Sitting of 8 April 1959

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  PORT OF LONDON BILL
  As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
  SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BILL
  (By Order)

  SOUTH DERBYSHIRE WATER BOARD BILL
  (By Order)
  Second Reading deferred till Wednesday, 22nd April.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

    Widows' Pensions
    Sir E. Erringtonasked the Minister of Defence whether he will now give a date for the commencement of increases of pensions for widows of serving officers and men who do not come within the scope of previous announcements.
    The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing): I have been asked to reply.
    My hon. Friend will no doubt have noted what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said yesterday on this subject.
    Sir E. Errington: May I ask my hon. Friend whether he realises how unsatisfactory this position is? The matter has been under what is called "active consideration" for about six months. Can he assure me that, as this procedure will be by way of Royal Warrant, it will not necessarily await the legislation to which my right hon. Friend has referred?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I do not think that I can add to what the Chancellor of the
    168
    Exchequer said yesterday, namely, that he hopes to put proposals before the House within a few weeks.
    Mr. Lipton: May I have an assurance that consideration of the plight of elderly, and in some cases aged, widows of Regular soldiers, in particular, will not be bogged down in interminable negotiations with local authorities about quite different matters? This business has been going on for far too long.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The question of Service widows certainly will not be bogged down in long negotiations.

    National Service
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence what plans he has for releasing National Service men before their period of service expires when the Services have no further use for them.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have been asked to reply.
    It is intended to continue the present practice of releasing small numbers of National Service men from the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force up to six months earlier when there are surpluses in their particular trades. The Army will need all their National Service men for the full two years.
    Mr. de Freitas: Can the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that men will not be retained for longer than they are needed? That is what is worrying people.
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I can give that assurance. I think that it is right that they should be released if they are surplus to requirements. That is being done, and was done last year.
    Mr. Shinwell: Does that mean that young men who are called up under the Act will not be allowed to opt for the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy but will have to join the Army?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: That position has been growing over the last few years because the numbers taken by the Royal Navy are very small. The numbers taken by the Royal Air Force are diminishing and the great bulk of National Service men are needed by the Army. There has been a diminishing choice, and that has been getting progressively more so over recent years.
    Mr. Chetwyndasked the Minister of Defence whether, in view of the increase in the number of Regular recruits, he will advance the end of National Service by one year or reduce the period of service to 18 months.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have been asked to reply.
    No, Sir.
    Mr. Chetwynd: Why not? Is it a fact that the Army now has as many Regulars as it needs owing to the success of recruiting and that the men who have to train National Service men are finding difficulty in training Regulars at the same time'? In those circumstances, would not it be wise to do what I suggest in my Question?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend announced earlier this year that as a result of successful recruiting, we would not be calling up men born in the last quarter of 1939. That reflects the success of the policy. We could not go further and yet carry out the nation's commitments, not only to our Allies, but throughout our Commonwealth as well.
    Mr. Shinwell: Reverting to the previous Question, because this has a bearing on the Answer which the hon. Gentleman then gave, may I ask whether this action means that as long as the Act is in operation call-up in future will apply only to the Army? Is that what is intended?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: No, Sir. I said that the bulk of people called up would go into the Army, but there would be still small numbers going to the Royal Air Force and to the Navy as well.
    Mr. Chetwynd: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I will raise the matter on the Adjournment.

    Couriers (Top Secret Documents)
    Mr. de Freitasasked the Minister of Defence the difference between the grade and status of Air Ministry messengers employed to carry top secret documents by train and those of similar couriers employed by the Admiralty and the War Office.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have been asked to reply.
    170
    The Admiralty uses couriers for these duties, the War Office uses soldiers, and the Air Ministry civilian messengers.
    Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a fact that Air Ministry messengers are industrial employees and thus have much lower pay and poorer conditions than their colleagues in other Departments? Would it not be fairer if the Air Ministry couriers were graded and paid on the same basis as those in the other Services?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: This matter has been carefully looked at. I assure the hon. Member that we do not think that there is scope for uniformity in this matter, because the three couriers do not carry out identical jobs. The Admiralty couriers are responsible for carrying classified material for dispatch by sea, and they carry to the port of embarkation not only for the Admiralty but for all Government Departments. There are also differences in the Air Ministry courier service and the jobs undertaken for the War Office.

    Forces, Far East (Aircraft Carriers)
    Mr. Atkinsasked the Minister of Defence whether he will increase the strength and effectiveness of the forces in the Far East, by authorising the commissioning of one of the aircraft carriers at present in reserve.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have been asked to reply.
    One carrier is already stationed in the Far East. Should it be necessary to reinforce the station, another carrier already in commission would be sent.
    Mr. Atkins: Can my hon. Friend tell me the cost of maintaining a fully modernised aircraft carrier and what would be the cost of maintaining the not quite so modern but still very useful carriers which are at present in reserve?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: The cost of maintaining a modern carrier is £3 million a year. In addition, the number needed to man her would be 2,000 men. I am afraid that, without notice, I cannot give the cost of maintaining slightly less modern carriers, but perhaps my hon. Friend will put a Question on the Notice Paper on that point.

    N.A.T.O. (French Navy)
    Mr. Pagetasked the Minister of Defence the consequences for British naval defence policy of the recent announcement by General de Gaulle that the French Navy would not be placed under the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Command in peace or in war; and what consideration is being given by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Defence Ministers concerning the consequences for the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
    Mr. C. Ian Orr-Ewing: I have been asked to reply.
    The French Government's decision does not affect British naval defence policy. As the matter is under discussion in N.A.T.O., I would prefer to make no further statement.
    Mr. Paget: Broadly speaking, is the answer that this makes practically no difference at all and affects only a very small proportion of even the French Fleet?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is true to say that the difference is not very great. Perhaps to some extent it is a psychological difference. In hardware, one-third of the French Mediterraean Fleet was committed to N.A.T.O. and that has been affected by this decision, but the French contribution to SACLANT and to the Channel Command has not in any way been affected by this decision.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that General Norstad has made a statement on this matter and that a copy of it is in my possession? No doubt there is a copy also in the hon. Gentleman's possession. If General Norstad has made a statement, why cannot the Government make one?
    Mr. Orr-Ewing: I was answering the Question on the Order Paper and not a question concerning General Norstad.

  SUEZ CANAL (ISRAELI SHIPPING)
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now make a further statement on the action taken by the Security Council following the receipt of a letter
  172
  from the Government of Israel representative at the United Nations Organisation alleging interference by the Government of Egypt with two ships loaded with cargo in Haifa and unloaded at Port Said.
  The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): No action has been taken by the Security Council in this matter. Nor was it in fact requested by the Government of Israel.
  Mr. Henderson: May we have an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that there can be no question of the Security Council failing to take action under the Charter and allowing this situation to deteriorate into a dangerous situation?
  Mr. Lloyd: We certainly do not wish that sort of thing to happen. The matter is now being handled, I hope, satisfactorily.
  Mr. S. Silverman: In view of the fact that the Government's defence of their general Suez policy was that it was necessary to take this action in order to keep the Suez Canal free to shipping under the original agreement, and in view of the fact that it has now been handled, as the Foreign Secretary says, for six or seven years without any result of any kind, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the policy of Her Majesty's Government on freedom of passage in the Suez Canal?
  Mr. Lloyd: Our view is that there should be free passage through the Suez Canal. I indicated that this matter was being handled in a certain way and I do not think that Questions in the House will assist cargoes to get through.

  BERLIN
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy that West Berlin should be considered politically a part of the German Federal Republic.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Berlin is not a part of the Federal Republic; and Her Majesty's Government's policy is determined accordingly.
  Mr. Healey: While fully agreeing with the Foreign Secretary's view as being reasonable at the present time, may I ask

  173
  whether he would not agree that if Russia unilaterally denounces the four-Power agreement on Berlin, the West should consider the formal incorporation of West Berlin in the German Republic as one of its responses?
  Mr. Lloyd: I will certainly consider what the hon. Member has said.
  Mr. J. Hyndasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will seek the establishment of a four-Power investigation into allegations of subversive activities, espionage, etc., in East and West Berlin.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government are at present consulting their Allies about possible ways and means of reaching a solution of the Berlin problem. I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
  Mr. Hynd: But will the Minister agree that, in view of the substantial allegations that are being made from both sides in this connection, many of which are certainly not without foundation, in the interests of achieving some satisfactory solution of the Berlin problem, it would help if a four-Power commission could be established to inquire into the facts and possibly lead to the setting up of some kind of control over such activities on both sides?
  Mr. Lloyd: As I have said, I have noted the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

  LAOS (INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION)
  Mr. Warbeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has made, as co-Chairman of the Geneva Conference, to the recent proposal of the Soviet co-Chairman that the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos should resume its activities.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: A reply was made yesterday to the Soviet Government's Note of 21st March. Until I have received the reactions of the Soviet Government, I am not prepared to disclose its contents.
  Mr. Warbey: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that as long as the political problems of Vietnam remain
  174
  unsettled, it is both the right and the duty of the International Commission for Supervision and Control in Laos to supervise the introduction of arms and military personnel into that country? Will the Foreign Secretary, therefore, advise the Government of India that in his opinion the Commission should be reconvened as soon as possible?
  Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member asks what reply I made to the Soviet Government and I have answered that Question.

  NUCLEAR TESTS
  Mr. A. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is the policy of Her Majesty's Government that there should be an agreed limitation of the number of on-site inspections by control teams established for the purpose of enforcing any agreement for the discontinuance of nuclear tests.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government's policy is based on the need to ensure genuine and effective control of any agreement for discontinuing nuclear tests. What the right hon. and learned Gentleman has mentioned is one possibility. But this whole matter is under negotiation, and I am not prepared publicly to define our position more fully.
  Mr. Henderson: Could we have an assurance from the Foreign Secretary that the Government's policy at the conference in Geneva would be, to use the Prime Minister's word, one of " flexibility "? Would not he agree that it would be far better to have a limited system of control and inspection at the start in the international sphere rather than continue in deadlock?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that we must seek to have an effective system of control, and in our view there are various possibilities in that connection.

  IRAQ (SUPPLY OF ARMS)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent it is Her Majesty's Government's policy to permit the supply of British arms to the Government of Iraq.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 2nd March by my hon. Friend the Minister of State.
  Mr. Healey: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that there have been widespread Press reports that the British Government are still exporting arms to Iraq? As the Iraq Government are much more likely to use those arms to fight for Communism rather than against it, does not that strengthen the case for trying to make an agreement on the supply of arms to all countries in the Middle East?
  Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Member reads again the Answer given on 2nd March and also the one given on 18th February by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs, he will see certain matters which bear on his Question. I have really nothing to add today.

  SAUDI ARABIA (DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS)
  Mr. Healeyasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps he has taken to restore diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: We have made it clear on a number of occasions that Her Majesty's Government would welcome the restoration of the traditional friendly relations with Saudi Arabia. Our views on this matter have been conveyed to the Saudi Government in numerous exchanges through various channels over the past two years.
  Mr. Healey: Does not the Foreign Secretary agree that it is really absurd that Britain at this time has no diplomatic relations with any of the three large Arab countries in the Middle East. Is it true that the Government are allowing support for a very doubtful position on the Buraimi oasis to obstruct agreement with Saudi Arabia on the restoration of diplomatic relations?
  Mr. Lloyd: I do not agree that the position on the Buraimi oasis is doubtful, nor do I think it very helpful of the hon. Member to say so.
  Mr. Gaitskell: Why will not the Saudi Arabian Government resume diplomatic relations with us?
  Mr. Lloyd: Because they make preconditions which we are not prepared to accept.
  Mr. Gaitskell: What were the preconditions?
  Mr. Lloyd: With regard to the Buraimi oasis, the pre-condition was that there should be a resumption of arbitration proceedings, and the right hon. Gentleman knows full well what happened in those proceedings.

  GAZA
  Mr. Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reports he has received from the Truce Supervision Authorities or other sources, and what consultations he has held with friendly Powers, about the presence at Gaza of a so-called Palestinian Army, trained in sabotage, and equipped with modern weapons, including tanks and heavy artillery; and whether he will will make a statement.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The answer to the first two parts of the Question is "None, Sir ". It follows that the answer to the third part is also "No, Sir ".
  Mr. Biggs-Davison: But is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that Cairo Radio has boasted of the existence of this so-called Palestinian Army? Is this just another lie from that tainted and disreputable source, or, if there is any truth in this, will my right hon. and learned Friend see that the necessary precautions are taken in good time?
  Mr. Lloyd: I have no information to lead me to believe that what my hon. Friend suggests in his Question is true.

  TIBET
  Mr. Brockwayasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what representations have been made to the Government of the Chinese People's Republic arising from the disbanding of the Supreme Tibetan Council, in view of the declaration of 6th November, 1950, that British recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet depends on Tibet being regarded as autonomous.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: No representations have yet been made. A number of

  177
  refugees from Tibet, including notably the Dalai Lama, have recently reached India. I propose to await information from these first-hand witnesses of events before deciding on any particular course of action.
  Mr. Brockway: Whilst recognising that the Government have little political power in view of their vote in favour of the exclusion of China from the United Nations, and have still less moral authority after Cyprus, Suez, Malta, Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, may I ask the right hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that many of us are opposed to colonial oppression, whether it is practised by the East or the West, and desire that the autonomy of Tibet should be restored?
  Mr. Lloyd: I think the ending of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question was a considerable improvement upon its beginning and I am glad that, as regards the end, for once I agree with him.
  Mr. G. Longden: Will not my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one of the many regrettable effects of this flagrant aggression must be the further postponement of the admission of the People's Republic of China to the United Nations?
  Mr. Lloyd: I certainly think that action of this kind will give considerably more ammunition to those who have opposed the admission of Communist China upon certain grounds.
  Mr. Gaitskell: While desiring to dissociate myself and my hon. Friends from the suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman opposite, may I ask the Foreign Secretary, even though he has not had a full report, if it does not appear that what is taking place in Tibet is a breach of the 1951 agreement made between the Chinese Government and the Government of Tibet? Can he also say anything about the refugee problem, whether it is the case that India is refusing to admit refugees, and whether any representations have been made on this point?
  Mr. Lloyd: I should like notice of the supplementary question about refugees. As regards the earlier part of the right hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am inclined to agree with him,
  178
  but I think it better to await information from those who have recently come from Tibet.

  NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANISATION (GENERAL NORSTAD'S STATEMENT)
  Mr. Swinglerasked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (1) to what extent Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. were consulted beforehand about the recent statements and broadcasts by General Norstad on the subject of disengagement, the thinning out of forces in Europe, and the possession of nuclear weapons by the German Federal Republic;
  (2) to what extent Her Majesty's Government, as a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, are consulted about public statements and broadcasts to be made by the Supreme Commander on subjects which are under discussion between Governments.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: Her Majesty's Government were not consulted about recent statements by the Supreme Allied Commander. It is not appropriate or practical to suggest that clearance of such speeches in advance should take place by the fifteen member Governments of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
  Mr. Swingler: Is it not highly deplorable that General Norstad, the Supreme Commander, who should be the servant and not the master of N.A.T.O., should make a radio broadcast rejecting outright all proposals for disengagement and the thinning-out of forces in Europe, at a time when N.A.T.O. Ministers were actually discussing what proposals they would put before a Foreign Ministers' Conference and what they would be prepared to agree to at the summit talks? Should not steps be taken to ensure that discretion is imposed upon the Supreme Commander so that he does not jeopardise what the Governments who compose N.A.T.O. are going to initiate?
  Mr. Lloyd: I assume the hon. Gentleman is referring to General Norstad's remarks on television on 30th March. In my view, that was an admirable speech. I am putting copies of it in the Library and

  179
  I particularly draw the attention of hon. Members to what General Norstad said about inspection.

  EMPLOYMENT

    National Union of Bank Employees
    Mr. Swinglerasked the Minister of Labour what further approach has been made by the National Union of Bank Employees to his Department about the establishment of national negotiating machinery for the banking industry; and what action he will take.
    The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The General Secretary of the union wrote to me about this on 13th February and my officers have since discussed the present situation with him and his colleagues. It was explained to them that in existing circumstances there is little scope for any action on my part.
    Mr. Swingler: Is not it a fact that some developments have taken place in this situation, not in England and Wales, but in Scotland? Could not the Minister now consider some new initiative or mediation or conciliation by his Department in order to end this ridiculous situation of the refusal of the bank employers of England and Wales to recognise a trade union which has obviously established its right to be recognised?
    Mr. Macleod: As regards England and Wales anyway, I do not think any major change has taken place since negotiations broke down in May, 1956. My continuing interest in this matter is shown by my Answer to this Question. We discussed the matter as recently as a fortnight ago, but I do not think that at this moment any initiative would be proper for me.
    Mr. Lee: Would the Minister agree that his predecessor in office, now Lord Monckton, has great influence in this sphere, and would the right hon. Gentleman remind him that when Minister of Labour he consistently advocated the setting up of machinery of this type and the recognition of the need for trade unions and employers to negotiate on this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: That may be so, but in this case I have no intention of reminding my noble Friend of what he may have said previously, for a reason which the
    180
    hon. Gentleman knows well: that for me to take sides in this matter would be for the Minister of Labour to try to indicate what bodies should be recognised by the other parties to negotiations. All Ministers of Labour have always refused to do that, and I am certain that it is the right decision.
    Mr. Robens: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider once again having a discussion with the chairmen of the banks on this matter? He will be aware that the staff associations, to which so many of the banks give their first allegiance, cover only a part of the bank workers, whereas the National Union of Bank Employees covers a large proportion of bank workers. They should have some national negotiating machinery, so would the Minister call together the chairmen of the banks for a discussion on this matter?
    Mr. Macleod: No, Sir, because that would seem to me to tread on ground where no Minister of Labour should intervene. The object of my intervention clearly would be to persuade the chairmen to recognise one particular body. The recognition of that body must be for the employers themselves. Although, as I said in my original Answer, I retain a continuing interest in this matter, and if there is any new development I will pursue it, there has, in fact, been no major new development over the past three years.

    School Leavers
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Labour what steps he proposes to take to deal with the growing problem of unemployment among school leavers.
    The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): The number of Christmas school leavers not yet in employment fell from 16,932 on 12th January to 3,347 on 9th March. The Youth Employment Service will continue to make every effort to find jobs for those still unemployed and for the Easter school leavers.
    Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the whole House accepts with very real pleasure the improvement in the position, but is he also aware that this problem will get graver and graver as the "bulge " now passing through the secondary schools come out into the labour market? It is a real tragedy if

    181
    young children leaving school, after all we are trying to give them in education, are faced with a spell of unemployment. Will the hon. Gentleman give this his personal attention?
    Mr. Wood: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am well aware of the imminence of the " bulge ", but I have said over the last few months that I am convinced that the extra number of school leavers coming into the labour market is insignificant in comparison with the general economic situation, and therefore the prospects of those boys and girls getting jobs depends far more on the general economic situation obtaining than on the extra numbers that will be leaving school.
    Mr. Lee: As the right hon. Gentleman has referred to the reduction from 16,000 to 3,000, may I ask him whether the 13,000 have obtained work or whether a number of them have gone back to school because they failed to find work?
    Mr. Wood: I understand that the difference between those numbers is the number in employment.
    Mr. F. Harris: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is generally recognised, as the figures indicate, that in this matter the youth employment officers in the main are doing a first-class job of work in this connection?
    Mr. Wood: I entirely agree.
    Mr. Brockwayasked the Minister of Labour how many children left schools in Slough at the end of the Easter term; and how many of them have obtained employment.
    Mr. Wood: Two hundred and sixty-one boys and girls left schools in Slough at the end of the Easter term, of whom 216 are known to have obtained employment, 36 have not asked for the help of the Youth Employment Service and nine are registered as unemployed.
    Mr. Brockway: May I ask the hon. Gentleman if he is aware that, while these figures are much more satisfactory than those for the areas to which my hon. Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) has just referred, they do show that, even in a comparatively prosperous place like Slough, difficulty is now emerging with children failing to find employment on leaving school?
    Mr. Wood: I cannot see that that really emerges in Slough, because, as I said to the hon. Gentleman, there were nine boys and girls registered as unemployed who could be placed right away, but who are waiting for the type of vacancy they want.
    Captain Pilkington: Can the children of Slough learn a truer version of colonial history than that propounded by their Member of Parliament?

    Apprentice Training
    Dr. Kingasked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking to implement the recommendations contained in the Report of the Carr Committee on apprentice training.
    Mr. Wood: The recommendations of the Carr Committee were addressed to industry, and industry must be responsible for taking action on them. The Industrial Training Council is urging upon individual industries the need to give these recommendations the urgent attention they require, and youth employment committees are doing all they can to promote local consideration of the Report.
    Dr. King: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the Carr Committee made a series of excellent general observations on this terrific problem, and that the real trouble now is to get teeth into the recommendations of this Committee? Is he aware that, in this vast output from our schools in the next two or three years, we have the opportunity of recruiting potential trainees for all the work of a modern State on a scale never before envisaged? Will he use his influence with the Minister to ginger up bath industry and the trade union side to get down to the problem of recruiting apprentices?
    Mr. Wood: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that over the last few months I have been using all the influence I possess on exactly the wise lines which the hon. Gentleman suggests. I do not think anyone can under-estimate the importance which he so rightly attaches to this question.

    Bristol Aircraft, Limited
    Mr. Wilkinsasked the Minister of Labour (1) how many employees of Bristol Aircraft, Limited, terminated their services with that company through redundancy or other causes in the year 1958;

    183
    (2) what notification he has received from Bristol Aircraft, Limited, of expected redundancies in the six months 1st January to 30th June, 1959; and the numbers involved;
    (3) if he is in a position to give an assessment of the employment situation at Bristol Aircraft, Limited, on the termination of the Britannia project in December, 1959.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: I understand that the net reduction in employment at this firm during 1958 was approximately 1,300. Notifications of expected redundancies given by particular employers are confidential, but the firm has announced that employment would be reduced by a further 1,200 in the first half of 1959. Future employment levels are for assessment by the firm concerned.
    Mr. Wilkins: The fact that these three Questions have been answered together makes it rather difficult for me to put a supplementary question. May I first ask the Minister whether he would not regard the figure of 1,300 redundancies last year as rather disturbing, especially when taken in conjunction with the fact that in the whole country the aircraft industry is being run down by 100,000? Is he able to say whether there have been only a little over 100 discharges or so this year, and, if that is the case, does not it mean that there are likely to be heavy dismissals from this aircraft factory during the next couple of months? Further, could he offer some reason why this industry, which one would expect in these days to be an expanding industry, is shrinking to the extent which we would understand by the figure of 100,000 redundancies? Is he also aware that this is an extremely serious matter for the aircraft industry?
    Mr. Macleod: The key question about the figures last year is not so much the 1,300, because that is natural enough, perhaps, at a time when the aircraft industry is contracting, but how many of those 1,300 remained out of work. The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that an inquiry covering not only Bristol alone but all the areas from which these two firms—Bristol Aircraft, Limited, and Bristol Aero-Engines—draw their labour, shows that only 46 people who lost work at either firm are now unemployed. It is this figure of 46 which should be noted, and not perhaps the figure of 1,300. So
    184
    far as the future is concerned, this firm is a very co-operative firm, and works, as all good firms should do, very closely indeed with my Ministry. In this sphere —and the cases of Saunders-Roe in the Isle of Wight and Hawkers of Blackpool come to mind—there have been some very remarkable placings even when fears were expressed before, and I believe that the future for these Bristol men, even with the redundancies that have been announced for the next few months, is reasonably good.
    Mr. Corfield: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the indications at the present time are that the number of redundancies forecast for the first part of this year will not be reached, and that, therefore, the position is better than it appears?
    Mr. Macleod: I am very glad to hear it. The figures I have given were figures which, as I understand it, the firm have made public. If there has been something of a pick-up, I am glad to hear it.
    Mr. Coldrick: May I ask the Minister if he would enter into direct negotiations with the leaders of the Bristol Aircraft Company, together with the workers employed there, in order that they may relieve the minds of the people working there and the anxieties which they have about the future? If he could give them that assurance, I am sure that it would ease the situation.
    Mr. Macleod: I do not think I could reasonably give that sort of assurance, because the questions of contracts being placed with these firms, either by the Service Departments concerned or by civil operators, depends on the success of these firms and any other firms in the commercial field. As I announced earlier, when I paid tribute to the firm, I will certainly work as closely as I can with this firm, or any other firm, in any difficulties that may occur.
    Mr. Wilkins: As it appears impossible for the Minister to satisfy us with his answers to this series of Questions, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Motion for the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.
    Mr. Robert Cooke: In view of the fact that I have not had the opportunity to put a supplementary question, as a Member representing Bristol, may I also

    185
    give notice that I should like to raise this matter? [HON. MEMBERS: "Put a Question down."]

    Aberdeenshire
    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many people in the City and County of Aberdeen are now unemployed, indicating their trades, sexes and ages; and what steps he is taking to find employment for each.
    Mr. lain Macleod: As the answer to the first part of the Question consists of a table of figures, I will with permission circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My local officers are continuing to submit unemployed workers to notified vacancies.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that the last part of his Answer indicates that his efforts so far to provide employ-

    NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED PERSONS ON THE REGISTERS OF EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGES IN ABERDEEN AND IN THE REST OF ABERDEENSHIRE AT 9th MARCH, 1959

    Industry

    Aberdeen

    Aberdeen County (excluding Aberdeen)

    Men

    Boys

    Women

    Girls

    Total

    Men

    Boys

    Women

    Girls

    Total

    Agriculture and Horticulture

    …

    …

    153

    4

    8

    —

    165

    212

    18

    17

    3

    250

    Fishing

    …

    …

    142

    —

    —

    —

    142

    262

    12

    —

    —

    274

    Non-Metalliferous Mining Products

    …

    …

    84

    5

    2

    —

    91

    4

    —

    —

    —

    4

    Shipbuilding and Ship-repairing

    …

    …

    93

    1

    2

    —

    96

    20

    —

    2

    —

    22

    Non-Electrical Engineering

    …

    …

    115

    4

    11

    —

    130

    13

    1

    10

    —

    24

    Food Industries

    …

    158

    6

    152

    6

    322

    109

    6

    230

    25

    370

    Timber

    …

    …

    106

    8

    9

    1

    124

    45

    4

    —

    —

    49

    Wooden Containers and baskets

    …

    …

    107

    —

    12

    —

    119

    —

    —

    —

    —

    —

    Building and Civil Engineering Contracting

    444

    —

    1

    —

    445

    237

    3

    2

    —

    242

    Sea Transport

    …

    …

    154

    10

    —

    —

    164

    13

    —

    —

    —

    13

    Distributive Trades

    …

    352

    10

    244

    4

    610

    56

    10

    87

    11

    164

    Local Government Service

    …

    …

    134

    —

    13

    —

    147

    15

    —

    1

    —

    16

    Professional Services

    …

    49

    —

    55

    1

    105

    3

    —

    22

    —

    25

    Entertainment and Sport

    80

    —

    10

    —

    90

    3

    —

    4

    —

    7

    Catering, Hotels, etc.

    …

    106

    —

    122

    1

    229

    16

    —

    36

    6

    58

    Other Industries and Services

    …

    …

    695

    17

    328

    9

    1,049

    218

    26

    149

    15

    408

    Total all Industries and Services

    …

    …

    2,972

    65

    969

    22

    4,028

    1,226

    80

    560

    60

    1,926

    Mr. Hector Hughesasked the Minister of Labour how many disabled people in the City and County of Aberdeen, respectively, are now unemployed,
    ment and industry in Aberdeen have been quite futile and unavailing? Will he consult the Secretary of State for Scotland and the President of the Board of Trade with a view to doing something constructive, so increasing industry and reducing unemployment at one stroke, and bringing in more foreign currency?
    Mr. Macleod: We are always trying to do that. It is true that Aberdeen is one of the areas which, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is included in the D.A.T.A.C. list as having a continuing and persistent problem of unemployment. It is also true that Aberdeen is one of the comparatively few areas in which the figure of unemployment has not risen over the past year. It is 5.1 per cent. at the moment, and it was 5.5 per cent. a year ago.
    Following is the table:
    indicating their sexes, ages, trades, and disabilities; how long each has been unemployed; and what steps he is taking to find employment for each.
    Mr. Wood: As the answer to the first part of the Question contains a number of figures I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My disablement resettlement officers are continuing to do their best to find suitable work for the disabled, and although the situation remains difficult, the number of unemployed is rather less than it was 12 months ago.
    Mr. Hughes: Does the Minister realise that his method of dealing with disabled workers compares very unfavourably with methods adopted in other countries? Will he study the administration in other

    On 16th March, 1959, 547 men and 66 women registered as disabled were unemployed in the City of Aberdeen and 123 men and 18 women in the County of Aberdeen.

    Detailed information about trades and disabilities is not readily available but the majority of the disabled unemployed are unskilled workers.

    At 8th December, 1958, the statistics about age and duration of unemployment among the disabled classified as suitable for ordinary employment were as follows:—

    City of Aberdeen

    MEN

    —

    Under 18

    18–19

    20–24

    25–39

    40–49

    50–54

    55–64

    65 and over

    Total

    Up to 13 weeks

    —

    2

    14

    50

    53

    22

    59

    —

    200

    13–52 weeks

    —

    4

    7

    50

    40

    22

    61

    3

    187

    Over 52 weeks

    —

    1

    7

    25

    42

    28

    53

    —

    156

    —

    7

    28

    125

    135

    72

    173

    3

    543

    WOMEN

    —

    Under 18

    18–19

    20–24

    25–39

    40–49

    50–54

    55–59

    60 and over

    Total

    Up to 13 weeks

    —

    —

    6

    10

    6

    2

    2

    —

    26

    13–52 weeks

    —

    —

    7

    11

    6

    3

    —

    —

    22

    Over 52 weeks

    —

    —

    1

    2

    1

    —

    2

    —

    6

    —

    —

    9

    23

    13

    5

    4

    —

    54

    County of Aberdeen

    MEN

    —

    Under 18

    18–19

    20–24

    25–39

    40–49

    50–54

    55–64

    65 and over

    Total

    Up to 13 weeks

    1

    —

    3

    4

    12

    9

    10

    1

    40

    13–52 weeks

    1

    —

    —

    8

    6

    6

    22

    —

    43

    Over 52 weeks

    —

    —

    2

    6

    10

    9

    17

    —

    44

    2

    —

    5

    18

    28

    24

    49

    1

    127

    WOMEN

    —

    Under 18

    18–19

    20–24

    25–39

    40–49

    50–54

    55–59

    60 and over

    Total

    Up to 13 weeks

    —

    —

    4

    —

    2

    —

    1

    —

    7

    13–52 weeks

    1

    1

    —

    3

    —

    3

    1

    —

    9

    Over 52 weeks

    —

    —

    1

    2

    1

    1

    —

    —

    5

    1

    1

    5

    5

    3

    4

    2

    —

    21

    countries with a view to doing something really constructive for these disabled men?
    Mr. Wood: I have made a special study of what goes on in other countries and I have always considered that our methods are in the van of the whole world.
    Mr. Hughes: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Answers to my two Questions, I shall endeavour to raise this matter at the earliest opportunity.
    Following is the information:

    Greater London
    Lady Gammansasked the Minister of Labour to what extent the position of nearly full employment has been maintained in the Greater London area during the past year.
    Mr. Iain Macleod: During the year the number unemployed has not exceeded 1½ per cent. of employees and the average rate was 1·3 per cent.
    Mr. D. Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that reaching nearly full employment in the London area is likely to give any measure of satisfaction in The Hartlepools, where there is 5 per cent. unemployment, in Sunderland, where there is 6 per cent., or in Anglesey, where the figure is 10 per cent.? What does he propose to do about these places?
    Mr. Macleod: That obviously hardly arises out of this Question. Of course, it is true that the Greater London area is the most prosperous of all the areas in the country, and it is to these other areas that the special attention of the Government must be directed.
    Mr. Nabarro: Greater London is no more prosperous than Kidderminster.

