more responsibility in this sphere, particularly in the field of relations with other countries, and the appointment of representatives of the Federation in such countries. The United Kingdom Government have agreed to entrust responsibility for external affairs to the Federal Government to the fullest extent possible consistent with the responsibility which Her Majesty's Government must continue to have in international law so long as the Federation is not a separate international entity.
    DIRECT ACCESS TO THE SOVEREIGN
    4. In recognition of the constitutional position of the Federation, H. M. The Queen has been pleased to approve that in future the Prime Minister of the Federation should have direct access to the Sovereign on Federal matters affecting the Sovereign personally, on the award of Honours for services to the Federation, and on a number of ceremonial matters.
    ADMINISTRATIVE ARRANGEMENTS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
    5. There was discussion of a proposal by the Federal Prime Minister that a separate department of the United Kingdom Government, responsible to the Secretaries of State for Commonwealth Relations and the Colonies jointly, should handle relations both with the Federal Government and with all three Territorial Governments. United Kingdom Ministers explained that this was part of the general question of the responsibility of different Ministers for relations with the various parts of the constantly evolving Commonwealth, The whole question would have to be examined and in this examination Sir Roy Welensky's suggestion would be borne in mind.
    LEGISLATION
    6. The Federal Government having represented that the Federal Legislature should have the power to legislate with extra-territorial effect,
    358
    the United Kingdom Government have agreed that legislation for this purpose will be introduced into Parliament at Westminster at a convenient opportunity.
    7. The Federal Prime Minister drew attention to doubts which had arisen in regard to the purpose and effect of Article 29 (7) of the Federal Constitution and to the subject of legislation in the United Kingdom for the Federation. United Kingdom Ministers made it clear that the United Kingdom Government recognise the existence of a convention applicable to the present stage of the constitutional evolution of the Federation, whereby the United Kingdom Government in practice do not initiate any legislation to amend or to repeal any Federal Act or to deal with any matter included within the competence of the Federal Legislature, except at the request of the Federal Government.
    PUBLIC SERVICES IN "THE FEDERATION
    8. Public service questions were also considered. The United Kingdom Ministers said that in principle it was accepted that all Civil Services in the Federation, whether Federal or Territorial, would eventually be locally based and look for their future to the Federal area.
    9. Accordingly steps would be taken to work towards this objective and in particular the question of inter-changeability of officers would be examined in consultation with the four Governments of the Federation.
    PROPOSALS FOR THE ENLARGEMENT OF THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY AND FOR THE FEDERAL FRANCHISE
    10. The Federal Prime Minister informed United Kingdom Ministers of the position reached in his discussions with the Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and the Governors of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland in regard to the enlargement of the Federal Assembly and to the Federal franchise. United Kingdom Ministers accepted in principle proposals for the enlargement of the Federal Assembly. The Federal Prime Minister stated that he would not be able to inform Her Majesty's Government of the Federal Government's definite proposals for the franchise, or to present a Bill on this subject to the Federal Legislature, until further discussions had been held in Salisbury. Meanwhile, however, he could assure United Kingdom Ministers that a Franchise Bill would be introduced and would ensure that British Protected Persons otherwise qualified would not be required to change their status in order to be eligible for the Federal franchise, and that the qualifications for that franchise would permit of a reasonable number of such persons acquiring the franchise. United Kingdom Ministers took note with satisfaction of these assurances.
    REVIEW OF THE CONSTITUTION
    11. The Federal Constitution provides for a review not less than seven nor more than nine years from the date when it came into force (October, 1953). In this connection the two Governments have agreed on the declaration annexed.
    DECLARATION

    1. Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom and the Government of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland have already made it clear and take this opportunity of reaffirming that they are opposed to any proposal either for the amalgamation into a unitary state of the Territories now composing the Federation or for the secession of any of those Territories from the Federation.

    2. Article 99 of the Federal Constitution provides that not less than seven nor more than nine years from the date of the coming into force of the Constitution there shall be convened a conference consisting of delegations from the Federation, from each of the three Territories and from the United Kingdom, chosen by their respective Governments for the purpose of reviewing that Constitution. The Constitution came into force in 1953, and it is agreed that the conference shall be convened in 1960.

    3. The purpose of this conference is to review the Constitution in the light of the experience gained since the inception of federation and in addition to agree on the constiutional advances which may be made. In this latter context the conference will consider a programme for the attainment of such a status as would enable the Federation to become eligible for full membership of the Commonwealth.

  TRADE AND COMMERCE

    Commonwealth Countries
    Mr. Langford-Holtasked the President of the Board of Trade, in view of the fact that since 1952 the percentage of total trade with Commonwealth countries has fallen from 46·3 per cent. of United Kingdom trade to 44·9 per cent. of United Kingdom trade in 1956, what action he proposes to take in this connection.
    The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): Our trade has increased considerably since 1952 with Commonwealth countries as well as with the rest of the world, and in these circumstances small changes in the pattern and proportions of the trade are to be expected.
    Mr. Langford-Holt: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that to a large number of people that will be a disappointing Answer. Can he not give some indication that Her Majesty's Government have some ideas in mind which will increase this percentage rather than allow it to drift and decline as at present?
    Sir D. Eccles: We are always anxious to see more trade in all directions and
    360
    particularly with the Commonwealth. My hon. Friend will notice that trade in manufactured goods has expanded faster than trade in primary products, and also that balance of payments difficulties caused certain Commonwealth countries to restrict their markets last year.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of persistent American economic penetration in the Commonwealth countries, the volume of United Kingdom Commonwealth trade is bound to diminish? Why does he take such a complacent view about Commonwealth trade relations? Is he aware that unless the Government do something about it, we must make them?
    Sir D. Eccles: I do not take at all a complacent view. On the contrary, we are very glad to see that the Australians, for example, are now expanding their imports. The right hon. Gentleman has just been to Australia and perhaps he assisted in that. Unless the Australian Government issue import licences, it is not possible for this country to sell goods there.

    East-West Trade
    Sir L. Plummerasked the President of the Board of Trade what additional possibilities of trade with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the countries of Eastern Europe have been opened up as a result of the continuous review of the controls on trade with those countries.
    Sir D. Eccles: Controls on trade with these countries have not recently been changed, but trade continues to expand as shown by the fact that exports have increased from less than £16 million in 1953 to over £43 million last year.
    Sir L. Plummer: Does the President of the Board of Trade regard the figure of £43 million as a ceiling? Does he take the view that it cannot be exceeded? Is not the fact that this trade is now under constant review, to use his own words, an indication that we are not taking the necessary action needed to overcome these artificial barriers to our trade?
    Sir D. Eccles: Trade with the Soviet is showing fairly healthy expansion year by year. There are a great many goods that the Soviet can buy from us, and which I think their people would like to

    361
    see bought from us, and anything that we can do to assist that expansion we will do.

  NATIONAL FINANCE

    Motor Lorries
    Mr. Kershawasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in the interests of road safety, he is prepared to disregard for the purposes of taxation, the extra weight of protecting drivers of lorries from the dangers of shifting loads by the provision of adequate fittings to lorries.
    The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): No, Sir.
    Mr. Kershaw: Is the Financial Secretary aware that these accidents are causing a great number of fatalities which could be avoided? Is he also aware that there is a double danger, first, from the load coming through the cab when a lorry runs into something, and, secondly, because drivers of lorries are chary of putting on the brakes suddenly, because they know that will happen. There have been two fatal accidents in my constituency recently. Will my hon. Friend look at this matter again?
    Mr. Powell: I am aware of all those points. The fact is that it is a legal requirement that lorries should be so fitted that their loads can be properly secured, and it would not be proper to give tax relief for compliance with a legal requirement.

    Civil Service Messengers' Claim (Interim Settlement)
    Dr. Kingasked the Secretary to the Treasury on what date the Civil Service Union first presented its claim on behalf of the messenger and paper-keeper grades for improvements in the pay and conditions of these grades; when his Department replied to this claim; and whether he now proposes to concede the claim.
    Mr. Powell: The Treasury received the Civil Service Union's claim on 26th July, 1956, and on 30th July telephoned the Union to arrange a meeting, which was fixed for 18th September. An interim settlement retrospective to 1st October, 1956, has now been reached, subject to clarification of certain details.
    Dr. King: At a time like the present, when the Government and all of us are
    362
    urging improvements in industry in negotiating machinery, does not the Financial Secretary think that it is time that the Government put their own house in order? Is he aware that, according to the Civil Service Union, these men, who received no benefit from the Royal Commission, put in a modest claim. They had to wait seven months for a reply, and that reply offered the lowest-grade men, earning £7 10s. a week, an increase of only 1s.? Is he also aware that he is shaking the faith of a very loyal body of men in the Civil Service Union?
    Mr. Powell: I do not believe that the time that has elapsed since this claim was first made up to the present has in any material way prejudiced the settlement.

  AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

    Wilson Report (Consultations with Staff)
    Mr. Wingfield Digbyasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what consultations there have been through the Whitley machinery of his Department with those of his staff affected by the moves resulting from the recommendations of the Arton Wilson Report.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): There has been regular consultation with the Staff Side of my Departmental Whitley Council on all the changes arising from the Wilson Report. Their advice has been most valuable, and their views have been taken fully into account in all decisions reached.
    Mr. Digby: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is much anxiety among the local staff of his Department owing to the lack of consultation? Will he look at the matter again, and try to ensure fuller consultation, down to the local level?
    Mr. Godber: I cannot say that I am aware of that. I know that in certain areas the implementation of the Wilson Report has undoubtedly brought problems—which it was bound to do because of the economies which it has effected by way of amalgamations—but I understand that there have been no real difficulties which have not been adequately met during the course of negotiation.

    Imported Feeding Stuffs (Dollar Expenditure)
    Mr. Vaneasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what limits are set to the expenditure of dollars on the import of animal feeding stuffs; and how the total expenditure of dollars under this head has increased or decreased over recent years.
    Mr. Godber: Practically all animal feeding stuffs may be imported from dollar sources without restriction. Expenditure on such imports in the three calendar years 1954, 1955 and 1956 was about £41 million, £73 million and £67 million respectively, but the level of imports in 1954 was affected by the rundown of Government stocks at that time

    Fish Consumption
    Sir J. Henderson-Stewartasked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, with a view to encouraging the greater consumption of fish in this country and absorbing the excess landings of the trawler industry, he will take steps to assist the movement to encourage the public of this country to buy and serve fish on Tuesdays as well as Fridays.
    Mr. Godber: It is for the interests directly concerned to promote a campaign of this kind. Both the White Fish Authority and the industry have been conducting valuable publicity to increase the consumption of fish, and my right hon. Friend welcomes the enterprise and initiative of the industry to this end.
    Sir J. Henderson-Stewart: May I take it that that Answer really means that the Minister quite approves of this idea of a Tuesday fish day?
    Mr. Godber: Only on Tuesday this week I attended the annual dinner of the Fishmongers' Company, where I corn-mended it. I shall be glad to send my hon. Friend a copy of the text of my speech, if he will do me the honour of reading it.
    Mrs. Mann: The only result of propagating a Tuesday fish day as well as a Friday one will be to increase the cost. Is the hon. Member further aware that because so many people buy fish on Friday, the prices are, without any consultation with the little fishes, always made higher then, because of the
    364
    demand? Does he now intend to make the prices higher on Tuesdays as well as on Fridays?
    Mr. Godber: I do not think that that follows at all. I would say that in any case there are always adequate supplies on Tuesdays, as a result of the catches over the weekend. I should not have thought that there was any tendency to raise prices in such a way.

  NILE WATERS
  Mr. Philips Priceasked the Prime Minister whether, consequent upon continuance by the Egyptian Government of obstruction to the plans of the Canal Users' Association for the working of the Canal and to the right of Israeli ships to free passage of the Canal and the Gulf of Aqaba, he will have plans prepared after consultation with the Governments of Kenya, Uganda, and Tanganyika, to exclude Egypt from any increase in water supply from the headwaters of the Nile and Lake Victoria Nyanza.
  The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): No, Sir. This is a complex matter, but I am not persuaded that Her Majesty's Government's policy should be based on the linking of these two questions.
  Mr. Price: Would it not be desirable to show Colonel Nasser that we, too, have some cards that we can play?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir; I think that the putting of this Question on the Order Paper has demonstrated that fact.
  Mr. Bevan: But is that quite enough? Is not it true that Egypt has been a beneficiary of international co-operation in securing the withdrawal of French, Israeli and British troops from Egyptian territory? Is it not therefore perfectly proper that we should consider international action in order to secure that Egypt should have regard to other people's opinions?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, but I was asked whether I would consider what would really amount to a breach of the agreement of 1929. That is rather too serious a question to deal with by way of Question and Answer. I indicated that in my view these matters were not necessarily linked.
  Mr. Bevan: But is not there apprehension in some quarters that Egypt might be the recipient of economic aid from certain nations without first observing international regulations?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite another question. This is a question whether we should abrogate the agreement of 1929.
  Mr. J. Griffiths: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that when, under the colonial development and welfare scheme, we developed the Owen Falls project in Uganda, we consulted and came to an agreement with Egypt, and observed their interests, and that they might now reciprocate?
  The Prime Minister: Yes, I think so. indeed.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. G. Jegerasked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the effects so far observed by official British observers of the recent Soviet hydrogen bomb tests.
  The Prime Minister: No official British observers have been invited to any Russian tests.
  Mr. Jeger: Have not we been given to understand that British scientists are testing the atmosphere in order to discover the effects of these explosions and previous explosions? Will not the Prime Minister make the results of their investigations known to the world, in order that the non-Communist section, which does not regard everything that comes out of the skies from Russia as a blessing from heaven, might be assured of the correct position?
  The Prime Minister: That is not the Question that I was asked. I was asked what effects had been observed by official British observers, and my reply was that there were no official British observers. If I am asked whether I am prepared to give information as to what knowledge our scientists have obtained, I am afraid I must say that it would not be in the public interest for me to make any statement.
  Mr. Leeasked the Prime Minister what guarantees he proposes to seek
  366
  against the testing of hydrogen bombs in the Atlantic Ocean.
  The Prime Minister: None, Sir.
  Mr. Lee: Is it not possible that other nations may decide that if there is as little danger from our tests in the Pacific as the Prime Minister has indicated, it would be no less dangerous to have tests in the Atlantic? Might it not be that we have also put ourselves out of court in arguing that in such a case our commerce would be incommoded.
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir; I do not think that any Government would be so irresponsible as to wish to stage a test in the Atlantic Ocean, where it would cause a major interference with long-established shipping and air routes. The site for our tests was deliberately chosen because it is exceedingly remote from any inhabited place, and as far as possible avoids all shipping or air routes.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Is the Prime Minister suggesting that the internationally recognised right of passage is confined to recognised trade routes?
  The Prime Minister: That is quite a different question. I was asked whether I would seek for guarantees against these tests being carried out in the Atlantic, and I replied that I did not think it necessary to do so.
  Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas: Does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the question that I put to him arose not out of the original Question, but out of the Answer that he gave? Will he address himself to the question which I put, arising out of the Answer which he gave?
  The Prime Minister: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will put on the Order Paper a Question about this matter I will do my best to answer it.
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Prime Minister how far it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government to support the banning, as distinct from the limitation, of nuclear tests by international agreement without waiting for a general disarmament agreement.
  The Prime Minister: It is the view of Her Majesty's Government that the cessation of all nuclear test explosions should follow the prohibition of the production

  367
  of fissile material for weapons purposes as part of a general disarmament agreement containing an effective system of control.
  Mr. Henderson: Does not the Prime Minister agree that the latest Russian proposals constitute a useful basis for negotiating a partial disarmament agreement? If that be so, will he not give an assurance that the Government will give the most sympathetic consideration to the Russian proposal for banning nuclear tests as part of that agreement?
  The Prime Minister: The latest Soviet proposals will, of course, be considered in the Disarmament Commission, to which I think they are really officially made. We are always in some difficulty in that the proceedings of that body are supposed to be confidential; that always makes our position a little more difficult in dealing with them. I would point out that although these proposals will certainly be considered, among others put forward, at present, so far as we can see, they call for a permanent or temporary ban upon tests without any of the safeguards which we think necessary.

  EAST-WEST TRADE
  Mr. S. O. Daviesasked the Prime Minister if he will now take the initiative in the establishing of normal trade relations with China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and the people's democracies of Eastern Europe, having regard to the increasing resentment expressed in business circles in Great Britain against the present embargo restrictions.
  The Prime Minister: While Her Majesty's Government naturally give full weight to the interests of British traders, the security export controls must have regard to strategic considerations.
  Mr. Davies: Is not the Prime Minister aware that these embargo restrictions on trade really interfere with the sovereign rights of this country in foreign trade, and also hinder our international relations with such countries? Have they not been used to facilitate United States control of and infiltration into those countries which are forced to apply these embargo restrictions?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I could not possibly accept the statement made by the hon. Member.
  Mr. Davies: It is true.

  FOREIGN SECRETARY'S BROADCAST
  Mr. Emrys Hughesasked the Prime Minister whether the statements made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in the British Broadcasting Corporation's programme "Woman's Hour" on 29th April represent the policy of Her Majesty's Government.
  The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister aware that the broadcast made by the Foreign Secretary in "Woman's Hour" was received with a certain amount of incredulity? Will he assure us that he will advise the Foreign Secretary not to broadcast in "Children's Hour," because even the children will not believe him?
  The Prime Minister: No, Sir. We spent two days trying to find out what are the beliefs of the party opposite, and even so we do not know yet. I thought that my right hon. and learned Friend made two very wise observations, first, that a great many of the expressions of anxiety came from non-scientific sources and, secondly, that a great deal of the arguments came from people with strong fellow-travelling tendencies.
  Mr. Usborne—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Dodds.
  Mr. Bevan—
  Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Dodds) did not rise when I called his Question—
  Mr. Bevan—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not know to what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is rising, but unfortunately I called the Question and I must stick to that. I did not see the right hon. Gentleman attempt to rise before; I always try to give right hon. Gentlemen a place if I can.
  Mr. Bevan: With all respect, there was one supplementary question—
  Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I did not see the right hon. Gentleman rise. Mr. Emrys Hughes.
  Mr. Hughes: Is the Prime Minister not aware that this attempt to brand and smear as fellow-travellers everybody who objects to the H-bomb tests covers a very large number of people, and the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is going back to Question No. 49.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order.
  Mr. Speaker: I called Question No. 50.
  Hon. Members: No.
  Mr. J. Griffiths—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. I am speaking to a point of order, too. I called the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford, who has Question No. 50 on the Order Paper, and he did not rise and so I called the next Question, No. 51, which is also in the name of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), and I thought he was going to ask that. As there has been this trouble, the hon. Member has just time to ask it, if he wishes to do so.
  Mr. L Griffiths: On a point of order. May I, with respect, put to you, Mr. Speaker, the point that the question put to the Prime Minister about the broadcast was one which has caused deep concern and that you should consider allowing a supplementary question, because it is a matter upon which the public are entitled to some explanation?
  Mr. Paget: Further to that point of order. I think that there has been some complaint on a number of occasions from back-benchers about Privy Councillors hogging Questions. What happened was that one of my hon. Friends rose. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), before getting up, had the courtesy to look round to see whether a back-bencher wanted to intervene. When a Privy Councillor has the courtesy to do that, it seems a little hard not to allow a supplementary question. If I may respectfully say so, such conduct on the part of a Privy Councillor should definitely be encouraged.
  Mr. Speaker: That explains why I did not see the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale rise. I always try to give right hon. Gentlemen the opportunity to ask a question if they want to, but I saw the hon. Member for Yardley (Mr. Usborne) rise, and the question I had to decide was whether to let him ask a supplementary question or to give the hon. Member for South Ayrshire the opportunity to ask his Question. I thought it better to give an hon. Member who had taken the trouble to put a Question on the Order Paper the right to ask his Question, as time was short, rather than call another Member to ask a supplementary question. That is how the whole thing arose. There is nothing more to be said about it. Question Time has now passed.
  Mr. H. Wilson: Further to that point of order. Since we understood that the Foreign Secretary's broadcast was in pursuance of a series of scientific broadcasts, and since the Prime Minister now says—[HON. MEMBERS: "Point of order? 1—that the Foreign Secretary was speaking for the Government and no Opposition spokesman has been allowed by the B. B. C. to reply, is it not, therefore, incumbent upon the House to pursue the matter?
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly, the House can pursue any matter it likes, in the proper way, but not by asking about a Question after we have passed from it. That was the position I was in. I did not see the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale rise—and now I am told that he did not rise—and I chose the next Question.
  Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Sir, I looked round. Only one supplementary question had been asked, following the statement by the Prime Minister that he approved of the statement made by the Foreign Secretary on the radio, which is quite a serious thing to say. [Laughter.] Yes, surely it has long ago been accepted by the House that it is a very serious thing for the Prime Minister to agree with whatever the Foreign Secretary says. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) rose to put one supplementary question, and another supplementary question was about to be put and was not being called, and I was waiting for it to be called. With all

  371
  respect, it looks as though the intervention saved the Prime Minister from very anxious cross-questioning.
  Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman means that as a reflection on me, because if he does he ought to put it on the Order Paper and have it debated. I wish to state quite categorically that there was nothing of that sort in my mind when I chose the hon. Member for South Ayrshire, in preference to the hon. Member for Yardley, because the hon. Member for South Ayrshire had put his Question on the Order Paper and, therefore, I thought that he had the preference as the time was so short.
  Mr. Bevan—
  Hon. Members: Withdraw.
  Mr. Bevan: With all respect, Mr. Speaker, if you will do me the honour to read in HANSARD tomorrow what I said you will see that I said that the intervention saved the Prime Minister. It may not have been your intention to do so.
  Several Hon. Membersrose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. You said a few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, that the House could pursue any matter it wished, provided it did so in the proper way. Is not the proper way in this case to give notice that, owing to the unsatisfactory nature of the Answer, an hon. Member will seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment? if that is the proper way, I should like to give that notice now.
  Mr. Speaker: Certainly. What the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) says is quite right. It is impossible to thrash out fully every Question at Question Time, if every hon. Member who has put Questions on the Order Paper is to have a fair chance. If an hon. Member cannot get what he considers to be a satisfactory answer, he
  372
  should take the step suggested by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. Sometimes it is not easy to choose in accepting supplementary questions, but I always think that an hon. Member who has a Question on the Order Paper has a prior right, and hon. Members who jump in and intervene on other hon. Members' Questions should yield place. Sir Eric Errington.
  Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think there was some misunderstanding. In view of the fact that you called me to ask Question No. 51, is there any possibility of getting that Question answered?
  Mr. Speaker: Not the slightest. Sir Eric Errington.
  Mr. Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to follow the proceedings, and I should be pleased if you would clarify the position so far as my interest is concerned with regard to Questions. Do I understand that you called my name and that I did not rise? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] I cannot rise if someone else is on his feet, and I was waiting. [Laughter.] That is so. Often at Question Time an hon. Member rises when someone else is trying to get in. I was taking it, Mr. Speaker, that you never gave me an opportunity to ask Question No. 50, and having tried at Question Time for years to get up, I must say that this is the first time I have ever known that I have been passed over because someone else was on his feet and I did not rise. At least I hope to have some courtesy in this House, and I was trying to deserve it.
  Mr. Speaker: Order, order. The hon. Member was not passed over. I called his name distinctly. An hon. Member, when his name is called, has the right to rise, no matter who is on his feet. The hon. Member passed himself over by not rising. Sir Eric Errington.

VIKING AIRCRAFT ACCIDENT, BLACKBUSHE
Sir E. Errington Sir E. Errington (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement about the accident to the Viking aircraft at Blackbushe on 1st May.
The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): A Viking aircraft of Eagle Aviation crashed in flames shortly after taking off from Blackbushe airfield at twenty minutes past ten last night. The pilot had reported engine failure and was attempting to return to the airfield.
The aircraft, which was on charter to the Air Ministry, was on a trooping flight to Idris, Tripoli. In addition to a crew of five, it carried 25 Army officers and soldiers, two War Office civilians, and one civilian's wife. There were also two children. The five members of the crew, 21 of the Army personnel, and the civilians died in the crash. Another soldier has since died of the injuries he received. The three survivors suffer from severe burns.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation has decided that a public inquiry shall be held.
A message of sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives and with the injured has been received from Her Majesty the Queen. The House will, I know, wish to add its own expression of sorrow.
Sir E. Errington: May I ask my hon. Friend whether, in view of previous accidents which, admittedly, do not seem to have any factor in common, he will, in order to allay anxiety, ensure that the inquiry will pronounce on the safety or otherwise of Blackbushe Airport?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. I have no doubt that he will bear in mind the point which has been made by my hon. Friend.
Mr. de Freitas: All of us join the Under-Secretary of State in his expressions of sympathy as a result of this accident. Will not the Secretary of State now re-examine the serious charges which have been made in this House in the last
374
year or so against the present system of air trooping? Is it not a fact that in the last three months, in three separate crashes, over 70 people have been killed? Will the Secretary of State compare the accident rate of the present system of air trooping, both Service and charter, with that of B. E. A. and B. O. A. C.?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I have no detailed comparative records of the safety of the Corporations as compared with the independents, and I rather doubt whether any comparisons of this type are likely to bear fruit. I can say, however, that the record of the independents gives no cause for concern in this respect.
Mr. de Freitas: But will the hon. Gentleman ask the Secretary of State to do what I asked, to see how the present system of air trooping, both Service and charter, compares with the Corporations in the rate of accidents?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend will be delighted to do exactly that.
Mr. H. Morrison: Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will report to the House the facts that appear? Is it not the policy of the Government to have a bias against the use of public Corporation aircraft? Is it not time, even if no preference is given to the public Corporation aircraft, to remove the embargo against the latter, so that they can have a share, and in the hope that there will be some useful competition?
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think the right hon. Gentleman would agree that this is rather a wide question. On the specific question of the crash, a public inquiry is to be held, so all the facts will become available to the public. I feel that the other matters want more mature consideration.
Mr. Strachey: Will not the Under-Secretary of State here and now repudiate the statement, which is reported in the evening newspapers as made on behalf of the company concerned, that the proper lesson from this dreadful disaster is that still more contracts should be given to the private operators? We really cannot but believe that this grave accident, which affects a number of soldiers particularly, must have a grave effect on recruiting for the Services if these accidents go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh] Certainly, if

375
these accidents go on any conclusion of that kind would be quite the opposite from the conclusion which the House would naturally draw.
Mr. Orr-Ewing: I am not responsible for any statement put out by the company, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. He is raising matters which are better debated at an appropriate moment, and not by Question and answer. The original Question was directed to a specific crash, into which there is to be a public inquiry.
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Prime Minister whether, in view of the anxiety which is felt both inside and outside the House, he will consult with the Minister responsible to ensure that there is the fullest public inquiry and a full report to the House afterwards?
The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): I understand that there is to be a full public inquiry into this accident. On the larger questions which have been raised, at the appropriate time, whether by Question and answer or by debate, all those matters can be inquired into by the House. I can assure the House that the Minister of Defence, the Service Ministers and myself take full responsibility for ensuring that these questions are properly looked into and, so far as possible, the right decisions reached.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will announce the business for next week?
The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir, The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY, 6TH MAY—Supply [11th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on Colonial Territories and the South African Protectorates
TUESDAY, 7TH MAY—Second Reading of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY, 8TH MAY—Second Reading of the National Health Service Contributions Bill.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Herring Subsidy Scheme
THURSDAY, 9TH MAY—Supply [12th Allotted Day]: Committee.
Debate on the Air Estimates, 1957–58.
Consideration of the Motion to approve the Draft Sugar Refining Agreements Order
FRIDAY, 10TH MAY—Consideration of Private Members' Bills.
It may be convenient for me to inform the House that on Monday, 13th May, the Navy Estimates will be considered and that on Tuesday, 14th May, the Army Estimates will be considered.
Now, Sir, with your indulgence I have one other matter to which I should like to refer. I refer to the wish of the House, expressed before Easter, that a message should be sent to Sir Anthony Eden. This was done, and the House will wish to know that we have received a telegram from Sir Anthony, in which he says:
"I shall be grateful if you will express my thanks to the House for its message."
Mr. J. Griffiths: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he is aware that it would be our desire on Monday to discuss those Colonial Territories which we very seldom discuss in the House, and that, in particular, we would regard Cyprus and Central African Federation as being subjects which we would hope to refer to very early in a fuller opportunity than in the debate on Monday?
The Leader of the House has announced that on Thursday the House will go into Committee of Supply on the Air Estimates. Has he a statement to make about any decision of the Select Committee on Procedure on this matter?
Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. If the House will excuse me for one minute I should like to give our considered opinion on this, because it affects our debates on the Air Estimates. The Government have given very careful consideration to that part of the First Report from the Select Committee on Procedure which deals with the Business of Supply and we are in agreement with the recommendation for the abolition of the practice of balloting for and subsequently moving Amendments, under Standing Order 17, on first going into Committee of Supply upon each of the Service Estimates.
We are also agreed that, in future, Mr. Speaker should leave the Chair without putting any Question and that debates

377
on the Service Estimates should take place on Vote A in Committee of Supply. The Government share the view of the Select Committee that this should meet the wishes of the large majority of private Members and be in the best interests of the House as a whole.
The Government also agree that the present practice of balloting and subsequently moving Amendments to the Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," on first going into Committee of Supply on Civil Estimates, should not be changed. Accordingly, arrangements will be made for the ballot for those Amendments to take place in the House after Questions on Thursday of next week.
The Government propose that recommendations about Supply procedure should take effect without delay. In special circumstances with regard to the Service Estimates this year, it is proposed that the debates on the three Service Departments should take place on Vote I in each case, as Vote A has already been passed. Subject to the ruling of the Chair, I understand that a completely wide and satisfactory debate on Vote I will be possible. I hope that those arrangements will commend themselves to the House.
Mr. Griffiths: Speaking for my right hon. and hon. Friends, may I say that the arrangements which the Leader of the House has announced will meet our desires and that we agree with them?
May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will be able to make arrangements for a debate, at our request, on disarmament for the week after next?
Mr. Butler: May we discuss that through the usual channels?
Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the existence on the Order Paper of a Motion which may be taken to indicate anxiety about the future of the Suez Canal and the demand for dues? Is my right hon. Friend ready to say that a debate on this Motion will be held as soon as possible, as soon as convenient, after any Government announcement on the subject?
[That this House pledges support to Her Majesty's Government in any action calculated to uphold the 1888 Convention
378
and to redeem the undertakings given on 30th July, 1956, that the Suez Canal will not be left in the unfettered control of one Power; and furthermore urges Her Majesty's Government to take all steps necessary to secure the implementation of the six principles laid down by the Security Council and agreed to by Egypt.]
Mr. Butler: I should like to discuss that with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and with my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary.
Mr. Bevan: Are we not to have a statement quite early about shipping through the Suez Canal? Surely it is now necessary that we should know where we stand in this matter.
Mr. Butler: As a matter of fact, there is a meeting of S. C. U. A. this afternoon. We had better see what happens there.
Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that we shall have an early statement on the Suez Canal and an opportunity to debate it? Is he aware that there is widespread public anxiety about Press reports, which have not been denied by Ministers, which seem to suggest that we are heading for a catastrophic humiliation while our moral tutors proceed unabashed?
Mr. Butler: There are always limits beyond which it is unwise and, indeed, impossible to go in answering questions on business matters. My business, as Leader of the House, is to register what is said by hon. Members. I advise my hon. Friend to see the result of the meeting this afternoon and await further developments.
Mr. J. Griffiths: Are we to take it that there will be an early statement by the Government on the subject? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the statement is made we shall want to have a debate on the matter as soon as possible?
Mr. Butler: Naturally, when there is something to discuss, we shall wish to discuss the procedure not only with the Opposition, but with my hon. Friends who are particularly interested.
Mr. Fernyhough: Can the Lord Privy Seal assure us that the Government have no intention of enforcing the Closure on