  BRITISH ARMY

    Eaton Hall, Chester
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War if he is aware of the concern arising from the substantial waste of public money in respect of Eaton Hall, near Chester, which for some time his Department has not been able to use and, in view of the heavy expenditure involved in its maintenance, why it has not been used; and what plans he has for putting it to use or for ending this connection with the 100 room mansion.
    Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenportasked the Secretary of State for War whether, having regard to the comments of Sir Edmund Compton, Comptroller and Auditor General, that his Department has not yet made up its mind about the future of Eaton Hall, he will now state when a decision is likely to be reached.
    Mr. Templeasked the Secretary of State for War if he will make a statement on the future plans for the utilisation by his Department of the property on lease a Eaton Hall, near Chester.
    The Under-Secretary of State for War (Mr. Hugh Fraser): Eaton Hall was used for 11 years as an officer cadet school. It has been unoccupied since the school was disbanded because it has not yet been possible to find a unit of the much smaller all-Regular army of the future to fit into it. This is not a simple problem but my right hon. Friend is anxious to reach the earliest possible decision.
    Mr. Dodds: Can the Under-Secretary deny that in 1955 his Department recommended the spending of £ 800,000 on it and that, on being given an undertaking that it would be required even though National Service was ended, the Treasury sanctioned an expenditure of £ 396,600 for a start? Is not this another blunder by his Department? Is he aware that many people are wondering when a beginning is to be made of making examples of those who waste public money? Is not this a case where someone should be sacked?
    Mr. Fraser: Of the sum mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, only £ 31,000 was expended. Owing to the change in National Service policy in 1957 the whole question of this building, taken over in 1947 by a right hon. Gentleman opposite, had to be looked at again.
    Mr. Temple: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is considerable public concern that the facilities at Eaton Hall are not being utilised? Will he use his best efforts to expedite a solution to this matter?
    Mr. Fraser: Yes, of course, we are looking at this matter most seriously.
    Mr. Strachey: While appreciating that the abolition of National Service has created a real problem here, may I ask whether the Under-Secretary agrees that the essential thing is to come to a decision and that there is public anxiety about it because there would seem to be failure on the part of the Minister or the Department to make up their mind on the matter?
    Mr. Fraser: One problem is that there will have to he extensive improvements and adjustments to this building before it can be used, and therefore we ought to he certain that we are doing the right thing before spending our money.
    Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the reason Eaton Hal was

    191
    taken over in 1947 was the shortage of accommodation and because of the National Service Acts? Is he aware that it has never been regarded as a satisfactory place for training cadets and will the hon. Gentleman now agree, or advise his right hon. Friend, not to spend any more money on this place because it never will be satisfactory?
    Mr. Fraser: I will bear in mind the advice of the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Doddsasked the Secretary of State for War what will be the annual cost of retaining Eaton Hall; what is the extent of the claim for dry rot; how many caretakers and watchmen are employed to look after the mansion; and how many gardeners to tend the grounds.
    Mr. H. Fraser: The annual cost of rent, wages and maintenance is estimated at £ 27,000. There is no claim for dry rot repairs but treatment is being carried out at a probable cost of about £15,000. A staff of 34 is employed on the estate.
    Mr. Dodds: As this place has not been used for such a long time, will the Under-Secretary explain why 34 persons have to be employed there? What are they doing?
    Mr. Fraser: This building has not been used for nearly a year. There is an estate of 900 acres and a very large house and it is not unreasonable that this staff should be kept to maintain the grounds and keep the building in repair.

  POST OFFICE

    Mail Ships (Repair Work)
    Dr. Kingasked the Postmaster-General whether he will insert a clause in all contracts with ships carrying British mail to the effect that they shall not be taken to foreign ports for repair work when repair facilities are available in the United Kingdom.
    The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir. It would be quite impracticable and undesirable to insist on the condition suggested by the hon. Member.
    Dr. King: Is the Postmaster-General aware that the shipping industry, which we all admire and which from time to
    192
    time receives Government help regarding its very serious problems, and which ought to be playing the game by the ship-repairing side of the industry, is sending ships out of the country and keeping British ship-repair workers out of work? The right hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to assist the ship-repairing industry, at any rate regarding shipping carrying British mail, and will he use it in the interests of the ship-repair workers?
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman is quite unrealistic. For example, ships carrying mail might get into difficulties and have to call at ports abroad to carry out repairs. The proposal of the hon. Gentleman would mean that less mail would be carried in British ships and more in foreign ships.

    Exmouth (Sunday Service)
    Mr. Mathewasked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the necessity to encourage the summer tourist industry in Exmouth in order to stimulate the local employment situation, he will now arrange for Sunday morning counter services in the post office in Exmouth during the summer months.
    Mr. Marples: I am arranging for the Exmouth Head Post Office counter to be opened on Sunday morning in the summer months this year; and for the need for opening in future years to be reviewed in the light of this season's experience.
    Mr. Mathew: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for his Answer. May I express the hope that when he is making further arrangements for postal facilities in the coastal areas of Devon he will bear in mind that some of the curtailment in the past year, although it may have been necessary, acted in some degree as a deterrent to the all-important tourist trade?
    Mr. Marples: Any future decision will depend upon the extent to which the post office counter is used.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: How far is this innovation being extended? Is it to apply to all tourist areas?
    Mr. Marples: The great majority of them have been closed on Sunday as a policy, but in certain resorts they have been open during the season. We will see how they go this year.
    Mr. W. R. Williams: May we assume that every one of these cases will be dealt with strictly on its merits, not making any artificial distinction between one area and another? Obviously everything should depend on the number of customers who take advantage of the service.
    Mr. Marples: That assumption is correct.

  WIRELESS AND TELEVISION

    Independent Television Authority
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General if he will exercise his authority under Section 15 of the Television Act, 1954, to provide for more adequate information in the Statement of Accounts of the Independent Television Authority of the item, " Operating Income ".
    Mr. Marples: No, Sir.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Do I understand that the Postmaster-General has approved the present form of balance sheet issued by the I.T.A. in which all we get on the revenue side is one item, with no opportunity at all to see how much of this fabulous profit made by the programme contractors is due to undercharges made by I.T.A.?
    Mr. Marples: The accounts have been approved and they follow the ordinary commercial practice. I do not know of any commercial concern which publishes accounts divulging detailed payments made by individual customers, and I do not see why the I.T.A. should depart from ordinary commercial practice.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: The right hon. Gentleman is not asked to do that. He is asked to ensure that we get adequate information before the House about how moneys provided by Parliament are being treated by the Authority. I hope he will be more friendly in his reply, as his telephone operators are.
    Mr. Marples: My reply is perfectly friendly. The I.T.A. publishes on the income side of its income and expenditure account the same information as any commercial firm, and I do not see why an extra requirement should be laid on it.
    Mr. Jennings: Will my right hon. Friend consider ways and means of
    194
    diverting some of the profits of the independent television companies in order to reduce the television viewing fee paid by the general public?
    Mr. Marples: That is not a question for me. If anyone has a particular tax on profits to suggest, it is a matter for the Chancellor and not for me.
    Mr. Ness Edwardsasked the Postmaster-General the conditions on which net-working lines of communication are leased to the Independent Television Authority; and the annual revenue derived therefrom.
    Mr. Marples: These circuits are leased under agreements determinable after one year subject to payment of an indemnity if they are given up within 20 years. Rentals are related to cost, with a small margin of profit, and may be varied if costs alter. The amount payable by the I.T.A. in the coming year is likely to be around £ 450,000. Facilities for the B.B.C. are provided on precisely similar terms.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the House whether the increased charges placed on telephone subscribers for something of a similar nature have been imposed for the exclusive use of many of these communications?
    Mr. Marples: The figures for rentals, announced some considerable time ago, have no bearing on this matter. Here we charge the cost, plus a slight profit, and in the Post Office we treat all our customers alike.
    Mr. Ness Edwards: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that because of the exclusive network facilities provided for these monopolies, fabulous profits are being made? Ought not some of the profits to find their way back to the Post Office?
    Mr. Marples: The Post Office is a public service. It would be quite wrong in principle for a public service to select certain customers and say -"You will pay a price greatly in excess of the price paid by anyone else." That would be an altogether wrong principle.
    Mr. Woodburn: Is the Postmaster-General aware that in Scotland the B.B.C. service is being starved of facilities compared with private enterprise which enjoys these profits? If he does not propose

    195
    to accept the suggestion of my right hon. Friend, will he allow the B.B.C. to retain some income so as to be able to develop along with the other bodies?
    Mr. Marples: It is not our business. The Post Office charges the I.T.A. for service, and charges it precisely the same as it charges the B.B.C.

  FOREIGN MINISTERS'CONFERENCE
  Mr. Grimondasked the Prime Minister what further progress has been achieved towards agreement over the Western position at the Foreign Ministers' and Summit Conferences; and if he will make a statement.
  Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply.
  The process of preparing for a Foreign Ministers' Conference is continuing. On 31st March and 1st April I reviewed in Washington with the Foreign Ministers of France and the Federal Republic of Germany and the acting Secretary of State of the United States, the report of the quadripartite working group of officials which met in Paris from 9th to 21st March. The four Ministers provided further agreed guidance for the quadripartite working group for its next series of meetings which are due to begin in London on 13th April. On 2nd and 3rd April the four Ministers reported on the results of their discussions to the North Atlantic Council and there was a full discussion in the Council. The four Ministers agreed to meet again in Paris on 29th April to review the further work now to be undertaken by the working group. Arrangements have been made for the North Atlantic Council to continue to be consulted.
  The present position therefore is that there is agreement on the objectives, and considerable progress has been made towards agreement on how to handle the negotiations.
  Mr. Grimond: While thanking the Foreign Secretary for that reply, may I ask him if it has been agreed in the West that it is not necessary to have a detailed agenda for the summit meeting?
  Mr. Lloyd: My Answer dealt with the Foreign Ministers' meeting. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's Question included the summit meeting, but
  196
  he will remember that in the Notes the matter was left for consideration at the Foreign Ministers' meeting.

  TRANSPORT

    Victoria Line Tube
    Mr. Ernest Daviesasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has now received a report from the London Traffic Committee on the Victoria line tube; and what action he proposes to take on it.
    The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Sir W. Wakefield) on 18th March.
    Mr. Davies: Has the right hon. Gentleman impressed upon the committee the urgency of this matter? Does he appreciate that the longer the delay in reaching the decision whether or not to construct this line the greater will be the cost? Will a report be presented to this House, and if so, in what form?
    Mr. Watkinson: I quite agree that it would be wise to come to an early decision and the committee is well aware of that. As to the form in which the report will be presented to this House, no doubt the hon. Gentleman will get a Question down and see that I answer it.

    Road Accidents
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now made an analysis of the nature and bodily location of injuries sustained in road accidents by various categories of road users; and what conclusions he has arrived at in the interests of road safety.
    The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): It is not possible to obtain details of the nature of injuries sustained in all road accidents, but the Road Research Laboratory, in collaboration with the Medical Research Council, is undertaking some sample inquiries.
    The latest available information showing the nature and location of accidents to various categories of road users involved in motor vehicle accidents is contained in an analysis for 1955 made by

    197
    the Registrar-General for England and Wales, which I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT.
    Mr. Moss: Is not it surprising that these statistics are not available? Can the hon. Gentleman take steps to make them available from now on, since they have a most important bearing upon road accidents?

    CAUSES OF DEATHS IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENTS—1955

    Cause

    Road user

    Total

    Pedestrian

    Pedal cyclist

    Rider or passenger of motor cycle

    Rider or passenger of other vehicle

    Fracture of skull

    …

    …

    1,024

    348

    843

    450

    2,665

    Head injury (excluding fracture)

    308

    55

    171

    129

    663

    Fracture of spine and trunk

    …

    220

    35

    68

    124

    447

    Fracture of limbs

    …

    …

    163

    8

    31

    51

    253

    Internal injury of chest, abdomen and pelvis.

    178

    49

    110

    253

    590

    Other causes

    …

    …

    …

    130

    26

    45

    104

    305

    TOTAL

    …

    …

    …

    2,023

    521

    1,268

    1,111

    4,923

    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, in conjunction with the British Hat and Allied Felt-makers Research Association, have produced a satisfactory cap and hat for the protection of motorists against head injury; and, in view of the fact that in January, 1959, nearly 40 per cent. of the vehicles involved in road accidents were private cars and over 60 per cent. were private cars, goods vehicles, public service vehicles and taxis together, and car drivers suffered a casualty increase of nearly 50 per cent., whether he will now make regulations on protective hats and caps for motorists similar to those which he made in 1957 for motor cyclists.
    Mr. Nugent: I am aware that research work has been carried out on materials for protective hats and caps for motorists and their passengers. In addition to the Answer on this subject I gave to the hon. Member on 25th March, I should add that we have no powers, such as those in Section 42 of the Road Traffic Act, 1956, to make regulations prescribing types of hat or cap recommended as affording protection to motorists.
    Mr. Nugent: It would require a great deal of extra work to analyse the annual figures for this purpose. We had better wait until we see the result of the sample inquiry that the Road Research Laboratory is making, to see whether the significance of the figures would justify the extra work.
    Following is the information:
    Mr. Moss: Why is "helmet" defined in the Road Traffic Act, 1956, as "any form of protective headgear "? Would not that include felt hats and caps for motorists, which might receive the support of the hon. Gentleman one day?
    Mr. Nugent: I am not excluding them from my support. I was only explaining to the hon. Gentleman the law on the matter. I cannot explain why the 1956 Act was drafted in that way.
    Mr. Strauss: Has the hon. Gentleman had any discussion with the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, as was suggested recently at Question Time, about taking further action to induce, by education or exhortation, motor cyclists to wear helmets voluntarily and in greater quantity than at the present moment?
    Mr. Nugent: I have not been able to have this discussion yet as the Society has a conference going on at the present time. I hope to be able to have the discussion in the near future.

    Agricultural Tractors
    Mr. Philips Priceasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now consider amending

    199
    the regulations so as to enable a farmer to take an agricultural tractor, licensed at a £2 rate of duty, on to the public highway, fitted with a transport box on the linkage system, thereby enabling him to carry such articles as feeding stuffs, small tools and utensils to parts of the farm separated from the rest by a road.
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. We propose to amend the Regulations to permit agricultural tractors to be used on roads while fitted with loaded transport boxes. This use will be subject to certain restrictions on the size of the container and the distance of travel.
    Mr. Philips Price: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his Answer will give great satisfaction to many farmers?

  ROADS

    A.47 Trunk Road (Speed Limit)
    Mr. Mossasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has now considered whether to impose a speed limit on the whole or part of the A.47 trunk road from the City of Birmingham boundary to Bacon's End, in view of the representations made to him by the hon. Member for Meriden; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. The required public notice of intention to make a further portion of this stretch of trunk road subject to the 30 m.p.h. speed limit will shortly be given. The effect would be to make restrictions continuous from the Birmingham City boundary to Hurst Lane. My right hon. Friend is not satisfied that any restriction is needed beyond this point. I am writing more fully to the hon. Member in reply to his representations.

    Parking Bays
    Mr. Jannerasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what advice he has given to local authorities concerning the prohibition of the use of parking bays by particular classes of vehicles in the framing of parking places Orders under the Road Traffic Act, 1956.
    Mr. Nugent: We have told the local authorities, which have powers to promote parking schemes and which we know to be considering them, that it is desirable to make reasonable provision for commercial vehicles as well as for other classes of motor traffic.