379
the Service Estimates debate before all back benchers who want to take part have made their contribution?
Mr. Butler: We have been informally in touch with the Opposition, and, while I do not wish to quote them in any way, I believe that we are satisfied that there will be an opportunity for back benchers to state what they want to say. At any rate, we shall pay attention to what the hon. Member has said.
Captain Waterhouse: Is my right hon. Friend aware that despite the pressure put on him from several quarters to make an early statement on the question of the Suez Canal matter many people are far more concerned with the eventual settlement reached than with any expedition, and that it is far better, in a matter of such vital importance to Britain, as this, to be certain that we are right before any declaration is made?
Mr. Janner: As the Crook Report about ophthalmists and the statutory registration of opticians has been available for a number of years, is the right lion. Gentleman prepared to say that at an early date he will introduce a Bill for the registration of opticians in the light of the terms of that Report?
Mr. Butler: We are aware of the need of legislation on this matter, but I cannot say exactly when the legislation will be introduced.
Mr. H. Wilson: May I ask the Lord Privy Seal about his extraordinary proposal to have the Second Reading of the Finance Bill next Tuesday? Is he aware that, while we did not unduly press the point that we were asked to debate the Budget before the Service Estimates had been debated by the House, it is quite unprecedented and discourteous to the House that we should be asked to discuss the main instrument relating to taxation even before we have debated the Service Estimates?
Secondly, even if the Lord Privy Seal, in accordance with the quite unusual procedure which he seems to be following this year, were to reject that argument, does he not feel that with so lengthy, complicated, involved and difficult a Bill as this Finance Bill, this is a far shorter period than we are usually allowed? There is seven days between the publication of the Bill and the debate. Ought
380
not the right hon. Gentleman to take it back and present it later?
Mr. Butler: I understood that this general programme was not unacceptable to the Opposition and I am not prepared to alter the business now. I agree that the time is slightly shorter than usual— I have compared it with previous years. Nevertheless, the right hon. Gentleman has shown such ability in mastering these technical subjects that I am sure he will be able to master it in seven days and that we shall have a quite useful debate next week.
Mr. Wilson: While thanking the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks, may I ask whether, having treated the House in this way, which is quite unprecedented both in relation to the Estimates and to the short period, he will desist from misleading the House by saying that it was acceptable to the Opposition? We made a very strong protest against the suggestion that the Finance Bill should be taken with this indecent haste.
Mr. Butler: I do not like to upset or foul the usual channels in any way, and that is why I used the expression, which I believe to be perfectly correct, that the timetable for next week was "not unacceptable "; I did not go further than saying" not unacceptable to the Opposition ". The right hon. Gentleman is at liberty to make his protest about the matter, because the time limit is shorter than usual, but I believe that it will be possible to have a useful debate on the Second Reading. We do not propose to change our minds on the matter.
Mr. Wilson: Since the right hon. Gentleman will not change his mind, and since I am as loath as he is to foul the usual channels—we will leave that to the usual channels themselves; this is a matter which the usual channels could continue to discuss quite legitimately—is he aware that if this means that he thinks that he can get this complicated, involved and controversial Finance Bill through without adequate discussion in Committee, he is misleading both himself and his colleagues?
Dame Irene Ward: As the Service Estimates are to be discussed on a wide basis, will it be possible to discuss on the Navy Estimates the case of Admiral North?
Mr. Butler: That, fortunately, is a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Shinwell: Referring to the subject which was under discussion before the hon. Lady asked her question, many of us on these benches are completely in the dark. The Leader of the House has asserted more than once this afternoon that certain proposals have been accept. able to the Opposition. Will he please clarify the issue, and tell us what has actually been settled, so that we can know where we are? Why should we always be in the dark?
Mr. Butler: I think that the right hon. Gentleman had better establish his own channels with his own Front Bench.
Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask your guidance on another matter? Will any action be required by the House to give effect to the recomendations of the Select Committee on Procedure, which, the right hon. Gentleman said, it was the Government's intention to apply to the Service Estimates debates? It will be appreciated that the new proposals make some substantial changes in the proceedings of the House and may, from one point of view, be a very serious limitation on the rights of private Members.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that no formal action by the House is necessary to give effect to what has been said by the Leader of the House.
Mr. Silverman: In that case, Mr. Speaker, should it happen to be the fact that any right hon. or hon. Members are not content with the change proposed in the procedure. what opportunity would they have of putting their views before the House, and of letting the House decide whether or not it wishes itself to accept the recommendations of the Select Committee?
Mr. Speaker: They can do it by Motion, I suppose. If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) really has a point here which may have escaped my notice, I wish that he would communicate with me, when I will look into it with greater particularity. I do not myself see any formal action by way of Resolution or anything like that that the House needs to take.
Mr. Silverman: I will do my best to comply with that, Mr. Speaker, but I
382
should have thought that if one point was fairly clear it is that the Government are to invite the House to embark on a new procedure without the House ever having had the opportunity to consider whether or not it wishes to change its procedure.
Mr. Butler: On a point of order. The Select Committee has not yet made its final Report. For example, there are matters relating to the Closure and the quorum, and also to the Scottish Grand Committee. What we have in mind was that it would probably be necessary, or desirable, to have a debate on the Select Committee's Report, so that we can ascertain the views of hon. Members. This particular reform to which reference is made today is the only one that we are proposing to implement, prior to having the views of hon. Members at a later date.
Mr. Silverman: I am very grateful to the Lord Privy Seal for what he has said, but does it not reinforce my point? It seems now that it is the Government's intention to consult the House about this matter, but to put it into operation in this very important respect before doing so. Surely that cannot be right.
Mr. Wigg: Further to that point of order. The point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) cannot possibly arise this year, because the Government have already got their way. To me, the point of substance is really whether the Government are prepared to move the suspension of the rule so that, although Vote A has gone and Mr. Speaker will not be moved out of the Chair, an adequate opportunity will be given for redress of grievances. The point at issue is not that of getting your ruling, Sir, as a matter of procedure, but as a matter of good will on the part of the Government.
Mr. Speaker: I understand that to be the position. I gathered from the statement just made that a satisfactory arrangement had been come to about it. That is all I can say. I think that the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is quite right in what he says.
Mr. Wigg: This is not a question of arrangement between the two Front Benches, Sir, but is a back bench matter. The reason is that any hon. Member has a right to seek redress of grievance.
Mr. Butler: I have been listening to what hon. Members have said about suspending the rule, and it will be given consideration by the Government.
Mr. C. Pannell: Does the Leader of the House recall that Mr. Percy Daines, when a Member, asked, shortly before his death, about setting up once more the Select Committee on Accommodation? The Leader of the House promised that he would have that matter raised through the usual channels. I understand that the difficulty is the very closely restricted terms of reference under which we previously worked, and that it is the desire of the Opposition that a Select Committee on Accommodation should work under better terms of reference.
Can the Leader of the House say whether, in this quite important matter, on which much work has been done in the last three or four years by some Members, an arrangement has been agreed on to set the Committee to work again under more liberal terms, so that this House looks after its own interests and the interests of Members?
Mr. Butler: I realise the difficulties of accommodation and of the terms of reference. These matters are still under consideration. When I have something to report, I will bring it before the House.
Mr. Ede: I desire to advert to the matter which was being discussed earlier. It is one of the historic privileges of this House, Mr. Speaker, not to let you go out of the Chair—to go into Committee of Supply—before the House is satisfied on the question of the removal of grievances. I understand that, for some reason or other, this year that traditional right of the House is not to be enjoyed by hon. Members. It may be that it is only tradition and that it can be altered at will. I should be very surprised to find that that was so, and I would be interested to know what would happen if, in defence of the tradition, someone moved in the contrary sense—that you did not leave the Chair.
I hope that a clear statement will be made to the House on this matter, and that it is not left to an arrangement which is simply "understood." My hon. Friend the Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) alluded to the good will of the House. As an apostle of good will, I am
384
bound to say that I find him a most astounding figure.
Mr. E. Fletcher: May I submit, with great respect, to the Leader of the House, that, as a member of the Select Committee on Procedure, I was certainly under the impression that its interim Report would be considered by the House before any attempt was made to give effect to it. As the right hon. Gentleman appreciates, it does involve a very considerable interference with the rights of back benchers. I would not have thought it was satisfactory to accept the proposals of the Select Committee merely by an arrangement between the Front Benches, before the House has had an opportunity to consider them.
Mr. S. Silverman: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, may I add a further point? I apprehend, from the course that the questions and answers have taken, that the only thing that can be done at will—by which, I apprehend, is meant at the will of the Government—is not to have the ballot for Motions on moving that you, Sir, leave the Chair. The only result of not having the ballot would be to leave the discussion at large. The Motion, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair", is debatable, and the intention of the ballot was to restrict the debate to topics selected by ballot. If we are now to abolish that procedure, it would seem not that anything will be gained in the way of clarification of debate but that all subjects will be debatable.
Mr. Speaker: We have had this discussion and, as I said before, I did make some inquiries into the matter when I heard that the announcement was to be made. I understand quite clearly that the House can proceed in the way suggested without any formal step by way of amending Standing Order or passing a Resolution. After all, there has been a Select Committee on the matter and this is part of its recommendations. But, as a general rule, I think that the House should be chary in changing its long-established customs. There may be special reasons this year, but that is a matter to which we can return and clear up when the whole of the Committee's Report is debated.
Mr. J. Griffiths: I understand that the changed procedure this year has not so

385
far resulted in the House losing any opportunities which it usually has, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: I gather that that is the effect of it. From the point of view of the practical rights of Members, on this occasion, this year, there has been no harm done, that I can see, to private Members, but the larger question raised by hon. Members as to the method of varying the practice of the House without Resolution, and so on, can be gone into later.
Mr. Griffiths: In view of this discussion, I hope that the Leader of the House will consider the suggestion that he should consider suspending that rule on Monday.
Mr. Butler: I will take note of that.
Mr. Fernyhough: When Vote A of the Navy Estimates was taken last year, Mr. Speaker, I remember my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes) being unable to get into the debate; and if the suspension of the rule is not moved on Monday it will be unfair to those who take an interest in these matters.
Mr. Speaker: Those points will, no doubt, be noted.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  WAYS AND MEANS [1st May]

    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS
    Resolution reported,
    1. That persons who, either as insured persons or as employers, pay, or are liable to pay, contributions under the National Insurance Act, 1946, as amended by subsequent enactments (hereinafter referred to as "national insurance contributions"), shall be liable in addition to pay contributions, to be known as national health service contributions, as follows:—

    (a) any person who pays, or is liable to pay, national insurance contributions as a person of any of the descriptions specified in the first column of the Table set out below, except in paragraph 4 of that Table, shall be liable to pay national health service contributions at the weekly rate specified in relation to that description in the second column of that Table;

    (b) any person who is liable to pay national insurance contributions as an employer shall, for each person employed by him, be liable to pay national health service contributions at the weekly rate specified in the second column of paragraph 4 of that Table.

    2. That national health service contributions shall be paid to the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance, but, as between that Minister and the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State, shall be taken to be so paid for the benefit of the Minister of Health, towards the cost of the national health service in England and Wales, and of the Secretary of State, towards the cost of the national health service in Scotland, in such shares as the Treasury may determine, subject to—

    (a) provision for the expenses of the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance attributable to the collection and application of those contributions, and the payment into the Exchequer of sums retained by that Minister on account of those expenses;

    (b) provision for estimating the sums to be paid to the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State on account of the shares of national health service contributions due to them respectively; and

    (c) provision for treating the sums so paid to the Minister of Health as sums received by him under the National Health Service Act. 1946. otherwise than as sums required to he transferred to the Hospital Endowments Fund. and for treating the sums so paid to the Secretary of State as sums received by him under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act. 1947

    3. That, in consequence of the provision made by the preceding paragraphs of this Resolution, it is expedient to provide—

    (a) for reducing the weekly rates of national insurance contributions specified in

    387
    the said Act of 1946, as amended, for persons of the descriptions specified in the first column of the Table set out below, by the amounts specified in relation to those descriptions in the third column of that Table;

    (b) for discontinuing the making of payments out of the National Insurance Fund under section thirty-seven of the said Act of 1946;

    (c) for applying (with or without modifications) the provisions of the enactments relating to national insurance, and of the Orders in Council and regulations made thereunder, to national health service contributions;

    TABLE

    Description of person

    Weekly rate of national health service contributions

    Reduction of weekly rate of national insurance contributions

    s.

    d.

    s.

    d.

    1.Employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment

    …

    …

    1½

    4½

    8½

    2. Employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment

    …

    1

    0½

    6½

    3. Employed boys and girls under the age of 18

    …

    …

    …

    …

    8½

    4½

    4. Employers (for each person employed)

    …

    …

    …

    …

    …

    3½

    1½

    5. Self-employed men between the ages of 18 and 70, not including men over the age of 65 who have retired from regular employment

    …

    …

    1

    8

    10

    6. Self-employed women between the ages of 18 and 65, not including women over the age of 60 who have retired from regular employment

    …

    1

    4

    8

    7. Self-employed boys and girls under the age of 18

    …

    …

    …

    1

    0

    6

    8. Non-employed men between the ages of 18 and 65

    …

    …

    …

    1

    8

    10

    9. Non-employed women between the ages of 18 and 60

    …

    …

    1

    4

    8

    10. Non-employed boys and girls under the age of 18

    …

    …

    …

    1

    0

    6

    Resolution read a Second time
    Question,That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 86 (Ways and Means Motions and Resolutions), and agreed to.
    Bill ordered to be brought in upon the said Resolution by the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Vosper, Mr. Maclay, Mr. Boyd-Carpenter, Mr. Powell and Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.
    NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS
    Bill to make provisions for requiring persons who pay, or are liable to pay,
    (d) for removing limitations on the power of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to pass corresponding legislation;
    (e) for the making, on account of national health service contributions, of payments to the Exchequer of Northern Ireland, and to the appropriate authority or fund in the Isle of Man, in cases where corresponding financial adjustments are made on account of national insurance contributions;
    (f) for other matters incidental or supplementary to the matters aforesaid.
    contributions under the National Insurance Acts, 1946 to 1956, to pay contributions towards the cost of the national health service, and, in consequence thereof, to reduce the rates of contributions under those Acts, and to discontinue the making of payments out of the National Insurance Fund in respect of the national health service under section thirty-seven of the National Insurance Act, 1946; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Monday next and to be printed.

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL

    Clause 1.—(PUBLIC WORSHIP TO BE PERFORMED.)
    4.14 p.m.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: beg to move, in page 1, line 16, at the end to add:
    Provided that it shall be unlawful to order any person subject to this Act to be present at or take any part in such worship or to carry out any duty in substitution therefor.
    This Amendment seeks to put into the Bill some specific words to bring it into line with what, I understand, is naval practice, and to make sure that divine worship is, in fact as well as in law, a voluntary act, in that the old practice of having distasteful alternatives for those who do not attend divine worship shall be abolished. It is not, as I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will understand, an anti-religious Amendment. In fact, it is pro-religion, in that it tries to remove the stigma of compulsion from an act which should and must come from within a man's own self.
    On this side of the Committee, we realise that, as elsewhere, there have to be many compulsions in a Service. Some are minor, such as a man getting his hair cut or not smoking on watch, while others are major, such as that a man shall not desert his post. But we believe that no man has the right to compel another man to worship. Indeed, that right today is exercised, so far as I know, only in schools and in prisons. I consider that in the past, when it was exercised in the Services, its effects were almost without exception harmful. It produced any number of attempts at evasion. Men who had hopes of avoiding the compulsion of worship used to select all kinds of odd religions which they did not really uphold —Seventh Day Adventists, Holy Rollers and the rest—in the hope that because there was no chaplain of that religion in the ship or establishment they would thereby be able to avoid what they considered to be the tyranny of compulsion in this matter.
    Compulsion also led to counter measures by the authorities. If people really refused to go to divine service, on
    390
    grounds perhaps of conscience, they were on occasion given all the most unpleasant jobs they could possibly have, such as cleaning out the heads, doing potatoes and all the rest—
    Vice-Admiral John Hughes Hallett (Croydon, North-East): I do not think that last statement of the hon. Gentleman must pass unchallenged. I have had some experience of these affairs, and I have never heard a complaint or any case such as the hon. Gentleman has suggested. Such a statement, suggesting that commanding officers allowed this type of unauthorised punishment, for really that is what it comes to, ought not to be made, because it is a most unjust one.
    Mr. Mallalieu: I know that the hon. and gallant Member has had great experience —indeed, far greater than mine—but his experience was in the stratosphere and mine was very much down on the ground. I can tell him that, from my own experience, I have known that sort of thing happening, though I think without the knowledge of the commanding officer, perhaps through a petty officer taking the law into his own hands. The effect of that sort of thing on some of the men in naval establishments has been to create an atmosphere of "bloody-mindedness". I remember one man who when forced to attend service spent his time in seeing how many times he could spit into the cap of the man standing in front of him. That was his way of expressing himself about a service which he had no desire to attend.
    As the Service as a whole is a volunteer service, manned almost entirely by volunteers, and as it is governed much more by the compulsion of good neighbourliness than by the compulsion enforced by authority, I consider that the compulsion to worship reduces the Service to the level of a prison or a school in this respect, and that it also reduces religion to something which is an irksome Service routine.
    Because of that, I think that both the Service and religion itself is brought into disrepute by any form of compulsion whatever in its observance, and I therefore hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will see his way to have these words written into the Act and so make quite clear what our intentions are in this matter.
    Sir Patrick Spens: It is only right that the Committee should know the history of this Clause and the way in which it got into the draft Bill. There was, of course, and there has been for centuries, a similar Clause in the old Naval Discipline Acts. It is perfectly true that in the existing Naval Discipline Act, and in those which have gone before it, after
    " the worship of Almighty God ",
    these words were included:
    " according to the liturgy of the Church of England established by law."
    Again, after the reference to the Lord's Day observance, the words "according to law" were added.
    When the draft Bill was presented by the Admiralty to the Select Committee, over which I had the honour to preside, it did not include this Clause, and all the Regular Service members of the Select Committee were extremely shocked that the draft should not include this ancient historical Clause. Hon. Members who are interested will find that the first memorandum put before the Select Committee on the subject of public worship is to be found on page 412 of the Committee's Report, and that it is Appendix 16. None the less, when the Committee set about discussing whether or not there should be any such Clause in the Bill, there was a unanimous view in the Committee that there should be such a Clause in the Bill.
    In the proceedings of the Committee of 11th June last year, recorded in page 132 of the Select Committee's Report, it will be seen that the Clause in its present form was inserted unanimously by the Committee, but, of course, it was not inserted without a very long discussion, and it is part of that discussion which is relevant to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) has been saying. If hon. Members who are interested will look at pages 16 and 17 of the evidence, they will find that a long discussion took place, and, in particular, the point was discussed whether or not the service was voluntary or involuntary.
    The first thing that was brought out by the witness in front of us, Rear-Admiral F. A. Ballance of the Admiralty, was that there is not and never has been any sanction in Clause 1 in the existing Bill, or in any previous Bill. It is really a Clause
    392
    which has come down historically from somewhere about 1660, and it might be that if a commanding officer did not attempt to hold any service on his ship, and did it deliberately, he might eventually get into trouble for some neglect of duty but whether or not a commanding officer holds a service is a matter, as far as that Act is concerned, for him, although the Queen's Regulations support the Act to a certain extent.
    Regarding the evidence given before the Select Committee, it was to the effect that services were held in all the large ships in Her Majesty's Navy regularly every Sunday, and they were services of various denominations. We also have the evidence as to the number of chaplains, how many of them were Church of England, how many were Church of Scotland, Methodist, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, or the Jewish faith, and so forth. All sorts of services are held in the large ships, although undoubtedly the Church of England service is the main service that is held. As regards the small ships, the evidence showed that when they were in harbour it would be almost certainly voluntary parties that would go to the various churches in the harbour.
    As regards compulsion, the actual position was put before us, and will be found in the Answer to Question 90 in the Minutes of Evidence. The Answer given to the Question as to whether it is voluntary or not was:
    " You can order boys to go to church, but you cannot order other people to go to church. But you have authority, on high days and holidays, when there is a parade, to order people to attend church but they moo not be ordered to attend a church of another denomination than their own."
    So the actual position in regard to ordering persons to attend services is that it is confined solely to boys under 17 or 17½—I am not quite sure which it is—who can be ordered to attend services and other parades, but on great occasions as, for instance, as I have seen myself at naval stations, the unveiling of war memorials, and so on, undoubtedly members of the Services can be ordered to attend parade services such as that on very special occasions. The idea that this authorises compulsory attendance at services is wrong, because that only applies, according to the evidence given to us, to boys and to the other special church parades on some great occasion.

    393
    Therefore, under these circumstances, the Select Committee unanimously thought it right that this Clause should be retained, and thought it right that nothing should be done to limit its present customary effect. We considered that it was desirable, and quite frankly it is desirable, that boys under 17 could be—not should be—ordered to attend church services of their own denominations, and we thought it was right that the Admiralty should have the power to order members of the Services to attend great national ceremonial parades. That is the whole effect of the Clause, and, in these circumstances, I think the Committee will understand why we thought it desirable that it should be retained.
    I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not insert this proviso in the proposed Amendment, because it would make it impossible to order boys to attend services and to order any Service personnel to attend special parades on great national occasions.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I hope the Committee will accept the Amendment proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). I really do not see why the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) can object to this Amendment, which simplifies and clarifies.
    It should be made crystal clear in this Naval Discipline Bill that no sailor in any circumstances whatever, and even if a boy of 16 or 17, should be compelled to attend a church service. After all, there is a church service in this Assembly in this Chamber every day, but there is no compulsion on hon. Members to attend the exhortations of the chaplain. Of course, it is said that the chaplain looks around at the Members and prays for the country, but some of us do not really know what the chaplain in the Royal Navy is praying for.
    I fail to see why there should be any compulsion at all on anyone in the Navy, even on these other occasions, to attend a church service, and I think it should be crystal clear that there is no such compulsion. After all, the Navy is not a religious institution; it is a very secular affair, and it would certainly seem to me to be so. I have never been able to discover why religious services occupy such
    394
    an important part in the Armed Services. As to the special occasions to which the right hon. and learned Member referred, such as thanksgiving ceremonies, you, Mr. Duthie, will know that the poet Robert Burns wrote a very caustic verse about religious celebrations and occasions of national thanksgiving:
    " Ye hypocrities, are these your pranks?
    To murder men and give God thanks?
    Desist, I say; proceed no further,
    God won't accept your thanks for murder."
    4.30 p.m.
    A large number of sailors will have their own views about what is said by the chaplain. I cannot understand the position of a chaplain who delivers an address to an assembly of sailors in a warship or in an aircraft carrier if he takes as his text, "Thou shalt not kill." Would not he be subject to correction for saying something calculated to undermine discipline? This Amendment makes the position absolutely clear. It might have been the tradition in the 1660s, but we are now in the year 1957, and apparently this Naval Discipline Measure will continue for the next 300 years. If so, why cannot we insert the point of view of people living in 1957 and not respect so much the traditions of 1660? I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East has clarified the Bill by this Amendment in such a way that sailors cannot be punished if they refuse to attend divine service.
    Lieut.-Colonel J. K. Cordeaux: As a result of thirty years in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines, I have suffered from church parades and compulsory church attendance, and I ask my hon. Friend to look with sympathy on this Amendment; although I agree, after hearing what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), that it could not be accepted in its present form.
    It seems to me utterly wrong that in these days grown men should be compelled to attend religious services. I know that there must be exceptions, such as the occasion of funeral services or Armistice Day celebrations, or matters of that kind. But to force a man to attend Sunday service merely because he is put down in the official records as belonging to a certain branch of the Christian religion is, in my opinion, indefensible.

    395
    Despite what has been said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South I would say, after considerable experience that, in practice, compulsory church attendance does take place. As the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) was saying, I think it is only members of the Armed Forces, apart from people in prison, who suffer from this form of compulsion.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: To what date is my hon. and gallant Friend referring? Surely he is aware that compulsory church attendance was brought to an end, in, I think, 1947.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: It may be that I am to some extent out of date, because I have not attended a church service in the Service since that time. But I think I should be correct in saying that all persons who arc listed in the official records as belonging to a particular branch of the Church will normally be detailed to attend a service?
    Commander Sir Peter Agnew: No.
    Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: If that is not the case, it seems to me, nevertheless, that this particular Amendment, or something consistent with what was said by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South would clarify the position and make clear that in all cases over-strong encouragement, shall we say, should not be given to people to attend church services.
    I know it is sometimes suggested that this practice may be due to the fact that the Armed Forces possess separate chaplains' departments. The majority of chaplains to whom I have spoken were in favour of entirely voluntary services in practice as well as in naval law. Naval padres to whom I have spoken prefer evening services where, although the attendance may be small, it is entirely voluntary.
    If there is some form of over-strong encouragement to attend church it is better in the Navy than in the other Services, because the Navy does not go in for and make such a fetish of those irritating weekly ceremonies known as church parades from which the other Services suffer, and from which we in the Royal Marines certainly suffered
    396
    during the time when we were in barracks, with the attendant irritating weekend "spit and polish." I think it a fact that a man who is compelled to spend a large part of his weekend ironing his trousers and applying blanco, boot polish, Brasso and other forms of polish to various parts of his equipment is not likely to form a very high opinion of the religious ceremony connected with it.
    I am not suggesting for a moment that ceremonial is not desirable in the Services. Though I dislike it myself, I know that a certain amount is necessary. But people who have to carry it out dislike it very much and for that reason I think that if it is possible, it should never be linked in any way with a church service.
    Only last Sunday I read in the Sunday Express that a team from the Northern Command of the Army, from B Squadron of the 7th Royal Tank Regiment, were engaged in a soccer cup final with the 3rd Training Regiment of the Royal Signals. Apparently the match was televised and one gathered from the report in the Sunday Express that every time the Royal Signals scored a goal spectators from the Royal Tank Regiment, who were there in uniform, were seen to be cheering; and whenever their own team scored a goal they were rude.
    Apparently the reason was that they had been forced to watch the match. They had been marched to the ground and most of their weekend leave had either been cancelled or curtailed. I think that that is a very good parallel because it gives one a good idea of the likely effect that the linking of church services with parade work would have on the outlook of the men towards religion.
    In many ways I consider the Navy the most progressive of the three Services, but, at the same time, I feel that it has a tendency to hang on to old customs and usages because they took place in Nelson's day. Although this is one of the old customs which is still a very strong custom, to say the least of it—even though it may not be actually compulsory—it has certainly outlived its usefulness. Something on the lines suggested in this Amendment would make the position crystal clear to all commanding officers and would be useful. I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend will consider this matter sympathetically.
    Sir P. Agnew: I am fully aware of the number of advantages accruing from having been a Regular member of one of the fighting Services before coming into this House. It is a considerable number of years ago—I have not had time to count them up—since my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) and I were together at an establishment called Whale Island, where my hon. and gallant Friend was in the process of converting himself from a naval officer into a Royal Marine officer—a rather rare process which I think the Admiralty afterwards brought to an end by one of its numerous regulations.
    It is not, and, I understand, has not been the practice—indeed, regulation has made sure that it has not been the practice —for there to be compulsory attendance at church services. That in itself might seem—so long as the regulations continues in force—to render unnecessary the Amendment of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu). But the Amendment itself would have two practical disadvantages which. I think, could not commend it to the Committee.
    One of them is that, if it were accepted, it would apparently prevent those below man's age, the boys in the Navy, from being made compulsorily to attend church services; in exactly the same way as their opposite numbers in civilian life, are, under the rules of our State education system, made to attend a short service every day according to the syllabus of the education committee in their county. It would, therefore, place them at a disadvantage.
    Mr. E. Fernyhough (Jarrow): The hon. and gallant Member will be aware that parents who do not subscribe to the religious views expressed by the teacher at those communal meetings is entitled to withdraw his child from the service.
    Mr. Ede: That is a statutory right.
    Sir P. Agnew: I am, of course, aware that that right exists, but I am also aware that, contrary to the old practice, since the passing of the 1944 Education Act the number of parents who ask for their children to be excluded from the daily non-denominational services which are
    398
    held in our State schools are very few indeed. That is my understanding.
    I now pass to the second disadvantage which the acceptance of this Amendment might create. Unlike the more measured existence in peace-time of life in the Army or the Royal Air Force, life in the Navy is, in a sense, much more akin to what one might describe as active service, because of the vagaries of the weather. On frequent occasions on Sundays, in harbour, when men hoped to "get their heads down", as the phrase is, I have known a gale to blow up suddenly and a number of men be detailed for duty to set an anchor watch, or some other strictly nautical evolution with which the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East will be familiar.
    Were this Amendment accepted there might be the risk—I do not say that we should run it often—of men claiming that they had been unfairly detailed for a duty at the same time as there happened to he a church service taking place on board: and that instead of resting down below in their mess decks they had had to take part in a nautical evolution which actually had been rendered necessary by a change in the weather. This Amendment is not a practical one, neither is it necessary, and I feel that the Committee should not accept it.
    4.45 p.m.
    Mr. Ede: The speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) was a refreshing breath of fresh air on this subject and brought into the debate the atmosphere of 1957. We do not live now in 1660. The Act of Uniformity was passed in 1662, when it was believed that everybody ought to hold one faith inside the country. The people in control in the early part of 1660 were just as certain of that as those who passed the Act of Uniformity in 1662. The difference was that a slightly different form of religion would have been prescribed.
    Acceptance of the Amendment would carry out the spirit of the Navy administration as we understand it is at present. As the hon. and gallant Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) said, the freedom that has been pleaded for by my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) and the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, South may be safeguarded by regulations.

    399
    It is easier to alter regulations than to alter an Act of Parliament. The Amendment expresses the spirit of modern religious communities. They manage to live in a measure of amity that would have been regarded as impossible in 1660, and even as undesirable.
    The hon. and gallant Member for Worcestershire, South tried to draw a distinction between denominational and undenominational teaching in schools supported by the State. Both are given—in a voluntary aided school—the religion of the school governors as prescribed in the trust deed. Anybody has the right to withdraw his child from that instruction and from the act of collective worship in accordance with the instruction. Similarly, he has the right in a county school, where undenominational religion is given. On occasions, and to my knowledge, Roman Catholics will withdraw their children, quite understandably. We cannot expect people of authoritarian faith to accept the ministrations of lay people of non-authoritarian views.
    In the Navy, we are not dealing with children and I would not object to an addition to the Amendment at the appropriate stage or in another place that where the Navy is virtually in loco parentis,dealing with boys, there should be a right to secure that the boys attend the particular church that their parents desired, unless the parents objected to their attending church at all. Some parents, even religious parents, take the view that it is wrong to enforce on one's child one's own views in regard to so important a matter as religion.
    I have not heard anything, either from the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), whose views on this matter I hold in very high esteem and whose work on this type of problem has placed every hon. Member under a deep debt of gratitude to him—[HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear."]—or from any other hon. Member which makes me think that the Amendment would do other than make clear to persons who have to administer the Bill what the spirit of the Committee is on these matters. It is out of keeping with the modern age not to make it clear that men above the age of boys are regarded as having the right to choose what religion, if any, they would like to follow and what
    400
    religious service, if any, they would like to attend.
    I recollect that when I was in the Army I was registered as a Unitarian and that there was difficulty in finding a chaplain. On one occasion the Jews had a Rabbi come to them. The sergeant-major said to me, "Serjeant, you can go to this Service on Sunday. They only believe in one God and that's all you do." I replied, "I am not quite sure that it is the same God."
    What happens at compulsory church parade? What used to happen when, if compulsion was not actually used, the pressure was very strong? A number of soldiers would be singing the lewdest paradies of the hymns, sotto voce,while the Service was going on. That certainly was not good enough. It was not good for the men who were attending service with a genuine desire to get benefit from it. Worship is a matter of the spirit and not of form. There is nothing more destructive of the spirit in these circumstances than the presence of people who are there as a matter of form and resent being there.
    I have no doubt that what has been said about the liberal atmosphere of the officers in the Navy towards these matters is true of the great majority, but now and then one comes across an individual who, unless there are words in the regulations like those in the Amendment, can bring non-legal pressure, things he ought not to do, into play on men who, in a disciplined force, may very well feel unable to resist. I hope that the Minister will feel that, living in 1957, there can be no objection to, but every argument for, including these words in the Bill.
    Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: A great deal of argument in this Committee is based upon misapprehension. Several hon. Members have supported the Amendment in the belief that attendance at divine service is still compulsory in the Navy. That was so up till roughly ten years ago. It is no longer so. Anybody who reads Clause I of the Bill carefully will see no idea in it of compulsion. It merely says that public worship is to be performed. There is no question of compulsion or of anybody attending public worship. Undoubtedly, the chaplain must attend because it is his duty to perform the

    401
    service, but there is no compulsion whatsoever in Clause 1.
    If the Amendment is added to the Clause it will give the idea immediately by implication that there is compulsion. If the Clause is left as it is, it reads that there is no compulsion. For that reason, I could not possibly support such an Amendment.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I am in complete agreement with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon). There has been some misconception. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that he thought that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) was living in the present day, 1957, in what he said; in fact, that is just what he was not doing. My hon. and gallant Friend said that church service was still compulsory in the Navy. It is not. It has not been so since 1947, with the two exceptions mentioned by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens).
    In broad terms, the position is that the Bill will be supplemented by regulations, and, as the right hon. Member for South Shields said, it is easier to alter regulations than an Act of Parliament. The feeling of the Committee is that it should be made crystal clear to the Navy, not only in the Bill, but in the Queen's Regulations, which will support it, what the feeling is about religious worship. It is well known throughout the Fleet that religious worship is not and cannot be compulsory except in the case of boys and on certain very special ceremonial occasions. It is of national importance when there is a ceremonial parade and a service of some sort that the Navy should take part in that ceremonial.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me to explain the point of view of the Admiralty. The Department realised that this Clause was not included in the Army and Air Force Acts, but had been a feature of Naval Discipline Acts for many centuries. If it is to stay it would be the greatest pity to alter it in the way suggested in the Amendment. It is well known that worship is not compulsory.
    402
    It may be that some hon. Gentlemen think of it more in principle than in detail, but it is, in fact, written into the Queen's Regulations.
    I do not know what those who support the Amendment are frightened of. There would certainly be a most tremendous hullabaloo if the Board of Admiralty tried to make religious worship compulsory.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: Does not the Clause do just that? In some ships there is not a chaplain. I suppose the Clause would apply to the service even if there was nobody there. In some ships, people go away for week-ends, and a junior officer is ordered to conduct the service.
    5.0 p.m.
    Mr. Soames: Is the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) inferring that it should not be necessary to have services available for men should they wish to attend divine service? That, surely, is the logical conclusion of his argument. The services would not be conducted and anyone who wished to attend them could not do so. It is true that under this Measure the service must be performed, but the spirit of the Amendment is not to prevent an officer from performing a service. I do not think there are many of Her Majesty's ships on which there would not be one officer who would be prepared to conduct divine service for his ratings.
    Mr. Paget: Because he would be ordered to do so.
    Mr. Soames: They are not ordered to do so; the regulations are absolutely clear on that point. This Clause has been a feature of naval life for a long time. It has inspired the actions of seafaring men for many generations. I think it would be a pity to destroy the spirit of it by adding this Amendment. I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, East (Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu) will see tit to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Thomas Steele: We owe a debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield. East (Mr. J P. W. Mallalieu) for moving this Amendment. because by so doing he has raised a very interesting debate. If it has done nothing else, it

    403
    has at least made the intentions of the Admiralty clear.
    At the same time, it should be borne in mind that this is a Naval Discipline Bill. Therefore, the various provisions of the Bill are matters which have to be connected with discipline and it is obvious that any provision put in the Bill will be so treated when it becomes an Act. The experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Nottingham, Central (Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux) is what the public generally think about these matters. I thought it a very good thing indeed that he should have the courage to make that speech in the Committee this afternoon.
    I wish to draw one matter to the attention of the Committee. When the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) gave his interpretation of what had happened in the Select Committee he said that in the original draft this Clause did not appear. If that is so, when the draft Bill was put forward it must have been the view of the Admiralty that this Clause was unnecessary and that it should fall into line with what has been done in the Army and Air Force. The evidence of the right hon. and learned Gentleman to this Committee was that it was on the insistence of the Select Committee that this Clause now appears in the Bill. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether the Admiralty accepted the advice of the Select Committee. Is it really pressing for this Clause to be in the Bill?
    The views of this House should be taken into consideration. There is a fair compromise in this matter. In so far as we accept the advice of the Select Committee about having this Clause in the Bill at the same time note should be taken of fears expressed in this Committee. Whether this is the right Amendment by which that should be done or not, we should have an undertaking from the Government that that will be taken into account and some further consideration given to the matter. If an undertaking of that kind were given we would be prepared not to press the matter further today.
    Mr. Soames: The position the Admiralty took is explained in Appendix 16 of the Select Committee's Report. It is quite clear and all set out there. The
    404
    Admiralty felt there might be opposition, not on this score, but on other scores, from the Church of Scotland, Roman Catholics and Non-Conformists. The Select Committee was insistent in its view that the Clause should be included. It was insistant that the Clause should be included as it is in the Bill, not with an Amendment. Nor was it the case that the Admiralty was concerned with having either the Clause or the Clause with the Amendment. The Admiralty was concerned about whether or not it was wise to put into a Bill affecting discipline something to do with religious services, because that went back to bygone centuries.
    The regulations would still have stood in Queen's Regulations. The inclusion or exclusion of this Clause as it stands at present, unamended, would not affect the regulations applicable to non-compulsory attendance at divine service in any way. The Committee felt that the Clause should be put in and the Admiralty was delighted that the Committee felt that way It felt that way after going into the matter in considerable detail and quizzing a number of witnesses.
    I think that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) was right when he said that the public do not appreciate what the position is. It is quite clear that there is no compulsion except for the two exceptions I have quoted. The Amendment is not necessary for that reason. It would detract from the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. Steele: What the Parliamentary Secretary has now indicated is that the Clause itself is not necessary. He has all the powers in Queen's Regulations to do what he wishes to do. That appears to have been the view of the Admiralty when it put forward the draft Bill.
    On the question of compulsion, I have read with interest the evidence given before the Select Committee. Even in Question 90, to which the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South referred, it is not very clear. Rear-Admiral Ballance, replying to an hon. Member, said:
    " You can order boys to go to church, but you cannot order other people to go to church."
    He went on to say:
    " But you have authority, on high days and holidays…"