    Road Improvements , Gloucestershire
    Mr. Corfieldasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will now reconsider his decision with regard to the amount of grant to the Gloucestershire County Council in respect of major road improvements.
    Mr. Watkinson: I do not make grants for major road improvements by allocating particular sums in advance. The Council has been invited to prepare certain schemes for my consideration over the next two years, but until they are submitted I cannot say how many will receive a grant.

  SHIPPING

    North Atlantic Passenger Service
    Mr. Osborneasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will make a statement about the replacement of the "Queen Mary" and "Queen Elizabeth" on the North Atlantic passenger service.
    Commander Maitlandasked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in view of the assistance given by the Government towards the construction of the s.s. " Queen Mary " and s.s. " Queen Elizabeth ", what consideration he is giving to the problem of their replacement.
    Mr. Watkinson: This is a matter which is at present under discussion between the Government and the Cunard Steam-Ship Company, which is in consultation with Messrs. John Brown & Company.
    Mr. Osborne: While thanking my right hon. Friend for what appears to be help to be given to shipping companies to replace the two great liners, may I ask him to take both sides of the industry carefully in hand to see that public money is not used for feather-bedding purposes and that both sides use the money carefully when it is offered to them?
    Mr. Watkinson: The Government are already a shareholder in the Cunard Company. It is therefore natural that we should be interested in plans for replacing the Queens. I agree that we shall have to be very satisfied that the plans for these new ships are modern and far-reaching because the ships will have to compete with the new types of jet aircraft on the North Atlantic when they come into service.
    Sir L. Ropner: Is it true that the Government of the United States has decided to subsidise very heavily the construction of a new Atlantic liner?
    Mr. Watkinson: Yes, I understand that that is true and that the subsidy is a very, very large proportion of the total cost of the vessel. That fact certainly adds to the difficulties of the Cunard Company, but it does not mean that the Cunard Company must leave the North Atlantic service, in which it has provided such a wonderful record.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS

  Smaller Colonial Territories (Future Status)
  Mr. N. Pannell: I beg to give notice that on Friday. 17th April, I shall call
  202
  attention to the need to define the future status of the smaller Colonial Territories, and move a Resolution.

  Road Accident,
  Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th April, I shall call attention to the continuing high level of road accidents, and move a Resolution.
  Industrial Relations
  Mr. Lindgren: I beg to give notice that on Friday, 17th April, I shall call attention to the Report of the Engineering and Allied Employers' National Federation, entitled Looking at Industrial Relations ". and move a Resolution.

FINANCE BILL (PROCEDURE)
Resolved,
That notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to matters which may be included in Finance Bills, provision may be made in any Finance Bill introduced in the present Session for giving effect to any Resolution which may be passed by a Committee of the whole House and agreed to by the House for the purpose of continuing the power to make advances under section forty-two of the Finance Act, 1956. and increasing the aggregate amount of the advances so made.—[Mr. Simon.]

SMALL BUSINESS DWELLING -HOUSES
3.32 p.m.
Mr. Barnett Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to prohibit the recovery of possession, except by legal proceedings, of certain dwelling-houses partly used for business purposes released from control by subsection (1) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, and to provide in certain cases for suspending for a limited period the execution of any order made in such proceedings; to regulate the terms and conditions as to rent and other matters to be applied in cases where possession of such dwelling-houses is retained pending the recovery of possession; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
I ask leave to introduce this Bill because, in my view, and I believe in the view of the House, if it considers the position carefully, a serious injustice has been revealed as a result of the provisions of the 1957 Rent Act.
The House will remember that that Act decontrolled premises the rateable value of which was above £ 40 in London or £ 30 in the Provinces. Some provisional protections were provided for the tenants by paragraph 2 (6) of the Fourth Schedule to that Act. On this side of the House we pointed out that these would be far from sufficient to avoid considerable hardship being experienced by tenants who would be ejected if the Act continued in force. Ultimately, this was realised by the Minister and the Government and, Mr. Speaker, you will remember that a new Act was introduced in 1958 to give tenants an opportunity of some extension of the period during which they could be allowed to remain in their houses.
Before coming to the point I want to make, I should point out that it was made clear that because of the 1957 Act a person could be turned out of his home without any court proceedings being taken. These conditions are well known to the House and I do not propose to refer to them in detail.
Mixed residential and business property, that is, property used for the purpose of a dwelling-house as well as for the purpose of carrying on a small business or profession, was excluded from the benefits of the provision of paragraph 2 (6) of the Fourth Schedule of the 1957 Act. The owner of a small shop who lives on the
204
premises, or a professional man who both lives and carries on his profession on the premises, obtained no benefit from the Fourth Schedule to the 1957 Act after 6th July, 1957.
As the position stands at present he is also not entitled to any of the benefits of the provisions of the Landlord and Tenant (Temporary Provisions) Act, 1958. The reason given at the time of the debates on the 1957 Rent Act for this exclusion was that such a shopkeeper or professional man is entitled to obtain possession of the premises under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, until the expiry of a notice of not less than six months and not more than a year, given to him by the landlord.
If such notice is given he is entitled to apply to the county court for the grant of a new tenancy. This, I think, is the nub of the position and the point I want to bring home to the House. The landlord can successfully oppose the granting of such a tenancy if he can show that one of the grounds set out in Section 30 of the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1954, applies to the case in question. The Act of 1954 contains many technical provisions not easily understandable to a layman, and frequently not to a lawyer. For example, the tenant must, within a specified period, apply for a new tenancy under the Landlord and Tenant Act, that is, within a period of not more than four and not less than two months from the time the landlord has served him with a notice terminating the tenancy.
Again, the tenant cannot make the application unless he has served a counter-notice on the landlord stating that he is unwilling to give up possession on the date stated in the landlord's notice. This counter-notice has to be given within two months of the service of the landlord's notice. Neither of the time limits can be extended, so if the tenant has failed to take either of these steps in time he cannot obtain a new tenancy under the 1954 Act. This means that he then would have no protection at all and can be ejected, even without court proceedings being taken.
I spoke a few moments ago about grounds on which the court must refuse to give the tenant a new tenancy. One of these grounds displays a clear injustice to the tenant. I was engaged in a case myself in which this position had arisen.

205
The landlord who intends to keep the premises himself either for business premises or as his residence, cannot be refused possession by a court under the Landlord and Tenant Act, 1957, if the landlord bought the premises over the head of the sitting tenant five years or more before the end of the tenancy.
The House well knows that the landlord in such an event has not even got to prove that there would be hardship on him if a further tenancy were granted to the tenant. All he has to do is to satisfy the court that he intends to use the premises. It does not matter if he wants to do so for the purpose of his business or for the purpose of living there. He has not to prove need, hardship, or any of the consequences referred to in the many Rent Acts of the last forty years. All he has to do is to say "I want to live in these premises ", or "I want to carry them on as a business".
In the case to which 1 referred the tenant had been in the house for about thirty years. Part of it was being carried on as a business, and another place could not be obtained by the tenant. The landlords were owners of extensive premises, including those premises and many shops. The landlords said, "We want to put in some of our accountants or other employees." The judge held— and he was right in the law— that it did not matter whether the place was needed by the landlords. That was beside the legal point. The landlord had only to say he wanted to put those people in and the tenant had no protection whatsoever.
206
After he had applied to the court for a new tenancy and had been refused it, he had no further legal right to go to the court to seek any kind of protection or extension of his residence. I am sure that the whole House will agree that that is a very serious position and an anomaly. I hope that hon. Members will support me in my application for leave to introduce the Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Janner, Mr. Hoy, Mr. MacColl, Mr. Rankin. Mr. A. J. Irvine, Mr. Mahon, Mr. Delargy, Mrs. McAlister, Mr. W. R. Williams, Mr. Sydney Irving, Mr. Dodds, and Mr. Oliver.

SMALL BUSINESS DWELLING -HOUSES
  SMALL BUSINESS DWELLING -HOUSES
  Bill to prohibit the recovery of possession, except by legal proceedings, of certain dwelling-houses partly used for business purposes released from control by subsection (I) of section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, and to provide in certain cases for suspending for a limited period the execution of any order made in such proceedings; to regulate the terms and conditions as to rent and other matters to be applied in cases where possession of such dwelling-houses is retained pending the recovery of possession; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 8th May, and to be printed. [Bill 84]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  WAYS AND MEANS
  Considered in Committee [Progress 7th April, 1959].
  [Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

  WAYS AND MEANS

    AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
    Question again proposed,
    That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the national debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance, so, however, that this Resolution shall not extend to making amendments of the enactments relating to Purchase Tax so as to give relief from tax, other than amendments making the same provision for chargeable goods of whatever description and amendments reducing generally, for all goods to which it applies, any rate of tax which is not altered in pursuance of some other Resolution of the Committee of Ways and Means.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
  3.41 p.m.
  Mr. Harold Wilson: Two years ago I described the Budget of the right hon. Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) as an assignment with inflation, a warning which, I think, was justified by the events of that summer. Last year I called the present Chancellor's first Budget an assignment with deflation, and there can be no question that that was right. I suppose that this year's Budget will obviously be called an assignment with the General Election.
  This is not to say that the Chancellor is wrong to increase purchasing power by tax concessions and otherwise to stimulate industrial production. Of course, that is right. Our charge is that the Government deliberately and of set purpose held back industrial recovery last year to set the stage for this year's tax concessions. The Committee will recall that a year ago I said that this was clearly the strategy, and I named the master strategist behind the plan. It certainly was not the Chancellor, who, I said, would not be capable of such a thing. It was the Prime Minister.
  Today, I challenge the Chancellor, when he replies to the debate next week, to tell us this. If it is right today to encourage expansion, why was it wrong to
  208
  do that and why was it wrong to stimulate production a year ago? I ask him, in view of his review of the situation, to name one feature of our economic situation which is stronger today than it was then. Had he acted then, when I submit that it was already safe to do so, not only could we have expanded with a greater emphasis on the investment which is so vital to us, but we could have avoided the depression and unemployment which have developed.
  In our excitement about tax concessions I hope that we shall not forget that those concessions have been made possible at the expense of a quarter of a million additional unemployed and their families.
  The Chancellor was right, in the dismal circumstances he had allowed to develop, to give the economy a shot in the arm. What he has done is to give the wrong shot in the wrong arm.
  Perhaps it will be convenient to the Committee if, at this stage, I indicate briefly our main criticisms of the budgetary changes before discussing them later in detail. First, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said yesterday, the Chancellor should have concentrated his first reliefs on improving the position of the old-age pensioners, widows and others, and those living on National Assistance. If the country, for whatever reason, is more prosperous, it is the Government's duty and the duty of the House of Commons to make provision first for the under-privileged, not for those who are better off.
  Secondly, before handing out tax concessions the Chancellor ought to have repealed those provisions, mainly to his discredit, associated with the name of the Prime Minister, which were introduced when things were tough. Prime among them was that mean little imposition of the Prime Minister, when he was Chancellor, when he introduced the individual Health Service prescriptions charge on the old-age pensioner and the chronic sick. If we are now so prosperous, that should have been one of the first impositions to have been removed. If the Prime Minister were here I should ask him this. How does he defend now the maintenance of the individual prescriptions charge?
  Thirdly, since the professed aim of the Budget is to solve unemployment, and not

  209
  merely to win votes, the Chancellor should, as an immediate measure, have greatly stepped up the rate of social expenditure on highly desirable projects which were held up during the war and in the post-war recovery period and during the hard times of the Tory inflation. With slack in the economy, this was the year to build more hospitals, including mental hospitals. more up-to-date prison accommodation, teachers' training colleges, to carry out the clearing of derelict and blighted sites and to make more progress on water and sewerage schemes, as well as on roads.
  I suggest that it is also a year in which the Government should have restored the cuts in the local authority housing programme and to have provided financial help to do it. Aid from the Budget for 100,000 additional local authority houses at £ 22 10s. subsidy per house would have cost less than the beer concession.
  Fourthly, turning to Income Tax, what the Chancellor has done over his two Budgets is this. Last year, he increased direct taxation by increasing National Insurance contributions to the tune of £ 200 million a year by a poll tax, bearing most heavily on those with least incomes. This year the Chancellor hands out almost exactly that amount, £ 200 million. but on a very different basis. The basis he has proceeded upon is that the richer you are, the less your family responsibilities, the more you get, as I will show in greater detail in a moment.
  Fifthly, while the Chancellor was right to cut Purchase Tax, I suggest that he has done it in the least equitable way. The least essential items in the Purchase Tax schedules are cut, while essentials—clothing, furniture and all the kitchen items the Lord Privy Seal taxed in his 1955 autumn Budget—get virtually no relief. Moreover, I do not know if the Chancellor has thought about this in a Budget designed to help employment. Industrially, his Purchase Tax cuts help the most prosperous industries— motor cars, consumer durables, which are booming today—and do nothing for the clothing, textile, hollow-ware, furniture and other industries which are having a harder time.
  Therefore, the best commentary on the Chancellor's Budget has been provided by today's news, not only the lunchtime
  210
  editions of the newspapers showing a 5s. increase in brewery shares, but also on the front page of The Times, which contains two column-long advertisements, for motor cars, paid for by the Chancellor himself, both saying what a wonderful Budget, what a wonderful Government, what a wonderful time we are having, and advocating that the firms' customers should now take advantage of this increased prosperity to buy themselves a new Rolls-Royce. Both of those advertisements are for Rolls-Royce and Bentley vehicles.
  I will return to these fiscal matters later, but I should like now to turn to the present economic situation, and the Government's sudden and dramatic conversion to the need for industrial expansion. Time and time again we have warned right hon. Gentlemen opposite that their policies would lead to unemployment and industrial stagnation. As we told them eighteen months ago, in the speculators' crisis of September, 1957, they failed then to see that the world economic situation had changed from one of inflation to one of deflation, but they went on fighting inflation when that was no longer the problem.
  We are glad that the Chancellor, at long last, has agreed to restore the investment allowances which the Prime Minister scrapped in February, 1957, but it is now two years since we pressed the then Chancellor, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth to announce then that he would restore the investment allowances a year later to give industrialists a chance to plan ahead, and to take up the slack that it was then clear would develop in investment. The right hon. Gentleman refused.
  Last Budget, we pressed the present Chancellor on the same question, but lie was too cautious. As recently as last June, on the Finance Bill, we pressed the restoration of investment allowances to a Division, but the Chancellor told us that the country's economic position was not strong enough to afford investment allowances— and this at the end of a six-month period with a record balance-of-payments surplus. We were voted down by all the expansionists opposite, yet, within a few weeks, the right hon. Gentleman ended the credit squeeze, and, before long, after refusing to stimulate investment, he was

  211
  trying to boost consumption with a hire-purchase spree.
  However, the Chancellor and the Government now announce themselves as converts to the idea we have urged for four years—the need for industrial expansion. Indeed, the whole Treasury Bench have suddenly seen the light—expansionists, all of them. For mass conversions, there has been nothing like it since the Emperor of China baptised his whole army with a hosepipe. I was not there myself to see that occurrence, Sir Charles, but right hon. Gentlemen opposite remind me, as they sit there, so pious and virtuous about their belief in expansion, of the Damon Runyon scene in " Guys and Dolls ", with all the Broadway characters— Harry the Horse, Big Louis, Nicely-nicely Johnson, City Max and all the rest sitting at the Salvation Army meeting confessing their sins and promising to be good in future.
  Even that arch-restrictionist, the Prime Minister, who, in 1956, reversed the Lord Privy Seal's expansionist policies—I am sorry that we have not the pleasure of the attendance of either of them here this afternoon, although the Lord Privy Seal explained to me that he was going to another place, though not, I think, permanently—and who, in his next Budget, said that we could not afford to go full out and himself started this miserable record of stagnation, is converted to expansion. I see that, according to last week's Sunday Times, he is to fight the election on the twin pillars—peace abroad and expansion at home.
  I do not underestimate the power or virtue of repentance— even a death-bed repentance. As we all know, there are cases recorded of chronic alcoholics who, after years of over indulgence, suddenly decide to "go on the wagon," but it is a bit much when they then decide to fight a General Election on the virtues of total abstinence. Still, for what it is worth, and for as long as it lasts—and we all remember 1955, and the Lord Privy Seal—we have a Government at long last committed to expansion. And about time, too.
  Table 18 of the Economic Survey gives the Government's industrial production record in all its glory. Taking 1954 as 100, we have had these figures: 1955, 105; 1956, 106; 1957, 107; and 1958,
  212
  106, Two faltering steps forward, and one back. Indeed, had the Government not changed the basis of the figures in the middle of last year the results would have been still worse.
  I shall not weary the Committee today with international league tables. That is not necessary, because hon. Members on both sides know that these would only repeat the same dismal tale. Hon. Members themselves know the facts. In the convertibility debate on 28th January, I challenged 200 of them, sitting on the benches opposite, to tell me of a single country in the world other than Britain that had failed to increase its production since 1955. Not one of them could tell me the name of a single country that has done as badly as we have under this Government over these four years. To cheer them up, let me say that I have looked up the figures for Laos and Cambodia, and I think that in the latest abstract of Ethiopian statistics they may find the figure for which they are all looking. There is some little doubt about the accuracy of the figures.
  So we have had no increase in production since the last General Election. That is not, of course, what the Government promised the country in 1955. They fought that election on "United for Peace and Progress ". Had they been prophetic they would have called it, "United in Suez and Stagnation ". Of course, they were united. The Prime Minister told us they were united over Suez. I am only sorry that the Lord Privy Seal is not here to confirm it for us.
  This is what they said in that 1955 document:
  "…we must devote more of our resources to increasing productivity …First thought must go to investment in productive forms of capital—factory and farm buildings, plant and machinery, communications and power."
  They had a section called "An Expanding Economy ", which reads:
  "… continued full employment must mean not only everyone in a job, but everyone doing their job to the full. Only with a high output —high earnings economy can we maintain and improve our trading position."
  We recall the Government's 1955 promise on employment. The document had a section on Scotland which stated:
  "Each year since the Unionists—"
  and that, as you know, Sir Charles, is their alias north of the Border—
  "took office, the number of people at work in Scotland has grown and now stands at a record level."