    405
    which is a rather curious phrase—
    " when there is a parade, to order people to attend church…"
    If the power is there to ensure that attendance at church can be made compulsory on one occasion, it can be made compulsory on another occasion and the Admiralty would decide what is a high day or a holiday.
    We do not want to make a great deal of heavy weather on this point. The Parliamentary Secretary is, in fact, saying that our intention by the Amendment is more or less the present position. if he is prepared to have another look at this matter and to see whether the desire of the Committee can be met, we shall have been successful in the discussion we have had this afternoon.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Is the Parliamentary Secretary about to give an undertaking on the lines suggested?
    Mr. Soames: Quite honestly, I am not at all convinced that it is the desire of the Committee that this Amendment should be included. I do not believe it is. I have explained that it is unnecessary and I have said that in the view of the Admiralty it would detract from rather than add to the benefit of the Clause. Were I to say that I would look at the matter again, I would be leading the hon. Member astray if I gave him any encouragement to think that I would change my mind between now and Report stage.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 3.—(MISCONDUCT IN ACTION BY OTHER OFFICERS AND MEN.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Commander J. W. Maitland (Horn-castle): The earlier part of the Bill deals with action conditions. Unlike the wording in other Service Acts, Part I is called "Articles of War". The first Clauses deal with what may happen under battle conditions. I want to draw attention to the inclusion of one word in Clause 3. It has been put in and makes it different from the original Clause 5 which it seeks to replace. That word is the simple word,
    406
    "lawful". The Clause says that men must obey the lawful orders of their superior officer in action. At first sight, it seems ludicrous to suggest that "lawful" should be left out, but it was left out of the previous Act, and it was left out for a very good reason. It was left out because in action it is very difficult sometimes to decide what is a lawful action and what is not.
    Mr. William Wells: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman give his authority for the statement that that was the intention in the omission of the word "lawful"? As I understand the law relating to this subject, it was always implied that lawful orders and only lawful orders should be obeyed.
    Commander Maitland: That may be so, but, as I am sure the hon. and learned Member will discover, although the Act at present in force omits the word "lawful" in that Section, it uses it in another part—what one might call the routine part—of the Act, for example, in Section 17. I had no right to say that this was the definite reason for its omission here, and I apologise for saying that, but it is my inference that it was the reason for its omission.
    We find in the Articles of War, in the Act under which we are at present working, that in Section 17, dealing with insubordination. a man must obey the lawful orders of his superior. The reason why I want to draw attention to this matter is because of what happened at the Nuremberg trials. I say straight away that I have always felt, and felt at the time, that the Nuremberg trials were not a wise thing. It was an unwise act, and the defence of subordinate officers very often was that they obeyed orders. I still maintain that that was a proper defence. It was not held to be a proper defence, however, and people were executed in various parts of Europe.
    5.15 p.m.
    I am all in favour of politicians and people who start wars being hanged or shot—and I can say that now as a politician—but I am not in favour of serving officers who do their duty as they think they should in time of war being executed afterwards for what they have done. In stress of battle, to which the Clause refers, things take on a very different form as in ordinary times of peace.
    When putting in the word "lawful" in the Clause, we deliberately place upon the shoulders of the men who receive the orders the responsibility of knowing whether they are lawful. In other words, if a man obeys an order which is unlawful he will be committing a crime. In action it is sometimes very difficult, particularly, perhaps, in a naval action, to know whether an act is lawful. It may be that the only way to save a ship with 500 men aboard is to shore up a bulkhead after the ship has been torpedoed, but it may be that in doing so men who have been burned and who are dying, who might otherwise be saved if the bulkhead were kept open, would be deliberately condemned to a terrible death, although by condemning the lives of, say, those 15 people 500 others might be saved.
    In time of war it has always been
    " a very present help in trouble "
    to know that if one obeyed orders one could do no wrong and that when a man was frightened and did not quite know what to do he would be all right as long as he did what he was told. Now that shield is being taken away. If a quite junior officer has to close up a bulkhead such as I have described, how is he to have the knowledge of whether the part he has taken in condemning people to death was in response to a lawful order? This raises considerable issues.
    I realise that since the time of the Nuremberg trials other nations have taken the same line. I read in The Times the other day that when the German Army was reconstituted a clause was included to the effect that those serving in it must obey only lawful orders.
    I do not see what we can do about this. I do not think we can alter it, but I believe that it is a great mistake. It opens the opportunity to a Power which wins a great war to take a horrible revenge on the men who are fighting on the other side, and I do not think that is right. I believe that when the futility, the madness and the unlawfulness of war in itself is over, the sooner one forgives and forgets the better. That is why I raise this point, which I believe to be a serious one, and because we are now putting into legislation something which will have a considerable effect on the way in which orders in action are considered in the Navy.
    Mr. Sydney Silverman (Nelson and Colne): Nothing is more remarkable in the procedure of our House of Commons than the way in which quite unexpectedly one stumbles across the discussion of great fundamental principles in a context where one would hardly in advance have expected them. Here we are at the Committee stage of a reformed Naval Discipline Bill. One could hardly have imagined a less controversial occasion or one in which ultimate principles of human conduct would be less relevant. That, however, is one of the surprises of our system and is probably one of its great merits.
    In the debate on this one word "lawful," which is introduced into the Clause in a context where previously it was not included, the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has raised, as he clearly understood, a matter of fundamental principle. For my part, I rejoice that the word is there. I hope it will be kept there. I say that not because I think that we are advocating any change in the law. I will return to this point later.
    Let me say at once—I say it with all diffidence, because the hon. and gallant Member knows about these matters and I do not—that I find myself considerably at issue with him in his view that it has ever been a defence in the law of our country for a man charged with doing an unlawful act to say that he did it in obedience to a superior officer. I quite recognise that that has been a principle of the military law of some other countries, and it has led them into disastrous consequences, some of which the hon. and gallant Member mentioned, but I would be surprised to learn that it had ever been a principle of law. By putting in the word "lawful" now, it does not seem to me that we are making any change in the law or altering anybody's obligations before it.
    The hon. and gallant Member referred to Nuremberg and expressed his view about it. I am not at all sure that that has anything whatever to do with what we are discussing. What we are discussing are the liabilities and obligations of our citizens before our courts.
    Commander Maitland: If the hon. Member reads the Report of the Select

    409
    Committee, he will see that it was admitted that it was because of the idea of Nuremberg that "lawful" was deliberately inserted in the Clause.
    Mr. Silverman: This is one of the things about which I think I may say without lack of modesty that I know perhaps a little more than the hon. and gallant Member. I know what was said at Nuremberg. I was there and listened to a great deal of the trials. Since the hon. Member has mentioned it, I shall have a word to say about it presently. What I am saying is that, although the hon. and gallant Member has raised a point about it on which I want to make a comment, I am not quite sure that the word "lawful", although it has some relevance, I have no doubt, is the main purpose to be achieved in the Clause.
    The Clause deals with the responsibilities of British citizens before British courts. If it has a bearing upon the exercise of power by victorious nations in international tribunals, that is an indirect result and not a direct result. What we are dealing with here is the responsibilities before our law of our citizens.
    Let me say a word about the Nuremberg trials. I have a great deal of sympathy with the view that no principle in which we believe is greatly assisted by the mere exercise of power by a nation because it happens to have won a war against people who happen to have lost it. There is no greater merit in our exercise of mere power of that kind than there would have been if the other side had won and had exercised that kind of power against our citizens.
    The hon. and gallant Member, however overlooks the fact that that is only a small part of the story. What he says about people doing things in the heat of battle that they might not have done in other circumstances is very true. What he says about people faced with a difficult and critical decision on which many lives may depend being immune in the minds of most people from criminal consequences if at that moment they happen to make the wrong decision instead of the right one also is very true. A large part of the matters litigated at Nuremberg had nothing whatever to do with the heat of battle. They were things done deliberately, for political reasons, in the coldest of cold blood.
    410
    No battle was going on when 6 million Jews were collected in cattle trucks from all over Europe and taken to concentration camps and there massacred in cold blood. This was not a difficult decision that somebody had to make, considering whether to sacrifice a few lives in order to save a great many more. This was not a difficult decision that a commander-in-chief or commander at sea could make as to how best, in a critical situation, he could discharge his professional and patriotic obligations. It was nothing of the kind.
    This was a cold-blooded conspiracy, without reason, without cause and without necessity, and for my part I think it was a good thing that we should seek to establish, even though we had to do it as victors in a war, that there is a common conscience of mankind in these matters, that there is a common law of humanity and that whether there was any Act or legislative process on the Statute Book, no man, in the twentieth century, was entitled to say, "I did not know that Auschwitz was wrong and I did what I did at Auschwitz because somebody higher up in the military heirarchy or in the political heirarchy told me to do it."
    There are times when a man is bound to stand on his own feet and is bound to say, "This thing is so obviously and plainly wrong that I will not do it, whatever the consequences." If he is not prepared to do that, he is not to complain afterwards if he is held criminally responsible for what were clearly criminal acts. That is all I want to say about the Nuremberg aspect.
    I should like to say one word about the domestic aspect. I think it would be very wrong if we changed what has been the basis of our law in these matters for many centuries. The matters that the hon. and gallant Member pleaded against the notion that the word "lawful" should be in the Clause are certainly relevant matters, but to what are they relevant? They are not relevant to the question of whether an offence has been committed. They are not relevant to the question of whether what was done was lawful or was a breach of law. They are relevant, and very relevant, on questions of penalty.
    One may well excuse a man for breaking the law when the circumstances were such that it was a difficult decision and

    411
    one feels that in mercy and in justice he ought to be relieved of the consequences. We can all see that and appreciate it. I am 100 per cent. with the hon. and gallant Member in what he said about that. That, however, is no reason for blinding one's eyes to the plain facts of the situation and the rights and wrongs of it.
    I hope there will come a time when no nation will be content to have it as part of its law that a man is entitled to say, "What I did was wrong, what I did was unlawful, I knew it was wrong and unlawful, but I am entitled to escape all the consequences because somebody came and ordered me to do it." That has never been the British way, and I hope it never will be, and I feel sure that the hon. and gallant Member himself, on consideration, will feel that his objection to the word "lawful" in the Clause was misconceived.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: The first of the two points raised by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) was whether we are, in fact, changing the law. The answer to that is a little doubtful. It has always been the general rule in the Navy, through the Naval Discipline Act, that people are required to obey only lawful orders. The Clause, however, derives from Section 5 of the existing Act, which is now being replaced, which refers to the conduct of people in action and which specifically omitted the word "lawful" and, therefore, gave the impression, whether rightly or wrongly, that it would not be a defence for a person to say that an order was unlawful.
    5.30 p.m.
    I do not support my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), who has raised this matter, because actually I must confess to some responsibility in regard to it. It was I who, in the original proceedings of the Select Committee, drew attention to the omission of the word "unlawful" in the Admiralty draft and suggested that it should be included. I am sure that it is right to include it. I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said with regard to the assessment of penalties in extenuating circumstances. That is undoubtedly correct. On the other hand, I dissent
    412
    from him in his suggestion that there is no connection between this matter and the Nuremburg proceedings.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Indirectly.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I submit that there is more than an indirect connection; I think there is a direct connection.
    The objection to the Act as it is now is that a junior officer who has an order to carry out something which is plainly against the rules of war is in the rather embarrassing situation that if he disobeys the order he is liable to the gravest penalties from his own side, and if he obeys the order and commits something which is recognised as an international crime he is liable at the conclusion of hostilities to penalties of an equally unpleasant nature. I feel, therefore, that the Bill in its present form is correct and that the word "unlawful should remain in the Clause.
    Mr. R. T. Paget: I have very great sympathy with the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), who has raised this matter, because, like him, I have the strongest possible feelings with regard to Nuremburg. I believe that the Nuremburg trials were a tremendous offence against justice. I do not for one moment dissent from what my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said as to the iniquity and the horror of Jewish liquidation. We all assent to that. I do, however, respectfully say that in the sense in which we are using the word "law" here that was not unlawful.
    The law in this sense is the command of the Sovereign. It is neither more nor less than the command of the Sovereign. Domestically, here in England, the Sovereign is the Queen in Parliament which expresses the command of the Sovereign in Acts of Parliament. Outside our frontiers, the Sovereign is the Queen in Council who issues orders in war time through the Cabinet and the High Command. In totalitarian countries, the law is the order and the will of the dictator.
    To use the law to punish that which is not unlawful is an offence against the law and an offence against justice. That is my case, and always has been my case against Nuremburg. In the light of the

    413
    horror of the things which the Germans had done, I believed that we were fully entitled to take vengeance as an executive action. We had no right to do it as a matter of law, because we had to invent a bogus law ex post facto and make it a condition of that law, an aspect and a fact of the crime, that the person accused was a citizen of a defeated country.
    Mr. S. Silverman: Surely this is an unnecessarily narrow and unjustified restriction of the meaning of the word "law", at any rate so far as English law is concerned. There is very much in our common law that has never been the law of any Sovereign. A great part of our criminal law rests on no Statute of this House and no edict of Parliament. It is common law—common law crimes. All that meant was that the crimes were so obviously and positively wrong that everybody knew them to be wrong and that they ought to be punished. I say that what happened in Auschwitz and other centres was contrary to what one might call, by extension of the argument, the common law of mankind.
    Mr. Paget: My hon. Friend has advanced the arguments advanced by Lord Coke in the sixteenth century, which have been rejected for at least 300 years. We certainly have a common law here, According to Lord Coke, Parliament had no authority to alter the common law because it was fundamental. We established 300 years ago that the common law was there because the Sovereign permitted it. The Sovereign can alter the common law, as we frequently do by our Acts, whenever he so chooses.
    Mr. S. Silverman: That is not quite what my hon. and learned Friend said before. No one today, whatever Lord Coke may have thought 300 years ago, denies the right of Parliament, that is to say, of the Sovereign, to amend common law. What he was saying before was that there was no law without the command of the Sovereign. He now says that our common law remains law because it is permitted by the Sovereign. That is a very different story.
    Mr. Paget: I feel that there is not very much distinction in that. Communities form together, communities make rules, communities create Sovereigns. The law then becomes the will of the Sovereign.
    414
    That is what the law is. As I understand the law here, this is the law of this country, for international law is not something to which any individual is subject. International law is a compact between princes and between Sovereigns. It is binding as between Sovereigns, but it is no concern of individuals saving in so far as in particular instances Sovereigns command their citizens to observe individually a particular international law. That is the position here.
    That is where one has the confusion, because here, where it is said that it is a lawful order, that is an order lawful by our law. I have particularly in mind what I regard as one of the worst of the war crime trials. That was the trial of a submarine commander and an ordinary seaman—on his first voyage—for firing on survivors somewhere south of the Cape. That submarine commander had orders that the success of his mission and that of another submarine which was operating with him depended entirely upon our being unaware that there was submarine activity in the Indian Ocean. He therefore had specific orders, which he queried and had confirmed by the German Admiralty, that he was not to leave survivors.
    That is a very grim order to receive, hut, in my submission. if it were given to a British submarine commander in time of war it would be a lawful order within the meaning of the Clause, because outside the jurisdiction of this country the law is the command of the Queen in Council. That is delivered in wartime by the Supreme Command and, just as Somerville's orders to sink, at Oran, the fleet of a nation with whom we were not at war, in flagrant breach of international law, was none the less a lawful order because it came from the Sovereign, so would that submarine commander's order have been lawful.
    But what does one say, not of the submarine commander but of the ordinary seaman, aged 18, standing by the gun with his captain at his elbow, who was directed when to fire and where to fire, when that ordinary seaman was sentenced to twelve years' imprisonment? I think that that was an outrage.
    In a discussion of this Bill, I do not think that we need concern ourselves with those sorts of things. The word "lawful" might serve as some embarrassment if we

    415
    lost another war and our commanders were tried by the enemy, but I have little doubt that any embarrassment which occurred would be overcome. War crimes trials when we were the defeated nation, just as when we were the victors, would be acts of vengeance which ignored the law—as they were at Nuremburg and elsewhere.
    Let it go out from Parliament, however, and let the sailors know, that outside the jurisdiction of this island the law is the command of the Queen in Council, and that that command is expressed through the High Command—the Commission of the Admiralty.
    Sir P. Spens: I want to add only a very few words to the extremely interesting discussion which has arisen out of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) has said. It is extremely interesting to discuss what is meant by "law" in its various phases. Here, I agree that we are dealing with our own domestic law. The simple question is whether or not it would be possible for anybody to plead, as a defence, merely that he had been ordered to do something. It has never been a defence in this country to plead orders by a superior in cases where one is accused of a crime.
    As the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) will remember, this discussion first arose some years ago, when we were dealing with the Army Act. The question then was whether, throughout that Act and the Air Force Act, we should insert the word "lawful" before the word "orders" where it had not been inserted before. It is quite true that we decided to insert the word because of what had happened at Nuremburg. We thought it possible that someone would say that the law in this country was the same as the law in some others, and that if a person were ordered by a superior officer to commit a crime that would be a defence, whether or not the person given the order knew that it was a crime.
    It was really in order to bring this Clause in the Naval Discipline Bill into conformity with similar Sections in the Army and Air Force Acts that the Committee decided to insert the word "lawful" against the protests of my hon. and gallant Friend and one or two other members of the Committee. I felt that in its
    416
    working the Bill should be as close to the new Army and Air Force Acts as was possible, and I think that it is almost more important than the word "lawful" should be put in in the Naval Discipline Act than in the others.
    The Clause creates a very serious offence, for which, under certain circumstances, the penalty may be death. Added to that, strong disciplinary powers are given to Her Majesty's officers commanding ships, and it is very important that if a man were to say, "I did not do this because I thought that it was unlawful," there should be an express word in the Measure which would make either the commanding officer or a court martial hesitate before dealing with the matter. Although I fully appreciate the feelings of my hon. and gallant Friend and others who support him, I am absolutely certain that the word should be inserted.
    5.45 p.m.
    The Civil Lord of the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): I can well understand the feelings of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), who initiated this very interesting debate, which, surprisingly enough, has occurred in the middle of our discussion of this uncontroversial Bill. I think that everyone is conscious that in any Army or Navy worthy of the name a soldier or sailor must obey orders at once and without hesitation when he is given them, and it seems unfair that when he does so he may find himself liable to punishment if those orders cause him to commit a breach of the laws of war.
    I would point out, however. that the introduction of the word "lawful" does not alter the law. It is the same as it was before, and although, as my hon. and gallant Friend pointed out, it was not included in this Section of the old Act, it was included in another Section. I do not think that he should draw any conclusions from that fact. It has always been recognised that certain actions are unlawful. As long ago as 1921, in the case of the "Llandovery Castle", a German court held that war criminals who attacked a hospital ship should not have done so and that it was no defence to claim that they had been under orders.
    I understand that in the most recent edition of Oppenheim on International

    417
    Law this is the case, and although this is a nautical subject, I think the Committee would be interested if I quoted from the British Manual of Military Law, which says:
    " The fact that a rule of warfare has been violated in pursuance of an order of a belligerent Government or of an individual belligerent commander does not deprive the act in question of its character as a war crime, nor does it confer in principle on the perpetrator immunity from punishment by the injured belligerent. Undoubtedly a court confronted with the plea of superior orders adduced in justification of a war crime is bound to take into consideration the fact that obedience to military orders not obviously unlawful "—
    I think that that is the important part—
    " is the duty of every member of the armed forces and that the latter cannot in conditions of war discipline be expected to weigh scrupulously the legal merits of the order received."
    That means that although the act would be unlawful the sentence would not be extreme, as it would if there had been a proper opportunity to weigh the matter.
    "The question, however, is governed by the major principle that members of the armed forces are bound to obey lawful orders only and that they cannot therefore escape liability if, in obedience to a command, they commit acts which both violate unchallenged rules of warfare and outrage the general sentiments of humanity."
    The crux of the matter is whether they outrage the general sentiments of humanity.
    Most people are quite well aware when an order is a lawful order and when it is not. I can give one example from our own history. After the Battle of Culloden, General Wolfe—who was not then a general, but a battalion commander—was riding beside the Duke of Cumberland, who saw a Highlander lying wounded and ordered Wolfe to kill him. Wolfe replied, "My commission is at your Royal Highness's service, but I refuse to carry out the order." My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horn-castle would probably have acted in exactly the same way as Wolfe. I am sure that that is the spirit which we want.
    Commander Maitland: I ought to point out that, being of Scottish descent, I should have been on the other side.
    Mr. Galbraith: Perhaps that is an unfortunate example.
    418
    As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) has said, some protection is required in the case of junior officers who are given orders by theft superior officers, so that if they refuse to do something which they think unlawful they may claim the protection of the Clause. It is for that reason that the Government feel that the word "lawful" should remain, and I hope that the Committee will agree to the Clause as it is.
    Mr. W. Wells: This has been a very wide-ranging debate, and I am glad that the Civil Lord has replied to it in the way that he has. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) begged a number of rather difficult questions in approaching the matter as he did. I do not feel called upon to enter into a controversy upon that aspect of the matter now, and I would simply refer the Committee to the words of the Clause, which are as follows:
    "Every person subject to this Act who, not being in command of any of Her Majesty's ships, vessels, aircraft or naval establishments, fails when ordered to prepare for action by or against the enemy, or during any such action, to use his utmost exertions to carry the lawful orders of his superior officers into execution shall be liable, if the offence is committed with intent to assist the enemy, to death or any less punishment authorised by this Act, and in any other case, to imprisonment for any term or any less punishment so authorised."
    The sole issue before the Committee at the moment is whether an officer or rating, charged with a crime for which he may be liable to death or to imprisonment for life for disobeying an order, has the right to argue that the order was an unlawful one.
    I have no doubt that the Civil Lord is quite right when he says that the Clause introduces no alternation into our law, but that in view of what happened at Nuremberg, whether it happened rightly or not, it was most essential to insert the word in the Clause for the protection of accused persons.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill
    Clauses 4 to 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 12.—(DISOBEDIENCE OR THREATENING SUPERIOR OFFICER.)
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 4, line 32, to leave out from "officer" to "or" in line 33.
    The Clause deals with wilful disobedience of a lawful command of a superior officer, an offence which is punishable with
    " dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service or any less punishment authorised by this Act."
    which can include a term of imprisonment up to two years. The question posed by the Amendment is whether certain words shall or shall not remain in the Clause.
    The words creating the offence are these:
    " Every person subject to this Act who—
    (a) wilfully disobeys any lawful command of his superior officer, whether given or sent to him personally or not…"
    The words to be left out are:
    " whether given or sent to him personally or not."
    The connotation is that in the normal course of events, when a man is charged with wilful disobedience, the prosecution must clearly show that it was wilful disobedience to an order of which the recipient was conscious. If he was not conscious of the existence of the order he could not clearly have been wilful in his disobedience, but a man is presumed at law to intend the consequences of his acts, and, therefore, the word "wilful" does little more in this case than apply the presumption.
    The words which by the Amendment we seek to leave out water down the burden that lies on the prosecution to establish the receipt of the order. If we leave the words out, the prosecution will have to prove that the order was communicated to the mind of the accused. If the order was sent to the accused's subordinate, the prosecution, of course, would inquire whether he transmitted the order. If he failed to transmit it, the prosecution would fall to the ground. if he transmitted the order, prosecution, other things being equal, would lie.
    As I was saying, the conclusion of these words:
    " whether given or sent to him personally or not"
    420
    leaves it rather dangerously open, on one view of them, for the prosecution simply to rest content with establishing that an order was sent out. Whether it was sent to the right person and what steps were taken to communicate it to the mind of the intended recipient might become relevant. On another view of the matter, and it is probably the view that is intended, it simply states what is almost too obvious to require statement—that the fact that an order may be sent to a man in his official capacity rather than in his personal capacity, and that an order is sent to a man's office or ship or wherever it is rather than to the place where he is at the moment does not necessarily exempt him from responsibility.
    It seems to us that these words are rather ambiguous and that the Clause stands perfectly well without them, and that they introduce a possibly dangerous ambiguity. When words are not necessary, it is always wiser to omit them. I hope that that is what the Committee will do with these words.
    Sir P. Spens: This point was raised in the Select Committee on the Naval Discipline Act by my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. He raised the question whether these words were sufficiently specific and he said:
    "…I am wondering if the Admiralty could reconsider it from this point of view, whether it might not be drawn so widely at the moment that it is a question of sending but not of reception?"
    The Judge Advocate of the Fleet commented:
    " So that he could not wilfully disobey unless it reached him?"
    My hon. and learned Friend replied:
    " Yes. unless he knows about it."
    and the Judge Advocate of the Fleet replied:
    " Yes, I think that is the answer."
    I have read all the Report and I do not think that that point ever entered again into our deliberations. Therefore, if there is ambiguity in the framing of the Bill, it is possibly a matter that ought to be reconsidered.
    6.0 p.m.
    Mr. Soames: Perhaps there is some misunderstanding about this. We are all in agreement that we do not want the Bill to be drawn in such a way that a

    421
    man can be convicted if he has not received the order, and we also wish to be certain that there is no doubt left whatsoever that if it is transmitted to him, other than personally by the commanding officer, and he has received it and refused to obey it, that that should be punishable.
    The reason for this addition is largely peculiar to the Navy. It is owing to the number of orders that are given over the broadcast system in the ships, where they are heard throughout the whole ship. Orders might be given either to the whole of the ship's company or part of the ship's company. They might emanate from the captain or one of his representatives, but could not be considered to have been given personally to an individual. It is to cover that, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, a message being sent by hand by the commanding officer or by word of mouth through a messenger from an officer to a subordinate, that these extra words are included. It was thought necessary to include them in order to remove any misconception that may have existed. I am advised that they put beyond all doubt what the situation is, and that it would be better for these words to remain in the Bill.
    Mr. Wells: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that the mere fact that a multiplicity of orders are given increases the danger that an individual may miss a particular order? Does it not add to the necessity of having these words very tightly drawn? I might well be wrong, but I should have thought that without these words the Clause would be a perfectly good one and would achieve the Admiralty's purpose, with which I do not quarrel. It seems to me that if the matter cannot be solved now, at any rate we should have a look at them, particularly in view of the fact that the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spells) has pointed out that the matter was left in a rather unsatisfactory way in the Select Committee. I must take full responsibility for that, as I was a member of the Committee.
    I hope, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman will be able to have another look at the words and to give an undertaking to do so before we reach the next stage Motion made, and Question proposed, of the Bill. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Soames: I will certainly give an undertaking to have a look at the words. We are all seeking the same thing. The only information that I have is what I have given to the Committee. I am advised at present that it is thought necessary to include the words, but I will certainly have a look at them before the Report stage.
    Mr. Wells: To see whether other words can be found?
    Mr. Soames: I thought that the object was to leave them out.
    Mr. Wells: Yes, either to leave them out or find other words.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: These words do not appear in the Act which we are now amending. I should very much like to know whether, in practice, any prosecutions have failed on the ground that the order was transmitted by messenger or by loudspeaker.
    Mr. Soames: I will certainly look into that.
    Mr. Steele: I want to add to what has been said so that there shall be no confusion about the intention. We on this side of the Committee do not disagree with the intention as outlined by the Parliamentary Secretary, but we are doubtful about the form of words. We think that the words at the moment lend themselves to a much wider interpretation than the interpretation which the hon. Gentleman himself would like to see placed upon them. If the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to look at them again we shall be quite happy.
    Mr. Soames: I can assure the Committee that we do not seek a wider interpretation than the one I gave, which is that a superior officer sends a message by broadcast or by word of mouth or by hand and the man should be considered to have received it, if it is proved that he has, and that it counts as a lawful order which he must obey. We do not seek to go further. There is no mystery about it. If we can tidy the matter up before the Report stage we will have another look at the words.
    Mr. Wells: On that undertaking, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause Stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. J. P. W. Mallalieu: Clause 12 (b) states that a person who
    " uses threatening or insulting language to, or behaves with contempt to his superior officer…"
    shall be liable to a certain penalty. I found in my short time in the Service that there was a pretty widespread belief, and certainly a widespread assertion, that when men were in action—and only when they were in action—it was the custom of the Service that one could swear at one's officers. Has that any real foundation in truth?
    Mr. Soames: It is certainly not the intention of the Admiralty to write it into the Naval Discipline Bill.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 13 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 211.—(LOW FLYING.)
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, to leave out from "to" to "or" in line 34 and insert:
    " dismissal from Her Majesty's service or any less punishment authorised by this Act ".
    In order to understand the purpose of the Amendment it is necessary first to glance at Clause 43, which specifies a certain scale of penalties including death, imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, dismissal with disgrace from Her Majesty's service, and so forth. Secondly, it is necessary to look at this group or, as some technically-minded gentlemen might say, this fasciculus of Clauses, which deal with various—to use a generic term—wrong forms of flying. Clause 20 deals with dangerous flying. Clause 21 deals with low flying and Clause 22 with annoyance by flying.
    No question arises in relation to Clause 20. It is quite clear why the penalty for dangerous flying should be more serious than that for low flying or annoyance by flying but, in moving the Amendment, I am seeking the reason for making the penalty in Clause 21 more grave than the penalty in Clause 22.
    The offence in Clause 21 is flying
    "…at a height less than such height as may be provided by any regulations issued under the authority of the Admiralty, the Army Council or the Air Council, except—

    (a) while taking off or alighting;or

    (b) in such other circumstances as may be so provided…"

    424
    The penalty provided by the Clause is that a person guilty of low-flying within the meaning of the Clause
    "shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or any less punishment authorised by this Act."
    Clause 22, however, provides that a person
    " subject to this Act who, being the pilot of one of Her Majesty's aircraft, flies it so as to cause, or to be likely to cause, unnecessary annoyance to any person shall be liable to dismissal from Her Majesty's Service or any less punishment authorised by this Act."
    The object of the Amendment is to assimilate the punishment for low flying to the punishment for annoyance by flying. It seems to us prima facie that they are both the same kind of offence. Low flying is a particular form of annoyance by flying, and unnecessary annoyance covers a variety of things other than low flying. We should have thought that the appropriate penalty should have been the same in each instance.
    Mr. Soames: Low flying is a term of art. Annoyance by flying might be said to include low flying, but low flying stands on its own as being a particular danger not only to the pilot and his aircraft, but also to the general public.
    I well remember, within a week or so of my becoming Under-Secretary of State for Air, that I had the unpleasant duty of going to a small Sussex village where I saw the result of low flying. A young, over-zealous pilot had been flying very low over that village in which his family lived. He was right off course and he flew too low over the village a couple of times, he did not pull out of one dive, and he did considerable damage. It was only by the grace of God that there was not more severe loss of life than there was.
    I am not saying that in every case of low flying for which a man is reported he will get a sentence of two years' imprisonment, but we regard this as a serious offence and we should like to have it written into the Bill that anyone guilty of low flying could be given this considerable penalty, if need be, as a preventive more than a cure.
    The next point is that the Air Force also provides a penalty of two years' imprisonment for low flying. In fact, it has a penalty of two years for annoyance

    425
    by flying. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) raised this point in the Select Committee. He said that annoyance by flying was not so severe as that caused by low flying, so in Clause 22 we have departed from the Air Force Act and provided for a lesser penalty than does the Air Force for the equivalent offence. However, we feel it is essential to keep this penalty for low flying, because low flying can have such a serious effect upon the public.
    Mr. Wells: In view of the explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 28.—(DRUNKENNESS.)
    Mr. Steele: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out "whether."
    It may be for the convenience of the Committee, Sir Gordon, if I also deal with the two following Amendments—that in line 32, to leave out "or not." and in line 34, at the end to add:
    (3) Every person subject to this Act who is drunk, whether on duty or not, shall be liable to forfeiture of seniority for a specified term or otherwise or any less punishment authorised by this Act.
    The Chairman: I think that that will be for the convenience of the Committee.
    6.15 p.m.
    Mr. Steele: This is an interesting Clause, and I am sure that the officers and ratings in the Navy will have observed that what it deals with sometimes happens. Whether the officers and ratings are ever charged with this offence or not is another matter. This Clause is rather different from the Section in the previous Act, and for the first time we get a definition of drunkenness. It would be interesting to look at the definition in the Clause. It states that a person is drunk within the meaning of the Clause, first, if
    " he is unfit to be entrusted with his duty",
    secondly,
    " with any duty which he might be called upon to perform,"
    thirdly, if he
    " behaves in a disorderly manner ",
    426
    or, fourthly, if he behaves
    " in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service."
    So it is not necessary that the rating or the officer—as this applies to all the men in the Service—should be guilty of all those four things. He can be drunk within the meaning of the Bill if he is, by reason of the influence of alcohol, in any of the four conditions mentioned.
    All of us will agree that the first two conditions are very serious. Where a man, owing to the influence of alcohol, is unfit to be entrusted with his duty it is only right that the penalty, as called for in the Act, should be imposed. There is some difficulty about the second definition—any duty which "he might be called upon" to perform. I can understand and appreciate the problem which arises there but, at the same time, it does not seem to me to be so grave as the first condition. The remaining two—behaving in a disorderly manner or in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's Service —cover cases resembling that of the person who in civilian life might be taken up on a drunk and disorderly charge; but, of course, there is a grave distinction in the penalty as between the Service offence and the civilian offence.
    First, what the Amendment proposes to do is to try to make a distinction between the person who is on duty yet not on duty. For instance, we can visualise that a rating might come on board and, having had a rather merry evening, be under the influence of alcohol to a certain extent. if he is to be brought round to undertake a duty, he might have a bucket of cold water thrown upon him, and he might then become quite disorderly. In such circumstances I think it is rather a grave matter if the liability is a sentence of two years' imprisonment. It is true, of course, that there is a lesser penalty which could be imposed, but I think it is wrong to leave to the officer the taking into account of all that, and that a distinction should he drawn in this way.
    If it is said that it is essential to retain this punishment, we can also say that in a case where a man was acting in such a disorderly manner that this penalty would not be sufficient, there is still Clause 39 to turn to, under which the rating or the officer could be charged and a greater penalty would be imposed.

    427
    We fear that this Clause is so widely drawn that if an officer or a rating is drunk, whether on duty or not, or whether in uniform or not, the mere fact that he is under the influence of alcohol means that he can be charged under this Clause. It is too widely drawn in that way and I should like to know what is the intention of the Admiralty in this matter. My hon. Friends and I press our Amendments, which we think would make the position much more satisfactory.
    Mr. Soames: This is largely a question of how much can be written into the Bill and whether we will not detract from its benefits by stating things too categorically. I assure the Committee at once that there would be no question of a man returning from leave, drunk for the first time, being given the maximum punishment under the Clause. Here again, there are the Regulations which support the Act. I will read No. 1977 to the Committee:
    " For a first offence of returning from leave drunk men below leading rating are not to receive any punishment other than the mulct of pay of one day."
    It adds that their grog may be stopped. That is the only punishment which a man would get for returning from leave drunk.
    To revert to what I think is the spirit behind this Amendment. of differentiating between whether a man is on duty or not on duty, while it might be possible to state that beyond all shadow of doubt both in the Army and in the Air Force, for the Navy it is impossible to say whether a man is on duty or not. In a sense, all men in a ship, when it is at sea, could be considered to be on duty for twenty-four hours a day. On the other hand that is evidently impossible. for men must sleep;so it is not possible definitely to state that a man is off duty or on duty. If we were to have it written into the Bill and were to limit the scope which would be given to a commanding officer to judge, it would be sometimes difficult to differentiate and to decide whether a man was on or off duty.
    Obviously, the offence is much less severe if he is not on duty than if he is on duty. I do not think there have ever been any cases of ratings complaining that they were being persecuted by the punishments given to them for drunkenness. There is an extra point that in the case of an officer, for instance, who is constantly getting drunk when
    428
    on leave and coming back drunk, or constantly getting drunk ashore but is sober on duty, it would be necessary to include dismissal for that officer. Under the Amendment that would not be so.
    Mr. Steele: It could be done under Clause 36, which deals with scandalous conduct of officers.
    Mr. Soames: This is a particular offence of drunkenness. I do not want to return to the old Section "conduct prejudicial to good order and discipline" unless it is necessary so to do. This is the Clause in which this particular offence of drunkenness is being laid down. It would be a pity to include officers, thought to be guilty of drunkenness, under another Clause, and leave this Clause amended, as is suggested.
    There are two main difficulties, the biggest of which is that in many circumstances it is almost impossible to state whether a man is or is not on duty. We must leave it to the good sense of the Officer or officers concerned to judge. Obviously, the lesser punishment will be given to a man whose drunkenness does not affect the safety of his shipmates compared with that given to a man whose drunkenness does affect the safety of his shipmates. That, in fact, is the practice, and it is laid down in the Regulations that a man coming back drunk from leave for the first time can be punished only by a mulct of one day's pay. I suggest to the Committee that this works well in practice, and although I respect and understand the motive behind the Amendment, it would be difficult to implement it in practice.
    Mr. E. G. Willis: Looking at the Clause after we had drafted the Bill, it struck me that it was exceedingly wide, much wider than I thought it was at the time. I cannot help feeling that what my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has said has a certain amount of justification. I am not satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation about not being able to alter it. If a rating or officer is ashore, in a shore establishment, it is quite easy to establish whether he is on duty or not. If it is easy to establish that in the other Forces, it is easy to establish it in the Navy.
    As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the difficulty really arises when the officer

    429
    or rating is aboard a ship. Surely that factor could have been covered. Surely something could be done to provide that every person subject to the Bill who was drunk on duty or aboard a ship would be liable to imprisonment and so on. The other cases could have been dealt with either by Clause 36 or by Clause 39. It seems to be appropriate that the person returning from leave drunk should be dealt with under Clause 39. At present, if a person is drunk ashore, on leave, he is covered by Clause 28 (2). It would be more appropriate for him to be covered by Clause 39. It appears to me that that could be done without a great deal of difficulty merely by changing the wording of subsection (2) of the Clause.
    Mr. Soames: Clause 39 specifically says:
    " Every person subject to this Act who is guilty of any act, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order and naval discipline not described in the foregoing provisions of this Act…"
    Drunkenness is described in the foregoing provisions.
    Mr. Willis: Drunkenness ashore is described "in the foregoing provisions" as the Clause now stands, if the wording were changed as I suggest, it would not then be covered by the foregoing provisions and would automatically fall to be considered under Clause 39, which seems a more appropriate Clause for dealing with such an offence than this strict Clause 28 (2).
    As the Clause stands, it appears that the Navy is certainly being far more severe with this penalty than the other Services. Because of regulations issued by the Admiralty, that might not be so. We do not know;we have heard only one of those regulations read by the hon. Gentleman. The Clause gives that impression; and it would not be difficult to alter the wording to bring the Clause more into line with the provisions applying to the Army and the Air Force so that the position of each Service would appear to be very much the same.
    6.30 p.m.
    One admits the difficulty about people aboard a ship and the difficulty of defining when a person is on duty aboard a ship. I should have thought that at sea a person was always on duty. I do not think there is any doubt about that, but
    430
    it could have been covered under the proposed subsection (3) embracing all the other forms or occasions of drunkenness while ashore, or on leave, or something like that, which at present are included in the Clause.
    The Government ought really to look at this matter again, to see whether some alternative wording cannot be found to make it apparent that the Navy has the same approach to this matter as the other two Services. At present, that is not so.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: While I have great sympathy with what has been said, at first sight the Amendment seemed very attractive, I entirely agree with the Parliamentary Secretary that it is not one which could possibly be accepted or worked in practice. I want to refer to the suggestions of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). I do not support him at all in suggesting that we should make a further use of Clause 39—that is the omnibus Clause—unless it is absolutely necessary. The Naval Discipline Act in this respect differs and, after a great deal of discussion in the Select Committee, was deliberately made to differ from the Army and Air Force Acts in containing this limiting wording which did not permit it to be used when some other offence is mentioned. It is the greatest possible abuse to have this blanket charge of an offence against good order and naval discipline which can be used to cover any case where the prosecution cannot be bothered to think what the proper charge ought to be.
    To return to this specific matter of drunkenness;as has been pointed out. it is perfectly true that the difficulty with the Navy arises from drunkenness on board ship, when everyone is liable to be on duty at a moment's notice. It will be within the recollection of hon. Members who served on the Select Committee, and also, perhaps of those who read the Report of the proceedings, that there was a great deal of discussion on whether or not we could have a separation in certain cases between a disciplinary code for use at sea and that used on shore. The Admiralty was very strongly opposed to that and eventually the Committee agreed with the Admiralty's view and accordingly we have the Bill as it stands.
    The difficulty about the Clause as it stands is not as great as has been suggested by the hon. Member for

    431
    Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). I do not believe that any difficulty can arise in the case of junior ratings, because a junior rating who returns on board drunk ought to be picked up as being drunk by the officer of;he watch and put down below, and there is no chance of his subsequently coming on duty. From time to time most captains experience cases in which junior ratings are brought before them and charged with being drunk on duty;when the case is considered it becomes apparent that the man must have returned on board drunk without having been observed. I can speak only for myself in this matter, but in those cases I have always dismissed the charge, or, if there has been a supporting charge of returning on board drunk, dealt with it as the smaller offence, the punishment of which has been quoted by my hon. Friend.
    The case of a more senior rating or officer is a different matter. He may well come on board apparently perfectly sober and pass undetected to his cabin. Immediately afterwards some emergency may arise and the ship and his shipmates may be in danger because of his incapacity. It is to deal with that class of case that one requires the Clause to be drawn in its present wide form. I submit to the Committee that there is no real danger that it will be abused in practice.
    Mr. Willis: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why it is more difficult to detect drunkenness in officers than in seamen?
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: My answer is that it is not normal for an officer of the watch to cross-examine other officers when they come on board—perhaps that is one law for the one and another for the other—but seamen are carefully inspected.
    Mr. Steele: I imagined that the Amendments, which were carefully drawn, covered the very points which the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) mentioned. We had those very things in mind. Although I mentioned—and may have misled the Committee—the man coming back on leave and going aboard drunk, that is not the only occasion when a rating might be drunk. He might be found in the streets of Portsmouth, not
    432
    having arrived at the ship, and if he is disorderly, he might be, as the Clause says, behaving
    "…in a manner likely to bring discredit on Her Majesty's service."
    He might be in uniform. What is the difference in that case? What happens? He is brought on board and he can be charged.
    There is the case of the older rating who might like his grog, as was mentioned, and the younger rating who does not like it, the older rating getting the extra allocation and finding that he is under the influence of alcohol on board ship. I should have thought that a careful reading of our Amendments would have shown that they cover the case mentioned by the hon. and gallant Gentleman, because the officer in question would have been on duty.
    What we say is that if a person subject to the Bill is drunk on duty, he shall be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years. If any rating or officer who is on board ship is always on duty, then no difficulty arises, because he is covered under either of the first two Amendments, but it seems fundamentally wrong that the Bill should apply the same penalty to two different crimes as it were, the case of a man who is on duty and the case of a man who is not on duty. There is a distinct difference.
    I agree with the Admiralty that there are difficulties which the Air Force and Army do not have, but my complaint is that in facing these difficulties the Admiralty has been taking action to cover itself and not trying to find a form of words to meet the case. If the Amendments were accepted, a man who was on duty would definitely be liable to the penalty, but there would be a lesser penalty, which we specify, where a man was not on duty.
    I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will reconsider the matter between now and Report and that he may find some appropriate words to meet the difficulty.
    Mr. Soames: I am afraid that this is a subject on which we feel rather strongly. The difficulty springs from the fact that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) did not appreciate the difficulties of applying the Amendment to life on board ship. What he did—what was probably going through his mind in looking at the Army and Air Force Acts

    433
    —was to see that there was a difference and to ask why the Navy should not have the same procedure as the Army and Air Force. However, there is this difficulty, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) said, of differentiating on board ship between whether a man is or is not on duty, bearing in mind that a man may be called to be on duty on board ship at a moment's notice. Therefore, it would not be possible to specify in the Bill whether a man on hoard ship was on duty or not.
    The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) asked why we could not have one law for men on board ship and another law for men ashore. The answer is that we cannot have two codes of discipline. It always has been, and it must continue to be, that there is one Naval Discipline Act for the Royal Navy. There is not one punishment for an offence committed ashore and another punishment for an offence committed on board. We cannot differentiate between the two. In view of these two difficulties, we cannot agree to accept the Amendment.
    Mr. W. Wells: Can the hon. Gentleman explain why it is not possible, when an officer is called on duty and is found to be drunk, to charge him with being drunk on duty? Why is it so necessary to assimilate these two such different offences of being drunk on duty and being drunk otherwise than on duty and to treat them as though they were the same? We know that in practice officers who deal with these matters will be sensible, but it is a bad example to treat such different offences as though they were the same.
    Mr. Soames: The reason is that the distinction on board ship is so narrow. In the Army and the Air Force, there is no doubt—a man is either on duty or he is not—but aboard ship the line is narrow. Do not let us forget that one of our prime objects is to ensure that the Navy has a code of discipline which suits life at sea. I am advised by those who have the greatest possible experience in these matters that it is impossible to differentiate in the way that the Amendment seeks to do for men on board ship.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 29 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 36.—(CRUELTY OR SCANDALOUS CONDUCT BY OFFICERS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Steele: I should like to ask a question. The Clause states:
    " Every officer subject to this Act who is guilty of cruelty, or of any scandalous, fraudulent or other conduct unbecoming the character of an officer shall be liable to dismissal…"
    In the Army Act, about which we had a great deal of discussion, the wording
    " unbecoming the character of an officer and a gentleman "
    was used. The Army insisted on those words. The Admiralty, apparently, does not wish to have them. Is it because there are no gentlemen in the Navy?
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I think that this is a deliberate attempt by the hon. Member to get the Government into difficulties either with the Army or with the Navy, because almost anything I say will be construed by one side or the other. The wording which the hon. Member suggested is irrelevant. Everybody knows what an officer is. Because of his privileged position, a very high standard of conduct is required of him and is always, or nearly always, obtained. It is, therefore, unnecessary to qualify the word "officer" in any way.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 37.—(DISGRACEFUL CONDUCT.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    6.45 p.m.
    Commander Maitland: On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary drew attention to some of the rather lovely old wording of the old Articles of War which have fallen in the drafting of the Bill. That is a great pity, because it must be realised—perhaps not every hon. Member realises—that these words are actually read out from time to time to assembled ships' companies.
    I remember quite clearly some of the exhortations and statements on certain occasions. One particular set of words is the Section which this new Section 37

    435
    is intended to replace. The Section in the old Articles of War read as follows:
    " Every person subject to this Act who shall be guilty of any profane oath, cursing, execration, drunkenness, uncleanliness or other scandalous action in derogation of God's honour and the corruption of good manners shall be dismissed from His Majesty's service with disgrace or suffer such other punishment as hereinafter mentioned."
    We were told by the lawyers on the Select Committee—and I am sure they were right—that it was quite impossible nowadays to put those sonorous words into action, and that I understand, but it must not be forgotten that these words were created to be read out. If exhortation is of no use, I cannot think, Mr. Hynd, what you and I have been doing in this place for so long. What have we been doing in this Chamber today but trying to change each other's mind by exhortation? It may be said that an Act of Parliament is not the right place for exhortation, but I am not so sure.
    I wanted to draw attention to the passing of those age-old famous words. I believe they are the only words used in an Act of Parliament to suggest that good manners are a good thing, and I should have thought that in these days we do not care enough about good manners. It is quite astonishing that a Conservative Government should remove words governing good manners from any Act of Parliament in which they have existed.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I have a certain amount of sympathy with my hon. and gallant Friend. Like him, I served in the Navy for a short time. The trouble is that although those words sound very well, they do not mean very much. It is not clear to what offence the words "derogation of God's honour" relate. Probably they had some reference originally to heresy.
    These words seem to imply that swearing in the Navy is punished. My hon. and gallant Friend knows that as well as I do that that is far from being the case.
    Commander Maitland: Surely, in certain circumstances, it is perfectly possible to punish a man for blasphemy or swearing.
    Mr. Galbraith: It is certainly possible, but these words imply that all swearing in the Navy is punished, which, as my
    436
    hon. and gallant Friend knows, is far from being the case. If any conduct of that character became serious, it could be punished under Clause 39.
    These words have a tang of the past about them which, to a certain extent, is pleasing. We hope that the Committee later will agree to retain the old words in the Preamble. They are not only old, but are also ennobling. The words which my hon. and gallant Friend wishes to be put back into the Clause are ancient, but not ennobling. They are, in fact, slightly brutalising. I therefore think that it would be better to leave the Clause as it is drafted.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 38 and 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 40.—(ATTEMPT TO COMMIT NAVAL OFFENCE.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. W. Wells: The difficulty with which the Select Committee was confronted was that it consisted mainly, or almost solely, of two groups—lawyers who knew nothing about the sea except that it was wet, and sailors who knew nothing about the law except that it was dry. After the cheerful intervention of the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland), I now come to a rather dry point on Clause 40, which deals with attempts to commit offences.
    The effect of this Clause is that, apart from offences punishable by death, attempts are treated as being as serious as the substantive offence, and one sees how this has arisen. It is connected, of course, with the scale of penalties set out in Clause 43, which are rather general in their arrangement and much less specific than the maximum penalties to which we are accustomed in administering the criminal law in civilian life. At the same time, I think it is a bad principle where, for instance, we get an offence like desertion, which is punishable, I think I am right in saying, with life imprisonment, to have an attempted desertion carrying the same penalty.
    We know, in practice, that these maximum penalties are hardly ever imposed, but, as the right hon. and learned Attorney-General, whose presence

    437
    in the Committee we all welcome, knows so well from his great experience in these matters, courts do use maximum penalties as some kind of indication of the way in which they should work. The indication that is given in this Clause, in my submission, is a very bad one, and I hope that at some stage the hon. Gentleman will feel able to give this matter some careful reconsideration.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: One reason why we have this Clause drafted in the way it is drafted is to keep it in line with the Army Act, because that is one of the basic principles upon which the whole Bill has been drafted. I think it is unlikely that we would be able to change it, but I am perfectly willing to consider what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 41 and 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 43. (SCALE OF PUNISHMENTS.)
    Mr. Steele: I beg to move, in page 13, to leave out line 38.
    The penalty of a fine which is included in the punishments in this Clause is an entirely new penalty to be inserted in the Naval Discipline Act, and I think that we should have some explanation from the Admiralty about it. The Clause gives a list of punishments, which starts with (a) death, goes on to include imprisonment for a term exceeding two years, and then there is a gradual scaling down until we Come to—
    " (h) dismissal from the ship or naval establishment to which the offender belongs."
    Next comes a fine, and after that a severe reprimand.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to take out the fine as a punishment for naval officers, because, in effect, this penalty applies only to naval officers. In this matter, the Select Committee and the Admiralty have accepted the advice of the Pilcher Committee, which made this recommendation. However, I read with great interest the discussions of the Pilcher Committee, and I find that, in contrast to the Admiralty, neither the Army nor the Royal Air Force has accepted this punishment in the appropriate discipline Act. It seems to me
    438
    that we are entitled to some explanation why the Admiralty on this occasion has departed from what the Army has done.
    In the discussion on the last Clause, one of the reasons which the Civil Lord gave for the Clause being drafted as it is was that the Army had this provision, and he thought it right and reasonable that the Admiralty should have it, too. On this occasion, however, the Admiralty has departed from what the Army has done.
    The other point is that, in reading the Report of the Select Committee, I find that there was a very good discussion on this matter, and that a warning was given by one member of the Committee that this penalty should not be imposed lightly. Much more important than either the fact that the Army has not accepted it or the fact that a warning was given by a member of the Select Committee is the injustice that may ensue from an application of this penalty.
    I can visualise an occasion on which two officers could be charged with the same offence, whatever it might be, and each is subjected to a similar fine. On the one hand, one of the officers may come from a wealthy family and may have a private income of his own, with some money to spare. The punishment of a fine in his case would be no punishment at all. On the other hand. the other officer may have no private income. He may be a married man with a family. The penalty of a line in his case would be an extreme hardship. Therefore, when the same penalty or punishment is applied to these two officers for the same offence, it would in the one case not be a punishment at all, but in the other case would be an extreme hardship.
    Further, the second officer may not have the money with which to pay the fine, and if he was not in possession of the money with which to pay, we should like to know what would happen to him. Generally, in a civil court, if an offender is given a sentence, it may be that he is sentenced to so many day's imprisonment or alternatively ordered to pay a fine. Any man who has sufficient money pays the fine, and what, in effect, that means is that a person buys himself out of prison with his money, because the alternative would be a prison sentence.
    I think we ought to know what would happen in these cases. This is a new

    439
    penalty for the Admiralty which has been inserted into this Bill. The Army does not want it, and it seems to me that we must have some satisfactory explanation from the Parliamentary Secretary before we are prepared to accept it.
    Mr. Willis: I rise to support the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele). When the Bill was before the Select Committee, I expressed several doubts about it, which will be found recorded in the Minutes of Evidence.
    We had a long discussion in the Select Committee, first of all, as to whether the penalty should be applied to officers and ratings, and then whether it should be applied in wartime only or in war and peace. On the first point, we had the suggestion, I think on the advice of the Admiralty, which, I am glad to say, issued a memorandum exonerating my former branch—the artificers' branch—against the slanderous charges made of their behaviour, that it should not apply to ratings. I think that was a wise decision. We decided that it should apply to officers.
    7.0 p.m.
    We also decided that it should be applied both in peace-time and in wartime. I am not very happy about that. I was not happy about it during the Committee discussions, and in paragraph 530 of the Report I expressed my doubts. I said that after listening to the arguments I could see that there was a case for this punishment in war-time, but I could not see that there was a very strong case for it in peace-time. I said that I should have thought it was far worse for an officer serving a long term in peace-time to be severely reprimanded. I pointed out what my hon. Friend has just pointed out, that to some officers a fine would mean nothing; it would be no punishment at all. But a severe reprimand or a stoppage of leave would be a severe punishment, one which an officer would be likely to feel were he well-to-do, as some officers are.
    During the evidence, the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallet) quoted a type of case to which he thought this would apply. He said that to punish an officer by stopping his leave was undesirable, but I was not impressed by his
    440
    argument. He said that if an officer happened to be serving in a ship and was suffering from boils or something of that kind, and should got away from the ship for exercise, it was a bad thing to stop his leave. I do not think that a good argument. If an officer is comparatively well-to-do, he can, with the introduction of a fine as a penalty, buy his freedom without suffering great punishment. He buys his right to be ashore at little cost to himself, unless he happens to be an officer with no other source of income, and I agree that there are far more of that type of officer than there used to be.
    This would seem to create an unfairness which was well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) in his example of the two officers guilty of the same offence and punished in this way. To one it would be no punishment at all, and to the other it would be a very severe punishment. During the Select Committee discussions we raised the question of the effect upon a man's family, and some dubiety was expressed about whether we should introduce this form of punishment because of the possible effect upon the family. I think it was the Chairman who suggested that there should be a warning inserted about this in the regulations, and we were told that it would be included.
    We were not told what exactly the Admiralty had in mind about the regulations in connection with the introduction of this new penalty, and I think that at least, even though the Government do not see fit to accept the Amendment, we should be told what the Admiralty has in mind about regulations it is intended to introduce to deal with this new penalty. That might ease the minds of some hon. Members about its application and particularly about the effect upon a man's family.
    Mr. Soames: This was a recommendation of the Pilcher Committee which the Army and the Air Force did not see fit to accept. I would assure the Committee that the reason the Admiralty accepted it was not in order to avoid hurting the feelings of the Attorney-General. It was because for a long time the Admiralty has thought that the power to inflict a fine would be a good addition to punishments which can be given to officers.

    441
    There are only two punishments between dismissal from the Service and a severe reprimand which can be given to officers. They are forfeiture of seniority and dismissal from ship. I should like the Committee to think about offences which it might be considered would be too small to be punished by dismissal from the Service and too big for a severe reprimand. One can imagine a case where such an offence was committed and where neither forfeiture of seniority nor dismissal from ship would be considered in any way a punishment to the officer concerned.
    I should like to give an example of such a case which occurred in the postwar period, but before doing so I wish to make clear that such behaviour as I am about to recount is not typical of the war-time officers, to the vast majority of whom the Royal Navy owes an eternal debt of gratitude. But it would be idle to suppose that such things as I propose to mention never happen among the less responsible elements.
    At the end of the war a number of officers were being sent home for eventual demobilisation. They refused to embark in particular quarters of a ship. They were court-martialled and found guilty of disobedience. No kind of reprimand would have had any effect upon them. To dismiss them from their ships or award a loss of seniority would have been useless. Even dismissal from the Service, which was the only thing these officers were waiting for, would not have done any good. A fine would have been the perfect answer. That is one example, and I think it a good example. There are, then, cases where a fine would be a suitable punishment.
    The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) mentioned a number of well-known reasons why a fine is not always a good punishment in civil law. He remarked how much heavier it weighs upon a poor man than upon a rich man. Of course, that is so, but the object of inserting this into the list of punishments is to provide a particular punishment for an officer when it fits the crime and would prove to be a punishment.
    That is not to say that a fine should be always imposed for certain offences. We feel that there are certain offences where a dismissal from the Service would
    442
    be too great a punishment and a reprimand would be too small a punishment; that neither forfeiture of seniority nor dismissal from ship would be a punishment but that a fine would meet the case. Of course, were an officer a millionaire, to fine him a month's pay would not be a very effective punishment. But we are trying to write into the Bill a punishment which would be suitable to impose on the great majority of naval officers who might commit some crime, and we should like as it were, to have this form of punishment in the armoury of our punishments. It could be administered in appropriate circumstances. We think it is a good addition, and we are grateful to the Pilcher Committee for having recommended it.
    Sir P. Agnew: This Committee has been impressed with the appropriateness of a fine inflicted as a punishment in the case which the Minister cited of temporary officers just returning home. This punishment has very much to comment it; it would have been very appropriate in the case of those in the Service for a very short time, such as during war or an emergency, who have no career at stake.
    Without going over the arguments, I would ask the Minister whether, between now and Report, he would look into the question of punishment by fine being restricted to officers holding temporary commissions and not made applicable to Regular officers.
    Mr. Ede: I hope that that suggestion will not be adopted. To put into the Bill a distinction between temporary officers and other officers would be very detrimental to this Service, or to any other. It is essential that everybody in the Service should feel that a man holding the rank of officer is an officer. The mere fact that he is temporary may be to his credit. To put him into a class apart would be detrimental.
    I would ask about the way in which this fine is to be administered. I accept the objection made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) to the fine being included, and on the assumption that the Minister will thank my hon. Friend for the courteous and able way in which he has presented his case but will regret that he cannot include it in the Bill—[Laughter.]

    443
    Well, I hope that the Minister will be at least polite.
    In any court, the question of fines is very difficult, for reasons that have been given. The Minister said, offhand, "Deduct a month's pay". To deduct a month's pay there and then from a man who is living on his pay and to leave him to be fed by the ravens from Heaven for the next month is to inflict an appalling punishment on him and on any dependants that he has. In a civil court his circumstances are taken into account. One of my hon. Friends mentioned that if a man did not pay his fine he could be sent to prison, but as far as I know there is no such provision in the Bill.
    It is suggested that it is an alternative, but it is not an alternative to a fine. The courts are reluctant to put a man into a position in which he has either to pay a lump sum or accept the alternative of imprisonment. In many Acts passed by Parliament and sympathetically administered by the courts there is provision by which payment is spread over a certain length of time. The court takes into account the man's statement of need. It can get a certificate from his employer.
    In the case we are considering, the man's pay could easily be mentioned to the court by a competent officer who knows what it is. I hope that in the regulations that are to be made on the assumption that the Amendment will be rejected provision will be made for that situation. A civil court often has great difficulty in collecting even the small sums that it asks for; in this case there will be a deduction from the man's pay before he receives it.
    7.15 p.m.
    I recollect fining a soldier £1. He had been 121 days in the Army, only four of which had been effective, because he had been absent without leave or in detention for all the other time. He said, "I haven't got it." I answered. "When you have earned a little money in the Army we shall get it from the pay office." The Minister is in that position. On the assumption that he intends to retain the penalty of a fine, I ask him to take into account in making the regulations the relative wealth of a person charged with an offence so that he can discharge the penalty without hardship which would
    444
    reduce his efficiency as an officer and might punish his family rather more than him.
    Mr. G. R. Howard: It is a matter of regret that this matter has been raised in this form. Those who were on the Departmental Committee will remember that I took a very strong view on that occasion. I do not want to say more than is necessary. Any suggestion that this penalty should apply only to wartime or Reserve officers is an insult.
    I congratulate the Parliamentary and Financial Secretary on the careful way in which he stated the case of these men. Whether a fine is right or not, I am very strongly in favour, if it is to be imposed at all. of its being imposed on everybody. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) has so very well said, if a man, in time of war or emergency, is considered to be fit, as some of us were in the last war, to command Her Majesty's ships, including destroyers, there should not be differentiation between them and Regular Service officers in time of peace. I hope that the Minister will give us an assurance either that the fine will be scrapped altogether or that it will be applied to every kind of naval officer.
    Sir P. Agnew: As I made the suggestion of differentiating between temporary and Regular officers, I would assure my hon. Friend the Member for St. Ives (Mr. G. R. Howard) that I bad no intention of insulting those who were temporary officers. Indeed, I did not regard it as an insult to make a differentiation of this kind in regard to punishment.
    The whole purpose of punishment is to discover something that really punishes. For a Regular officer to be severely reprimanded has a lasting effect upon his career, and is as great a slur upon his reputation and honour as any fine administered to a temporary officer. I have served with many temporary officers at sea; one of them is a highly-esteemed Member of the House of Commons.
    Mr. Steele: The speech made by the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir P. Agnew) indicates that sometimes the intention is different from the indication. While the hon. and gallant Gentleman did not intend any insult to these officers, the mere possibility that the differentiation might be put into the Bill showed that it would implicate the

    445
    temporary officers in that way. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman had read the Select Committee's Report with care he would have observed that the matter was very carefully considered and was rejected on those grounds.
    We thought it was wise to raise the matter in this form because this was a new penalty and we felt that the Committee should have an opportunity to discuss it. We felt that the Parliamentary Secretary should be given an opportunity to explain why it has been introduced. I wish, like my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), to congratulate him on the careful wording of his speech.
    Before asking leave to withdraw the Amendment, I wish to emphasise what my right hon. Friend said, that the regulations on this matter must be clear. The administration is important, and we hope that will be carefully watched.
    Mr. Soames: To answer the point raised by the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), I would refer him to Clause 44 (6), which says:
    " A fine shall not exceed the amount of the offender's basic pay for thirty days…"
    That is why I said a month's pay because, in fact, that is the maximum fine. The subsection then says:
    "and may be recovered by deductions from his pay in such manner as may be provided by regulations…"
    I think that covers the point made by the right hon. Member. Of course we accept it, and the regulations will be such as to enable the fine to be spread over a period. On the other hand, it would cease to be a punishment if it were spread over too long a period. This is a question of the happy mean.
    When considering the question of hurting the man's family, the right hon. Member will appreciate that there are a number of penalties in the Bill which affect the family, such as loss of pay during detention and dismissal from ship, which involves half pay for a time. I certainly take the point made by the right hon. Member, and the regulations will be drawn in that sense.
    Mr. Steele: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 44 to 53 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 54.—(COMPOSITION OF COURTS-MARTIAL.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: Clause 54, which deals with the constitution of courts-martial, makes the greatest single change in the laws and customs of the Navy embodied in the present Bill. Also, it is the only Clause which differs very materially from the Clauses recommended by the Select Committee. I am bound to say that I am still not entirely happy about the Clause in the form in which it has appeared in the Bill.
    I would remind the Committee that naval courts-martial are not quite the same as courts-martial in the Army and the Air Force. In the first place, they are very much more uncommon, and, in the second place, owing to the seniority of the members who constitute the courts, they have always been held in the very greatest respect. Indeed, a certain awe has surrounded them. I suggest that the reason for the great respect in which they have been held is largely the fact that they are composed of officers who are not nominated and who are officers of considerable experience and responsibility.
    The present method by which a naval court-martial is set up, as hon. Members will know, is that the convening authority nominates the president only and the remaining officers—at least in theory—are the requisite number of officers on the General List immediately below him in seniority. In modern times, the custom has arisen of allowing the senior officer present, the commander-in-chief, admiral, or whoever he may be, to make a court-martial signal and do a little naming of officers. When the court has assembled, at an early stage it is explained that those officers not called who would have been called on seniority grounds are absent on duty. It is always open to the defence to challenge that if it is felt that there is a deliberate omission of officers entitled to be called.
    In spite of that, under the present system one invariably finds that the members of the court are officers of considerable seniority. One finds one or two captains. The president must be a

    447
    captain, and there may be one other captain as well as him. Under the seniority rule, one usually finds that the commanders are officers over the zone for promotion. They have a distinctly independent outlook.
    One of the changes in the Bill is that the court will no longer be confined to executive officers. In its present form, the Bill goes a great deal beyond what was recommended by the Pilcher Committee, which recommended that for some years to come the majority should be executive officers. The reason why the court is composed of executive officers at the moment is partly that by the nature of their training and past experience, they have had a great deal to do with summary jurisdiction, and partly because in a certain class of case connected with hazarding and stranding of ships the question of negligence in respect of a highly technical matter arises, and they are officers who would be qualified to deal with it.
    Be that as it may, the new Bill gives practically unfettered choice to the convening authority as to whom he should call to the court. That choice is fettered to a slight extent by Clause 54 in respect of the seniority of the members in relation to the seniority of the accused, and there is also provision that all the officers must not come from the same ship or establishment. I think that the Committee ought to consider whether the existing rules provide sufficient safeguard against having insufficiently senior officers on the court.
    Here, I think the Navy is in a different position from the other two Services because I believe that with the best will in the world, a junior officer would find it very difficulty to disagree with the captain of his own ship, if that captain were the president of the court. It may be wrong that that is so, but I am sure that it is so in practice. I am well aware that the vote is taken from the junior officer first, but, as anyone who has sat as a member of a court—as I have—knows, the question is fully discussed, and no one is in the slightest doubt about the view of the president before the vote is taken.
    We also wish to guard against having too many officers from the same ship. It seems to be stretching the provision rather far, if the situation can be avoided,
    448
    to have all the officers except one from the same ship or establishment which, incidentally, so far as I understand the Bill, can be the ship or establishment of the accused. Similarly, all the officers except one might come from the staff of the officer convening the court, which again would be highly undesirable. There is the final risk, now that specialist officers are eligible, of having officers insufficiently experienced to deal with the type of issues likely to come before the court.
    7.30 p.m.
    I am familiar, Sir Charles, with the argument sometimes advanced that the members of a court-martial are no different from members of a jury, but I do not accept that argument. They decide the sentence, which a jury does not, and one usually finds that the officiating judge advocate, the prosecuting officer, and the prisoner's friend, know very little more, and often a great deal less, about the law or circumstances of the case than do the members of a court themselves. Those are some of the reasons why the consideration of a case by members of a court-martial cannot, with the best will in the world, be wholly objective, and, in turn, those are reasons why it is important that the members should be men of great experience and great independence of judgment.
    I entirely understand the reluctance of the Government and of the Admiralty to accept the Clause originally drafted by the Select Committee. I quite understand that they thought that it was too inflexible, and might sometimes make the holding of a court-martial—or the convening of a court-martial—too difficult. In passing, I must say that I do not think it a bad thing that it should be rather difficult to convene a court-martial because, in the Navy, where commanding officers have considerable summary powers, I think the fewer courts-martial that are held the better.
    I should like my hon. Friend to give the Committee an assurance that when the Bill becomes law the section of the Queen's Regulations which contains the instructions to flag officers will include some very clearly worded guidance to them on how they are to exercise their functions as convening authorities. In particular, I should like to see the following points stressed. First, I should like it

    449
    stressed that the flag officer who orders the court-martial has a personal responsibility for the nomination of the members, and must on no account delegate that duty to some junior officer—and, least of all, to the officer who is to be president of the court.
    I may have a suspicious mind, but I have a slight fear that there may be long exchanges of coded signals if the ship in which the case is to be tried happens to be remote from the flag officer convening the court-martial. I have an uneasy feeling that in such a case the flag officer may make a signal to ask the captain of the ship to suggest the court, and will then signal back in plain language naming those officers. I think that the regulations should specifically forbid that.
    Secondly, I should like to see an instruction, on fairly general lines, to the effect that the officers selected are to be those who, by virtue of their seniority and qualifications, are most likely to reach a just and independent conclusion on the issues on trial. If something like that was to appear in the regulations, and there was set up a court which was demonstrably badly constituted, I imagine that it would be possible on a point of law to challenge before the court of appeal the way in which the court had been formed.
    Finally, I think that there should be a definite warning in the regulations against the nomination of junior officers merely to give them experience of courts-martial and court-martial work. The proper way for a junior officer to learn about courts-martial is to attend as a spectator. I think that it would be most improper to make young officers members of courts-martial just for them to gain experience of what goes on.
    I must apologise for detaining the Committee for so long, but I do feel that this Clause is perhaps the most important one in the new Bill.
    Mr. Arthur Moyle: Ina debate which we had a few years ago, when we were asking the Government to introduce this Bill, I had the temerity to speak on the subject of courts-martial, and I expressed some views upon the need to reorganise naval courts-martial. I have listened to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett), whose experience, of course, is
    450
    much greater than mine, and, if I may say so, I thought that there was much sense in what he said. I could not, however, go the whole way with him.
    As I understand, what we want in a court-martial is a body of people who are possessed of a measure of judgment. That does not always come from experience. I have yet to find in any walk of life that a man's judgment corresponds with his rank. I have never found it work out quite in that way; that is the higher up one goes the sounder the judgment. When serving on a jury or in other walks of life, one has to make a judgment upon certain issues, and it seems to me that the more ordinary a man's judgment is, the more sensible it becomes. For that reason, I cannot share the hon. and gallant Gentleman's views about the need for retaining the practice of selecting the personnel from what he described as the executive officers—
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I did not advocate that for a moment. He must have misunderstood me. I was pressing that those officers selected should be of sufficient seniority and knowledge to be independent in their judgment.
    Mr. Moyle: I was coming to that, and I do not think that I misunderstood the hon. and gallant Gentleman. It seems to me that in this set-up the only person in a court-martial who is likely to be independent is the president himself—and, of course, the prisoner. All the rest are subordinate. Whatever rank they hold—
    Mr. George Wigg (Dudley): Will my hon. Friend be good enough to tell me by what process of logic he arrives at the idea that the prisoner is independent?
    Mr. Moyle: Well, he is entitled to say what he likes in his own defence.
    The strong point made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman was this need for independence and for an independent judgment. I may be wrong, but I think that the only officer in the set-up who will have, at any rate, independence, if not judgment, is the president of the court-martial. I think, too, that it is an excellent departure from the existing regulation to recruit courts-martial personnel from outside the ship concerned. That will bring in an outside view on

    451
    what may be essentially a domestic matter confined to that ship.
    I had hoped that the Government would have gone a little further and would have broadened the basis of the experience and, indeed, of the judgment available to them. Why not bring in the petty officer? Why not bring in the rating? The judgment of such men is as good as anybody else's. They have had a measure of experience of life in the Navy which is peculiar to them, and they would have a contribution to make, in terms of judgment, as good as that of any officer. They would bring their experience to bear, particularly if the charge was against a petty officer or rating. They would contribute a very valuable experience and a measure of understanding peculiar to them by the very nature of their rank.
    The only qualification that is wanted in this matter is an independent judgment. That is the main factor. I can appreciate the point about the junior officer, but not all officers, however subordinate, necessarily follow the judgment of their superior officers, the president or the executive officer. He will be as likely to bring in as much independent judgment as his own peer or his superior officer. It does not always follow that being in a subordinate rank means subordinating one's judgment to someone's superior.
    I have heard it said that the main argument against the recruitment of personnel for a court-martial from the lower deck is that whatever view he took, or whatever decision he came to in common with the rest of those on the court-martial, he would be subject to severe criticism and possibly "sent to Coventry" by his mates. Why should that assessment be made with regard to any petty officer or any rating? We are living in the twentieth century, not in the sixteenth century, and there has been a measure of general secondary education for many years now. I cannot understand why the Navy does not break a lance with the future and secure a more broadly-based court-martial than even that provided for in the Bill.
    I regret that we have not sought the occasion of this Bill to democratise the whole basis of selection for the courts-martial, because it is entirely confined to judging the facts submitted in evidence.
    452
    The question of law is not a matter for any of the personnel of the court. It has not to decide on question of law or procedure or on the admissibility of evidence other than the experts. That is the responsibility of the judge-advocate and the clerk of the court.
    Therefore, the personnel of a court-martial is in precisely the same category as that of a jury made up of ordinary citizens in our highest courts. I am disappointed that we have not been able to make greater headway in securing democratisation in this matter of the set up of courts-martial in the Navy.
    7.45 p.m.
    Mr. Wigg: I am loath to disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), but I am afraid that I cannot agree with him that a court-martial in any of the Services is discharging a function similar to that of a jury.
    Mr. Moyle: I did not say that. What I meant to imply was that if, for example, a jury drawn from ordinary citizens could determine the fact of whether a person was guilty or not, I should have thought that that was a valid argument for broadening the basis of courts-martial in the Army or the Navy.
    Mr. Wigg: I am sorry if I misunderstood or misquoted what my hon. Friend had to say, but I do not think that his intervention affects the point which I want to put to the Committee.
    A court-martial in any of the three Services is doing something more than deciding the guilt of the prisoner. It is an instrument of discipline. One has always to remember that the accused is a member of an armed force which exists to fight. Those who sit as members of the court-martial must have independence of judgment not only in order to decide on the facts the guilt or non-guilt of the accused, but also to have regard to the good of the Service of which they are members.
    I should have thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) was absolutely right in striving—I think he did strive very hard—to secure the absolute independence of the members of the court, not only in the interest of the accused but in the interest and well-being of the Service itself.