  213
  Referring to Wales, it said:
  "Unemployment under the Conservative Government has touched the lowest levels ever recorded in Wales in time of peace."
  That was in 1955. Of course, they cannot ever have meant that stuff to be taken seriously. We can see that by looking at the section dealing with foreign affairs in which, referring to the Middle East, we read:
  "Our prestige throughout this area has been restored."
  It goes on:
  "Thus we have a better chance to continue helping the countries of the Middle East in their plans both for defence and for economic development, and also to work for reconciliation between the Arab States and Israel."
  It is all very funny, I know, but this was the fraudulent prospectus on which hon. Gentlemen opposite got back to power. They all individually told the same tale. I am sorry that the Prime Minister is not here, because I have his own election address before me— and they used to complain about "Keep Death off the Roads ". Apart from some most unfortunate references to foreign affairs in that address — the right hon. Gentleman was Foreign Secretary then, in those days a position which meant that he was in charge of the Foreign Office—he goes on, under the heading " The Future ":
  "As production rises, wages and earnings can rise, also. We have the means—the machines, the brains and the men. Let us use them, in a united effort for still higher standards of life."
  Of course, he was right. We did have the machines, the brains and the men. What we have lacked has been the Government.
  Since the Prime Minister faced the future in Bromley we have had four Chancellors— all dedicated, as he was, to expansion. Let us look at their records in industrial production as shown in the Economic Survey. In 1955, we had the Lord Privy Seal. I think that he genuinely believes in expansion, but, of course, his trouble was that under Tory freedom, without controls, expansion means inflation and a balance-of-payments crisis. However, under the Lord Privy Seal, the quarterly figures for 1955 went like this: first quarter, 103; second quarter, 104: third quarter, 106; and fourth quarter, 108.
  214
  Then the right hon. Gentleman went, and to adopt the eloquent words of the independent Conservative candidate for Norfolk, South-West, we exchanged a tame rabbit for a performing seal. Those are not my words. We got as Chancellor of the Exchequer the present Prime Minister, from the Foreign Office. Nineteen fifty-six should have been the year of great expansion, annus mirabilis, the year of the fiscal " supermac ". We remember all the many parts that he played in this House, Mac the Knife, Gladstone— I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is not here—and we remember the great captain-general beginning the year by marching the engineering employers to the top of the hill and marching them down again, ending it by inscribing on his battle honours the " Retreat from Trinidad " and the " Retreat from Suez ".
  With so colourful a Chancellor we could have expected action and certainly expansion. But what is his epitaph in the Survey of 1956? In the first quarter the figure was 106—two points below the parting shot of the previous Chancellor, the second quarter 106, the third quarter 105 and the fourth quarter 106—that was, of course, the plateau he had promised us.
  After that there was nothing for it but to make the right hon. Gentleman Prime Minister. Our other anxiety was that he would follow the precedent of the previous year and bring the Foreign Secretary to the Treasury. Fortunately, he did not do that. We got the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth. His record was: 1957, first quarter, 107, then a brave little spurt to 108 in the second and third quarters, falling back to 107 in the fourth quarter.
  I come to the present Chancellor. His record last year was: first quarter, 107; second quarter, 106; third quarter, 105; and fourth quarter, 107. Now, despite his repeated claims yesterday that the rate of production was increasing, it has fallen back in February of this year and is now two points below that for the same month of last year. So much for production.
  I now turn, as the Chancellor did, to the record of last year. I referred in the debate on the Gracious Speech to this new Tory legend, that having inherited, in January, 1957, from some person or persons unknown a formidable economic problem, their stern, tough, firm, resolute and unpopular policies had brought us

  215
  through to the promised land in 1958, with stable prices, a record balance of payments surplus, rising gold reserves and all the rest of it.
  Now let us turn to the actual record for 1958 with the lessons which it presents for this year. Gold reserves rose over the year by £ 284 million. For once this was not helped by any external aid whether from the United States, the International Monetary Fund or Dr. Adenaur. Indeed, the Chancellor has this year had to start to repay the money borrowed as the result of his predecessor's improvidence. The picture is a little spoilt, of course, by the admission in the Survey that during the last year there was a capital in-flow into the sterling area, mainly from the United States and the International Bank, of over £350 million, a fact which has most surprisingly escaped the eagle eyes of the Central Office statisticians.
  I must draw attention to one serious fact. In the eight months from September, 1957, to May, 1958, the reserves rose by £ 424 million. In the ten months since then they have risen by only £ 36 million. In that period, the Government have had the help, as we were reminded last week, of about 100 million dollars of United States capital flowing in for the purpose of financing take-over bids of British firms. This may be, as we all recognise, in the Trinidad tradition, but it shocked us when the Economic Secretary vehemently rejected the suggestion a few weeks ago that American take-overs of established British firms were undesirable. I think that the Committee will have noticed, too, that the sterling balances have been rising again.
  The balance of payments reached a record surplus on the current year's account of £455 million, although the figures show that of this £327 million was achieved in the first half of last year and only £128 million in the second half of last year. We have been warned, I think quite fairly, that we cannot expect the same favourable balance this year. How did this surplus come about?
  We know, according to hon. Gentlemen opposite, from reading some of their constituency speeches, that it is all due to the wonderful work of the Government in fighting inflation, " Mr. 7 per cent." and all that, although they do not mention him
  216
  so much. In fact, the improvement in our visible trade last year was £189 million, but the saving in imports due to the windfall reduction in import prices was £336 million, so in real terms there was not an improvement but a worsening of £127 million compared with the previous year.
  In January and February of this year, it is, perhaps, rather serious that exports were 3 per cent. down on last year. Although exports to the dollar area are very well maintained indeed and are increasing, we all know the anxiety of the Paymaster-General about exports to Western Europe, which we share. Exports to the sterling area in the first two months of this year were 15 per cent. down on the same period of last year.
  It was, of course, the fall in import prices also which reduced the increase in the cost of living to a bare 2 per cent., another subject which looms large in the constituency speeches of hon. Members opposite. I am sure that they will have noticed what the Economic Survey itself says about this, because it says, quite frankly and honestly, this:
  "Final prices did not on average rise much because of the fall in import prices during 1957, which was still working its way through the economy."
  We said last year that with that windfall assistance—this 10 per cent. or 11per cent. fall in import prices—the Government would have to be more than usually incompetent if they failed to bring prices down last year and, of course, they did fail. Indeed, the economic editor of the Observer has recently produced figures —I have not seen them challenged anywhere—showing that if we discount the effect of import prices, costs in this country last year rose just as much as in the years of inflation due to the paralysing effect on productivity of industrial stagnation. I do not need to tell the Committee that over last year rents rose by 18 per cent. So much for the Government's claim that they have got inflation out of the system and can now afford to be generous. The truth is that the Budget hand-out is a bonus issue following a windfall gain.
  In any review of last year, the most serious fact in the 1958 economic record was the growth of unemployment. This has been fully debated and I would not add to what has been said, except for the need, perhaps, to convince the Minister of Labour that whereas on that side of

  217
  the Committee a debating triumph may be enough to cover over a very serious unemployment position, the same is not true in the country and especially in the areas of high unemployment.
  What, of course, we had in March was a more than seasonal recovery from a more than seasonal increase two months earlier. Unemployment was, in fact, very much more than the Minister of Labour forecast last year. The Lord Privy Seal, in his recent helpful television appearance, told is that the Minister of Labour
  "has been pretty correct in forecasting what the unemployment figures would be ".
  But in preparing the estimates for the financial year 1958-59 the Minister of Labour forecast an average figure for unemployment t of 350,000. In the event, it averaged almost exactly 500,000; in other words, he underestimated the figure by about 150,000. It is very revealing that the Minister has estimated the average unemployment figure for the financial year up to March, 1960, as 500,000 over the year. When he made this estimate there was no improvement expected over the year ahead.
  As the Committee knows, the registered figures do not tell us anything like the whole story. They exclude unemployed dockers and those on a guaranteed week. They exclude school-leavers who fail to find work and return to school. They grossly fail to measure the excessive degree of under-employment. Above all, they exclude the very large number of older workers, disabled workers, and married women who have lost their jobs and who, as the Economic Survey so delicately puts it,
  "decided not to seek further employment."
  The figures in the Economic Survey suggest that those who have, as it is put, decided not to seek further employment —they so decided because they could not get it— account for at least another 150,000.
  Again, all the Minister of Labour's artistry does not conceal the great growth in long-term unemployment, that is to say, the number of those unemployed for eight weeks or longer. This is where the greatest hardship is felt. I am surprised that the Chancellor did nothing for them yesterday. After all, he bases so much of his concessions on what the unemployed are doing for him; he might have done a little for them. In March—the figures
  218
  were published this week—there were 286,000 people unemployed for more than eight weeks, some for much longer than that. This is over 100,000 more than the figure for March last year and approaching three-and-a-half times the figure of 81,000 recorded in October, 1951.
  Although the Government have a heavy responsibility for the growth of unemployment, I do not, quite frankly, believe, at any rate so near an election, that they want to see the present high figure of over 500,000 continue. The trouble is that they will the end but their ideology prevents them from willing the means. Some right hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to think that it is enough to tell us how grim unemployment was under Tory Governments before the war. We have always the Prime Minister to tell us about the troubles of Stockton when he was its Member of Parliament, as though that provided a guarantee for the future. It has not done so at all, of course.
  The latest figures for unemployment in Stockton show a total of 2,000, against over 800 in 1951. The Lord Privy Seal—I am sorry he is not here—is the latest to use this argument. Recently, on television, he said that he remembered being Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour in the 'thirties and going round the employment exchanges—on the right side of the counter, of course—and, he said, "I do not wish to repeat that experience."
  As the right hon. Gentleman said, he was at the Ministry of Labour for a few months, from May, 1937, until February, 1938. During those nine months, the unemployment figures rose from 1½ million to nearly 1,900,000, an increase of 400,000. Frankly, I do not follow the argument advanced by both the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary, that the worse one's previous criminal record is, the more likely is one to be trusted to go straight in the future.
  I understand that the Minister of Labour will be intervening in the debate during the next day or two, and I wish to put this argument to him. This year, with 200,000 more registered unemployed and at least an equal number of additional unregistered unemployed, ought to have enabled us to test the Tory theory which we have heard so often, that a little unemployment helps us to redeploy the labour force more effectively. We had the unemployed last year. Accordingly, we

  219
  would expect to see, according to the Tory argument, more people in the right kind of jobs.
  Let us look at the figures in the Survey. Our redeployment went like this. There were 200,000 more added to the dole queues. I have mentioned that already. There were 22,000 fewer in coal. There were 242,000 fewer in the manufacturing industries, and of these there were 122,000 fewer in the vital engineering and metals sector. There were 9,000 fewer in national government. I suppose the Government are pleased about that. There were 12,000 more in local government. There were 43,000 more in that group known as professional, financial and miscellaneous services—mainly, of course, miscellaneous.
  When hon. Members opposite were on these benches, they used to say, "Cut the Civil Service, and there will be more workers for productive industry ". Since 1955, the Government have cut the Civil Service by 33,000, but the numbers in manufacturing industry have not risen. They have fallen by 271.000 since 1955, while the numbers in distribution have risen by 96,000, and those in professional, financial and miscellaneous services have risen by 119,000. Do hon. Gentlemen opposite really think that they are solving our industrial problem by taking people out of productive work and employing them in advertising, trade associations, dividend stripping and all the other ancillary trades which flourish under Tory freedom?
  I could summarise the main results of the past year in financial terms, taking all the figures from Government publications. Wage rates last year rose by 3½ per cent. Wage earnings rose by 2½ per cent. Profits fell by 5 per cent. Dividends rose by 6½ per cent., dividends after tax rising still more. Rents rose by 18 per cent. Equity share values rose by 33 per cent., and that was the figure before this morning's Stock Exchange activity. In other words, earnings are up by 6d. in the £, dividends are up by 1s. 4d. in the £, rents are up by 3s. 7d. in the £, and equity shares are up by 6s. 6d. in the £. No wonder the Chancellor called it a golden year.
  I would summarise the year, on the Government's own record, rather differently. Nineteen fifty-eight, I suggest, was a bad year for old-age pensioners and others living on small fixed incomes. It
  220
  was a bad year for industrial workers, especially for those vulnerable to unemployment and short-time working. In many areas, it was a bad year for new school-leavers. It was a bad year for tenants of privately-owned property and, to a less extent, for tenants of council houses. It was a bad year for those engaged in the production of steel, coal, basic materials and machine tools as well as textiles. [Interruption.] It was a good year for some. It was a good year for commercial television, for the advertising profession, not to mention the market surveyors, genuine and bogus. It was a good year for hire-purchase companies, for landlords and property companies. It was a good year for the joint stock banks and for the discount market. It was a good year for dealers in options and other speculative transactions on the Stock Exchange. It was a good year for owners of equity shares and, as we have now heard, it was a good year for the dividend strippers and for the bond washers. For this group of contributors to our national wealth and welfare, the Prime Minister's claim was right. They have never had it so good.
  I come now to the Chancellor's fiscal proposals. First, there are two things which he has not done. He ought to have taken the opportunity this year, with the surplus he disposed of yesterday, to abolish once and for all the Entertainments Duty on cinemas. It yields a sharply falling revenue, and it is now quite clear that the profit is not in the cinemas; the profit is gained now by the operators of commercial television. Secondly, if he had this money to give away, it would have been right sharply to reduce the tax on diesel oils for road passenger transport. I think that the effect on fares and the cost of living generally would have been far more striking than the effect of some of the things which he did do.
  Turning to the Chancellor's detailed tax proposals, I will begin, as he did, with further action to deal with dividend stripping and bond washing. It seems a long time since 1955 when the then Financial Secretary, now the Minister of Housing and Local Government, promised us, during the debate on the Finance Bill in that year,
  "to exterminate the small but ingenious tribe of dividend strippers."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th November, 1955; Vol. 545. c. 1664.]