    453
    I am in entire agreement with my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen in what he said about democratisation. Certainly, so far as the Army was concerned, I did my best to democratise it. But I am not going to be sloppy about this matter. I think that if we want independence we have to be very careful about what are called in the Army "other ranks" being included in the composition of a court-martial. The hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East has mentioned that the opinions of the president of the court get known before the vote is taken. What would be the position of the poor A.B. faced with an officer of senior rank who might hold opposing views? It would require a man of great moral courage to differ from him. What would surprise me in that context would be how it came about that such an outstanding person could still be holding such a lowly rank.
    Mr. Moyle: The argument which my hon. Friend is now using is precisely the argument that was used to retain the executive officers for the personnel of courts-martial.
    Mr. Wigg: I may be hopelessly reactionary about it but I am not sure about the admission of specialist officers. Specialist officers tend to become "clever devils," people who know a great deal about very little. I can only speak from Army experience, but I am not altogether persuaded about the advisability of members of courts-martial being officers, however senior, of very specialised experience.
    I think that there is a great need for breadth of understanding of Service problems and certainly for independence. It may be that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East and myself share the same reactionary instincts on this matter. At least, I claim for myself that I am concerned with two points. I am certainly concerned with the wellbeing of the accused but I am also concerned with the well-being of the Service. The test of a good regiment is not what happens on courts-martial, but the number of courts-martial that it does not have.
    I have a feeling that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen is not as reactionary as myself. He is a
    454
    progressive, but I have a shrewd idea that if I were charged with an offence before a court-martial I would sooner be tried by a court composed of those people drawn from the experience which the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East has in mind than of those whom my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen has in mind. Needless to say, if I were charged before any court-martial I should not be guilty. Therefore, I have a predisposition for those with breadth of vision, and I should feel more confident if I were absolutely sure that the verdict of "not guilty" would be given irrespective of any questions of promotion or of the next grant of leave or of the next grant of privilege.
    I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldbury and Halesowen should keep pegging away at this. He has an absolute right to do so, but I think that he should keep it until the next time the Naval Discipline Act is reviewed, because I am quite sure he will still be a Member of this House. I feel, however, that in this matter he will be well-advised in the interest of those whom he is so ably seeking to serve to walk rather slowly.
    Sir P. Spens: I want to say a few words on this matter. I am glad that the Admiralty has worded the Clause as it has done, although it is contrary to what we in the Select Committee recommended. It may be of interest to know that this is the only Clause, in all the three Bills with which we dealt, in respect of which a majority of the Committee, under the influence of the great eloquence and experience of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) took a view contrary to that which the Chairman recommended.
    I am bound to say that, once the General List of the Navy has been introduced, I find it very difficult to see how the composition of courts-martial can be limited to certain members of that General List. That seems to me to be creating a class of officers who ought no longer to be allowed to be regarded as a special class of their own. In one sense there is a danger in expanding, as broadly as the Admiralty has, the list from which officers can be selected, but if hon. Members will realise the way in which the Admiralty commits itself in the selection

    455
    of officers for courts-martial in the immediate future, I do not think that they will find any cause for real anxiety.
    Some hon. Members rightly say that it might be that in certain cases only non-executive officers would be the right persons to serve, and in a highly technical service of specialists I can understand that an officer on the executive list would find himself—as I should in certain spheres—completely ignorant of the issue that had to be tried. It therefore seems to me to be right that the field of choice should be made as broad as possible.
    Then comes the question of the responsibility of making the selection. That must be left to the Admiralty. The Admiralty has more or less committed itself to saying that it will issue instructions how officers shall be chosen for courts-martial. Unless we can trust our Board of Admiralty the whole matter is hopeless and it does not matter what we put into a Bill or an Act of Parliament. I am certain from the evidence given and the Memorandum supplied to us that the Admiralty is aware of the requirements, and I think that we can safely accept the Clause as it stands.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I think that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) put his finger on the heart of the matter when he said that, in the end, we have to trust the Board of Admiralty to send out the correct instructions. Nevertheless, I do not think that the Committee can help feeling impressed by anyone with the experience of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett). I think that his fears are exaggerated. however, and that the width of choice available to the Admiralty will strengthen rather than weaken the composition of courts-martial.
    The suggestion made by the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) was very interesting, but it has already been considered and turned down by the Pilcher Committee. It may be that the advice of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Wigg) is the best advice that I can give the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen.
    I undertake to consider the three points made by my hon. and gallant
    456
    Friend, and to have drafted a suitably amended section of the Queen's Regulations and Admiralty Instructions. I cannot say that it will be exactly along the lines he suggested, but something along those lines will be incorporated in Admiralty Instructions.
    Mr. Moyle: Will the Civil Lord bear in mind the basis of the point made by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens) concerning the selection being governed by the type of case to be considered? Would it not be a good thing in certain cases, where petty officers or ratings are involved, to select members of courts-martial upon a broader basis?
    Mr. Galbraith: The suggestion that ratings should serve on courts-martial was examined and turned down by the Pilcher Committee, and we do not intend going back upon that, but we certainly intend to issue Queen's Regulations and Admiralty instructions to convening authorities in order that they may nominate officers particularly suitable to try particular types of case.
    Mr. W. Wells: I was one of the members of the Select Committee who was impressed and convinced by the eloquence, force and experience with which the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) argued his point. I believe that the true answer to this question is that at which the Government and the Admiralty have now arrived. There is a proper sphere for legislation and a proper sphere for administration, and we may go very wrong if we allow one to overlap the other.
    We probably all welcome the creation of the new General List and the assimilation of one kind of officer with another; the breaking down of what we outside—in my case speaking as an ex-Army officer —may regard as the rather exclusive caste spirit within certain types of rank. We welcome what the Admiralty is doing in this direction. It would be a step backwards to preserve the Clause in the shape in which it left the Select Committee, but I hope that the Government and the Admiralty will consider very carefully the various points raised, including those raised by my hon. Friend the Member

    457
    for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle), when they draft the appropriate instructions giving effect to the Clause.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 55 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 58.—(GENERAL ORDERS AS TO PROCEDURE OF COURTS-MARTIAL.)
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I beg to move, in page 22, line 36, at the end to insert:
    (2) The rules as to the admissibility of evidence to be observed in proceedings before courts-martial shall be the same as those observed in civil courts in England, and no person shall be required in proceedings before a court-martial to answer any question or produce any document which he could not be required to answer or produce in similar proceedings before a civil court in England.
    The words of the Amendment are identical with those in Section 99 (1) of the Army Act. Its purpose is to require naval courts-martial to observe the same rules of evidence as are at present observed in the civil courts and Army courts-martial. During the course of the debate we have heard more than once of the importance of making the provisions relating to the various Armed Forces similar. It is very important to secure uniformity of procedure as far as possible for the three Services and the equalising of the legal systems applying to each of them.
    8.0 p.m.
    Indeed, it has been said more than once in the course of the debate that the justification for a particular Clause is to be found in the fact that it also appears in the Army Act. I call that principle in aid in support of my Amendment. I want the learned Attorney-General, if he will, to say why this provision which exists in the Army Act in regard to the rules of evidence is not included in the Naval Discipline Bill. I cannot conceive why it should not be included. In view of its exclusion, will the Attorney-General tell the Committee what rules of evidence are to apply?
    I apprehend that reference may be made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the intention to deal with this matter by means of general orders issued by the Admiralty, but why such a procedure, why not include it in the Bill? Why not include a simple state-
    458
    ment in the Bill of the kind which exists in the Army Act and which I have embodied and set out in the Amendment? Why should the Admiralty be privileged to make these rules of evidence in some special general order, as it were round the corner? Why does the Admiralty think it necessary to take to itself powers that the Army does not find necessary at all?
    The curious thing about Clause 58 is that in subsection (3) there is reference to the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1879. That is a small piece of technicality in regard to the rules of evidence which those who are responsible for the Bill have thought it necessary to introduce. But if it is desirable to introduce what is comparatively insignificant and is largely formal, I maintain that it is essential to provide for that which is far more than formal.
    After all, the rules of evidence which are applied in our criminal courts embody the wisdom and experience of many generations. They are, in many cases, for the protection of the accused person. Generally, the rules of evidence applying in criminal trials operate for the benefit of the accused, for example by the exclusion of hearsay and of statements which are not made voluntarily. Are these rules not to be applied in naval courts-martial.
    I suspect that the secret of this matter may well be the devoted feeling which the Admiralty has for the circumstantial letter. Unfortunately, I have not had the privilege of appearing at a naval court-martial, but some of my learned friends in the Temple have and they have always expressed amazement at what is included within the ambit of the circumstantial letter. The proceedings start with it. One of my friends appeared in a receiving case. The kind of evidence in the circumstantial letter was what the cook told the petty officer and comments about conversation in the mess between persons whom the prosecution had no intention in the world of calling to give evidence.
    As to the rules of ordinary courts excluding statements not made voluntarily, the kind of matter which appears in the circumstantial letter is a statement as to the captain going to the accused and saying, "I am not having this stealing on the ship. What did you do with the boots?" And the answer to that threat finds its way into the circumstantial letter. It is

    459
    true that the letter does not generally include a statement of previous convictions, but there is no reason why it should not do so as far as the regulations go. One of these days we might well find an energetic prosecutor including that, too, in the circumstantial letter.
    It always astonishes me how the Navy has managed to get away with it through the centuries. The poor Army has been badgered and buffeted for its court-martial irregularities, and no doubt sometimes they have existed. I suppose that it is the supervision exercised by the House of Commons that has been responsible for constant alertness in regard to Army courts-martial, but the Navy gets away with it all the time and may well get away with it again. The irrelevancies and inadmissibilities of matters in the circumstantial letter may well continue to be a black mark, as I deem them to be, upon the administration of justice in our country for our citizens.
    It may well be that the Attorney-General will call in aid some particular difficulties of convenience, due to the nature of service in the Navy and may say that there may be some special need for admitting what is normally inadmissible. But when one comes to think about it, most courts-martial, certainly in peace time, are heard ashore. Most courts-martial of any serious character do not take place at sea. I understand that they are reserved for trial when the ship returns to port. Therefore. that argument of convenience does not seem to be an impressive one.
    The final matter that I desire to submit to the Committee is that at the moment the provision of the courts-martial appeals procedure seems to make it desirable that there should be some degree of uniformity in such fundamental matters as the rules of evidence. As I understand it, that is another ground for making the rules of evidence for the Navy the same as the rules of evidence for the Army. I see no reason in the world why there should be this differentiation. particularly by reason of the fact that on the whole the rules of evidence, as I have emphasised, are to the advantage of the accused and are in some respects, despite the technicality of some of them and the irritation that they often cause to the layman, an important part of the liberties of the subject.
    The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree with me that many of our rules of evidence at the common law and Chancery and in our civil law do not find their origin in any Statute. They have been built up by case decisions and there is only a small section of our law of evidence which has a statutory origin.
    All the fears he has voiced in moving his Amendment are, I am glad to be able to assure him, without foundation. The rules of evidence applicable in naval courts-martial are, subject to the one point to which I will refer later, precisely the same as the rules of evidence in our ordinary criminal courts and rules of evidence before Army and Air Force courts-martial. The same principles apply, the same rules apply, and the Courts-Martial Appeal Court is there and would correct any serious departure from observance of those rules. Those rules of evidence have been applied in naval courts martial for a very long time but there has never been in the Naval Discipline Act a statutory provision of the character that the hon. and learned Gentleman now wishes to see inserted.
    There was in the old Army Act a statutory provision similar to the one to which he has made reference, and the backgrounds to the two Acts have led to slightly different contexts in that respect, but there is no material difference with regard to the rules of evidence. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will accept that from me. The real difference between the Army Act and the Naval Discipline Act in this connection is that in Section 198 of the Army Act, as he will see, there has to be, because of the general rule which is made statutory by Section 99 (1), special statutory provision for the receipt of certain kinds of documentary evidence.
    One consequence of that is that it is not an easy matter to vary the kind of documentary evidence which can be produced by certificate, or in various ways. without altering the Act of Parliament. On the Pilcher Committee one thing we had to consider—and I speak as a former member of it—was the necessity of proving before naval courts-martial documentary evidence which was unlikely to be the subject of any dispute. The hon. and learned Gentleman will see we recommended that a great deal more use

    461
    should be made of machinery whereby those documents could be produced in evidence without the necessity for securing the attendance of some witness, maybe from miles away, formally to produce it.
    As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have adopted in recent years a somewhat similar procedure with regard to non-controversial evidence in the criminal courts. It is true to say that in the Navy, where there may be crews changing and ships travelling long distances apart, there is really a greater need for making provision for the reception of documentary evidence than there is in relation to Army and Air Force courts-martial. If, of course, a trial has to be delayed because a witness cannot be produced merely to submit a document, it is greatly to the detriment of an accused person. I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that as regards rules of evidence generally there is no difference between the Services. I can also assure him that. without accepting his Amendment, the rules of evidence in our ordinary courts are, and will continue to be, generally observed before courts-martial.
    What the Bill proposes is that there should be a somewhat flexible machinery whereby one can make provision for certain documentary evidence. I hope I have convinced the Committee that there is a real need for facilitating the reception of documentary evidence which is not likely to be disputed. That provision is by General Orders which are referred to in Clause 58 (1), and power is given by them to make the directions under Section 7 of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred. As he sees, those General Orders are not to have effect until they have been approved by Her Majesty in Council in pursuance of a report of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. That is an important safeguard against there being any risk of a general rule making a radical departure from our ordinary rules of evidence.
    8.15 p.m.
    I myself would say that consideration by the Judicial Committee is a sufficient safeguard. The hon. and learned Gentleman made a good many observations about the circumstantial letter. I do not know whether he has ever seen one? I
    462
    do not think I have, but I heard much about it when we were sitting on the Pilcher Committee. I was surprised by his statements as to the content of a circumstantial letter, because it takes the place of an opening speech by the prosecution. There are some advantages, and maybe there are some slight disadvantages, in that system.
    One advantage is that the accused knows before the trial exactly how the case will be put by the prosecution. But no one can suggest that a circumstantial letter is evidence. It is nothing of the kind. In fact, when the circumstantial letter comes before the court-martial, the judge advocate is there and he is under the duty of reading the charge sheet and the circumstantial letter. Before reading that letter he has to warn the court that it is an ex parte statement of the facts as the prosecution believes them to exist, that some of the facts may be in dispute, that some of the evidence on which the prosecution relies may be inadmissible, and that some of the witnesses may not testify to some of the matters which the prosecution expected they would. The facts set out in that letter could consequently only be regarded by the court as a statement of what the prosecution expects to prove.
    That may detract somewhat from the attractiveness to the court of the circumstantial letter, but one thing is clear, that no naval court-martial could for one moment regard the circumstantial letter as evidence of anything. Therefore, with respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think it is necessary for me to say more about that.
    We cannot accept the Amendment as it stands, because while it is largely declaratory it makes no provision for the reception of documentary evidence, which is very important. We could possibly draft an Amendment which would embody the principle to which the hon. and learned Gentleman has referred and yet permit of this flexible procedure for the admission of documentary evidence. I am not saying that that is not possible, but I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that there is absolutely no need for it, because the main principles of the rules of evidence in our criminal courts are the rules of evidence which have been applied for years, and which

    463
    will continue to be applied, in naval courts-martial.
    The only difference between the rules in our ordinary criminal courts and the rules before naval courts-martial is that, owing to the special procedure which will be taken for the admission in evidence of documentary evidence, we shall before naval courts-martial not require the attendance of so many witnesses merely to prove formally that this is the return of this or that or of some kind or another. In the Army there is statutory authority for certain kinds of evidence. In the Navy there is the authority of General Orders made with the approval of the Judicial Committee. It really is essential that there should be provision for that.
    I hope I have said enough to allay the anxieties of the hon. and learned Gentleman, to assure him that it really is not necessary to make any Amendment on the lines he suggests, and to assure him that his fears as to what might otherwise be, if those fears were justified, certain very curious practices at naval courts-martial, are not justified.
    Mr. W. Wells: The whole Committee should be indebted to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones) for raising this point and for putting down this Amendment. At the same time, most of the anxieties which my hon. and learned Friend raised in my mind were removed by what the right hon. and learned Gentleman had to say, particularly about the circumstantial letter. On this side of the Committee we have no wish to encumber the administration of naval discipline, and in view of what the right hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will feel it right to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: Although I am reassured by the observations of the Attorney-General about the circumstantial letter—I am glad to discover that it is prefaced by considerable discouragement to the members of the court from paying any attention to it whatsoever—
    Mr. Ede: Does not my hon. and learned Friend think that it might be a good thing to adopt that procedure in civil courts, so that the jury may be
    464
    informed that what the opening speech of the prosecution says is not evidence?
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that contribution, but it would be a very dramatic development of the procedure of the ordinary criminal courts if prosecuting counsel were to say, "I am about to open the case. I may make a lot of inadmissible observations and refer to inadmissible evidence which I have no intention of proving and, therefore, you need pay no attention to a single word that I am saying."
    Mr. Ede: And also, "A lot of my evidence may not come up for proof."
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: That happens to the best of prosecutors, if I may say so.
    In spite of the assurance about the circumstantial letter, I am still not entirely happy about this matter. I fail to see why the Naval Discipline Bill should not include a provision to deal with documentary evidence. Of course, one wants to eliminate any unnecessary formality in the formal proving of documents, for example, to prove an order has been given or that a document has been in the custody of the appropriate officer. Matters of that kind can clearly be provided for to eliminate unnecessary expense in proving what is merely formal.
    That has been done in the Army Act for the needs of the Army, and, I believe, similar arrangements were made for the Air Force. I should have thought that the Royal Air Force faces similar problems of geography and position and difficulties as does the Royal Navy in these matters. As, in any event, General Orders have to be issued to deal with these matters, I ask again: why not now and in the Bill? After all, the kind of problem which is to be contemplated is not a varying or changing problem. Clearly, the kind of difficulties can be anticipated now and I must invite the Attorney-General and the Admiralty to look at this matter again.
    I am not convinced—although, of course, I shall not press this matter to a Division—by the view that this is a matter which can properly be left to General Orders. As I understood from the Attorney-General's speech, we may take it that the ordinary rules of evidence, when the Bill comes into operation, will apply. That is reassuring, but

    465
    I should find it even more reassuring if that were embodied in a Statute as part of our statute law as applied to the Navy.
    I know that it will involve much work and I am always very sorry to suggest anything of that kind to what must be a very overburdened Department, but, nevertheless, I invite the Attorney-General to give further consideration to the matter.
    The Chairman: Does the hon. and learned Member wish to withdraw the Amendment?
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: I was hoping that the Attorney-General would add a word of encouragement.
    The Attorney-General: I have listened carefully to all that the hon. and learned Member has said. I hope that he will consider what I sought to say in reply to him. I am not convinced that there is any need for a declaratory provision of this kind—it is meant to be declaratory. There is nothing between us about what should happen in courts-martial and there may be disadvantages in making declaratory provisions.
    There is a very strong case for the procedure in the Bill for making provision for the reception of documentary evidence. It would be a pity to lose the flexibility of this procedure by making statutory provision in a Bill for reception of only certain classes of document. Bearing in mind the practice heretofore of naval courts-martial and the practice at present and the fact that there is now the Courts-Martial Appeal Court to see that the rules of evidence are observed, there is no need to lengthen the Bill by declaratory provisions of the sort envisaged by the hon. and learned Gentleman. Without entering into any undertaking to do anything about it, I will certainly give further thought to the matter and perhaps have a word with the hon. and learned Gentleman on another occasion.
    Mr. Elwyn Jones: In view of that gracious reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 59 to 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 70.—(REVIEW BY ADMIRALTY OF FINDING AND SENTENCE.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Steele: Having dealt with courts-martial, we now come to what happens after a court-martial has finished its job. Clause 70 deals with the review of finding and sentence. It is a very important Clause, and I have one or two questions to ask about it, because the Admiralty should have some opportunity of explaining how this procedure will work and what the machinery is.
    The Bill differs very much from the Army Act or the Air Force Act, as any sentence given under those Acts is subject to confirmation, which is not so under the Bill. That is why we ought to have some explanation about this Clause, as it is very important that the review provisions should be explained by the Admiralty.
    8.30 p.m.
    There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the Committee. In page 168 of the Report of the evidence given before the Select Committee—Question 841—the following reply was given to the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) by Mr. Montagu:
    "The sailor gets an advantage which the civilian does nod get, that every single case is reviewed."
    Those words are included in the Report of the Select Committee, but, unfortunately, there is no provision in the Bill to ensure that that will be done.
    Clause 70 (1) says:
    " Any finding of guilty tinder this Part of this Act, and any sentence awarded in respect of such a finding. may be reviewed by the Admiralty at any time…"
    It is only in the case where trial has been by court-martial that a clear and firm undertaking is given in the Bill that such a review will, in fact, take place.
    That is very important because during the whole of the hearing of evidence by the Select Committee and during the course of this debate in Committee it has been admitted that many more trials will take place by summary procedure than

    467
    by courts-martial. Clause 49 (2), which deals with summary trial, says:
    "This section applies to any offence triable by court-martial under this Act, other than an offence punishable by sentence of death."
    Actually, therefore, any offence at all, unless it is punishable by death, can be tried summarily. That being so, it is more than ever important that the machinery for reviewing sentences should be adequate.
    I cannot understand why the word "may" is used in Clause 70 (1). Why do the Admiralty say
    " may be reviewed by the Admiralty at any time "
    whereas in the evidence given before the Select Committee and in the Report of that Committee it is quite clearly and emphatically stated that every single case would be reviewed?
    These are the two matters on which I should like to have an assurance: first, why the word "may" is used and whether the word can be altered at a later stage; and, secondly, whether the machinery which will be in operation for reviewing cases is sufficiently satisfactory to ensure justice for the accused.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: The main point about which the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is worried is, I understand, the difference between the word "may" in relation of the review of summary cases and the word "shall" in dealing with cases tried by courts-martial. I will look into the point, but I understand that all summary cases are, in fact, reviewed by the Admiralty.
    What happens in a summary case involving detention—if it does not involve detention it is obviously not very serious —is that the case is reported to the local flag officer on a warrant, and it is only when that officer has approved the warrant that it can be enforced. After that, the return is sent in due course to the Admiralty. Of course, it may take a considerable time before a review takes place, and often the punishment has already been suffered. That, of course, is inevitable in any case of summary jurisdiction.
    The hon. Gentleman made a comparison between the Army and the Navy. I think that the confirmation to which he
    468
    is referring applies to courts-martial. That is because in the Army courts-martials are often conducted with a much junior presiding officer than is the case in the Navy. In the Navy, a court-martial case, as the hon. Gentleman stated, automatically goes to the Admiralty for review, which is something which does not apply in civilian courts. Under civil procedure, one first has to appeal, but one does not have to appeal in the case of a sentence awarded by a naval court-martial. The idea is to make certain that the court-martial itself has not made any mistake, and to try to find that out as soon as possible. Therefore, I think I can say that, in fact, a review does take place.
    In the case of an offence that is tried by a court-martial, the review takes place immediately. In the case of one tried under summary jurisdiction, we have one sieve through which the case goes, namely, a flag officer has to approve the warrant before it is implemented; and, secondly, a long time afterwards it is reviewed by the Admiralty. Why the word "may" instead of "must" is used I cannot say at the moment, but I shall certainly look into the matter.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 71 to 73 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 74.—(POWER TO DISPENSE WITH TRIAL OF PERSONS CONFESSING TO DESERTION.)
    Mr. W. Wells: I beg to move, in page 30, line 23, to leave out subsection (2).
    The Clause on which this Amendment arises deals with a problem which gave us a certain amount of anxiety in the Select Committee, in that where a confession has been signed by a rating that he is guilty of desertion
    " the Admiralty may by order dispense with his trial for that offence and…impose on him any such forfeiture as could be imposed on conviction of that offence under Part I of this Act."
    We were convinced by the arguments that the Admiralty adduced to the Select Committee that that was a proper provision, and whatever dangers there were—and there were and are dangers—that it will lead to improper promises being made to ratings to sign a confession of desertion in order to be sure that the

    469
    penalty they get is lighter than they would get on court-martial, we were convinced that it would not, on balance, be a dangerous thing, and that there would be certain advantages.
    We feel, however, that the powers that come into being for ordering dispensing with the trial and for imposing any forfeiture on the rating by this summary procedure should be confined to the Admiralty. The Admiralty has resources for advice which are obviously beyond the control and disposition of a flag officer. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will consider that in exercising this power, which may lend itself to abuse, it is proper to confine the power to the supreme authority. I hope, also, that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that fact by either accepting the Amendment or agreeing to look into the matter before the Bill reaches the next stage.
    Mr. Soames: If I shared the anxiety of the hon. and learned Member for Walsall, North (Mr. W. Wells) on this question, I should certainly give an assurance to look into it further, but, as he appreciates. the object is not to impose a greater punishment upon a man; it is to let him off all punishment. When he is asked to sign this document, it is not to impose a greater punishment. He will not be court-martialled, and probably no punishment will be imposed upon him at all, except forfeiture of pay.
    The sort of occasion on which we visualise using this procedure is, for example. when a man, say a junior deserts, is apprehended by the police for some other offence he commits while on desertion, is sent to Borstal, and serves his sentence there. The naval authorities will be informed of the fact that he is in Borstal, and when his sentence has been served he will be picked up, as he leaves the gates of the prison, by a naval patrol. He will then go to the command in which he is serving, which will have been informed that he is in prison.
    If the flag officer feels that the best thing to do with the man is to consider that his civil punishment is a full punishment that will cover his desertion as well, and that the man has learned his lesson and will become a good sailor, that man must still forfeit his pay for the time he was away. The hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that. That punishment, at any rate, must be imposed upon
    470
    him. We do not like to do that unless the man signs a document admitting he was a deserter. Therefore, this power is provided in the Bill to enable the flag officer concerned, who, after all, is a very responsible officer, to let that be the punishment.
    The man does not suffer by this provision. He gains by it, because he would lose his pay anyway. There is no doubt that he has been a deserter. He signs the statement saying that he deserted and was a deserter; and the punishment will be the forfeiture of his pay, and probably nothing but that.
    Mr. Wells: I am afraid that I expressed myself badly. The whole danger here is not in the penalty. As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, it is less than that to which the man would be liable if he were tried by court-martial. The danger lies just in that, in the machinery of the confession being used to extort a confession of an offence. if the man were properly advised, as he probably would he if the matter went to court-martial, he would plead "not guilty". An inducement is offered to the man to plead guilty of desertion because he knows that by signing the confession he will not be liable to one of the more severe penalties. It might be that in the context of the case no court would award more severe penalties.
    It is because of the dangers implicit in the use of this confession provision, of its being used by people who have a certain know-how and who are dealing with a rating who has not got it, that we ask by this Amendment that the disciplinary authority exercising the powers under the Clause shall be the Admiralty, with its legal resources, and not a flag officer.
    Mr. Soames: I appreciate the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I really do not think that that is a danger. If I thought it was a danger I should agree with him, but I do not see where the danger is. The hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that the danger is that a man would confess that he had been guilty of a crime which he had not committed in order to get a lesser punishment, does he not?
    Mr. Wells: That is the main danger, but there is also this possibility. Suppose that I have deserted. I am a young sailor with no knowledge of the law. I am confronted, possibly. by an officer who says

    471
    to me, "If you will sign this document the worst that will happen to you is this" —whatever the Clause provides. I sign it. It may well have been that if I had gone to court-martial the court would have awarder a less severe penalty than that awarded by the officer who administers the penalty.
    In view of the absence of review provisions in such a case which exist where a man has been tried by court-martial, we ask that the penalty should be fixed by the final authority, and that this power should not be delegated to a subordinate authority whose decision will not be reviewed.
    8.45 p.m.
    Mr. Soames: The court-martial would never award less than forfeiture of pay for the time that the man had been absent. It would never award less than would the officer concerned and it is more than likely that it would award more. If a man feels that he is not guilty he will not sign this confession, but will go before a court-martial and see what happens. Equally, if the Admiralty feels that a man needs more severe punishment than forfeiture of pay it will not ask him to sign the confession; and, again, he will have to go before a court-martial.
    We do not want to encourage people to desert. We shall not ask people to sign a confession and to forfeit pay for their absence just for fun. We shall do that. perhaps, where the man has already had some form of punishment in a civil court, only where this would give the best chance of enabling the man to mend his ways. He would forfeit his pay, which he would have to do in any case, and would proceed with his service.
    I should have thought that that was just the sort of case which should be left to the command, in which the man is known personally; for it is largely a matter of judgment. The man cannot lose by signing the confession, and I do not think there can be any danger of a miscarriage of justice. If he signs the confession he will suffer no more than forfeiture of pay, which he would have had to forfeit had he gone before a court-martial.
    Mr. Wells: There is also forfeiture of seniority. That is not likely to be a matter in this case, but it could be awarded under the wording of the Bill.
    Mr. Soames: I agree.
    Amendment negatived.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 75 to 128 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 129.—(JURISDICTION OF CIVIL COURTS.)
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That the Clause stand part of the Bill.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: In spite of the late hour—
    Mr. Ede: The hon. and gallant Member has not been called to another place.
    Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I still say that in spite of the late hour I feel that the Committee should not part with this Clause without dwelling on it for a few moments because, if I understand the Clause correctly, subsection (2) makes one of the most important changes in the existing law which are contained in the Bill. In my judgment, it is a very welcome change.
    For practical purposes it does away with what are known as consequential penalties. There are two exceptions. The Admiralty retains the right to withhold the pay of a man during the period in which he is awaiting civil trial or is in prison as a result of civil conviction, and I suggest to the Committee that no one would regard that as unreasonable. Secondly, the Admiralty retains the right to discharge from the Service altogether —and I stress that it is "discharge" and not "dismiss"—a man who has been convicted of a civil offence which would make his retention in the Service inappropriate. Again, no one would question that that is reasonable.
    The present system of consequential penalties, however, really authorises the naval authorities, by administrative action, to impose what is, in effect, a second punishment after any conviction in a civil court—a punishment which, under existing regulations, is required to be based upon the amount of discredit brought to the uniform.
    I assure the Committee that every kind of device is used on occasions by commanding officers in the interests of the men to mitigate these penalties—devices such as persuading magistrates to hold their courts at an unusual time without

    473
    giving notice to the Press. It is then argued that there was no discredit because nobody knew anything about it.
    At the same time, this system of consequential penalties, which, I believe, was exercised under Prerogative powers—a fact which I never realised when I was serving—has long caused a sense of burning injustice among the ratings who suffered those penalties, and has been, I am assured, a source of great embarrassment to magistrates, who feel that after they have passed sentence, a man will be punished again. I rise only to say how glad I am that after a long struggle in the Committee, the Admiralty and the Government have accepted what is now proposed in the Bill as law.
    Mr. W. Wells: With my customary shyness and diffidence, I had hoped that the hon. and gallant Member for Croydon, North-East (Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett) would have put the point that I was going to make much more forcibly than I could put it myself. While I entirely echo what the hon. and gallant Member has said, there is one point concerning subsection (1) about which I should like an assurance from the Civil Lord.
    Subsection (1) provides, among other things, that
    " Where a person subject to this Act is acquitted or convicted of an offence on trial by a court-martial or disciplinary court…"
    such court
    " shall be debarred from trying him subsequently for the same offence."
    In paragraph 77 of its Report, the Select Committee, after dealing in a general way with the pleas of "Autrefois Acquit" and "Autrefois Convict", stated:
    " A further point arises. In order that a plea of this kind should be able to succeed, the defendant must be able to produce proof of his previous naval trial. Your Committee were not convinced that, at present, all formal records of this kind are kept sufficiently long for them to be of use in this way. They accordingly recommend that the Admiralty should issue regulations to ensure that such documents are kept safely for as long as they may be needed."
    My sole purpose is to ask for an assurance from the Civil Lord that that recommendation of the Select Committee in relation to that point will be carried out.
    Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith: I am afraid that I have been caught off-balance. I do not know whether we keep these records long enough, but I will certainly look into the matter and see that they are kept. Obviously, if they are not kept long enough, the whole of the purpose of the Clause will be lost. I will look into the matter.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 130 to 139 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    First to Fourth Schedules agreed to.

    Fifth Schedule.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS.)
    Mr. Soames: I beg to move, in page 70, line 9, column 2, at the end to insert:
    In section seventy-four, in subsection (4), the words "petty officer or" shall be omitted and, after the words "non-commissioned officer", in the first place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words "or rating".
    This is a simple Amendment. It is really a tidying-up operation, for it is brought about by an error in the Army Act.
    The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Am I right in thinking that this Amendment and the next one to line 29, column 2, go together?
    Mr. Soames: Yes, Sir Gordon; they do, and one follows logically upon the other.
    The purpose of this Amendment is to substitute the word "rating" for "petty officer". The reason for this is that whereas the Army uses only non-commissioned officers on provost patrols, the Royal Navy uses patrolmen who are often able seamen; and we wish to maintain the principle that provosts from other Services can, if need be, arrest those who are suspected of having committed offences and who are members of another Service. This meets the custom of the Navy, which is to use able seamen on patrols, whereas the other two Services only use non-commissioned officers; but able seamen wear brassards to show that they are, in fact, on provost patrol.
    The Amendment does not in any way alter the sense of the Bill, but tidies up and makes good the omission in the Army Act, which excluded any rank below that of petty officer.
    Mr. Steele: I just want to make one comment. It appears to us on this side of the Committee that the patrolman who usually sits on the Front Bench opposite to assist the Minister in these matters had obviously been engaged in some external occupation and had not been keeping in touch with matters. Perhaps that was the reason for the rush at the last moment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Further Amendment made:In page 70, line 29, column 2, at end add:
    In section seventy-four, in subsection (4), the words "petty officer or" shall be omitted and, after the words "non-commissioned officer", in the first place where those words occur, there shall be inserted the words "or rating".—[Mr. Sonnies.]
    Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
    Sixth and Seventh Schedules agreed to.

    Preamble
    Motion made, and Question proposed,That this be the Preamble to the Bill.
    Mr. Steele: Having come to the end, we now come to the beginning, and I should like to move the Amendment which stands in my name, to leave out the Preamble.
    The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman cannot move that Amendment. He can only vote against the Question. "That this be the Preamble to the Bill."
    Mr. Steele: I am much obliged, Sir Gordon, The longer one is in this House, the more one realises that the procedure in these matters is difficult.
    The Preamble reads:
    " Whereas it is expedient to amend the law relating to the government of Her Majesty's Navy, whereon, under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom so much depend:"
    These words are very interesting, but we take the view that they are quite unnecessary. On reading the Select Committee's Report, one finds that one member indicated that it was advisable to have these words because they were a source of inspiration. It would be difficult to say who was going to read them. They are unlike the words of the Clause which the hon. and gallant Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) mentioned as being read periodically—the famous words which
    476
    the Civil Lord of the Admiralty thought were certainly not ennobling, as these certainly are, though I hesitate to think that these words are read periodically.
    9.0 p.m.
    Nothing like this appears in any other Act. In many of the arguments used by Ministers to defeat arguments advanced from this side of the Committee they called in aid the fact that particular words appeared in the Army Act and that the proposal was to keep in line with the Army or the Air Force legislation. On this occasion that cannot be argued, because nothing like this to my knowledge appears in any other Act.
    The Select Committee felt the words should be retained because of the traditions of the Navy and because these words have always been there. There was one amendment, because in the previous Act the words read:
    "…under the good Providence of God, the wealth, safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depend."
    It was claimed that the safety and strength of the Kingdom chiefly depended on Her Majesty's Navy. If tradition had to be maintained in this matter it seems to me essential to retain the old words and it would have been much better had the Committee argued that these words, "chiefly depend", should be retained. I think that the taking out of those words and replacing them with, "so much depend" weakens the Preamble and makes it rather spineless. It takes away the strong declaration which vas embodied in the previous words.
    I must confess that the new Defence White Paper and the effect of the proposals of the Minister of Defence have "torpedoed" this argument and even the comfort of the words, "so much depend" has been taken away by what the Minister of Defence has stated in the White Paper, and the statement of the First Lord in the White Paper on the Navy Estimates. It would appear to me that rather than whittle away the strong declaration in the previous Act, it would he better to allow these words to fade into history containing some strength; and that rather than that they should be weakened, we should take out the Preamble altogether.
    Sir P. Spens: I trust that these will be the last remarks I shall make during the Committee stage proceedings on this Bill.

    477
    I hope the Committee will not give way to the appeal of the hon. Member for Dunbarionshire, West (Mr. Steele). I feel extremely strongly about this matter. I was sorry that time after time during the proceedings of the Select Committee we had to do away with phrases and Clauses of great interest and importance which were bound up with the history of the Navy. This Preamble goes right back to 1666, and the very first Naval Discipline Bill that went on to our Statute Book. It is interesting to note that the wording of it then was:
    "…whereon, under the good Providence and Protection of God, the wealth, safety and strength of this Realm is so much concerned."
    It was only at a later date that the: senior Service, as it was so justly entitled to do, altered these words to, "chiefly depend". When we came to consider the Preamble and make up our minds whether we should have a Preamble. we went back to the original words. I wish that we had gone back to the original words, "is so much concerned", but as the word "depend" had been used in the last Act, the majority of the members of the Committee preferred the phrase, "so much depend."
    True, it is uncommon nowadays to have a Preamble to an Act of Parliament, but there have been hundreds of Preambles right down our history to all sorts of Acts of Parliament. It is only because there has been trouble in construing Acts of Parliament with Preambles, and because judges have found themselves in difficulties when what has been found in the Preamble conflicted with something in the Act, that the custom and practice of having Preambles to Bills has dropped out.
    There is no possibility of anything of that sort happening with regard to this Preamble. It is an old-fashioned, historical Preamble which has been connected with the Navy ever since it came into existence at the time of James II, as we know him now. It will be a very sad departure from history if we give up the Preamble in the Bill. I hope that hon. Members will agree that the wording that the Select Committee approved has a proper connection with the history of our senior Service.
    Mr. Ede: This is an unusual Preamble, although I understand that it does not appeal to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele).
    Mr. Steele: Is my right hon. Friend assuming that I am a practical person, being a Scotsman?
    Mr. Ede: I understand that all the Statutes before the Act of 1707 are regarded as foreign legislation in my hon. Friend's native land.
    I support the view advanced by the right hon. and learned Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), and for an additional reason. This Preamble is one of those which, in former days, declared the sense of purpose and mission that this country believed it had. Let us not forget that for a hundred years the Royal Navy preserved the peace of the world and that one great nation that now occasionally thinks it right to lecture us grew up to its present strength behind that shelter. There is no reason why any of us should be ashamed of that part of the tradition of the Royal Navy.
    I do not share the regret of the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a slight alteration has been made in the wording the spirit has been preserved. Tradition has sometimes to be applied to the actual circumstances of the time in which appeal is made to it. Tradition is not a dead thing of the past but a living spirit of the present, growing, when it is wisely consulted, with the needs of the time. Can anyone doubt that the great Commonwealth of Nations of which we are now only the first among equals, could exist for very long without the Royal Navy acting, not in time of war but in time of peace, as a link between all the peoples who hold allegiance to Her Majesty either as Queen or as Head of of the Commonwealth?
    These words, which, after all, cannot give rise to anything like the trouble that has recently been caused to the Law Officers of the Crown with regard to an Act of Queen Anne which has baffled the courts and had to be taken to the House of Lords, do not affect any of the enacting provisions of the Bill.
    I hope that they will he continued to express what I believe is still the great mission of this country, to give a leadership to the world in accordance with the tradition of freedom that the Royal Navy has stood for increasingly as the years have gone by as the finest example in the world. It managed, during the century between Waterloo and the outbreak of the First World War to impose apax

    479
    Britannica,on the world far greater than the pax Romana of which a former great world nation was proud because, in the main, it stood to prevent slavery and the carrying of slaves from one stricken part of the world to another when human beings could be sold. In the main, it imposed beneficently a peace on the world which, to the great distraction and despair of the world, we have now lost.
    I see no reason why we on this side of the Committee should not be proud of the fact that men of very humble birth, throughout the centuries, certainly since 1666, have maintained with others this high tradition of this country in the affairs of the world.
    Mr. Emrys Hughes: I would not have intervened in this debate but for the extraordinary nationalist and sentimental outburst of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with whom I usually agree, but I cannot say that he expressed an objective view of history in what was a typically English speech. As a Welshman, representing a Scottish constituency, I can take an objective view of the English.
    I believe that the English are inclined to be far too sentimental in regard to the history of the Navy and that that is expressed in this Preamble. I could not quite understand the reference of my right hon. Friend to my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steel). The history of Scotland goes much further back than 1666, although there is not a great deal of history about the Scottish Navy.
    Commander Maitland: I would point out that in Scottish history there was someone called Sir Patrick Spens, and that the Chairman of the Select Committee which decided on this Preamble has the same name.
    Mr. Hughes: That is certainly the most convincing argument I have heard yet. We can quite understand an Englishman getting excited about the British Navy, That is according to the tradition of this place, but those of us who are able to take a more objective point of view are not quite so sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has not rather exaggerated it in his speech in favour of the Preamble.
    9.15 p.m.
    It may be true that the English Navy ruled the waves for a very long time, but it did something else besides keeping the peace. History tells us that the Scots were in alliance with the French, and during those years when the English Navy was keeping the peace it was also used, for example, to destroy a good deal of the influence of the French Revolution and to build up imperialism. I therefore suggest that, in addition to this romantic view, there is another one which is not expressed in the Preamble. Of course, we are entitled to allow the English in this place their prejudices, but I suggest that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has rather romanticised the rôle of the English Navy. While we do not think that this Preamble is a very important matter, we yet think that my hon. Friend the Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) has expressed a far more objective view than has my right hon. Friend.
    Mr. Soames: Perhaps I may be allowed to say at this stage what a very interesting discussion we have had on the various Amendments, and to thank those who have put them down and so enabled many points to be discussed, I think with advantage.
    As to this Amendment, I must confess that I am a little disappointed that it should have been thought necessary to put it on the Notice Paper. The point made by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele) is that the fact that the words "so much" have been substituted for the word "chiefly" takes both the punch and the tradition from the Preamble. It was met most effectively, I thought, by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington, South (Sir P. Spens), who pointed out that from the traditional point of view they were, in fact, the words used in the Naval Discipline Act, of, I think, 1662.
    As to the punch, when the last Naval Discipline Act was passed in 1860 there was, of course, no Royal Air Force. As I have just moved over from the Air Ministry, the last thing I should like to do would be to say that the safety of the realm depends only upon the Royal Navy, but, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede)

    481
    said, in a speech that was listened to with great attention in this Committee, and which will, I know, be read with the greatest interest and gratitude by the Fleet, the Royal Navy has played a tremendous part in building up the greatness of the United Kingdom and of the British Commonwealth.
    At Greenwich, at this moment, there is going on a Commonwealth Naval Conference, attended by the Chiefs of Staff of all the Commonwealth Navies. It is a most impressive conference, and the power of all the navies of the Commonwealth is a great feature for stability within the world today. If we are to take out of the Bill this Preamble, which does no harm to anyone, but merely points out the extent to which we look to the Royal Navy to protect the interests both of this country and of the Commonwealth, it would be the greatest pity. I am quite certain that the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West put down his Amendment in order to get discussion on the point, and I hope that he will now feel able to agree to the Preamble.
    Mr. Steele: I am sure that Members of the Committee would not imagine for one moment that anyone speaking from the Front Bench on this side of the Committee would try, in any Amendment or in anything that was said in connection with the Navy to do other than pay a high tribute to its work and also to its history. Anything that I have said or anything that I shall ever say will have nothing at all to do with criticism of the high tradition of this Service and the great part that it has played in the past.
    It may be that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) feels that we Scotsmen north of the Border are not so emotional in these matters as our colleagues south of the Border. I can assure him that we are just as sentimental, perhaps more sentimental in many of these matters, than our English colleagues. It is fitting that one Scotsman, one Englishman and one Welshman should have taken part in this debate. However, in view of the speeches that have been made, I have no hesitation at all in withdrawing my Amendment.
    The Deputy-Chairman: No Amendment has been moved. The Amendment was out of order. The Question is, "That this be the Preamble to the Bill."
    Preamble agreed to.
    Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 81.]

  NAVAL AND MARINE RESERVES PAY BILL
  Order for Second Reading read.
  9.23 p.m.
  The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Christopher Soames): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill relates to the pay of officers and men of the Naval and Marine services and provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, fix the rates of pay, bounty and allowances which are payable during service with the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. The Bill is designed to place the arrangement for authorising pay for the Naval and Marine Reserves on exactly the same footing as are the arrangements for pay of Regular officers and men.
  The Bill is needed in order to clarify the law relating to the pay of the Naval Reserves arising from references to pay in many early Statutes. Some of the Acts governing the pay of the Naval Reserve are now about a hundred years old, as hon. Members can see from the Second Schedule to the Bill. Scattered throughout these Acts are various and, in some cases, somewhat obscure references to pay which were, of course, relevant when the Acts were framed, but which now bear little relationship to modern conditions and take no account of the enormous changes which have occurred during the past century. For instance, in Section 6 of the Royal Naval Reserve (Volunteer) Act, 1859, there is a provision that reservists called up for service under the Act shall receive the same pay as Regular ratings entered in the Royal Navy for ten years' continuous and general service.
  For many years it has not been the practice to have a ten-year engagement; at present, the engagement is normally for nine years but for twelve in the case of artificer apprentices. The Admiralty is advised that the references in those old Acts, and specifically in the one to which I have referred, to the pay of men serving ten-year engagements, could be construed from the legal point of view as giving to certain classes of Reserve ratings, in the event of their being called up for service, rates of pay which are higher than those

  483
  to which some Regulars are entitled under the new 1956 code of pay.
  The practical result of that is that some reservists would, in the event of their being called up for service, receive a higher rate of pay than would Regulars with the same length of service. This is an anomaly which obviously cannot be accepted, since no reservist can have any moral entitlement to draw a higher rate of pay than that of a serving Regular of corresponding rank and service. If the reservists were to gain this advantage on a mere legal technicality, the Regulars would certainly have considerable grounds for complaint.
  The difficulties which I have mentioned have been increased by the 1956 pay code, which introduced differential rates of pay for men serving different lengths of engagement.
  The Naval and Marine Reserves are a most vital component of the Royal Navy, and in these unsettled times it is a matter of first importance that there should be no legal difficulties about their rates of pay when serving. Fortunately, we did not have to call up any reserves for the Royal Navy in the Suez crisis, but we can never be sure that we might not have to do so should another emergency develop in the future. Apart altogether from war and emergency, there are sometimes N.A.T.O. exercises, and we may have to call up some of these men for them. The amendment of the law by the passing of the Bill is, therefore, a matter of some urgency.
  The Reserves mainly affected by these legal difficulties are the Royal Fleet Reserve—a first-line Reserve, composed of time-expired Regulars of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines—when recalled for service in war or emergency, and also the Royal Naval Special Reserve: but we have taken the opportunity of including within the scope of the Bill officers and men of all the Naval and Marine Reserves, in order to place the law on the subject in a satisfactory state both at present and, we hope, for a long time in the future.
  9.28 p.m.
  Mr. Thomas Steele: We thank the Parliamentary Secretary for his clear explanation of the meaning of the Bill. I confess that we found it rather difficult to go through the various references and find out
  484
  exactly what it was all about, but we understand why the Admiralty wishes to do something to remedy the position in which men who called up from the Reserve receive a higher remuneration than full-time serving men.
  There are two questions which I should like to ask. First, has this situation already occurred, or has it been discovered before anything has happened and before anybody has been given this extra bonus? Secondly, is it quite clear that in all that is being done here no rights or safeguards applicable to reservists are being abolished, and that they are not suffering in any way under the provisions of the Bill?
  9.30 p.m.
  Lieut.-Commander S. L. C. Maydon: I have to make only one small criticism of the Bill, a criticism of a purely technical nature which I have already mentioned to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary. We have just been dealing with the Naval Discipline Bill, in which the word "Navy" is spelled with a capital "N," but in the Title of this Bill the words "Royal Navy" are spelled with initial small letters. Similarly, in the First Schedule the titles of the various Reserves, which I think in normal practice are spelled with capital initial letters, are all printed in small letters.
  The Parliamentary Secretary told me in conversation yesterday that this was perfectly legitimate and that sometimes one course was followed and sometimes another. But as the normal practice is to give capital initial letters to these various forces, in just the same way as regiments in the British Army have capital initial letters, whether their titles comprise one or more words, so these various Naval Reserves and the title of the Royal Navy itself should have capital letters at the start of each word. I should like to have my hon. Friend's assurance that that will be the practice in future.
  Mr. Soames: With permission, I should like to answer the three points raised. First, in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wells (Lieut.-Commander Maydon), I would say that I made inquiries about the question whether the initial letters in the title of the Royal Navy should be in capitals. I was told that there was an almost equal number of Bills presented to the House in which capitals or small letters were

  485
  used, and that neither was right and neither was wrong. I will look at the point against the possibility of our presenting more Bills in the immediate future.
  As to the two points raised by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, West (Mr. Steele), I can assure him that no bonus has been paid up to date. The answer as to whether these men will suffer at all is that they will get the same pay that they would have been getting had they still been Regulars when they were called up and also the same pay that their shipmates who are of the same rank and length of engagement as the reservists had when they were serving as Regulars. That is just and equitable.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.
  Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]
  Committee Tomorrow.

  EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL
  As amended, considered; read the Third time and passed,

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND [MONEY]
  Resolution reported,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual contributions towards the House of Commons Members' Fund, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of such moneys into that Fund of annual contributions not exceeding ten thousand pounds or such higher amount as the Treasury may by order direct.
  Resolution agreed to.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS FUND BILL
  Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed.

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [Lords]
Order for Second Reading read.
9.35 p.m.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, That the Bill he now read a Second time.
The Bill is mercifully brief and I shall try to be likewise. It has a narrow, limited purpose, namely, to remedy a defect which had been discovered in the Church of Scotland (Property and Endow-
486
ments) Act of 1925. The difficulty with which it deals arises out of Section 36 of that Act, which deals with the reorganisation of church endowments in Scotland. It provides that the property and endowments relating to a particular parish shall be used in the first place to meet the requirements of the parish and the neighbourhood, this redistribution being determined by either the General Assembly or a committee to whom the Assembly may delegate that duty and, secondly, that any remainder of the endowments shall be part of a general fund at the disposal of the General Assembly.
This has, in practice, been a very valuable provision, and it has enabled the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee, under the authority of the General Assembly, to reorganise endowments in various parishes, and to enable more appropriate, more equitable stipends to be provided for the various churches which serve the parishes in question.
There is one limitation in that Section in regard to the reorganisation. That is a proviso which specifies that the power under the Section shall not be used except where a benefice is actually vacant at the time of the passing of the Act in 1925 or becomes vacant at a later date. The intention and the effect of that proviso was to preserve the rights of existing ministers so that their stipends should not be reduced during their incumbency. That safeguard is similar to other safeguards made for existing incumbents in various other parts of the 1925 Act.
This proviso, unfortunately, has had one unintended effect and it arises out of the fact that in certain cases in Scotland we have what we call collegiate charges; that is, two ministers acting in the same church. In the normal case that has presented no difficulty, because in the ordinary way these charges are two separate benefices. That happens, for example, in the Hamilton Old Parish Church. It happens also in Holy Trinity, St. Andrew's. As each charge becomes vacant the endowments relating to that charge can be reorganised under Section 36 of the 1925 Act.
However, there is one case—I think it is the only case, certainly the only one we have been able to discover—where a difficulty has arisen. That is in regard to St. Cuthbert's Church, in Edinburgh. There it has been discovered—and it has meant going back into past history—that this charge, unlike the other collegiate

487
charges, is a single benefice although it has two incumbents. So it is not an ordinary case of two separate charges, but of two ministers holding, as it were, a single incumbency. The result is that under Section 36 of the 1925 Act as it stands it is impossible in practice to deal with the endowments of St. Cuthbert's Church, because for the last thirty years that benefice has never been vacant. There has always been at least one incumbent and unless some very curious coincidence arises, that is bound to continue.
The object of the Bill is to alter that situation and bring St. Cuthbert's into line, as it were. with every parish church in Scotland. This matter was raised by the Maintenance of the Ministry Committee who, with the authority of the General Assembly, approached the Government and represented, very rightly, that this was an anomalous situation and that the anomaly ought to be removed. We have received assurances from the Presbytery of Edinburgh and also from the Kirk Session of St. Cuthbert's, who both unanimously agree that this change ought to be made. So the principle of the Bill, which is designed to overcome the difficulty, has the support of all the church bodies which are directly concerned.
At this stage, I should like to pay a tribute to the late Sheriff Sir Randall Philip, the Procurator of the Church of Scotland, whose assistance and advice were of the greatest help in the preparation of the Bill. It was he who first raised this matter and took a great interest in the subject matter of the Bill. It is a rather tragic coincidence that he should have died on the very day when the Bill in which he took so great an interest came up for its Second Reading. All of us who knew him, and many of us in the House did, will agree that his untimely death is a tragic loss not only to the legal profession in Scotland, but also to the administration of justice there and to the Church of Scotland itself.
The Bill is short, as I have said, and what it does is to provide—we have put it is general terms in case we discover some other case where the same thing would arise—that for the purpose of Section 36 of the 1925 Act a benefice shall be deemed to become vacant on the termination of the last interest of any minister
488
who is an incumbent when the Bill passes into law. That, of course, preserves, as the 1925 Act did, the right of the existing incumbent or incumbents. At the moment in St. Cuthbert's there is only one incumbent, because the other half, as it were, of the benefice is vacant.
In order to make doubly sure, we have to provide for the case not only of the incumbent there at the moment, but of anybody who might be appointed to the other half of the charge before the Bill becomes law. That has been done in the Bill and accordingly existing rights are preserved. The Bill is to bring St. Cuthbert's into line with every other charge in the Church of Scotland.
In these circumstances, I commend the Bill to the House with considerable confidence. It is a Bill of unexceptionable parentage. It puts an end in a common sense way to an anomaly which arose because of an oversight, a very understandable oversight, in the 1925 Act and it has the support of all the bodies in the Church of Scotland which have a direct interest in the matter.
9.45 p.m.
Mr. A. Woodburn: As far as my hon. Friends and I are concerned, we have no reason to object to this adjustment being made in the law so far as St. Cuthbert's is concerned. I, perhaps, have a slight personal interest in that I was born in the parish and have had some connections with the area in the years since then.
May I join in paying a tribute to Sheriff Sir Randall Philip? During my term of office as Secretary of State for Scotland, Sheriff Philip performed very considerable services to this House by holding public inquiries, which is a very vital part of our legislation and progress these days. The last time I saw him he was in the House giving evidence before a Select Committee in the manner of the clergy and membership of the House. He represented the Church of Scotland on that occasion. Therefore, he took part, to some extent, in contributing towards the legislation of the House, though he was never himself a Member of it. I am quite sure that all people in Scotland will join with the hon. and learned Solicitor-General in agreeing that we have lost a very gallant, learned and honourable gentleman in the passing of Sheriff Philip.
We agree with the Bill, and perhaps it is fortunate that it is not one concerned

489
with another matter which is coming before the Church in the very near future because, otherwise, it might not meet with the same hearty approval from all sections of the House.
Mr, John Mackie (Galloway): Hear, hear.
Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) has, as a matter of fact, already signified at least one opinion of another character. It is indeed fortunate that tonight we are not having to deal with what one might term the shock which has been administered to the history of Scotland, in suggesting that what has existed for nearly 300 years as a fundamental principle of the Church should now be departed from in an entirely novel fashion.
The very fact that so little heat has so far been engendered shows how far the Church has come in leaving the field of political controversy and in enabling the matter that it is now proposing to be considered as one of Church internal discipline instead of one of almost political revolution, as it was at the time of its introduction 300 years ago. Whether it will have as easy a passage as this Bill in the General Assembly, and eventually when it comes before the House, is a matter on which we may not speculate tonight.
However, we hope that whatever may be the outcome of the issue, the Church will not once more become involved in deep political fissures in the community and arouse the passions that existed even up to the early years of our own lives.
Mr. Speaker: I hope that these fissures will not arise on this Bill, which is only to amend Section 36 of the Church of Scotland (Property and Endowments) Act, 1925.
Mr. Woodburn: In deference to what you have just said, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying that we on this side of the House welcome the Bill and will give it our support.
9.49 p.m.
Major Sir Frank Markham: There is a point in the Bill which I do not like. It is that it removes what is obviously an anomaly which may be of some use. In the Parliamentary life of some use. In the parliamentary life that certain anomalies, such as the office of Lord Privy Seal and other functions, have become of tremendous service to the
490
State or to the Church. This is the last anomaly that is being removed under the terms of the 1925 Act.
I should have thought that there was a great deal of virtue in maintaining this peculiar anomaly of St. Cuthbert's in which there are two positions in the benefices of the church and understandably higher rates of pay which could be given to exceptional men who deserve some form of consideration of that kind. I think that the Bill is unwise, and I am very much in favour of retaining this anomaly so that it can be used, as we have used very similar anomalies in this country, with advantage to the State and the Church.
Mr. William Ross (Kilmarnock): Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggesting that the kirk session of St. Cuthbert's is unwise?
Sir F. Markham: No, not at all.
Mr. Emrys Hughes: The only question I should like to ask is whether this Bill will go to the Scottish Grand Committee.
9.50 p.m.
The Solicitor-General for Scotland: With the permission of the House, I should like to reply to the points which have been raised. May I reply to the first one and, with all respect, evade the second?
The suggestion by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Buckingham (Sir F. Markham) is that the endowment should be used in order to give higher salaries to the better men. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that, and, indeed, without the Bill we could not do that in the case of St. Cuthbert's. The Bill would enable the maintenance of the Ministry Committee to increase the stipend at St. Cuthbert's if this were thought fit. Therefore, I think the point is met in the Bill and I hope, with that in mind, that the hon. Gentleman will support it.
As to what happens at the next stage, I do not think that matter arises on Second Reading; nor is it really a matter for me, but if I may give a sort of off-the-record hint, I think that the answer is "No".
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Barber.]
Committee Tomorrow.

ZANZIBAR
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Barber.]
9.52 p.m.
Mrs. Eirene White: It is some time since the affairs of Zanzibar have been discussed in this House, and I am, therefore, happy to have the opportunity once more to raise certain matters which concern that small but very delightful island.
I had the great pleasure of visiting Zanzibar for the first time a few months ago, and I should like to pay a tribute to the very great kindness and hospitality that I received on that occasion. I was, in fact, a member of an official delegation to Kenya, and my visit to Zanzibar was purely unofficial and private, but, although it was a brief one, I had an opportunity of discussing at first hand a number of matters which I should like to bring to the attention of the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies.
When we last discussed Zanzibar in this House, when the present Secretary of State for War occupied the position of Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies, our main concern was with political matters, in particular with the constitution and the proposal to institute elections on a common roll basis. Before I conclude my observations tonight, I should like to return to some of those political questions. Before I do so, however, there are other matters of interest on which I believe many of us would like to have the observations of the hon. Gentleman.
One of the interesting and rather technical points which were raised when I was there is a matter of interest to the Muslim population of Zanzibar and also, I suggest, to the Muslim population of some of the coastal areas of East Africa. In these areas there is a system of Muslim courts, and it was put to me that while the courts themselves function satisfactorily there is a particular grievance that cases which are taken to appeal from these courts go to the High Court of East Africa, where the judgment is given by a learned judge but one who is not necessarily learned at all in the Muslim law and who has no religious or cultural
492
background which would enable him to appreciate some of the niceties of the cases which are brought before him.
I can see that there is some substance in this point. It was put to me very strongly in Zanzibar that in these matters of Muslim law they felt that there should be an appeal to a court the members of which were themselves versed in the Muslim traditions. It would not apply to other cases which would go through the normal channels. This is obviously a matter of considerable legal importance. and I would hesitate to pass an opinion upon it except to say that, on the face of it, there seems to be some reasonable case.
I cannot expect the Under-Secretary of State to give a complete answer on this matter tonight, but I would ask him, even if he is not able to give me that answer now, to take advice on the matter to see whether anything could be done to meet the very strongly felt wishes of some of Her Majesty's Muslim subjects.
One method for dealing with the matter suggested to me was that as the Sultan is now being provided with a Privy Council there might be some committee of that Privy Council analogous to the Judicial Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council here. It was suggested that that might be a suitable body in Zanzibar to hear appeals on points of Muslim law from the Kadis' courts. I very much hope this matter will be given consideration. It seems one of substance. While one does not wish to encourage a narrow religious basis for political or social life, I should have thought that there was something to be said for trying to meet by a reasonable compromise difficulties of this sort on these matters of law.
Among the many problems which face a very small community like that of Zanzibar is that of the very great expense of administering a modern society, and it was put to me with great emphasis that the cost is high of the pay of the expatriate officers, as they are called, the European officers who hold important administrative and technical jobs in the island. It was suggested to me that Zanzibar suffers from several disadvantages because it is small as compared with other parts of the Colonial Territories.

493
I was told that the people who go there as expatriate officers, if they are any good at all, stay there only a very short time. I was told, "If a man is any good he comes as a bird of passage and leaves as soon as he can obtain promotion." The only men who stay for any length of time normally are those who are not very competent. As an example of the difficulties under which they labour, I was told that in the last fifteen years there had been no fewer than seven directors of education. That number takes no account of officers acting in addition to the substantive holders of the office. How can we possibly expect continuity of policy when there are so many changes in the expatriate staff?
The expense of having expatriate officers is very considerable. In addition to the basic salary, they have to be paid what is called an inducement allowance. There are air passages for themselves, their wives, and up to two children each, I think it is. There is an education allowance for the children. These officers also receive fairly expensive housing accommodation at what seems to me a more or less nominal rent. When one adds up all those items and adds them to the basic salaries one finds that they are a considerable burden on the resources of the island.
One cannot help having very great sympathy with the local population who suggest that much more should be done towards educating local Zanzibari to take some of these posts, because, as they say, "We should thus obtain some continuity of policy, and avoid many of these additional expenses." With which sentiment I have the greatest sympathy. They admit, of course, that for a long time certain people with very high qualifications will be needed, but there seem to be administrative jobs to do which we ought to be able to find competent persons locally.
One must, however, recognise that this requires far better provision for education than is now generally available. On this, in Zanzibar, as in most other parts of Africa, I found the most intense feeling. I was told that of an estimated number of children of school age of 56,000 only about 14,800 attend school, that is to say, roughly 27 per cent. of the children of school age. Of these children
494
only about 700 have the benefit of secondary education.
It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed,That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]
Mrs. White: That is a very small proportion of the children who should be receiving education, and one cannot build the kind of structure in local or national government administration which is needed if one has this very inadequate foundation. It was suggestion that not only is more needed in the training of teachers but also that reorganisation is required at the primary stage. Zanzibar is the only country I know where the primary course extends over as long as nine years. In most parts of East Africa the primary and middle course extends certainly no more than eight years. Those in Zanzibar who are interested in education feel that it is time to tighten up their primary course to see that their children advance a little more rapidly.
Another suggestion made was that further consideration should be given to priorities in education and in the expenditure of their very limited resources. It was explained, for example, that a relatively large sum has been spent recently on sending students to the Mombasa Institute of Muslim Education, which is an institute for technical education.
I was told that in order to educate 43 students to only a very moderate level of technical competence they had to spend £21,000, and they pointed out that for this sum they could have educated 30 students at university level in this country or as many as 100 at the University of Khartoum. They feel that the amount which they are asked to spend on sending students to Mombasa is out of proportion to the results achieved, not only because the absolute expenditure is excessive but because when the students return they find it impossible to obtain the kind of work for which they have been trained in Mombasa and either go back to the mainland to look for jobs there or hang around in Zanzibar finding great difficulty in getting any suitable appointment.
It was also suggested to me that when a country has very slight resources it is

495
a luxury which it cannot easily afford to send a relatively large number of more senior people for short courses such as British Council courses which are, no doubt, very enjoyable to them, but on which, I gather, there is some local feeling that the money might, perhaps, be more wisely spent.
Another suggestion made to me was that as the majority of people in Zanzibar are Muslims with a Muslim tradition, it would be very interesting to learn whether anything has been done to provide an institute of higher Muslim education in the Commonwealth. I understand that it has been suggested to them from time to time by various representatives of Her Majesty's Government with whom they have discussed the matter that there are some proposals for such an institution somewhere in the Middle East. I do not know what those proposals are, but I think that the Government have been in contact, for example, with people in Aden.
At the moment, of course, if they do not send their students for higher education to the United Kingdom, they send them to Cairo or Khartoum, and it was suggested by some who are anxious to have a Commonwealth link that an institution of academic education with a Muslim trend was something which Her Majesty's Government ought to consider, if they are not already considering it. They told me that although they send some students to Makerere they feel that this is not as suitable for many of their young people as a Muslim institution. I put that point forward for consideration; I know there are arguments which can be advanced both for and against it. It would be interesting to know the views of Her Majesty's Government on this point.
A number of other matters were raised with me concerning health, housing, agriculture, economic development, and so on, on which we could spend a long time. Had the Navy occupied a little less time earlier this evening, as at one moment I thought was likely, we could have gone into greater detail. As we do not have so much time available, however, I do not wish to go into much detail on these matters except to say that it is quite clear that there is a great deal still to be done in Zanzibar in development in all these directions.
496
I turn now to a political matter which has a direct bearing on some of these problems of social and economic development—that is, the position of the unofficial members of the Executive Council, who, at the moment, have no ministerial status but who are associated with certain Departments. There are three of these gentlemen. It was suggested to me that their position was not an entirely happy one and I am inclined to sympathise with the arguments that were put forward.
It is possible to be a little too timid in this matter of political development. To have a member of an Executive Council who is said to be associated with a Department without having any real responsibility for it is not a satisfactory halfway house. He does not feel happy about it and very often the civil servants are not very happy about it, either. It is neither one thing nor the other.
It was put to me, for example, that the amount of influence over policy which any of these members have is entirely dependent upon their personal relationship with the permanent civil servants, that they do not have the sort of status which would give them real responsibility and that if for any reason permanent civil servants wished to embark on a certain policy, they were under no obligation to discuss it with the associate member.
I was told, for example, that the member who was meant to be concerned with the Department of Health awoke one morning to find that there had been a sharp increase in hospital charges. I can only state what I have been told; on my short visit I did not have an opportunity to investigate. The member in question, apparently, had not been consulted although the matter was, obviously, one of considerable popular interest. Other similar examples were suggested to me.
Now that the Constitution of Zanzibar is advancing in several directions, I would think that this is one direction which Her Majesty's Government might consider whether the rather anomalous position of these associate members could not be turned into proper ministerial jobs. I have just been considering another small territory, that of the Gambia. If the Gambia can have

497
Ministers, I should have thought that Zanzibar should have them, too.
As the Minister knows, Zanzibar is preparing for its first direct elections on a common roll basis, although with a restricted franchise which are due to take place in July. One would expect that there would be certain difficulties—there always are—in the initial stages of an experiment of this kind, but I should like to draw the Minister's attention to one difficulty which has arisen and which is peculiarly acute owing to the geographical position of Zanzibar.
When the conditions of the franchise and the Constitution were being discussed, it was decided that electors should be confined to those who were subjects of the Sultan and who had been resident in Zanzibar, I believe, for the preceding twelve months, but mere residence for twelve months was not sufficient: they had also to be Zanzibari. As the Minister knows, Zanzibar is not far from the mainland of East Africa and at certain times of the year in particular a large number of persons come over from the mainland. There is considerable coming and going.
I have been sent information, which I received only yesterday, so that I have not been able to give it in detail to the Minister, that there has been difficulty because it has been suggested that some of these persons who have come over from the mainland fairly recently, or who may have come over a considerable time ago but who are, nevertheless, not Zanzibari, have been registered or have attempted to get themselves registered as electors in the forthcoming election.
This is of some considerable political importance, because their general outlook might quite well be very different from that of the majority of those who are genuine Zanzibari, Therefore, I should be very glad if the Minister would give me some assurance that he will look very carefully at the precautions which are being taken to make certain that those on the electoral roll are entitled to be on the roll.
I have before me a very detailed letter which Sheik Ali Muhsin al Barwhani sent to the Supervisor of Elections, Mr. Penney, on 2nd April, and I think a copy was also sent to the British Resident and the Chief Secretary, in which he made a
498
number of detailed complaints about what he believed were the shortcomings of the system. It appears that the superintendent of the elections admitted that some kind of observer system was desirable at the registrations, but, according to the information given to me, these observers, who were appointed and paid by the Government, were told simply to sit there and say nothing and take no notes. It does not seem to me that they are really very effective observers, and, while I do not expect an answer tonight, I would ask the Minister to assure me that he will look into this, because I hope very much that the forthcoming elections in Zanzibar will be a success and that they will be an example to the rest of East Africa.
I myself have urged in this House on previous occasions that a common roll system should be tried in Zanzibar, because I feel that it would be the best place, possibly, in East Africa in which such an experiment might succeed. I was very much encouraged when the Government accepted the common roll basis of the franchise, though there were a number of restrictions, and I hope very much that when the election comes in July we shall see that this experiment has been justified, because it would be extremely encouraging if, in Africa, where we have a mixed society, as we have in Zanzibar, people could show sufficient political maturity by voting not on a racial and communal basis, but according to the policies and ideas which they favour.
If Zanzibar can see itself free of racial prejudice, it will be setting a most valuable example to some of the other neighbouring territories, and I hope very much that the forthcoming elections there will be carried out in a vigorous manner and that the people will fully observe the intent and aims of the common roll which has been granted to them. It is with these hopes and aspirations that I bring before the House tonight these various matters of great concern to a small but extremely interesting and beautiful island.
10.14 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): I am indeed grateful to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) for giving me advance notice of the matters that she has raised this evening. I am also grateful to her for giving me the

499
opportunity which this debate affords me of bringing up to date the statement made by my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State—because he was not Under-Secretary, but Minister of State, and is now Secretary of State for War—on 3rd February last year in reply to a similar debate.
As the hon. Lady recalled, at that time the situation in Zanzibar was still under the shadow of the refusal of the important Arab community, or at least a number of its leaders, to co-operate with the Sultan's Government in constitutional advance. I am glad to say that since then, as the hon. Lady herself knows from experience, things have taken a turn for the better.
This development of better relations happily coincided with the memorable visit to Zanzibar by Her Royal Highness the Princess Margaret during her tour last year in Mauritius and the East African territories, which symbolised the enduring relationship of friendship and harmony between this country and His Highness the Sultan and his people. When the House last discussed this matter Her Majesty's Government were experiencing difficulties in putting into practice proposals for a greater measure of self-government in the Protectorate. At that time the Elections Commissioner, Mr. Coutts, was engaged on his task of inquiring into the most suitable methods of choosing the unofficial members of the Legislative Council, and his Report was published on 3rd March last year.
As the hon. Lady knows, its principal recommendation was for the introduction of elections on a common roll, to which she has referred, for half of the representative members in the Legislative Council, and he proposed that when these six seats had been tilled by election, the various racial communities should be asked to put forward suitable names for nomination by His Highness to the remaining six seats. Immediately after the publication of the Report the leaders of the Arab Association decided to end their boycott of the Legislative Council, and since that time they have co-operated with the Government.
It was, therefore, with support from all the communities that the Zanzibar Legislative Council approved the proposals for the introduction of the elections, subject to certain modifications by
500
the Sultan's Government, the most important of which were the restriction of the franchise to subjects of His Highness the Sultan and the decision that after six of the representative seats had been filled by election, the remaining six should be filled by nomination from among persons qualified to be candidates who had the support of not less than 100 registered electors.
It was felt that that method corresponded more closely with the non-racial idea incorporated in the inception of elections on a common roll, but at the same time made it possible to ensure, during this experimental period, that all main interests retained some representation on the representative side of the Legislative Council, whatever might be the outcome of the first elections. Once that agreement had been reached on policy, the Council's Decree of 1956, which had not of course been brought into operation pending a declaration of attitude on the part of the Arab community, came into force on 17th September last year.
Under that Decree constitutional changes were made whereby a Privy Council. to which the hon. Lady referred, was established to advise the Sultan on matters particular to himself as a constitutional ruler, and the Executive Council was reconstituted with the addition of three representative members who were associated with the work of particular departments of Government. The hon. Lady has suggested that this association has fallen short of expectations. and that the unofficial members would have preferred to have been given greater executive responsibility from the outset. I can assure her that it is the intention of the Sultan's Government to give those members increasing opportunity to acquaint themselves with the business of government, but I think that at the same time some period of apprenticeship is desirable in the not altogether easy matter of exercising a form of Ministerial responsibility. As a matter of fact, the particular matter to which the hon. Lady referred, the introduction of hospital charges, was, I understand, decided as a matter of policy before the new system was introduced.
I was sorry to hear of the complaints the hon. Lady has received about the procedure which has been followed for the registration of electors. The present position is that preliminary lists of those