  221
  We warned him then, and we warned the Chancellor last year, that the Government's proposals were not adequate, and we told him how to deal with this problem. But. year by year, these antisocial gentry have been finding a way of making rings round the Government.
  In our view, the time is long overdue for effective general powers to be taken to deal with these tax avoidance devices. As regards bond washing also, when I referred, in 1956, to the new practices which had developed, the then Chancellor, who is now the Prime Minister, told us that the matter would be dealt with. We are wondering how many more millions have escaped through the tax net as the result of the failure of the Government to deal with these tax avoidance devices.
  As for the Chancellor's proposals for vehicle licence duties, hydrocarbon oils, Estate Duty on life policies, marine insurance, and so forth, I think that the various questions can be safetly left until we see the actual proposals in the Finance Bill. I should warn the Chancellor that we shall wish to scrutinise very carefully, when we see the Bill, his proposal about the remuneration of directors of director-controlled companies, because he told us yesterday that this relatively small group of people would find its situation improve to the tune of, I think he said, £3 million of revenue a year. We shall certainly wish to scrutinise exactly what he proposes to do.
  I come now to Purchase Tax. I have explained why we think that the Chancellor has tackled this tax in the wrong way. He should not have set out to compress the rates more closely together. Obviously, somewhere in the Board of Customs and Excise, the old sales tax notion still smoulders. if the Chancellor wanted to bring down the cost of living, as he said he did, above all if he wanted to do something for less well-off families — after all, he is doing something for the " Top People " in his Income Tax proposals— he ought to have concentrated, I suggest, on reducing or removing the tax on essentials, especially clothing, furniture, footwear, bedding, wallpaper. cutlery, pots and pans, and kitchenware.
  There are still many items in the Schedule bearing tax which were tax-free at the time of the last General Election
  222
  but which were brought under the heading of taxation by the Lord Privy Seal in the autumn Budget he introduced to pay for his election Budget of that year. The Chancellor should have cut the 5 per cent. rate to 2½ per cent. if he had not abolished it altogether. Perhaps he can tell us what that would have cost. He should have removed from the 15 and 30 per cent. rate those items which must genuinely be regarded as essential.
  As I shall show in a moment, the Income Tax changes are highly regressive. That provides all the more reason for applying Purchase Tax in a way that would give the most relief to people who do not pay Income Tax and, therefore, gain nothing from Income Tax relief. The Purchase Tax changes favour the heavy spender against the man with less to spend. And as I said earlier, I hope that the Chancellor will look at this question, also. He has relieved the industries which are suffering least from unemployment and provided less help for those industries where unemployment is greatest.
  I want to ask the Chancellor another question. Will all these Purchase Tax concessions be passed on to the public? Last year many of them were not. Many of them were swallowed by manufacturers and we can produce evidence about that. The Economic Secretary can shake his head, but we can produce letters by manufacturers to retailers showing they had taken over the whole of the tax concession. A smaller number were absorbed by retailers. I doubt whether that will happen to a large extent. The Chancellor has seen to it that the brewers do not absorb the tax and I hope, therefore, that he will take stiff measures to see that that happens in a rather wider range of industry.
  I now come to beer and black beer. This will be popular, and no doubt we can see the Churchillian inspiration "an open hand at the Treasury, an open door at the public house ", as he said in 1908. Does the Chancellor not think that even the most confirmed imbiber would have been glad to forgo the remission if he could feel that more was being done for old-age pensioners? There would have been just as many toasts drunk to his health in public houses last night if he had.

  223
  The Chancellor should not jump to the conclusion that his revenue will be fortified — the fall in beer consumption is due much more to changes in social habits, chiefly television. Whether the revenue is fortified or not, how will this beer remission help unemployment? Is unemployment heavy in the brewing trade? We had not heard that that was so. I suppose the idea is that if a man drinks a couple of pints of beer regularly he will save 4d. and spend that on something else which the Chancellor hopes will not be beer. How will the revenue be fortified if he does not increase his beer consumption? Does the Chancellor feel that more will be spent on4other things? This is really Boyle's law in reverse. Perhaps the Lord Privy Seal will explain that later.
  I cannot help feeling the Chancellor did not work it out in this way at all. I think that he first decided how much he could give away and then decided on this for reasons which were not exclusively economic. In fact, I do not think that this was the Chancellor's idea at all. I feel that the inspiration came from the Prime Minister. It is all part of his rather condescending "masters and men " approach to life. The masters are getting some hundreds a year off Income Tax concessions— let us give the men 2d. off a pint.
  I have seen a calculation this morning which suggests that if the men, by their beer consumption, are to get as much out of this Budget as the masters are to get out of Income Tax, they will have to raise their consumption of beer to 11 gallons, that is, 88 pints a day, figures which will cause even Mr. " Andy Capp " to quail and will involve liquidity ratios which will be in excess of what the Chancellor has in mind. Three years ago the Prime Minister, in his thirst for economy, put up the price of school milk. He cut the supply of welfare milk. This is a fine record for the Government— milk up and beer down.
  I turn now to Income Tax. One of the big Tory myths—and it is surprising how many people believe this one—is that over the past six years they have greatly reduced the burden of direct taxation on lower and middle income groups. What they have done has been whittled away by inflation except for the richer taxpayer. Higher prices have meant higher
  224
  wages and salaries and this has brought the individual taxpayer into a higher band of tax.
  It was interesting to see some rather revealing figures in the Sunday Times. Take a man earning £750 in 1952. He was then paying 5.8 per cent. of his earnings in tax. To have the equivalent income today he would have to earn £ 922, and at today's rates of tax he would be paying not 5.8 per cent. but 7.1 per cent. of his income in tax. He is, therefore, paying a higher rate of tax than in 1952. Similarly, a man earning £ 1,000 in 1952 needs £ 1,230 today and whereas he would have been paying 112 per cent. of his income he will now pay 12.7 per cent. But the £ 5,000 a year man, now getting £ 6,150, pays 41.5 per cent. against 48.3 per cent. in 1952, and he is more likely to get income ex-tax in the way of "perks " of various kinds.
  Those figures were taken from the Sunday Times and not from the Daily Herald. While the intention was to reduce the burden of taxation on the smaller and middle income groups, it is quite obvious that those in the higher income groups have gained considerably.
  The Chancellor's new proposals do not wipe out this inequity. The lower-paid taxpayer gets very little out of it. Let us take an average family— a man, wife, and, let us say, two children under 11. The man earning less than £ 700 a year gains nothing from this Budget. The man earning £ 700 a year, nearly £ 14 a week, saves in tax 2s. 3d. a year, or ½d. a week. The man earning £ 800 a year, or £ 16 a week, saves £ 2 11s. a year, that is, about 10d. a week. The man earning £ 1,000 a year— and, as the Chancellor knows, there are very many families whose incomes are a very long way below that —or £20 a week, saves £5 19s. a year, that is, about 2s. a week, and perhaps that is the young technician we want to dissuade from emigrating. When one gets to £ 1,500 a year, or £ 30 a week, he saves 4s. 4d. a week. The man earning £ 5,000 a year saves £ 125 per annum or nearly £ 2 10s. a week. A man earning £ 10,000 saves £ 292 a year, or over £ 5 10s. a week. Finally, a single man earning £ 10,000 a year, and living on investment income, gets £ 362 a year, or over a week.
  If the Chancellor wanted to reduce Income Tax by £ 200 million a year, he should have done much more by way of

  225
  personal and child allowances and by increasing the earned income allowance. Any reduction in the standard rate should have been compensated to ensure that those on unearned income and the richest Surtax payers did not, as under the Chancellor's proposals, scoop the pool.
  I have referred to investment allowances. We welcome the Chancellor's belated reversal of the Prime Minister's action of three years ago, but he would he well, if he cannot introduce discrimination in the investment allowances— the proposal, I am sure, he considered— in favour of more essential as against less essential industries, to have reserve powers of building licensing to see that inessential investment does not once again get out of hand, as it did in 1955, forcing restrictions all round.
  Before leaving taxation, I would once again say this. The Chancellor has missed a great opportunity to increase both the fairness and the yield of our tax system by making a determined drive on all the manifold forms of tax avoidance—" perks ", untaxed capital gains, tax-free compensation for loss of office, of which there have been one or two striking instances recently, the tax loss racket, and the rest.
  A year ago, in the Budget debate, I said:
  "a socially just Budget means widening the tax base by bringing all, or nearly all, forms of spendable income within the revenue net."
  That sentence, twisted and out of context, has been a staple of Tory propaganda ever since. I invite the noble Lord, Lord Hailsham, to bring a meed of unaccustomed honesty into his party's propaganda by quoting the next sentence:
  "The wider the base, the less high the tax rates need to be. This means dealing with capital gains, as we propose. It means a determined legislative drive against all the manifold forms of legal tax avoidance." — [OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 185-6.]
  On post-war credits, I will just say that we welcome what the Chancellor has done. My right hon. Friend, four years ago, pledged this party, had we become the Government, to reduce the age of repayment by one year every year. Had that been done we should now be down to the 60-year-olds by this time. However, we very much welcome the Chancellor's acceptance of what we have long urged on him, that he should do something about the hardship cases.
  226
  [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite can look in the columns of HANSARD and see that week by week —almost day by day— I have put this point. I have written to the Chancellor about this. We have, all of us on this side, pressed him on this question, but we were told that the Treasury said that it was utterly impossible to do it. We will not argue about whether the Treasury said that or not, and we are very glad that the Chancellor has found it possible to do this. We recognise the possibility of anomalies, but, nevertheless, we are glad he has taken the chance.
  This Budget does relatively little, apart from the beer tax and a little bit about Purchase Tax, for the majority of families in this country. I have referred to the old-age pensioners. What about families with children? Of the 1,900,000 families with two children over half pay more in National Insurance than in laconic Tax. As I have said, it was the Chancellor who raised their taxation last year by increasing National Insurance contributions and he has done nothing for them this year. Of the 500,000 families with four children 90 per cent. pay more in National Insurance than in Income Tax. About 5¼ million children, or about 44 per cent. of all the children, are in families who pay no Income Tax at all, and they have not been helped by the Chancellor's Budget, except in so far as father is able to get his beer a bit cheaper.
  We welcome, as I have said, the Chancellor's decision to support expansion, but looking further ahead, can the Government be confident of continued expansion without a new balance of payments crisis? Because the more they concentrate that expansion on consumption rather than investment the greater the threat, sooner or later, to our balance of payments, because of the pull of the home market, which both holds back our exports and increases our imports.
  The National Institute for Economic and Social Research, in its most valuable survey of economic prospects, has drawn attention to the way that imports are rising more than proportionately to our national income. The additional imports we are getting year by year are not the industrial raw materials we need to expand output. They are, of course, partly food, partly petrol, but they are also

  227
  finished manufactures which are replacing our home manufactures. If we look at the figures since 1954 we see that our imports have risen from £ 40 million to £ 50 million a year more than would be justified by changes in industrial production. Looking at these excess imports since 1954 we see we are now importing 80 million less of industrial materials but £ 87 million more of finished goods, most of which we ought to be making in this country. In that fact lies a critical threat to our future, and the Government, so far from taking measures to deal with it, are talking irresponsibly of liberalising more dollar imports.
  That is why we must, in all honesty, question the sincerity of the Government's new-found faith in expansion. Is it genuine expansion, or just a process of taking up excessive slack'? The 1954 to 1955 boom and the years of crisis which followed are sufficient justification for saying that under Tory freedom expansion is followed as night follows day by inflation internally and by external crisis. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen opposite can still find satisfaction about the problems that this country was facing in the couple of years after the war, and cannot defend their record, when world prices were falling and their own policies led to inflation, it really is time that they started to think again.
  We welcome the decision at long last to aim at expanding industrial production, but we warn the Government that they will fail, as they failed before, unless there are built-in controls to prevent excesses of production of inessential goods and of inessential investment and directed to meeting the over-advertised demands of the home market. Expansion without inflation is possible only on two conditions, first, that excesses can be curbed, and, secondly, that a policy of social justice is reintroduced to make possible the appeal for reasonable restraint in personal incomes that all parties know to be necessary. These gains, the concessions offered by the Chancellor yesterday, can be guaranteed, they can be made permanent— I hope they will be redirected— only if we have a Government determined to pursue the policies which are necessary for expansion without inflation.
  In conclusion, this Budget is almost certainly the last Budget of this Parlia-
  228
  ment. Soon the electorate will be called upon to judge the record of this Government, re-elected in 1955 with such high-sounding promises— as events have proved, fraudulent ones. [HON. MEMBERS: "0h."] We have had four major foreign exchange crises. Year by year we have been forced to record the miserable achievements of four successive Chancellors. Let me end by summarising the record of four years of Tory Government, in uniquely favourable world economic conditions; not the conditions as they were when we formed the Government in four or five years after the war, but at a time from ten to fourteen years after the end of the war.
  In trade and industry in four years we have seen industrial production showing no rise; exports up 3 per cent., less than 1 per cent. per annum, and now falling; unemployment doubled. The gold reserves in the four years, it is true, have increased by £ 160 million, but the emergency borrowing in the Suez crisis and in 1957, the sale of national assets such as Trinidad oil, the extraordinary aid from Germany and elsewhere, have been almost £ 600 million, to say nothing of the £ 350 million of United States and International Bank lending to the sterling area last year. Even so, our reserves today, even making no allowance for the emergency aid, are still a long way below the 1951 level. And the record in terms of incomes? Wages have risen by 20 per cent. though eroded by increased National Insurance payments, while dividends have risen by 26 per cent., dividends after tax much more. Rents have risen by 39 per cent.
  Most serious of all, year by year we have been falling behind in the remorseless world economic struggle. In production, we have for four years lagged behind almost every other major industrial country. Our prices have risen faster, our exports year by year have failed to expand. In exports of manufactured goods we fell last year to third place, behind the United States and Germany. We have seen Japan and Germany, both without a shipyard to their name eight years ago, surpass our stagnant shipbuilding output. In both the pace and the direction of our industrial advance we have been tragically left standing by the Soviet Union. [Laughter] These figures give no cause for laughter.