501
applying to be registered have been compiled by registration officers, and those lists, containing the names, addresses and occupations of the applicants, have been posted in public places.
It is now open to those whose names do not appear on the list to claim to be registered, or for electors to object—this, I think, is the point—to the inclusion in the lists of persons whom they believe to be unqualified. They have a period of one month for making such objections. In one constituency alone, I understand, more than 300 notices of objection have already been lodged. It does seem to me that the difficulty to which the hon. Lady has referred may well be overcome by the alertness of the electorate itself.
On the other hand, the hon. Lady has raised a point regarding the action and attitude of the registration officers which clearly deserves study. I will most certainly make inquiries into it, and if she wishes, I will let her know the outcome of my inquiries.
Nomination day for candidates has been fixed for 1st July. The intention is that polling shall take place on 21st July, as was originally planned. Perhaps I should say in passing that in spite of what I have just said about registration and the point that the hon. Lady raised, all those concerned with this matter in Zanzibar are to be commended for the expedition and general smoothness with which they have introduced to an inexperienced electorate what is to them a novel feature of democratic life.
There is much that I could and would like to tell the House about Zanzibar, but in the short time that remains I had better concentrate on the points that the hon. Lady raised, particularly with regard to education. She contrasted the nine-year primary course in Zanzibar with the eight-year course on the mainland, and suggested that the educational system required scrutiny.
The reason for the longer course in Zanzibar is that the first year of education is taken up with instruction in the Koran in response to the sentiments of a Muslim community. The remaining eight years form a unified, primary course for all children undergoing education; whereas in the mainland territories —they are perhaps less fortunate in this —the first eight years of instruction are
502
divided into primary and intermediate courses, with a reduction in the numbers of children at school in the intermediate stage.
Thus, Zanzibar children who do not proceed to a secondary school will have had the advantage of continued schooling to the age of 15. That can be considered as generally satisfactory. When the efforts of the Education Department to improve the standard of teaching and expand secondary education have been successful, this eight-year course may be compressed into seven years, and those for whom places can be found in secondary schools and who are judged capable of benefiting from secondary education will begin that after the seventh year of schooling.
We must, of course, not forget that the Zanzibar child has the formidable task of studying three languages: English, to give him contact with the wider world; Arabic, mainly for religious reasons; and Swahili, which is the day-to-day language of the people.
As regards higher education, the cost of maintaining a student at Makerere was thought at one time to be disproportionate in the case of Zanzibar, but the basis on which Zanzibar contributes has been changed since 1956. The present cost is less than £500 per annum for a student, and may shortly he reduced still further.
The criticism of the cost of education at the Mombasa Institute of Muslim Education is perhaps a little more justified. Forty-two students from Zanzibar have so far completed training there but none of these has yet completed the additional two years' practical training necessary for employment other than as an apprentice with the Zanzibar Government. In view, however, of the expense and doubtful value of these courses to Zanzibar the number of students being sent annually has already been very much reduced. It does seem likely that the future of the Mombasa Institute, which is being taken over by the Kenya Government, will lie much more in association with the Arab secondary school in Mombasa.
With regard to the suggestion that too much money has been spent on sending people on expensive short courses, I can say that 51 students—perhaps these figures may help the hon. Lady—from Zanzibar are now being supported on

503
academic or professional courses overseas for two years or more, one is doing a teacher-training course for one year and three are doing courses of less than one year. Comparative expenditure in 1957 on long and short courses will be approximately £34,000 and £2,200 respectively.
My right hon. Friend is not, however, fully satisfied that adequate provision is being made in Zanzibar and the surrounding area for Arabic and Muslim studies. He therefore arranged for a special mission, composed of Professor Serjeant, of the School of African Studies in the University of London—an eminent Arabic scholar—and Mr. Griffiths, of the Department of Education at the University of Oxford—who has had many years experience of teacher training in the Sudan—to carry out a three-month survey in the East African territories and Aden on the existing forms of instruction in Arabic and allied subjects, more especially Islamic law. The report of that mission is expected to be available shortly, and careful consideration will be given to the suggestions or recommendations which it may contain.
In the time which remains to me tonight, I should like to say a word about the matter referred to by the hon. Lady regarding the feeling in Zanzibar that too many posts were held by officers from overseas, the cost of whom was a heavy charge on the Zanzibar Budget. Recent increases in the number of posts held by officers from outside Zanzibar have been due mainly to the expansion of the education service and various technical services for which adequately qualified local candidates are not yet available. Since 1947, however, 48 Zanzibaris have been appointed to posts then held by overseas officers, or posts which would have been held by such officers, had they existed.
The present total establishment of officers from overseas to help in the development of a population of more than 250,000 is 166. There are more than 4,000 posts held by Zanzibaris. All vacancies are locally advertised if local candidates are likely to be forthcoming, and officers from overseas are appointed
504
only if no suitable local candidate comes forward.
The hon. Lady mentioned a criticism in Zanzibar that overseas officers do not stay long enough and referred particularly to the directors of education. I have had a look at that matter and find that of the recent directors one was released at the request of my right hon. Friend to assist with the development of the Mombasa Institute and one other, unfortunately, was obliged to retire through health and family reasons. None the less, I can assure the people of Zanzibar that the Secretary of State is fully aware of the desirability of continuity in service.
Finally, I should like to say a word about the Kadis' courts. I understand that appeals from the Sultan's court lie to the Court of Appeal for Eastern Africa, as the hon. Lady said. I think that litigants in Zanzibar can rely on Her Majesty's judges in the Court of Appeal to dispense sound justice. It may perhaps take a little longer for a judge who is not particularly versed in Muslim law, but although the time taken may be a little longer, his judgment on that account will most certainly not be less effective.
I hope that I have been able to answer the majority of the points raised by the hon. Lady. I assure her that I shall read with great interest the points which she made in her speech and that my right hon. Friend is just as interested in Zanzibar and some of these smaller territories as he is in those which perhaps get more limelight from time to time. I am glad that the hon. Lady has seen fit to give us the opportunity of discussing this matter. I think that some of the answers which I have given will go further than this House and, perhaps, to the ears of those who live in Zanzibar, who love it, and are devoted to the problems which they have to face and are trying to face them in a way which will improve the status of those who live in the territory.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Metric System
  Metric System
  Hire-Purchase Restrictions
  Hire-Purchase Restrictions
  Cinematograph Films Act (Regulations)
  Cinematograph Films Act (Regulations)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation (Yield)
  Taxation (Yield)
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Premium Savings Bonds
  Civil Servants (Salaries and Gratuities)
  Civil Servants (Salaries and Gratuities)
HOSPITALS
  Miss Mary Betteridge
  Miss Mary Betteridge
  Clinical Assistants
  Clinical Assistants
  WESTERN CO-OPERATION ("GRAND DESIGN")
  WESTERN CO-OPERATION ("GRAND DESIGN")
EDUCATION
  Museums
  Museums
PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE
  Retirement Pensioners
  Retirement Pensioners
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
POST OFFICE
  Manipulative Staff (Pay and Conditions)
  Manipulative Staff (Pay and Conditions)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

UNIVERSITY OF EXETER BILL
Read 2a.

WITHDRAWAL OF BRITISH FORCES FROM KOREA
3.5 p.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 whether notice was given to the Security Council that all British troops would be withdrawn from Korea, and, if so, on what date such notice was given; and whether they will state the numbers and nationalities of the International Force which will remain in Korea after the British withdrawal.]
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS AND LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE EARL OF HOME): My Lords, notice of the proposed withdrawal of the United Kingdom Contingent was not given to the Security Council but was given on March 29 to the United States Government. That was the correct procedure, because it was the unified Command under the United States of America to which members of the United Nations were recommended by the Council's resolution of July 7, 1950, to make forces available. It is understood that after the withdrawal of the United Kingdom Contingent, Ethiopia, France, Greece, Thailand, Turkey and the United States, in addition to the Republic of Korea, will continue to maintain forces in that country. It would not be appropriate for Her Majesty's Government to give details of the composition of such forces from other countries.
VISCOUNT ELIBANK: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his Answer.

INDIAN AND PAKISTANI PENSIONS
3.7 p.m.
LORD HAILEY: 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 whether, with reference to the statement made in this House on April 19, 1955, by the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, they can now give any indication of the date when the payment of the pensions under the Pensions (India, Pakistan and Burma) Act, 1955, will be transferred to the Treasury of the United Kingdom.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, in the case of India, the transfer of the payment of pensions to the United Kingdom Treasury took place with effect from April 1, 1955. The Government of Pakistan agreed in principle at the time to a similar transfer of the pensions for which they were responsible. Negotiations on the financial arrangements have been in progress since then, but have not yet been concluded.
The number of pensioners with whom these negotiations are concerned is approximately 1,100. In the meantime, while negotiations are proceeding, the pensioners suffer no material loss through the continued payment of their basic pensions by Pakistan. Pakistan pensioners receive, in just the same degree as Indian pensioners, the pensions increases which have been sanctioned by United Kingdom legislation and which are paid from United Kingdom revenues. The levy of Pakistan income tax on pensions paid by Pakistan may be a source of some slight inconvenience to the pensioners, but arrangements have been made to ensure that it does not also entail any financial loss to them: Her Majesty's Government make good to them any Pakistan income tax that they have to pay, provided, of course, that they take whatever steps are open to them under the Pakistan regulations, to minimise the amount of Pakistan tax which they pay.
Your Lordships will understand that Her Majesty's Government cannot force the pace in any negotiations with another Commonwealth Government. But I can also assure your Lordships that Her Majesty's Government will do everything

253
they can, so far as they are concerned, to bring these negotiations to a successful conclusion as soon as possible.

BRITISH SUBJECTS' LOSSES IN EGYPT
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in ray name on the Order Paper.
[The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty' Government if they can now report progress on the question of financial compensation to British subjects expelled from Egypt for loss of assets seized by the Egyptian Government.]
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this matter, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister explained in another place on April 11, is to secure from the Egyptian Government the restoration of British assets sequestrated in Egypt, or alternatively complete compensation for those assets. The Egyptian Government have still not replied to a Note from Her Majesty's Government, delivered by the Swiss authorities in Cairo on January 27, in which Her Majesty's Government called for the suspension of measures, including sequestration, taken against British subjects.
My noble friend might like to know that good progress has been made in the task of collecting information about British assets in Egypt, and it is hoped that this will largely be completed in two or three weeks from now. The figures of requests received to file statements, of statements actually received, and of statements tabulated, relating to private claims and the property of business concerns, are as follows: the number of forms issued is 3,470; of forms returned, 2,256; and of forms tabulated, 1,933 for private individuals, and 183 for business concerns. I think progress is being made and I hope that it will be completed in a matter of two or three weeks.
LORD KILLEARN: My Lords, arising out of the noble Earl's reply does he realise that his statement that the tabulation will take only two or three weeks more will undoubtedly cause great satisfaction to the claimants, many of whom are in a very embarrassing position. They
254
cannot indefinitely "sponge on" their friends and relations, nor can they get indefinite credit from the banks. I wonder if I might ask whether the House could have an assurance that when this tabulation is completed, which we learn with great pleasure will be in two or three weeks' time, the policy which we were told by the former Leader of the House will then be formulated, will in fact be formulated with a view, I hope, to an immediate settlement of these claims.
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, on this Question I cannot go into policy; but when the claims are tabulated in two or three weeks from now, then, of course, it will be the Government's business very shortly after that to announce what the policy is.
LORD KILLEARN: I thank the noble Earl.
VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH: My Lords, may I ask whether the terms of the noble Leader's answers to-day will include those who are under grave disability, who have been the servants of the contractors looking after the British Government military stores in Egypt? What is the situation in regard to these people now, who seem to get no compensation or even employment from anywhere?
THE EARL OF HOME: My Lords, perhaps the noble Viscount would put down a Question to that effect, or I could convey the information to him, because I have not actually got it with me.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: My Lords, I suppose the Government realise the intense hostility and anxiety caused to these people, deprived of all their possessions. Is he in a position to say that at a reasonably early date—we have already been six months about it—they may expect a definite decision? Is that what the noble Earl implied by his statement to-day?
THE EARL OF HOME: First of all, we must realise that these things are immensely complicated. It is a matter of great human concern.
LORD HADEN-GUEST: Yes.
THE EARL OF HOME: It naturally arouses all our sympathies and a great deal of emotion. The fact remains that

255
this is immensely complicated information. There is a great deal to be collected and tabulated, and I am afraid that it is bound to take time. As the noble Earl says, for once Whitehall has kept up to time, and it looks as though in two or three weeks' time we shall be in a position to have the claims tabulated, or very nearly so. After that, as I have indicated, we shall have to make up our minds what the policy should be. But we cannot make up our minds about policy at the moment.
LORD KILLEARN: May I get it clear? The two or three weeks is a definite date, I hope?
THE EARL OF HOME: That is our hope, too.

NATIONAL INSURANCE BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL
3.15 p.m.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, your Lordships will recognise this Bill as one which was before this House in June of last year and which, I think I can say without fear of contradiction, had the unanimous welcome of the House. For lack of time it was not then possible for the Bill to proceed to another place before the Session ended, but it has now been reintroduced there and passed through all its stages without change, so that the Bill which is now before your Lordships is, for all practical purposes, identical with the Bill which your Lordships approved in 1956. In these circumstances, I feel certain that the House would not wish me to do more than to remind them in broadest outline of the effect which the Bill is intended to have.
The House will remember that the changes in the law to be made by the Bill are based on the recommendations contained in a Report presented to me by the Law Reform Committee in October, 1954. After a most thorough
256
examination of the law concerning the liability of occupiers of land or other property to invitees, licensees and trespassers, that Committee of eminent lawyers has come to the conclusion that the law should be simplified by the substitution of one uniform duty of care owed by the occupier to all his lawful visitors for the diverse classifications of visitors and duties which had evolved under the existing law.
I should like to add here a few words about this distinguished Committee and the invaluable work which they are doing. All of us who cherish the great heritage which this country enjoys in the Common Law and who wish to see this heritage preserved at its best owe a great debt of gratitude to the members of this Committee. Their selfless labours, carried out at a considerable sacrifice of time and energy, have by now, after the most careful examination of the problems involved, resulted in no fewer than five of these most valuable Reports. The work of the legislator who wishes to prevent anachronisms or distortions from marring the virtues of our Common Law is made incomparably easier by the Committee's labours.
Briefly summarised, the Bill deals with two separate, though related, subjects of liability for injuries suffered by persons entering premises: that is, the liability of the occupier on the one hand, and the liability of the occupier's landlord, in certain circumstances, on the other. I think most people nowadays would agree with the general proposition that an occupier of premises, as the person who has control over the state of the land or structures and who must be assumed to know that in the ordinary course of things various persons will lawfully come on to them, should take reasonable steps to see that such persons do not come to harm as a result of dangers which he causes or permits to exist there. It is the object of the Bill to make the law accord more fully with this general principle.
The occupier's duty under the Common Law may have originated in the recognition of some such basic principle, but in the course of time the courts have developed distinctions in the extent and nature of the duty which have become artificial and complex. As a result, injustice may at present result in certain

257
circumstances, while in some others the rules of the law have to be strained to avoid anomalous results. I need only remind your Lordships of the categories of licensees and invitees into which the law has divided lawful visitors, with a lower standard of duty owed to the former and a higher to the latter, and of the unreal dividing line between the two, which is based on the material interest which the occupier of the premises has in the visitor's presence on his premises.
In the infinite variety of purposes for which people enter premises, it is often impossible to apply such a test satisfactorily, and anomalies result. I could give many illustrations of such anomalies. Perhaps a good example of the anomalous way in which the test of material interest may operate in quite common circumstances is this. Suppose that I had asked guests to a party and two of them are injured when a rotten floor-board collapses under them. If we suppose further that I had asked one of the guests with the intention of discussing some business proposition, and the other for purely social reasons, then, as the law stands, I should almost certainly be liable to the former but not to the latter. I do not think anyone would consider this result logical or satisfactory.
Moreover, not only has the classification of visitors become rigid and unsatisfactory, but the definition of the duties owed to them has also become inappropriate and confusing. It is usually said that an occupier owes towards visitors who are classified as invitees a duty to prevent unusual dangers of which he, the occupier, knows or ought to know, whereas towards visitors classified as licensees he owes only a duty to take reasonable care to prevent injury from concealed dangers or traps actually known to him. The distinction between an unusual danger and a concealed danger or trap is a fine one, and your Lordships will readily see that it leads to uncertainty in the law. Nor is the distinction between dangers which ought to be known and those actually known as clear as might appear at first sight, because there are decisions to the effect that knowledge of a defective condition of premises, even where that knowledge is unaccompanied by any realisation of danger resulting from the condition, is
258
to be considered actual knowledge of the danger.
My Lords, it would be easy to multiply examples of the unsatisfactory nature of the present law, but I think the House will agree, after the few illustrations I have given, that there is a need for reform. The Bill, then, will replace the existing duties by a common duty owed by an occupier of land or property to all his lawful visitors, and that duty, as provided in Clause 2 of the Bill, will be a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there. In the absence of special terms made by agreement, there will thus be only one standard of care owed by an occupier to his visitors, and that standard will be the care which one would expect from a reasonable man.
I have already mentioned that the Bill also deals with the liability of a landlord to persons injured on the premises of his tenant. At present the remedy of a visitor for dangers resulting from defects in the premises lies only against the occupier. Although as between the occupier and his landlord, the landlord may bear responsibility for the state of the premises, the injured visitor has no right of recourse against him. In the result, an injured person who cannot sue the tenant, for instance because she is the tenant's wife, is deprived of a remedy; and where the visitor has his remedy against the tenant, the tenant will recoup himself by suing the landlord, and there is needless circuity of action.
The effect of Clause 4 will be to place a landlord who is responsible to his tenant for the maintenance or repair of the premises and has failed to carry out his obligations in the same position vis-à-vis visitors to the premises as if he were himself in occupation. In this way the Bill remedies an anomaly which has resulted from a line of decisions dating back to 1906, and which has long given offence to most lawyers practising in this branch of the law.
My Lords, I have tried briefly to explain the shortcomings of our present law on the liability of occupiers—its inflexibility, its complexity and, in some respects, its uncertainty. Inflexibility and refinements may bring about hard

259
cases and injustice, even where the law is not fundamentally unsound, for an injured person may have all the merit on his side and yet be unable to bring himself within a rigid and narrow classification. Uncertainty in the law tends to multiply litigation—which in itself is often a hardship to all the persons concerned—or to discourage injured persons from seeking redress which is properly theirs. The object of this Bill will be to make a limited but undoubtedly important part of our law less rigid and to remove from it some of the complexities and uncertainties with which it has become overlaid. It will codify the law in a way which accords more fully with the needs of the present time.
I hope that your Lordships will welcome this Bill and, by welcoming it, encourage the constant examination and review of our law, to make it clear that your Lordships believe that the law is something whose roots are deep in the past but whose branches are always burgeoning to give greater and better shelter to the present. My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
3.27 p.m.
LORD MILNER OF LEEDS: My Lords, as the noble and learned Viscount has told the House, this Bill came before us something like a year ago and was approved on Second Reading by all Parties. It has since been reintroduced and, I think, has passed through all its stages in another place without amendment. The noble and learned Viscount has briefly, in his usual clear fashion set out the principal points of the Bill, and I think it would be a matter of supererogation if I were to repeat all or anything that he has said. Of course, the principal point of the Bill is that it does away with all previous distinctions between invitee and licensee which undoubtedly resulted in great confusion and frequently in considerable hardship to injured persons, and sets up what the noble and learned Viscount terms a uniform or common standard of care which is to be borne by occupiers, and in certain instances by landlords, to all persons lawfully coming upon the premises. I am sure your Lordships will agree, therefore, that the Bill appears to clarify and improve the existing law.
260
I do not propose to go into the details of the Bill which has been so clearly explained by the noble and learned Viscount, but there is one question which has troubled a good many of us and which troubled many Members in another place. I should wish to make some reference to that matter, and to inquire whether it is not possible to see some provision made in the Bill to cover it. The point relates to the position of children who trespass on land and, in so doing, suffer injury. As your Lordships are aware, under the old Common Law trespassers could not recover damages for injury: no duty was there owed by a landlord or occupier to a trespasser. The courts have endeavoured to mitigate that view of the law by finding in appropriate cases, particularly cases involving children, evidence of licence, either expressed or implied or of tacit acquiescence which might amount to an implied licence and in some cases evidence of allurement of children—that is to say, their attraction by some object on the land—and thereby have been able to throw a special responsibility upon the occupier or landlord of the premises in question.
There have, however, been a great many border-line cases, and little children still continue to be injured, frequently very seriously. Where there is no evidence of allurement satisfactory to the court, those children cannot recover damages. If no alteration is made in this respect, that position will continue. There is much property which in some particular is, or may be, dangerous to children, and under the present law occupiers of such property are freed from liability and are not held responsible for injury to children who, from the very nature of things, play on the property. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Law Reform Committee considered this matter and recommended, by a majority, that there should be no change in the existing law; but I do not think any of us can be very happy to leave the case there.
The matter is, of course, a difficult one. The Law Reform Committee expressed the difficulty in these words:
"The difficulty here is to evolve an exception in favour of child trespassers which would in practice give them any substantial degree of protection without imposing too heavy a burden upon occupiers of land used for perfectly legitimate purposes."

261
That, of course, is the difficulty in making any alteration in the law. Nevertheless, I would submit that there is a great deal of difference between accidents of this kind involving adults and those involving children. An adult may well know and appreciate that he is a trespasser, whereas a child of tender years does not, and in the very nature of things cannot, appreciate that fact. In Clause 2 (3) (a) of the Bill it is recognised that an occupier must be prepared for children to be less careful than adults; but that does not deal with the case of a child who is trespassing.
None of us would wish to put an unfair and what in some cases might be an impossible burden on occupiers to take steps to keep children away from every possible danger, but I would invite the House, and particuarly the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, to consider whether it might not be practicable to take a middle line and say that where an occupier has property of such a nature that it is both a danger and a temptation to children, he shall be responsible if he does not take reasonable steps to protect children, or at least to prevent them from entering the land on which the danger exists; and that in such cases children suffering damage might be enabled to recover compensation, notwithstanding that they were trespassing. Admittedly, such a clause would have to be very carefully drafted, and it is difficult to know how it would work out in practice; but I feel that some effort might be made to meet this very serious question.
If some clause of the nature I have indicated could be inserted in the Bill, it would amount merely to an extension of the principle of allurement, and to that extent would merely continue or extend the present tendency of the courts. In the absence of any such provision, it would appear not only that children will continue to be injured and deprived of compensation but also that occupiers will have no reason for taking care to see that there is no real danger to children. If some insertion such as I have indicated could be made in the Bill, there would be a motive for occupiers of land to take all reasonable steps to prevent children from entering upon land and conceivably being injured thereby. Subject to that point, to which I hope consideration will be given, we
262
on this side of the House approve of the Bill and hope that it may soon pass into law.
3.37 p.m.
LORD REID: My Lords, as I was not in this country on the last occasion when these matters came before the House, perhaps I may be permitted to say a few words of welcome now and to concur in the tributes that have been paid to the Law Reform Committee. May I say, in passing, that another Report to very much the same effect has been made by the corresponding Scottish Committee, and I hope very much that we may look forward at an early date to the introduction in Parliament of a corresponding Scottish Bill.
I do not intend to deal with the contents of this Bill in any detail. The Bill is as well drafted as it is humanly possible to have it, but it is in the nature of things that any formulation into law, whether in the form of an Act of Parliament or in any other form, cannot be expected to give a clear solution of every problem that may arise in the future in this extremely varied field. I should not be surprised if, in a very few years' time, questions about the interpretation of this Act of Parliament came before your Lordships sitting in a Judicial capacity. Therefore I think it would be unwise for me, who take part in those matters, to make any comment upon the detailed proposals of the Bill. But one thing I feel I may be allowed to say—and I say it entirely as my own opinion. To my mind, the Bill to a large extent restores the Common Law against certain unfortunate decisions which have been given in the last half century or so, and the reason why it is necessary for this House now to deal with those matters is the existence of the rule whereby the House, sitting in a Judicial capacity, has no power to re-examine past decisions of the House.
There are in the Commonwealth a number of courts which have the power to re-examine their past decisions, sometimes by convening a larger Bench for that purpose. I would only instance the Court of Session in Scotland, with which I am most familiar. I have never noticed any ill-effects from the fact that the Court has that power; nor do I think anyone could say that there has been any tendency to use it too freely. Of course, the justification for the present rule is

263
that it is supposed to lead to certainty in the law—a most desirable thing, if one can achieve it. But a good deal could be said to the effect that it has exactly the contrary effect. There is, indeed, some evidence of that in the Report of the Law Reform Committee. Possibly the classical example is that of the law of Workmen's Compensation, and it would hardly be too much to say, with regard to that branch of the law, that as decisions became more numerous, so the law became more uncertain.
This is not an occasion to develop this theme, but I felt that it might be appropriate to point out that the reforms which this Bill sets out to achieve are due not to any defect in the present generation of lawyers but to the way in which this House, in its Judicial capacity, is hampered by not being able to re-examine decisions given by our predecessors in entirely different circumstances. To my mind, this Bill will achieve very desirable, indeed one might almost say overdue, reforms. Therefore, as a lawyer I welcome it.
3.42 p.m.
LORD DYNEVOR: My Lords, if I may be allowed, I should like for a brief moment to return to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, with regard to the question of trespass by children on property. I regret to say that I have not followed this Bill very closely in its passage, but I have learned a little while listening to the debate to-day. The question of children trespassing is a very difficult one for owners of property. There are various categories of property on which children can trespass. No-one would wish them to come to any harm, but the prospect relating to the responsibility of owners which Lord Milner of Leeds has opened up might be regarded as almost frightening to such owners.
There are two categories of property which come particularly to mind. One is the bomb-damaged site in London—and, of course, it is always difficult to keep children out of such places—and the other is old ruins. I speak here not only with some experience but with some feeling, because I myself have taken considerable trouble to stop children from trespassing into old ruins, even going so far as to put up barbed wire to prevent
264
them getting in and crawling about on ancient ramparts, a fall from which would probably be fatal. But even that does not prevent them from getting in. Everyone realises that if a child is told not to go into a place, the first thing that he or she naturally wants to do is to go into that place. I should feel a little aggrieved if, after all the precautions I have taken, some injury were to befall a child and I were to be made liable in damages. I should not, of course, wish a child any injury, but I feel that the two instances I have given show the difficulty which the law can come up against with respect to compensation for occurrences over which the owner of the property can have no control.
3.45 p.m.
EARL JOWITT: My Lords, perhaps it would not be inappropriate if I were to add my blessing to the Bill, and also my congratulations and a measure of thanks which I am sure we all owe the Law Reform Committee for the great amount of very careful work which they have put in. I was greatly impressed with the wisdom of the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Reid, because I know something of the difficulties that we in this House experience when sitting in a Judicial capacity. I would add only one other word about the other point—it may be outside the scope of this Bill altogether, for it is a Bill which deals really with people who are lawfully upon premises. But I think this problem of trespassers, particularly children, is an exceedingly difficult one.
The first case I ever argued in the House of Lords, when I was at the Bar (it was the only case which I ever had the honour of arguing before Lord Halsbury—I am afraid that shows how old I am getting), was a case of a trespasser. It related to a field in Durham. Miners had been in the habit of walking across this field to a station. There was no right of way; they had no right to go across the field, but it afforded a short cut to the station. The owner and occupier knew of this practice; he knew that the miners had for many years been in the habit of using that short cut. He had put up all sorts of notices—" Trespassers will be prosecuted "and all the rest of it. But that was all he had done. Then he put into the field a stallion, which was a savage animal. It was not that he put

265
it in with the deliberate intention of injuring anyone. Had he done so it would have been an easy case. But the stallion was in the field, and a miner, following his usual practice, used the short cut in order to go to the station. The stallion savaged him, and in consequence he suffered terrible injuries to one of his arms. I remember, as a young advocate, handing pictures showing the state of his arm to their Lordships who were sitting here. They were greatly impressed by the photographs, and I realised, having done that, that my case was almost won—indeed, it was won.
I think that the courts which have dealt with cases of this sort have been very ready to find licence. In the case which I have mentioned, the miners had been using this field as though it were a light of way, and the House came to the conclusion that the occupier had authorised them to go across it, even though he had put up a notice saying "Trespassers will be prosecuted". And I have no doubt that justice was done. The miner recovered damages for the loss of his arm, though he certainly was not using a right of way. The courts do imply a kind of licence in such cases.
With regard to other cases, especially those in which children are concerned—a class of case with which the Lord Chancellor and I are both very familiar—an obvious illustration which springs to one's mind is that of a roundabout. Those of your Lordships who are so fortunate as to have to do with children will realise that nothing is more certain than that a child will try to clamber on to a roundabout—you can put your wad of dollars on that—if it is in a place where children are about. Consequently, the law has evolved this principle of what I think is called allurement or enticement, and if you put up something which constitutes an enticement to children you must realise that children will go there, and you must take all reasonable steps to see that they are not injured in so doing. That is a sound principle. It would not be right that a man should be able to say: "After all, the roundabout was on my own land; there was no right of way; and that is that". That is not good law.
LORD DYNEVOR: Does the noble and learned Earl refer to a roundabout which has a musical instrument in it?
EARL JOWITT: I mean a roundabout with horses and some form of an organ which plays music. That is the sort of illustration I have in mind.
Then, again, the other day I came across a case in which a railway company had a railway line running through some land. There was no right of way, but there was an embankment. It was a sharp embankment, an ideal place to slide down. Children had been sliding down it, and the railway company knew that children had been so sliding, though, of course, they had no right of way: they had no right to slide down the embankment. A notice saying, "Trespassers will be prosecuted" might have been put up, but children would still have continued to slide down that embankment. As I understood it (I am afraid that I have not considered this point very carefully before), the proposition which Lord Milner of Leeds adumbrated was not that he would impose on the railway company, and people in a similar situation, any absolute obligation to keep children out. He did not seek to make them insurers, but he did say that they ought to take reasonable care, in view of the fact that they have something which is obviously attractive, or possibly attractive, to children, to keep children out. That may be an extension of the existing law; and if it is, I think that it is one which should be considered.
I believe that we have to hold a very difficult balance here. On the one hand, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, that it is hard to put on the owner of land an obligation to keep trespassers out. Trespassers ought not to go there at all. On the other hand, we are dealing here with children, who are, perhaps, in a rather different category. Children may suffer such frightful injuries that we should all desire to see, if we can, that the possible cause of such injuries is prevented. This matter may not be within the scope of this Bill—I am not sure that it is. It may be that it should be considered on some other occasion, but I strongly suspect that the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has had occasion to think over this matter, as I have had, and that he has been rather worried about it, realising the difficulties and the necessity of holding the scales fairly between the owner of land, upon whom we do not want to place impossible and unreasonable obligations,

267
and the natural fact that children sometimes do things that they should not do.
Several times during the last holidays I found myself in sympathy with the man who advised, "Find out what the children are doing, and tell them not to." One may be pretty certain that they will be in some sort of mischief, or up some tree where they ought not to be. This Bill, as I say, may not be the proper vehicle for clarification of this question, and I should not like to delay it, because I think it is an admirable Bill. Nevertheless, I should like to think that, among his many preoccupations, the Lord Chancellor will consider this matter to see whether or not the law needs clarification, simplification or extension in the case of children, to achieve an object which, I am happy to think, is the object of all noble Lords, on whichever side of the House they sit.
3.53 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I first express my gratitude to the noble Lords who have spoken for the welcome they have given to the Bill and for the consideration that they have given to certain difficult points which arise, at any rate in connection with problems related to the Bill. I have considered carefully the difficult question on which the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, and the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, have spoken—namely, the position of children, and it may be convenient for your Lordships, in view of the interesting and authoritative speeches we have had, if I try to expose the position as it is to-day and to adduce the arguments on either side, as I see them, and the grounds on which, I think, there are difficulties in finding a solution.
I am attracted by the third of the noble Lord's suggestions—namely, that this is a matter which should be considered on its own merits and by itself. I hope that your Lordships will not think that I am trespassing on your kindness if I take a few moments to sum up the position as I see it. The present law is as follows. If the child is lawfully on the premises, the duty owed to it is in many cases higher than that owed to an adult visitor. For example, a warning which would be adequate for adults may not be understood by children; or a danger that is obvious to adults may not be apparent
268
to children. Children may wrongfully interfere with dangerous objects on the land and thus bring harm upon themselves; and, as your Lordships have already heard, if the object is an allurement, the occupier will not be able to escape liability by pleading the child's wrongful act, as he would in the case of an adult. Broadly, as regards the duty of the occupier towards children lawfully on the premises the Bill preserves the law on this subject and makes special reference to it in Clause 2 (3) (a), as the noble Lord, Lord Milner of Leeds, pointed out.
If the child is a trespasser, the occupier owes no duty to the child except under the normal law of negligence, under which, as the noble and learned Earl pointed out, he may be liable to a trespasser for what are often conveniently called "activity dangers," and probably the noble and learned Earl's argument, in the case before Lord Halsbury might have been a little shorter if the judgment on this subject in Excelsior Wire Company v. Callan, decided in 1930, had been available to him. The test of trespass is the same for adults and children, and the mere fact that an occupier has on his premises a dangerous object alluring to children does not in itself make him liable to a trespassing child who meddles with it. But, of course, the presence of an allurement in a place where it entices children to trespass is an element which may aid the inference of an implied licence.
The arguments for improving the status of an infant trespasser can be summarised as follows. The first, with which we all agree, is that society has a special interest in the welfare of children. The second is that children of tender age are in need of special protection because they do not appreciate dangers. On that aspect of the matter, the noble Lords who have spoken possibly have in mind certain statements of the courts in the United States, which are very relevant to it. The third is that the occupier who controls the state of the premises has a moral duty to see that persons whose presence on his land it is reasonable to anticipate do not come to harm. It could be argued that it is not relevant to this duty whether a visitor comes lawfully or as a trespasser and that, as foreseeability is the test, the duty would be owed more particularly to

269
children who trespass readily and unwittingly. The fourth argument is that a licence to an infant should be inferred more readily from the mere fact of an infant's presence on the premises and the occupier's knowledge of his presence there.
I have tried to put dispassionately and fairly the arguments on one side. The arguments on the other side, I think, may be expressed in this way. First, society's interest in the welfare of children must be balanced against society's other interest: that the occupiers of property should be free within reasonable limits, to use their property without having regard to people who come on it unlawfully. Secondly—and here I quote the argument from a textbook, Salmond on Torts, which is well-known to my noble and learned friends who have spoken in this vein:
"In the long run, the humanitarian impulse which seeks to impose the duty to protect children on occupiers rather than on the children's parents or guardians may do more harm than good."
A great judge, Lord Justice Scrutton, quoted with approval this passage in Salmond:
"The duty of preventing babies from trespassing on a railway line should lie upon their parents and not upon the railway company."
The third argument is the difficulty of effectively excluding children from dangerous premises. That is very great indeed. As the Law Reform Committee said, in paragraph 80 of their Report:
"Adults can be warned off or kept out. Children ignore warning notices, even if they can read them, break through or climb over fences, and having done so, heedlessly involve themselves in any danger, however obvious, the premises may afford."
To impose a positive duty on occupiers to keep out children would be to place a premium on disobedience. The more children ignore warnings and flout obstacles placed in their way, the greater the occupier's duty to exclude them would become.
The fourth argument is that if special protection were to be afforded to infant trespassers, it would be necessary to fix an age limit and any age limit would ex hypothesi be arbitrary. Fifthly, if reasonable anticipation of the likelihood of entry is to be the test, it is impossible in logic to distinguish between lawful and unlawful visitors. There are attractions in imposing a duty towards all-comers
270
on this basis, but a change of the law in this direction might have far-reaching and unforeseen consequences. Much would depend on the extent to which the courts would expect occupiers to anticipate the visits of trespassers, and on the extent to which they decided it was reasonable for the occupiers to take any positive steps, other than perhaps warning of potential dangers, to make the premises safe. I think it must be realised that greater burdens would undoubtedly fall upon the occupiers, and that they might well become intolerable.
Then one adds to the other arguments the finding of the Committee in paragraph 80—and I think as we are considering this point it would be right to read the whole paragraph—who say:
"So far as adult trespassers are concerned, we think the law is satisfactory, and we do not recommend any change. It has been suggested that the decision in Edwards' case may bear harshly upon child trespassers in cases which, on this view, common humanity demands that they should not be left without a remedy. The difficulty here is to evolve an exception in favour of child trespassers which would in practice give them any substantial degree of protection without imposing too heavy a burden upon occupiers of land used for perfectly legitimate purposes. Uses involving no danger to any rational adult may be fraught with peril to children. Adults can be warned off or kept out. Children ignore warning notices, even if they can read them, break through or climb over fences, and having done so, heedlessly involve themselves in any danger, however obvious, the premises may afford. The majority of us are therefore satisfied that, as in the case of adult trespassers, no change should be made in the existing law. We would perhaps add that this does not apply any disapproval of the decision in the case of Lynch v. Nurdin."
In that state of the arguments either way, I agree with the suggestion of the noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt: that it would be unfortunate in this Bill, against the background that we have, to introduce this new aspect of the matter; and I believe that it would be wrong to do it without consideration focused on this point. However, I will certainly give the noble and learned Earl the undertaking that I will give further attention to it. I have occupied this portion of your Lordships' time to-day in the desire that those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject might care to write to me, at your leisure, giving your views on the relevant weight of the different arguments. That is why I have given all the arguments, whether the

271
strength of some of them commends itself to me or not. I think that is the best way to leave this difficult point. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have mentioned it. If I may add one personal word, as an ex-Minister for Welsh Affairs, and on my own behalf, I have the happiest memories of going over the ruins in Lord Dynevor's property, to which he referred, and I hope that they will stand for as many centuries as they have stood already, and without accident to anyone at all.
I will now pass to the most interesting point raised by my noble and learned friend Lord Reid. First, however, I would say this: I think this is the first opportunity your Lordships have had of welcoming my noble and learned friend back to your Lordships' House after the distinguished services which he rendered to his country by his work on the Constitution of Malaya. I am sure that all your Lordships would like me to express not only your welcome to Lord Reid on his return, but your congratulations to him on the work he has done. My noble and learned friend raised the question of the Scottish Report. On this all I want to say is that I have consulted my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate on this point, and he is considering the Report. However, as my noble and learned friend will realise, it has only recently been published, and sufficient time has not yet elapsed to enable public and professional reactions to it to emerge and be weighed up. As Lord Reid, above all people, will realise, not only does the Scottish law in its origins differ from the English, but the Committee expressly say that they desire a separate Bill for Scotland. From his past experience as a Scottish Law Officer, my noble and learned friend Lord Reid knows the difficulties that result from attempting legislation in a matter of this sort—involving the Common Law of Scotland—by a Scottish Application Clause. It is a matter which is much more suitable for a separate Bill and, as I said, my right honourable friend the Lord Advocate is considering the point.
My noble and learned friend Lord Reid made some interesting suggestions, when he said (and I do not think his assumption of the mantle of Elijah was in any way unjustified) that we should probably find that this Bill had to be considered
272
by the Courts, and even by your Lordships' House in its Judicial capacity. But I think he will agree that it does make a considerable advance in the law—indeed, he said that. He would not expect me, on this Bill, to go into the wider question of whether your Lordships' House, in its Judicial capacity, ought to be bound by previous decisions. I hope that he will not regard it as undue levity on the part of a colleague if I remind him that although the House of Lords, sitting Judicially, cannot reverse its own earlier decisions, it can distinguish them, and has done so on innumerable occasions in the legal field.
I hope that I have dealt with the points, which are very important points and should be dealt with at much greater length. But your Lordships have already been kind over the amount of time you have allowed me to allocate to myself, and I hope that I have examined the points sufficiently for your Lordships now to give this Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

TELEVISION MAST NEAR RHOOSE AIRPORT
4.12 p.m.
LORD OGMORE LORD OGMORE rose to call attention to the decision of Her Majesty's Government to permit a second television mast to be erected near Rhoose airport in view of the fact that, rising approximately 1,150 feet above sea level, the mast will be an undoubted hazard to aerial navigation, will have a considerable psychological effect on air crews and passengers and will increase flying costs, thus being a deterrent to the use of the airport by civil aircraft; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I put this Motion on the Order Paper to-day because the decision of the Government in this matter has important consequences for South Wales and also implications which are far wider than those of South Wales.
This airport, Rhoose, is the airport which serves Cardiff and South Wales: in other words, rather more than half the population of Wales is accommodated by this airport. In 1951, it had become apparent that there was a great need for a commercial airport of international

273
standards in this area. The decision had to be taken whether to do nothing at all—which was the desire of some, and important people at that—or whether Pengam Moors, the existing airport for Cardiff, should be improved at a cost of some millions of pounds, involving the alteration of the course of the Rumney River and other matters of like importance; or, thirdly, whether an entirely new airport should be constructed or acquired in the vicinity of the capital of Wales.
I was the Minister at that time. I decided, first of all, that it was necessary to have an airport for South Wales, as I am sure the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack would agree, with his experience, as he has just told us, as Minister for Welsh Affairs. I also decided that Pengam Moors was not a practical possibility, first of all owing to the fact that the alteration of a river is always something which strikes a certain amount of trepiditation in my heart, secondly, it was on moorland, subject to flooding by the sea, and, thirdly, at best the aircraft would have to climb pretty steeply to get away from the airport in order to overcome the chimneys of the adjacent works. The Welsh Civil Aviation Consultative Committee then suggested to me that we should look at an abandoned Royal Air Force airfield at Rhoose, some nine or ten miles from Cardiff. We went out there and found it in a poor condition, with a large number of bombs stacked on the runways, and buildings in an extreme state of dilapidation—as I say, it was abandoned and disused. However, from an aviation point of view, except for one feature, it was likely to be a suitable airport for civil aviation if the necessary money and time were spent upon it.
The Government of the day agreed that Rhoose should become the airport for South Wales and that the necessary facilities should be given to the Ministry to put this work in hand. It was put in hand. As I said, there was one disability, and that was that four and a half miles away from Rhoose was the television mast at a little village called Wenvoe. This mast was 1,170 feet above sea level, or somewhere about 1,000 feet above the level of the land. It was away to the north-east. I, with my advisers, considered this matter, and eventually
274
decided that as there was just one mast, which, after all, was there already, and there was nothing we could do about it, we should have to accept it; and due warning was given. The British Air Line Pilots Association, one of the trade unions or professional associations concerned with aviation, also considered this point, and, as it now appears, they accepted this hazard for the same reason that I did—in other words, it was there. The S.B.A. procedure—that is, the procedure for aircraft coming in to land—was based on, and took account of, the mast.
In October, 1952, the airport was opened by the then Government and by the representative of the then Minister of Civil Aviation, who at the time was Mr. Lennox-Boyd. After that, the airport developed rapidly. There has been a steady increase in services and traffic, and now regular services are flown between the airport and Ireland, London, Manchester, Paris and the Channel Islands, and the whole prospects of the airport are, or were until recently, bright, and business was increasing at a satisfactory rate. The users of this airport are Cambrian Airways, which is the Welsh private aviation line, to the extent of 45 per cent., the Irish Line, Aer Lingus, which is a user to 25 per cent., and others who make up 30 per cent.
Into this happy scene there came not an atomic bomb but a television bombshell, because the I.T.A., commercial television, proposed to erect a television transmitting station at a nearby spot at St. Hilary Down, which is four and a half miles away to the north-west of Rhoose. So there is Wenvoe to the northeast, and St. Hilary Down to north-west. Their proposal was, and is, to erect this television mast to serve the transmitting station, 1,150 feet above sea level and some 950 feet above the level of the airport—almost the identical height to the television mast erected at Wenvoe by the B.B.C. The Independent Television Authority are opening a station to serve South Wales and the West of England, and the sole programme contractors are a company which shelters coyly under the initials T.W.W. Limited. I cannot say more than that, because I do not know what the initials stand for; but those are the initials under which they were registered.
In November, 1956, Cambrian Airways, the main operators, heard that the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation had given consent for the erection of this mast by I.T.A. That was a decision without any consultation with them, and they found that this mast would lie only thirty degrees off the line of the approach to one of the runways. Cambrian Airways then got into contact with Aer Lingus, and to their surprise found that this was the first time that Aer Lingus had heard of the matter at all and no approach whatsoever had been made to them, who are 25 per cent. users. Both the users, as may be expected, objected strongly to the proposal, and so did the British Air Line Pilots Association which, as I mentioned before, is the professional organisation of the airline pilots. There were other objectors as well.
On December 13, 1956, in your Lordships' House I raised the question in the course of a Motion by my noble friend Lord Winster. I said [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 200, col. 1145]:
"It would hardly seem credible to most of your Lordships that, one side of the airport already being affected by the B.B.C. mast, on the other side of the airport, straight in line with the north-west south-east runway the Government are now permitting the I.T.A. to erect another mast which will be 1,150 feet above sea level. This has caused consternation to the users of the airport."
Later, I said (col. 1146):
"I believe that the Government should concentrate on making Rhoose a really worthwhile airport."
That was to counter the suggestion that it should be moved somewhere else.
As a result of protests, possibly in your Lordships' House, possibly, as I have said, made to officials of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, a meeting was held on January 7 of this year, when representatives of the two airlines, of the Airline Pilots' Association and of the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation, met Sir Arthur Le Maitre, who is the official in charge of the airfields of this country on behalf of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation. They again protested to him and made the objections that I have made, and many others. As a consequence of some or all of these things, a public inquiry was decided upon by the Minister. It was held by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government on March 7 of this year. The
276
objectors at this inquiry included Cambrian Airways, Aer Lingus, the British Air Line Pilots Association, the British Independent Transport Association on behalf of the commercial independent operators, the Glamorgan Aviation Flying Club and the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. So there was a pretty formidable band of objectors, objecting, of course, from many different points of view, but all objecting.
Some may cavil at a Government inquiry affecting a matter in which the Government were interested, in which the judge, the jury, the "cunning old fury", counsel for the respondents and the chief witness were all the servants of the Government. I am not cavilling at that to-day, but I am cavilling at this: first, that the inquiry was held not before, but after, the Government's decision was taken. That seems an odd way in which to have an inquiry. The result, in fact, was a foregone conclusion, because it was held after the Government had decided to announce their decision. It was very difficult to see how any Government could go back on it once it had not only been decided but announced.
Secondly, not content with weighting the court, the Government weighted the evidence, for the officer who conducted the inquiry, after all the objectors' witnesses had been heard, called an official of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation as a witness, not to provide facts but to comment on the evidence produced by the other objectors. This he did in what the objectors, or some of them, thought was a highly tendentious manner, giving evidence which was regarded by the objectors as misleading to the court.
Thirdly, the objectors were not allowed to cross-examine this witness, Mr. Osborne, on his evidence; it had to be accepted. As I say, he being the last witness, no one was able to controvert him. I suggest to your Lordships that the normal and proper procedure would be to call upon the Ministry's representative to state the facts at some period during the inquiry and then to submit himself to cross-examination. It was no part, I suggest, of the duty of the Minister's representative to comment upon the evidence of the objectors' witnesses, and still less was it right that he should not have been submitted to cross-examination, as I am informed was the

277
case. The Government's representative, in their own court, before their own officer, in their own cause, was a privileged witness. Quite apart from the merits, I think this is a very poor business altogether. It is a matter which calls for the attention of Parliament. It smacks of a Star Chamber. I, for one, should like the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack to look into this matter, because here it seems to me that justice has neither been done nor has it been seen to be done.
The Minister's second decision—it is the same decision, of course, repeated for the second time—was conveyed in a letter dated March 21 to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. The upshot of this as your Lordships can imagine, was to grant permission for the proposed development, subject to certain minor conditions as to lights, access and amenities—not amenities at the airport but amenities of the buildings around the mast. In his letter the Minister said:
"What had been represented was that the proposed site was near the safety limits as defined by I.C.A.O. standards "—
that is, the international body which deals with these matters—
"and that because the margin was small the proposal should be rejected. It seemed to the Minister "—
THE FIRST LORD OF THE ADMIRALTY (THE EARL OF SELKIRK): Who said that?
LORD OGMORE: This is from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. It is a letter dated March 21, 1957, signed by J. L. Palmer on behalf of the Minister, to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation. It says:
"What had been represented was that the proposed site was near the safety limits as defined by I.C.A.O. standards and that because the margin was small the proposal should be rejected. It seemed to the Minister that if he accepted these standards—as he must, on the evidence and on the advice available to him—he must accept them without qualification. It had been contended further that, while the mast might be an acceptable hazard by I.C.A.O. standards, there remained the consideration of the psychological effect on pilots and passengers and because of the costs in extra flying time resulting from the more complicated approach procedures, there would be discouragement of the use of Rhoose. The Minister could not accept these contentions as being decisive. At the same time the Minister appreciated that the introduction of a hazard, albeit an acceptable hazard on technical grounds, should be avoided if at all practicable; and he recognised the
278
anxiety which had been expressed by pilots concerned with airline operations at Rhoose. He had, therefore, examined the suggested alternatives to the Independent Television Authority's proposal."
He does not seem to think very much of them.
My Lords, protests were made as a result of this second decision—or the same decision repeated for the second time—and I myself, in your Lordships' House on April 3 last, raised this question; and the noble Earl, Lord Munster, replied to me. I said then, in a supplementary question [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 202, col. 1023]:
"My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a hazard which will have a deterrent effect on the use of the airport."
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: With great respect, no Minister said that. Perhaps I should read this passage, because it is of great importance that we should not have any misunderstanding about this matter.
LORD OGMORE: May I say that I am quoting what I said in your Lordships' House. If I was wrong in what I said then, the noble Earl, when he comes to reply, will no doubt correct me. I should have thought there was not much doubt that the Minister did say that it will have a deterrent effect, from what I have just read. However, that is a point of argument and no doubt the noble Earl will argue it later. This is what I said:
"My Lords, as the Minister has said, this is a hazard which will have a deterrent effect on the use of the airport and will mean that the users will be put to extra expense. This is the Welsh Television Authority and I again ask: is there no place in South Wales except quite near to the airport—it is only a mile or so away—where this television mast could be put?"
The noble Earl, Lord Munster, said:
"My Lords, I have replied to the noble Lord twice, and this time I will give him an emphatic answer: it is in the negative; there is no other place."
The British Air Line Pilots Association also protested. In fact, they went so far as to issue a statement to the Press. It is rather an important one, and I should like to read a relevant passage in it. This is what they said:
"The existing mast at Wenvoe in itself constitutes some danger to air navigation "—
that is the B.B.C. mast to which I have referred.
"If it is intended to make Rhoose the centre of Welsh aviation—all interested parties hope

279
that it is—then reasonable steps should be taken to reduce the number of obstructions in that area. The Association opposes the erection of additional hazards to air navigation in the promixity of any airfield, therefore it is considered that Rhoose is a test case because similar hazards might one day be proposed for other airports. The flight path of aircraft using the East-West runway already has to be distorted away from St. Athan R.A.F. Station, which means that aircraft taking off from Rhoose will have to pass close to the proposed mast.
"The Association has not just considered this as a parochial problem applicable only to its members who operate in South Wales. The subject has been studied by pilots who operate between the principal international airports and who fly all types of modern aircraft. They are all of the opinion that even although I.C.O.A. says the mast would not be a danger, the presence of two masts within five nautical miles of any airfield is unacceptable."
Cambrian Airways, as I have said, are the main users of the airport, and they also wrote to the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation a long letter giving their reasons in detail for objecting to the decision, and ending up in this way—I quote the Managing Director:
"I can only repeat that I consider this new television mast at St. Hilary, if erected, will constitute a real obstruction and danger to aircraft in the air. The proposal should be resisted at all costs."
My Lords, those are what I would call the informed views of the people who are, after all, using the airport.
I come now, quite shortly, to the technical objections to the decision. First, there is the hazard to navigation. That is undoubted. No one denies it. Although the noble Earl tried to make a point about it a moment ago, I think that no one really denies that. The Ministry have not denied, nor can any commonsense person deny, that a mast 1,150 feet above sea level and 4½ miles from an airport, when there is already another mast 1,150 feet above sea level and 4·5 miles from the airport, must be a hazard to navigation. There is no question about that. The only question is whether it is an acceptable hazard.
The Minister shields himself behind the I.C.A.O. conditions. The mast is half a mile outside what is called the defined area—an area within which obstructions are not permitted. Of course, according to the conditions, masts can be erected, provided they are half a mile outside the defined area, all around the airport. Trying to get into the airport would be like playing "musical chairs". No pilot
280
would ever use an airport where there were masts all around it. Yet according to the conditions that could be so. There is nothing in the I.C.A.O. conditions to stop them setting up such masts—at least, so I am advised. Anyway, the objectors say that this tolerance is too fine; and as the tolerance is too fine we have to ask ourselves whether it is an acceptable hazard—whether we should ask people to fly into the airport with this hazard as it is proposed in its vicinity. Those who want to cover up a wrong decision say, "Yes, it is acceptable". Those who stake their money in commercial television also say. "Yes, it is acceptable". Those who have to stake their lives and their living in aircraft say, "No, it is not acceptable". The matter is as simple as that. I would ask your Lordships whom you would rather believe—the chairborne or the airborne; the people who have to risk their lives in flying aircraft under these conditions, or those who have not.
I return now to later comments, made in a letter to me from the British Air Line Pilots Association, dated April 18, 1957. The Association then said this:
"When this subject was first considered by the Association's Technical Committee there were present pilots who flew Constellations. Argonauts, Hermes, Pionairs and Viscounts. All those pilots, who have had considerable experience in operating from all types of airfields, agreed that the proposed mast at St. Hilary was unacceptable to the Association. Therefore, it can be seen that the matter has not been considered only as a local problem because the implications could apply to any airfield. We consider that this could be a test case because a mast might be prepared within four miles of London Airport."
Then the Association went on to say:
"It might be suggested that at Rhoose the number of aircraft movements is small when compared with London Airport and that, therefore, it is of less significance which justifies its being hedged about by tall obstructions. We are opposed to such a philosophy."
The reply of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation to the British Air Line Pilots Association is this:
"I do not think any useful purpose would be served by trying to compare the situation at London Airport with that which exists at Rhoose. The traffic volume is entirely different, which means that in examining the London Airport case one would have to take into account the complex air traffic control pattern which arises from the use of many different runways, In fact, I think that wherever one put a mast within five nautical miles of London Airport it would be bound

281
to lie within the approach or overshoot pattern to one or other of the runways. This, however, is not the case at Rhoose."
That is the Minister's view, and, as I say, it is not acceptable, either to the commercial firms using the airfield or to the Association representing the pilots who fly the planes which use the airfield and who fly planes using other airfields, because they feel that this is a matter which has significance far beyond Rhoose itself.
The second bad effect of this decision is the psychological one. As I have explained to your Lordships, we now have a triangle. We have this enormous mast to the north-east; we have the proposed mast, equally high, to the north-west, and at the apex of the triangle there is the airport at Rhoose. That is bound to be a spectacular hazard. It has been hard work to get the development of air traffic going in South Wales, first because, until now, we have never had a decent airport, and secondly, because a few years ago there was a dreadful disaster a few miles away, at an R.A.F. airfield at Llandow. Supporters of the Welsh team had come back by plane from the international Rugby match at Dublin and the plane crashed in the course of landing, with dreadful loss of life. It was one of the most terrible air disasters of all time, and in a place like South Wales, where everyone seems to be either related or to know everyone else, that was a dreadful setback to the development of civil aviation. To erect a hazard of this kind just at this time is bound to have a great psychological effect in delaying the expansion of air traffic.
Then there is the extra expense. Cambrian Airways tell me that already, because of the B.B.C. mast at Wenvoe, they are put to extra expense of £6,000 a year in flying time alone, and the amount will, of course, be infinitely greater when the St. Hilary mast is erected. Then there is the effect on users of the airport where alternatives are available. Aircraft operators coming in in bad weather will avoid this airport if they can, and will go on to Bristol or other airports available to them.
In conclusion, I must say that I cannot believe that no alternative site is suitable. The Television Authority have the whole of South Wales and, so far as I am aware, of the West of England, available, though I believe it is hoped the site will be in
282
South Wales—I would say nothing on that score, but let us confine it to South Wales, a not inconsiderable area. There is no shortage of humps and bumps in South Wales, for it is full of hills and mountains. Why on earth have they to pick a hill only 4½ miles away from the only airport in South Wales? So far as I am aware that question has never been answered. When I raised this question in your Lordships' House last March, the noble Earl, Lord Munster, simply said that it was not possible to do otherwise, but he did not say why it was not possible, and I know not why. I have never heard any reason why it is not possible to site the mast elsewhere, and I would beg Her Majesty's Government to rescind the decision and preserve uninterrupted access to the airport, apart from the Wenvoe mast already there.
Failing that, as very much of a "second best," and only if no other course is open, I would ask Her Majesty's Government to see whether they cannot adapt one mast to serve both stations, the B.B.C. and the I.T.A. I believe that that has been done, or is contemplated, elsewhere. If that were possible, obviously it would be much better than having two masts. Nevertheless, I would ask that before finally closing the files, Her Majesty's Government should check on the question of alternative sites, as I am sure that none of us is satisfied on that point. We cannot believe that there is not some nice, snug little hill somewhere in South Wales which could accommodate this mast equally well as St. Hilary Down. I beg to move for Papers.
4.45 p.m.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is a distinguished Welshman, and Wales could not have a case, which I know greatly interests them, better put for them or put by someone who speaks with more experience in the realm of civil aviation. I should, however, like to disentangle one or two elements in the story which the noble Lord has told, and if I recapitulate it in some detail it is only for that reason.
The noble Lord is quite right in saying that it was when he was Minister of Civil Aviation that initially the decision was made to transfer the airport for South Wales from Pengam Moors to Rhoose; but at the time when that was done, as

283
the noble Lord has said, the B.B.C. already had the mast at Wenvoe and the airfield to which he has made a great deal of reference—St. Athan—was in operation. Those things were already present when that happened and, if I may humbly say so, I believe that that decision was absolutely right. Rhoose is much the best site in South Wales for an airport and it is greatly to the advantage of the area that the airport should be there. I would only add that we see no reason to-day why it should not be developed to meet the fullest needs of aircraft likely to use it at any time in the foreseeable future.
May I give your Lordships some details? The airport has been developed with two runways, one of 4,500 feet, the other of 3,200 feet, and the latter is being extended. It is conveniently situated to serve the whole of South Wales. The airport is equipped with the Standard Beam Approach system which, in time—and this is rather important—will be replaced by Search Radar Decca 424, which is going to make a great deal of difference in the area. There is a V.H.F./D.F. set installed on the aerodrome and normal airfield control. Passenger handling at Rhoose is carried on in temporary wartime buildings but they are being modernised for the Empire Games which will be held next year, and we hope that there will be a much improved access road to Rhoose also. I believe that co-operation with aircraft control at St. Athan is entirely satisfactory, and the Royal Air Force do not use St. Athan a great deal.
One problem which has arisen and which I want clearly to isolate from that which we are discussing to-day is this: the I.T.A. were anxious to find a site in South Wales and, in fact, were bound by Statute to do so, so that a great body of people in South Wales and much of the South-West of England could, if they were so minded, choose their transmission. Siting involves a certain number of technical points. One of them is that if there is already a mast for the B.B.C. the other mast must not be nearer than two miles nor further than five miles. The reason for that is that if the two masts were too close together, the signals from one would affect those from the other; while if the second mast were too far
284
away, all the recipients of transmissions would require extra aerials, to be able to tune in to each transmitter.
St. Hilary Down was selected after a most exhaustive search. The I.T.A. then applied to Glamorgan County Council for planning permission. The Glamorgan County Council had the usual consultations with the authorities apparently responsible, and the I.T.A. published their intention, so that everybody knew of it. The matter was referred to the Departments and authorities concerned and no objections were received. Glamorgan County Council were on the point of giving planning permission, and it is true to say that it was just at this point that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had representations made to him by the Welsh Advisory Council for Civil Aviation and other interested parties. In order to bring this matter to further consideration, it was necessary for my right honourable friend, the Minister of Housing and Local Government, to call in the planning application—that is to say, he called it in from the Glamorgan County Council in order that the matter might be thoroughly examined at ministerial level. The matter was then examined, and I would add a little to what Lord Ogmore said in this connection.
The Welsh Advisory Council did meet a senior official of the Ministry. The Chairman and a member of the Council also met my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation. So they had a full opportunity of putting their case before the inquiry was held. My right honourable friend was not satisfied that there were technical objections. However, in order that this feeling should be fully met and an opportunity given for stating views as fully as possible—and because there was general interest in the subject—the Minister of Housing and Local Government authorised a local inquiry to be held in public. I would emphasise that there was an assessor at that inquiry, Air Marshal Sir Alick Stevens, a very distinguished Royal Air Force Officer. His report necessarily was in front of, and his views were available to, the inspector who held the inquiry.
I have explained the sequence of events to make it clear that every effort was made to allow full expression of the views of the interests concerned. In fact, nothing was suggested to the effect that

285
this was being done in a hole-and-corner way. The fact was that the matter was fully ventilated.
LORD OGMORE: Is it not the fact that the Minister arrived at a decision, and the decision was announced before Aer Lingus and Cambrian Airways were informed of the proposal at all? That is what they say.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The position is clear, I think. The Minister was asked by the Glamorgan County Council whether he had any objections. He said, "No." But as a result of objections afterwards received from aviation interests, the Minister of Housing and Local Government called in the planning application and said, in effect, "The Government will take this up and look at it again." Of course, the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation had previously reached a conclusion, but when he heard of objections he said, "We should like to look at it again and hear representations by parties interested, to see whether there is anything we have overlooked." As I have said, the Welsh Council met senior officials; they met the Minister in person, and a local inquiry was held in public. The noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, called this "Star Chamber" procedure. I think: that in Tudor days they would have been well pleased with this sort of procedure, if they could have had it.
The noble Lord also said that the Government were an interested party. The only interest the Government had was that Rhoose Airport belongs to my right honourable friend.
LORD OGMORE: The Government were interested in supporting the decision which they had arrived at before taking the opinion of the people who were vitally concerned.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: The Government had taken a provisional decision. They nevertheless said, "We will call it in and have another look at the matter". It was taken in to be looked at again. I really do not think the noble Lord can accuse the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation of deliberately exposing air passengers in this country to unwarrantable hazards. The noble Lord knows from his own experience the feeling that there is in the Ministries. He knows that they are acutely conscious of the very
286
heavy responsibilities which they necessarily carry.
Then the noble Lord made some remarks about witnesses. May I say a word about Mr. Osborne? Mr. Osborne is a pretty experienced man. He is himself an airline pilot. Here I am going a little beyond the official approach, and I hope that the noble Lord will appreciate it. Mr. Osborne drew up instructions himself. They were submitted to the Department and approved by the Department, and he spoke from those instructions. He was, in fact, giving views which he himself held. The noble Lord also raised the very old chestnut about cross-examining Government witnesses. The noble and learned Earl, Lord Jowitt, well knows that it is indeed a very old chestnut which has been going about for years, and it is even now being examined by the Franks Committee. I do not want to go into this question—no doubt there is a lot to be said on both sides—but I think the noble Lord knows that in fact it is more or less standard practice that when a Government official gives evidence of fact he is not generally cross-examined. It may be a good thing or it may be a bad thing. I think it was a very forthright statement which this witness made in answering points which had been raised.
May I take them up myself? I see they were mentioned in the Minister of Housing and Local Government's decision letter. Four points were specifically raised by opponents of the Scheme. They were: first, that it was a danger to aircraft without radio; secondly, it was a danger in the case of engine failure on take off; thirdly, it was an added danger in cases where aircraft took off from St. Athan; fourthly, it would add to flying time and consequently to costs. I think the noble Lord will agree that these were in fact major points which were raised at the inquiry. I should like to deal as reasonably fully as I can with each one.
I would reply to the first by saying that in this year, 1957, if you fly without radio and do not work out your course pretty carefully beforehand, and do not check your position by map reading, then the country is full of danger to you—all sorts of danger. There is, for example, Daventry; there is Kirk o'Shotts; there are the Welsh Mountains. Of course you have to map read all the time in all

287
weather conditions if you have not got radio. In bad weather conditions you would not be allowed into some of the congested areas, such as London Airport, at all. I really do not think we can base our modern flying pattern on standards suitable for aircraft flying without radio aids and in bad visibility.
Now as to engine failure on take off. That is always an extremely unpleasant experience. If the noble Lord has ever had it himself he will probably not forget it. The circumstance here is that the aircraft has a funnel increasing in width from 2½ at the threshold to 5 miles at 6½ miles from the end of the runway. If it is broadly able to maintain its course in that funnel, it is safe. If it needs to go outside the funnel, then, frankly, I am bound to say that the aircraft is out of control and will run into all manner of hazards. As the noble Lord is aware, cutting an engine on take-off is a regular part of the training of pilots of civil aircraft at the present time. The noble Lord did not say very much about liaison with St. Athan. I am given to understand that that liaison is entirely satisfactory. If it were not satisfactory it would be very dangerous. But it is no more dangerous by reason of this mast. The noble Lord said something about adding to flying time. I noticed that the flying time he seemed to think would be added was based on references to the mast at Wenvoe, which was in place, of course, before Rhoose became an airport at all.
LORD OGMORE: I am afraid the noble Earl must have misunderstood me. I gave figures from one of the operators showing what the extra flying time due to the Wenvoe mast was. I think that the extra expense would be much greater if the St. Hilary mast was in place.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: That is pure assumption. The Wenvoe mast was there in any case. I take the view that the St. Hilary Down mast is going to make no difference at all. As the noble Lord is aware, there is no such thing as a standard pattern for landing at airports. Every one has its own procedure and Rhoose is no exception. There is no reason at all why there should be any delay. In the normal way aircraft go straight in to land at Rhoose without even a circuit, except in circumstances of
288
congestion. When we come to congestion at an airport, then we do get delays, particularly when the weather is bad, and the amount of money wasted in delays is very considerable. But that does not happen unless the weather is bad, and the mere existence of a mast at St. Hilary Down should not make any difference. My approach to this matter is that the difficulty of finding a site for the I.T.A. mast is completely irrelevant to the issues—
LORD OGMORE: That does not agree with the Minister.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I thought that the noble Lord was not correct in quoting the Minister as saying that this would cause a hazard which would have a deterrent effect. I do not think that my noble friend Lord Munster said that it was a hazard.
LORD OGMORE: The Minister in question was the Minister of Housing and Local Government.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I have read what the Minister said with great care and this is what he said:
"What has been represented is that the proposed site is near the safety limits…"
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, at the foot of my copy—we may have different paged copies of course—what the Minister says is this:
"At the same time the Minister appreciated that the introduction of a hazard, albeit an acceptable hazard, on technical grounds should be avoided if at all practicable and he recognised the anxiety which had been expressed by pilots concerned with airline operations at Rhoose. He would therefore examine suitable alternatives to the I.T.A. proposals."
There he is admitting by implication that there is a hazard and also, what the noble Earl now says is something entirely irrelevant, the proposal of an alternative site.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: He says that it is an acceptable hazard. There is hardly an airport in the world which has not to accept some disadvantage. If we go to London Airport, we see a great big gasometer right in the flight path of one runway.
LORD OGMORE: It was there before.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I agree; but it is a hazard which, in point of fact, is contrary to international standards. What is being done in Wales is not contrary to

289
the standards. For that reason I do not think that the noble Lord is justified in saying that the Minister regards it as a hazard. It is an acceptable hazard. What I say is that the difficulty in finding a site for the I.T.A. is irrelevant, and I am interested to see that that is exactly the view of the I.T.A. themselves. This is what they say:
"It is emphasised, however, that if it were now decided that the mast would be a source of danger to life, your Authority would not wish to pursue the proposal."
We could not have a franker or more open statement than that: if it is a danger to life, stop it. I think that that is a fine attitude to take up, and it is important.
Speaking more technically, if we apply the extreme standards in the most difficult case of all, when full allowance is made for an aircraft which fails to land and has to go round again, the demands which the International Civil Aviation Organisation make are fully met. These are that from the end of the runway there shall be a funnel symmetrical about the extended centre-line on a base 2½ miles wide at the threshold increasing to width of five miles at a distance of 6½ miles. In this area there will be no significant obstruction. Another condition has to be fulfilled, which I will read out:
"Anything which may endanger aircraft on movement area or in the air within the limits of the horizontal and conical surfaces should be regarded as an obstruction and should be removed in so far as practicable."
If I may interpret this, it means within a circle of 16,000 feet from the centre of the airport, and the mast at St. Hilary Down is 25,000 feet away; so that it is well outside that limit.
The point I have sought to make is that Rhoose will be capable of development and there need be no restriction on any foreseeable use in future. The noble Lord has cast some doubt on whether the International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations are sufficient. May I remind him that these were drawn up by agreement between most of the Governments in the world and that in framing our instructions for our own representatives we took the advice of the British Air Line Pilots Association, and I am not aware that they have ever objected to these agreed standards. If the noble Lord takes extreme cases, then every mountain and tall building constitutes some form
290
of obstruction if aircraft go out of their designated path; but he will be aware that not long ago we discussed the importance of keeping aircraft in their designated paths, because if they go outside, then they will fly into all kinds of hazards. Let me emphasise that the limits set by the International Civil Aviation Organisation cover extreme cases and should be regarded as sufficient for what is intended.
The noble Lord has raised the question of having one mast instead of two. I think that he will agree that if that double mast were placed at Wenvoe it would be fatal to the airport and the question would arise of asking the B.B.C. to go somewhere else. I should not be sorry to see that, because I think that that mast is something of a disadvantage. However, the arrangement for a marker beacon on this mast, of which the noble Lord is aware, enables aircraft coming in to know when they are over the mast, and to ensure that they have passed it before following the beam down. This arrangement has worked extremely well, and I am not aware of any complaints having been made at all. As for the other mast at St. Hilary Down, I do not think that it is in any way a hazard for normal airline operation.
It is for that reason that I am anxious to reassure the noble Lord, if I can, that this matter has had the most thorough examination, and that it is the determination of the Department to see that it is properly developed. They have a big responsibility there, which they have to fulfil. I do not think the noble Lord need be particularly concerned over this matter, and I do not believe that when the airline pilots come to look at it again they will regard this mast as being any serious disadvantage. I know that the noble Lord has given quotations indicating that they are a little worried, but, quite frankly, as a pilot, one would naturally like to see every mast in the country removed. However, with good air traffic control—and particularly the Search Radar installation which will cover all approaches—I feel confident that when the pilots have looked at this matter again they will not feel there is anything to cause them anxiety.
I have endeavoured to explain this subject as fully as I can, but I must say this: having examined the matter, I do

291
not think my right honourable friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, in consultation, of course, with the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, could have come to any other conclusion. I am sure he was right in giving planning approval. I do ask the House to believe that this matter has been approached with one consideration only in mind; that is, to ensure that the airport, which is State-owned, and for which, therefore, we all carry responsibility, is up to the essential standards required for proper commercial operations. I am confident that Rhoose Airport is of that standard, and that a great future lies ahead of that airport, as well as of other airports in this country. I think it is a pity to cast doubt on the safety of our commercial air services. People have to make these decisions about them, and those decisions are made with the fullest possible knowledge. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, will look carefully at this matter again before making further suggestions of danger. I do not believe this is a case where the risk of danger to commercial aircraft is any higher than (shall I say?) the danger at London Airport.
5.13 p.m.
LORD OGMORE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, who has obviously gone to a great deal of trouble to reply to me. Whether he has given a good reply or not is another matter, but I am grateful to him for his trouble. I am not altogether convinced by the argument of the Government. I think that in this, as in so many other cases, time will show. The noble Earl says he hopes that I will not raise questions of safety, because of the commercial aspects of the matter. But it is not I but the commercial operators, the pilots who fly the aircraft and the Welsh Civil Aviation Advisory Council, who have raised the points and the objections. I feel that it was essential that we should have had this debate to-day.
THE EARL OF SELKIRK: I quite agree with that.
LORD OGMORE: If the whole of what is, in effect, the flying community of South Wales are up in arms—as indeed they are: it must be stopped at all costs, say the main company—it is only right that they should have this opportunity of
292
having their views stated; and I felt it my duty to bring the matter before the House to-day. We have now had the Minister's reply on behalf of the Government, and we can study it. If it is the irrevocable decision of the Government to permit this mast to be erected, then we can only hope that the future will be as bright as the noble Earl has indicated. If not, then, in a quite literal sense, the blood of the pilots, the crews and the passengers of aircraft which may be endangered as a result of this mast will be upon the heads of the Government. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before moving the Adjournment of the House, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the fact that we have the Shops Bill in Committee on Recommitment on Tuesday. There are a great number of Amendments, and I am sorry to say that it has been necessary to arrange, through the usual channels, that we shall sit late that day and continue the Sitting through dinner.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [H.L.]
The Queen's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee, with Amendments.
BARCLAYS BANK D.C.O. BILL
Reported, without amendment.
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL
Reported, with an Amendment.

MARINE SOCIETY BILL
Reported, with Amendments.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes past five o'clock.