  229
  We are losing ground year by year to other nations. Before long we shall, on present trends, be outstripped by China. I ask hon. Members who find this very amusing what it will mean when those countries, especially Russia and China, begin to compete in our traditional markets for manufactured goods. The truth is that while Germany and Japan have been concentrating on the hard core industries, engineering and the instruments of production—
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: With forced labour in East Germany.
  Mr. Wilson: I meant West Germany: West Germany and Japan have concentrated on the hard core industries, engineering and the instruments of production, while we have been producing soft centre economy based on advertising and domestic consumer standards and on a consumption boom at the expense of investment.
  I say to the Chancellor and his pathetic trio of predecessors, only one of whom is here this afternoon, that if we had devoted only one-half of the windfall we received after 1952 from improved terms of trade to strengthening investment, if we had devoted the same proportion of our increased production to investment as we devoted in the vastly more difficult years after the war, we should today be competing proudly and on equal terms with both Germany and Russia in our productive investment and by this time we should have been able to afford an annual increase of real wages of 4 to 5 per cent. without danger of inflation.
  Two years ago the Prime Minister, on assuming his present high office, promised to make Great Britain great once more. After all these years he is now venturing on to the world stage. He has our good wishes. We all sympathise with him in his uncomfortable postures of flexible rigidity and in his efforts to escape from the veto which for years it has been Tory policy to give to Dr. Adenauer.
  If the Prime Minister were here I should say to him that in a wider sense greatness will not come from diplomacy alone. Economic strength is the basis of greatness in the modern world. We have abdicated our position under his Government through losing our sense of economic purpose. I agree with what the Prime Minister said in his election
  230
  address. We have in this country the brains, the machines and the men; properly mobilised, they are without equal in the world, as we have shown in our finest hours in war and in post-war economic recovery.
  The one hopeful feature of this year is that at last we have the long-delayed chance of giving the country once again a leadership and a sense of purpose worthy of our people.
  4.45 p.m.
  The Paymaster-General (Mr. Reginald Maudlng): I think we all realise that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) had a very difficult task today. He had to deal with a Budget which has been generally recognised as being entirely sound in economic terms and which is also widely popular. I therefore understand why he devoted the minimum possible proportion of his speech to the Budget proposals. That was perhaps a little unusual in the circumstances, but I think that it was certainly wise.
  Throughout his speech I thought that he was. for him, unusually cautious. I detected one or two notes of acidity, no doubt arising from mixing cheap bitter and sour grapes. Apart from that he was a little piano. Those of us who have listened to many of his speeches have noticed two fairly persistent features in them. In the first place, he is always very amusing. In the second place, he almost always contradicts himself between the beginning and the end. I think he so enjoys his own performance that he does not notice that the two horses he is riding are gradually getting further and further apart. This was no exception.
  Mr. Simon Mahon: Get on to the Budget.
  Mr. Mandling: If I am not yet dealing with the Budget it is because I am following the right hon. Member for Huyton. On this occasion, as so often before, the right hon. Gentleman started by endeavouring to show that the balance of payments position is far weaker than it looks and continued by arguing for steps which would be justified only if it were several times stronger than it is. If that is not inconsistency, I do not know what is.
  The right hon. Gentleman made several references to 1958, but I cannot accept his interpretation of what happened in

  231
  that year. In 1958 we had a record surplus on our balance of payments, we had a great improvement in the reserves, and, what is more, we had a very substantial improvement in the monetary situation and a very great strengthening in the £ sterling. At home we had record levels of consumption, we continued a record level of fixed investment, far higher than was ever achieved under his Government, we maintained a high level of savings, particularly of national savings, and there was virtual stability of prices. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman referred to any of those things very much.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred a great deal, of course, to production and unemployment. It is true that during the year unemployment increased. Now, as he is glad to see, just as we are, it is decreasing. In his league tables the right hon. Gentleman omitted to refer to one international league table which is very important. He should compare the level of unemployment in the United Kingdom with that in Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden, the United States, Belgium and Denmark. for example.
  Mr. H. Wilson: We have had that before.
  Mr. Maudling: I know that we have had it before from the Minister of Labour, but the right hon. Member for Huyton has obviously forgotten the facts. When he is quoting these league tables he might take account of some which are significantly in support of the Government's policy, although that is perhaps asking too much of him. He referred once again to his famous league table about production, and I was only quoting that about unemployment, which is equally significant.
  The right hon. Gentleman repeated one point which the Leader of the Opposition made yesterday about the balance of payments surplus. He said that we could account for the whole balance of payments surplus, or most of it, by the fall in import prices, and he argued that the Government's policy therefore had no effect on the matter. That is a simple fallacy. It is one thing to have an opportunity and it is another thing to make use of it. Had it not been for the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorney-
  232
  croft), and had we followed the policy advocated by the Labour Party, we should have had a year of reduced import prices without any strengthening in our balance of payments or our reserve position.
  Turning to the Budget, with the right hon. Gentleman's permission. I think there are two main ways in which the Budget proposals can be criticised. The first is in the total of the tax reliefs. I use the word " reliefs " because neither the word " concession's " nor the phrase used by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday of " giving away money " is, I think, appropriate to the reduction of taxation. The first question is whether the total of the tax reliefs or reductions is too much or too little. The second possible ground for criticism is whether the distribution of these reliefs is right. Finally, it may be argued, at it was argued this afternoon by the right hon. Gentleman, that what we have done may be right but that we should have done it a long time ago. I will deal with all those points in the course of my remarks.
  Clearly, my right hon. Friend's duty was to reduce taxation as far as he possibly could without creating a renewed threat to the stability of prices or to the balance of payments. The question therefore to be asked is whether my right hon. Friend went as far as a bold policy would dictate, or, on the other hand, whether he went further than prudence would advise. Did he do too much or did he do too little? I was speculating as to which of these alternatives the right hon. Member for Huyton would choose, and, as I rather thought, he compromised as usual by choosing both of them.
  To deal first with the criticism that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor may not have gone far enough, it is important to look at the sum of all that my right hon. Friend is doing. The total tax reliefs and repayments of post-war credits amount to over £ 360 million. The effect of this on the economy will probably be somewhat greater than the actual figure because of the effect of the multiplier. When we add to that the psychological effect on business confidence, the continuing effects of the removal of restraints on credit and the substantial increase in public investment expenditure, all these things together obviously will be a very powerful stimulus indeed to the economy. I do

  233
  not think anyone could seriously argue that the measures proposed by my right hon. Friend are inadequate for their purpose.
  What of the second alternative? Can it be argued that my right hon. Friend has gone too far? The answer to this, too, is clearly No ". There is a great deal of spare capacity in the economy, as is often argued on both sides of the Committee. It cannot be used 100 per cent., as is sometimes suggested, without running back into problems of inflation. There is, however, a great deal of spare capacity available.
  The balance of payments is strong and the direct effect of these measures on the import bill should not be more than in the neighbourhood of £60 to £70 million. Moreover, it is clearly our duty to try to promote expansion of trade on a worldwide basis. It is not only our duty in the immediate present, but it is also in our long-term interest in the future. This was well put by the National Institute in the survey which it recently published, when it said that
  "only if Britain and other industrial countries pursue expansion and face the risk of some deterioration in their foreign payments can world trade he expected to revive."
  My right hon. Friend is fully justified in going as far as he has done in the interest not only of this country's economy but of the general re-expansion in world trade, and no one could seriously argue that he should have gone further. In other words, in the words of the advertisement,
  "Not too little, not too much, but just right"
  I gather from the right hon. Member for Huyton that that is his view, too.
  From that conclusion certain interesting facts follow. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that my right hon. Friend has made enough in the way of total tax reductions, he can hardly suggest great further tax reductions unless he is opposing some of the proposals that were made yesterday. So far I have seen little tendency on the part of the Opposition to wish to oppose, either by voice or by vote, the proposals that my right hon. Friend has made.
  Looking at the composition of the Budget reliefs, have they held the right balance between investment and consumption? In the past, the right hon. Member for Huyton has talked often
  234
  about a consumers' spree. I do not quite know what is meant by that expression. It seems to me to be a particularly silly phrase in these circumstances. It seems to me to be a description of leaving more money in the pockets of the public to spend as they wish, which surely is a right object for any Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I have used the phrase throughout over the past year as referring to the Government's hire-purchase de-restriction at a time when they refused to help investment. It was an extremely dangerous thing to expand consumption before we could expand investment. It is certainly not the way to fight inflation, which the Government were claiming to do, to buy this year's goods from next year's income.
  Mr. Maudling: I gather from that that the right hon. Gentleman fully approves of what is being done in the Budget, because alongside expansion of consumption there is considerable stimulus to investment. In fact, the balance has been very well held.
  First, my right hon. Friend has expanded general demand. Without an expansion of general consumer demand there will be no expansion in investment. Investment will only take place if it is profitable and if the products will be sold. In addition, by reducing Income Tax my right hon. Friend has both increased the reserves available to companies and increased the net profitability of any new investment. Also, by the investment allowance he has made a direct contribution to the stimulation of investment in the economy in the coming year. Thus the balance between consumption and investment has been fairly held.
  What of the criticisms which have been made, rather briefly, by the right hon. Gentleman of the individual tax proposals? First, Income Tax. The right hon. Gentleman seems to me to be following the precedent of the Leader of the Opposition in 1955 when he argued, rather strangely, that the reduction in the standard rate was designed entirely for political popularity and yet affected only a very small number of people. This always seems to me a rather contradictory argument. It is perfectly true that a reduction in the standard rate brings a greater direct benefit to the person who pays more taxation— that is inevitable

  235
  and mathematical, and it will apply to any reduction in the standard rate in future. If, however, the Labour Party does not consider it appropriate this year, in these circumstances, to reduce the standard rate of tax, when will they regard it as appropriate to do so? In fact, we can take it quite clearly from the attitude adopted by the party opposite and from the enormous additional expenditure to which it is committed by its party policies that prospects of any future reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax, should hon. Members opposite unfortunately return to power, are very dim indeed.
  I turn next to Purchase Tax. The effects of the Purchase Tax changes have tended to be minimised because people have overlooked the fact that they will cost this year £59 million and in a full year £81½ million. All this additional purchasing power will be available in the pockets of the public as a result of these cuts.
  Mr. G. Lindgren: Not everyone buys a motor car or a television set.
  Mr. Maudling: Not everyone, but a large number of people are buying them. In fact, under this Government the increase in the number of television sets has been quite astronomical.
  The point I was making was that the reduction in Purchase Tax, although in terms of the rates it may appear moderate, in terms of the total amount remitted to the consumer is very large indeed. There is, of course, a great difference of view on both sides of the Committee on the basic form that the Purchase Tax should take. I can only say that we on this side hold the view that as an indirect tax of this character is bound to be with us for a long while and as it is bound to be looked upon as a revenue raiser, we should aim to make it a tax at moderate rates spread over a wide field. This was the purpose which my right hon. Friend had last year and one which is continued in this year's Budget proposals.
  Mr. Gerald Nabarro: It is a little difficult to put into correct perspective what my right hon. Friend has said about Purchase Tax without the key figure. What sum does my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer propose to raise this year in Purchase Tax compared with the figure the year
  236
  before last, when he budgeted for £494 million, and last year, when he budgeted for £491 million but raised a good deal more? What is the figure budgeted for in the forthcoming year, having regard to the changes announced by the Chancellor yesterday?
  Mr. Maudling: The figure is £ 59 million less than it would have been on the basis of existing rates of taxation. The figure is, I think, given in the Treasury White Paper, but I am not sure whether generally or individually.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: I can tell the right hon. Gentleman the figure. It is £471 million.
  Mr. Maudlin: The right hon. Gentleman is always accurate if not invariably penetrating in his remarks.
  I come to the question of beer and the 2d. reduction which my right hon. Friend has brought into effect. My right hon. Friend is quite confident that the effect of the 2d. reduction will be passed on in this case to the consumer. Reference was made yesterday by one or two hon. Members to recent increases of 1d. a pint by some brewers. I understand that the Brewer's Society is passing a strong recommendation to its members that the reduction to be made now should take into account not only the 2d. but also any increase made since 1st January this year. So where some beers went up by 1d. recently it is likely that they will now fall by 3d.
  What are the main reasons why my right hon. Friend chose to reduce the Beer Duty? It is sometimes suggested by hon. Members opposite that this was an electoral idea. I think that reveals a very old-fashioned view of the considerations on which the modern electorate makes its decisions. [Interruption.] If that is the right hon. Gentleman's idea of political tactics, I am not surprised that Mr. Morgan Phillips is trying to escape to the House of Commons.
  The reasons for choosing the Beer Duty are both technical and general. There are two good technical reasons. First, the need to preserve the revenue, where the revenue from the product was falling, and secondly, the import content of beer, unlike petrol or tobacco, is very small. The general reasons are that more than one-half of the adult population consumes

  237
  beer and the benefits will, therefore, he widely spread. The tax, until yesterday, on this product on a basis comparable to Purchase Tax works out at about 150 per cent. on the wholesale value. Considering that beer can hardly be described as a luxury, a rate of Purchase Tax equivalent to 150 per cent. of the wholesale value on a product widely consumed by more than one-half of the adult population is a reasonable candidate for reduction in a year when reductions are possible.
  I now come to post-war credits. I think that my right hon. Friend's proposals have been well accepted. I noticed the Leader of the Opposition proposed that we should add another £ 50 million to the bill by repaying not two years but five years of post-war credits. I can see the reason for that. I know that the party opposite, who cherish the illusion that they may he in power next year, would like to see non-recurring reliefs taken a good deal further. I am sure that they would rather start their term with Income Tax at 8s. 6d. than 7s. 9d. On the subject of post-war credits, my right hon. Friend has asked me to say that the Bill making these payments effective will be presented tomorrow. That will inhibit discussion in the Budget debate on the proposals, but I understand that the Second Reading will be taken next week immediately after the conclusion of this debate, so there will be plenty of scope on that occasion for discussion of postwar credit releases.
  I have dealt with the criticisms advanced by the right hon. Gentleman—
  Mr. Jay: As the right hon. Gentleman says that we cannot discuss the proposals tomorrow, where post-war credits are allowed to people who have been receiving National Assistance for twelve weeks can we be assured that they will not be regarded by the National Assistance Board as a ground for reducing National Assistance? I assume that that is so, but the Chancellor did not say so.
  Mr. Maudling: My right hon. Friend assures me that that is so.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Is it wise to take out from discussion in the middle of the main Budget debate an item which fits into the whole picture?
  238
  We shall be very inhibited in the debate if we cannot refer to a big relief of taxation which fits into the whole social pattern and which we may want to attack and hon. Members opposite to defend.
  Mr. Maudling: Subject to correction, I understand that references to post-war credit proposals will still be permissible but that detailed discussion will not. I think it is convenient that detailed discussion should be postponed until next week. It is most important for people who want to receive post-war credits rapidly that the work should be authorised and set in hand as soon as possible.
  We shall no doubt hear about many alternative suggestions for reliefs, but I would come back to the point which I made earlier. Having accepted that the total of reliefs in this Budget is the right total, if the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues propose other alternative forms either of Government expenditure or tax relief they should indicate from where the money is to come. Many references have been made to the desirability of increasing social service expenditure, and particular reference has been made to old-age pensions. The right hon. Gentleman did not refer to this point much, but 1 must take him up on the point he made that 1958 was a bad year for old-age pensioners. At the beginning of 1958 the retirement pension was increased to the figure at which it now stands, which is substantially greater in real terms than anything the pensioners received during the years of office of the party opposite. I think that that is a fact which needs to be placed on record.
  In addition, the proposals which the party opposite put forward would cost, with their consequential amendments and alterations, a full £ 200 million, which is a very large sum indeed even in a year such as this. In framing his Budget, my right hon. Friend thought that he should concentrate on the urgent economic needs, which are to expand production and investment and to keep the price level stable. That was the purpose of his Budget proposals, and in that purpose I think it is clear that he will be successful. I think it is true to say that in general the old-age pensioners have at least as much as anyone to gain from stability of prices, and as the proportion of pensioners in the population increases a rise

  239
  in the level of investment and production is essential to maintain rising standards for the pensioners.
  Mr. Walter Monslow: Is the right hon. Gentleman suggesting that the old-age pensioners are at present above or below subsistence level?
  Mr. Maudling: Subsistence level is not the point which I was making. I said that the situation since the beginning of 1958, referred to by the right hon. Gentleman as a bad year, is very much better than it was during 1946 to 1951.
  The other argument is that we should have acted earlier and that it was only in this Budget that we took action to expand production. That is quite untrue. As early as the beginning of last year my right hon. Friend started the move to re-expand production, concentrating first on the field of export finance, which was obviously right, then moving to the field of investment, first by increasing allowances in the Finance Act, 1958, and then by the progressive removal of restrictions on the raising of credit and by the reduction of interest rates— a steady logical progress which culminated in this Budget. It is nonsense for the right hon. Gentleman to pretend that it is only now that a move has been made to expand production and investment.
  The right hon. Gentleman asked why it is possible to do more now than it was a year ago. There are several clear answers to that question. Reserves are very much stronger, and there was a £ 219 million improvement in the monetary position during 1958. Even the right hon. Gentleman cannot sneeze that away.
  Mr. H. Wilson: I know that the Economic Survey referred to £350 million special help, but compared with May last year the reserves are up by only £36 million. The increase was before May.
  Mr. Maudling: I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can confuse the aid received by the rest of the sterling area with the capital account of the United Kingdom. He is confusing these matters. The point is that the gold reserves increased by over £ 280 million and the capital position of the United Kingdom improved by about £ 219 million in 1958. The second answer is that prospects for world trade are improving. The United
  240
  States has made a rapid recovery which the right hon. Gentleman did not foresee last year. Europe is showing signs of expanding again, and the fall in commodity prices appears to have been checked and in some instances reversed. Internal prices have remained virtually stable for ten months, and we hope that wage rates will remain stable.
  It is important to emphasise once again, as my right hon. Friend did yesterday, that if a return to expansion means a return to conditions in which wages expand faster than productivity the inevitable result must be an increase in prices. It is clearly desirable before encouraging re-expansion to have confidence that that process will not again take place. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has moved cautiously forward, testing the ground as he has gone. How right he surely was. Is it not far better to move cautiously and confidently rather than to dash ahead, as the party opposite did so often between 1946 and 1951, ending either with the dissipation of the dollar loan, devaluation of the £, or with throwing in their hand and having a General Election?
  The party opposite and the right hon. Member for Huyton talked a good deal about an impending General Election. and they obviously regard themselves as the alternative Government. I think that in those circumstances they should begin to live up to their responsibilities and stop advocating the sort of bogus policies which appear in their party documents. A common myth, to which the right hon. Gentleman himself gives so much publicity, is that by some change of policy the Labour Government could increase national output by £1,700 million and, as a result, produce another £450 million of tax revenue without an increase in the rates of taxes. But even £450 million would not be sufficient to cover the expenditure which they envisage and the overall Budget surplus to which the right hon. Gentleman committed himself last year.
  The argument itself is fallacious. They say that if they were in power they would go back to the rates of expansion achieved between 1946 and 1951, but in the years after war, when industries were regrouping and recovering, obviously rates of expansion would be high. I agree that a return to Labour Party policy could lead to some expansion.

  241
  But clearly it would also lead to a return of inflation, a balance of payments crisis and a run on the reserves. The party opposite says that it can now prevent that happening It claims that it can now pursue a policy of expansion without inflation. Right hon. Gentlemen opposisite did not do it in the past. What reason have we to suppose that they can do it now?
  I have studied the speeches of right hon. Gentlemen and the party documents and have tried to find the answer to the question of how they can achieve this great expansion and pump into the economy all the purchasing power that they talk about without a return to inflation, rising prices and a crisis of balance of payments. Let us turn to their official document and see how. Not, apparently, by a wide system of price control. All that they are going to do about prices is "watch "them. That seems to me a rather unprofitable procedure. How are we to have expansion without inflation? Their first proposal is to
  "end Tory restrictions on production."
  What Tory restrictions on production are there at present? I cannot think of any. I should be most grateful if right hon. Gentlemen opposite would tell me. Possibly rates of interest may be what they have in mind. If so, that confirms what one suspects; that they will return to a Daltonian era of artificially cheap money—" lubricating the economy with a sufficiency of purchasing power ", with the consequence that inevitably follows.
  Their second step is to
  "… launch a plan for capital investment which will put more horse-power at the elbow of workers in industry and in agriculture."
  What is meant by a plan for capital investment? In the public sector we have one already, and it is, of course, based on estimates of future demand. Would the right hon. Member for Huyton plan capital investment greatly in excess of likely future demand? Right hon. Gentlemen opposite probably would, and a very wasteful process it would be. Then how would they plan the private sector? Surely, the private sector determines the level of capital investment in the light of probable demand, but if the gentlemen in Whitehall are to determine the capital investment programme we shall finish up with an excess capacity in some sectors and an inadequate capacity in others.
  Mr. H. Wilson: If all this is true, why was it that in 1957 right hon. Gentlemen opposite—that is, the gentlemen in Whitehall—set out to cut down both the private sector and the nationalised industry investment programmes a long way below what industry needed to do?
  Mr. Maudling: We wanted then to reduce the total level of investment and we are now extending it in line with demand, but to try to expand it beyond the level of demand is to try to waste the resources of the nation.
  The final sentence about how the party opposite will achieve expansion without inflation is the best of all. They say that the alternative to the Tory way is
  "to encourage expansion while using controls to keep check on it. This is the Socialist way."
  I can well believe it. To use a metaphor much beloved by the right hon. Member for Huyton, it is rather like having one foot jammed on the accelerator, one foot on the brake and no care for the steering. which always results in a nasty smell of burning rubber and a loud crash in the middle distance. The policy of controls set out by the Labour Party, both in documents and in speeches, cannot possibly prevent inflation and cannot possibly prevent a balance of payments crisis if a Government is determined to pursue inflationary policies.
  I would seriously remind the right hon. Member for Huyton that in his speeches last year he said that the strength of sterling should be given priority over everything else, whatever Government was in power. We agree with that, and we believe that he means it, but the policies which he and his party advocate are totally inconsistent with any such regard for the strength of sterling. That may be recognised by people in this country and discounted, but it may he recognised and not discounted by people outside. If the right hon. Gentleman intends to support in every way the strength of sterling, he can best do that by abandoning bogus prospectuses for expansion without inflation, which everyone can clearly see cannot possibly be brought into effect.
  I think that I have covered in rather shorter time than did the right hon. Member for Huyton as many references to the Budget proposals as he made. We can conclude from his main speech on

  243
  behalf of the Opposition that the Opposition has no criticism of the scale of Budget reliefs, no really effective criticisms of the distribution of reliefs, and no alternative policy of any significance whatsoever to offer.
  5.16 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dalton: The Paymaster-General, as we always expect, showed great intellectual ingenuity in defending proposals which had been subject to severe criticism by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), to some points of which the right hon. Gentleman turned a blind eye. It was amusing, and I enjoyed the deviation towards the end of the right hon. Gentleman's speech in discussing not the Budget which he is partly concerned to defend, but a hypothetical Budget which we on this side of the Committee might produce after the next election. It was amusing and it cannot be said to have been out of order, but it was evasive action in the sense in which we knew it not so long ago.
  To take a simple illustration, the right hon. Gentleman completely omitted to reply to that portion of my right hon. Friend's speech in which he raised objections to the plan of the Budget on the ground that it involved the misuse of resources, and that instead of so large a degree of tax reduction there should have been a reinstatement of some lately curtailed social expenditure. The right hon. Gentleman did not in any way seriously deal with that argument or, to take a small but important point, with the argument that the repeal of the prescription charge imposed by the present Prime Minister should have had a very high place in any plan for tax reduction. All that was missed out and the result was amusing but not conclusive or final.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that this was "generally" admitted to be and I ask the Committee to observe the adverbs—an "entirely" sound Budget and also very popular. But we must wait until events and debate develop a little further. I am not prepared myself to accept that description of it so soon after its introduction and when the examination of it has only just begun.
  From many points of view it must be a very disappointing Budget to many people who had been led to believe by the Press that all sorts of additional or alternative
  244
  reliefs were to be forthcoming. The cinema proprietors are exceedingly displeased with it. They do not regard it as entirely sound. A number of people who had been advocating in the Press all sorts of alternative arrangements which have not been included in the additional reliefs, large though that total is, do not so regard it. Large numbers of people were anxious for a readjustment of Schedule A for the benefit of owner-occupiers. They have got nothing. Certain people on the Stock Exchange were passionately eager for a reduction in the Stamp Duty on Stock Exchange transactions. They have been sent empty away. Many others might be cited. It would be tedious to prolong this list, but anybody who read the Press in the build-up period before the Budget will know that instead of the Budget being very popular and generally accepted as being entirely sound— I repeat this extravagant description— many people are much offended because the special projects to which they had committed themselves have been put entirely on one side.
  I turn now to the central feature of the Budget relief— 9d. off the standard rate. Very disappointing, is it not? When the Chancellor announced this 9d. I thought of what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) said in another context. "Neither one thing nor the other " "A very funny figure ", I thought. Now I would have expected that the Chancellor in this context would have managed a reduction of 1s. I was not sure, I did not put money on it. If I had betted on it, I think I would have betted on 1s; other reliefs could have been toned down a little. The right hon. Gentleman would have got a much better reception from his own side if he had made it 1s. But who am I to complain that he did not, because he leaves me still holding my record as the only Chancellor of the Exchequer for the last thirty-seven years— since Sir Robert Horne did it in 1922— who actually in a single gesture took ls. off the standard rate? I am very happy to have that record still standing, though I had been prepared for it to be knocked over.
  I seem to hear mumbling from the back of the Committee. It is true, of course, that in the Budget of 1945 I not only knocked 1s. off the standard rate but I also made substantial increases in the personal allowances for Income Tax. I also

  245
  increased the Surtax in order to promote justice, and in that same Session I took the financial responsibility for a very substantial increase in old-age pensions. Indeed, we increased old-age pensions in 1946 by more than 100 per cent. Therefore, I would have been very happy to see the present Chancellor not only taking Is. off, but also doing the same kind of things that were done in the Budget in which I took is. off. That would have produced a much more just and acceptable general pattern of financial adjustments.
  So much for the 1s. which was not taken off. I have one other comment to make on Income Tax. This has already been made briefly by my right hon. Friend. I am very sorry indeed that nothing more ha3 been done about the earned income relief. I think that is even more important than a reduction in the standard rate. Here we talk much about incentives, and l hope this argument may have some repercussion in the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. Is it not much more valuable, if we are seeking to stimulate incentive and reward hard work, to give a differential advantage to people who work for their money rather than to give the same advantage to people who, whether they are asleep or awake, have their bank balances steadily increased? In other words, is it not better to emphasise discrimination at this stage and, with the object of stimulating incentive, to increase the relative tax advantage given to earned income?
  We have been told that the young business executives feel frustrated and handicapped. Maybe they do. Then should not they, when taxation is reduced, have an additional advantage over the retired people of equivalent income, the rentiers, the people who cannot for physical or mental reasons any more make a contribution, the people who have passed beyond the reach of incentive? Why treat these two the same? If incentives are what we are out for— or social justice from another angle— the Chancellor should have expanded the difference between earned and unearned income in relation to these Income Tax reliefs.
  I think it is disappointing that nothing has been done to help the earned income receiver in the middle ranges of income. We used to do that. When I say " we",
  246
  I speak for several people who have been Chancellors of the Exchequer. Speaking in chronological order I increased the earned income relief in two Budgets. Sir Stafford Cripps did it, the present Lord Privy Seal did it and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) did it in a rather special way about ceilings of relief. We all took an interest in this, but now it seems to have gone out of fashion. I regret that nothing has been done in that way at this time.
  On Purchase Tax, I have only one point to make, which in effect my right hon. Friend has made already. I think there is an advantage in not spreading the tax widely over commodities just for the sake of going wide. I should have thought the essential thing to do was to clear the tax off the whole range of really necessary articles. It would have been much better to take it off the whole of the 5 per cent. class, or as much as we could afford, and leave the higher rates as they were, because in the 5 per cent. range of Purchase Tax we include clothing and a large number of other necessaries of life and, if we are interpreting Purchase Tax, as I do, as being essentially a tax upon comparative luxuries as against necessities, that is the way in which that character can be maintained and yet a wide range of relief can be given to a large number of people of very moderate means who would have appreciated cuts in the prices of clothing, boots and shoes and the rest. We would also, in the present circumstances of the textile industry, have contributed much more to the relief of unemployment than is possible by this general reduction of the rates of tax on the more highly taxed groups of commodities under the present Purchase Tax proposals. So I agree with my right hon. Friend that, although we welcome the Purchase Tax reliefs in principle, they are all wrongly distributed as between the commodities concerned.
  Beer has been mentioned—a reduction of Id. a glass. Does anybody say, " No, 2d. a pint "? If so, they show themselves unqualified to discuss this subject. Why did the Chancellor choose beer? The Paymaster-General has given a number of ingenious semi-statistical arguments, but the Chancellor did not put it on that ground at all. The Chancellor said, " I wanted to keep down the cost of living " —I am not saying that is a wrong thing

  247
  to do; I am endeavouring to restate what the Chancellor said—" and therefore I consulted my pundits and asked, How do I get the biggest reduction in the cost of living for the smallest tax remission? ' ". That was the problem. I remember putting the same question to the pundits of the day when I was Chancellor. It is an interesting problem. One does not want to give away more revenue than necessary, and one wants to keep the cost of living down as much as one can. It is simple. They said, seemingly, " Go for beer ". Well, on the whole, as compared with certain alternatives, I think that was not the wrong choice.
  When the Chancellor was dealing with that point in his Budget speech, I was rather afraid that he might have decided to take something off tobacco, and I want to congratulate him on not doing that. At any rate, whatever may be said about beer, it does not cause lung cancer and it does not cost dollars, and these are two not unimportant arguments. If we are looking at it only from the cost of living angle, I think that tobacco would have stood up fairly well in that comparison.
  It would be interesting, if in the Chancellor's reply to the debate later on, he could tell us what tobacco revenue would have needed to be thrown away in order to get the cost of living down by how much? I am merely guessing; I have not had any recent information about it, but I think that toboacco might have run beer rather close, judged by that criterion.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Derick Heathcoat Amory): Speaking from memory, I think it would take about twice as much revenue to produce the equivalent result.
  Mr. Dalton: That is an interesting general answer, and I should be very grateful if later on the Chancellor could give us an exact figure, because I should find it very interesting.
  I do not think the Chancellor must expect that people will go on drinking his health wherever beer is consumed for very long. I think he should be warned, in the light of history, that popularity evaporates very quickly if based on nothing more than a few tax concessions in a Budget speech. Many Chancellors
  248
  in the past have been saddened by the short memories of the people. If in about six months' time it will be important—in October or thereabouts—I do not think that many people then, when they drink their pints or glasses, will remember just exactly when the price was changed or who changed it.
  Mr. Osborne: It cannot then be an electioneering Budget.
  Mr. Dalton: I did not call it an electioneering Budget. I was merely presenting a general reflection. It may well be that at the end of six months time, when we have had thorough debates and discussions about all this, the Opposition will be getting the credit for nearly all the real improvements which the Budget has made, because recollection is a very queer thing. However, I will not develop that further.
  My own personal observation leads me to believe that very soon after these most substantial tax reliefs we shall have the same old clichés about the crushing burden of taxation and its acting as a brake on initiative. That will go on being said as long as there is any taxation left at all, even in the Utopia of Mr. Khrushchev and others, in which there is to be no income tax and, perhaps, no other taxes either.
  I want to say a word or two about postwar credits. I think it was time that something more serious was done. The first steps to repaying post-war credits were taken by me in 1946 and 1947 when we set up in two successive instalments the plan that repayment should be based entirely on age— 65 and 60— and I think that that was quite right then. That was the way to begin. I have never been quite convinced that the way to go on was by dropping the age and not do much more, because the notion of 65 and 60 was that people were then passing into retirement and that was a good moment for them to get a slight accretion of resources. When we drop the age limits to 60 and 55, those people ought not to be going into retirement. They ought still to be working, and not suffering this sharp discontinuity of income which can be eased by a special accretion of post-war credits.
  I am inclined to think that there are several other ways, one of which the

  249
  Chancellor is rather boldly adopting, of trying to define and limit certain outstanding hard cases. This all derives from suggestions that we on this side of the Committee have offered in the course of debate, as was pointed out by my right hon. Friend. Indeed, one has only to read HANSARD to find that it is all there. I think that the Chancellor is acting very gallantly, administratively, in tackling it, because every kind of person will come up with new suggestions and he will have to put up a lot of resistance at certain stages. Then, the Paymaster-General's description of a "popular " Budget may become even more unreal and absurd as this process goes on. It will not be thought generally sound and universally accepted and universally popular, but less and less so.
  The Chancellor has said that he has still got other plans waiting to be brought in if need be at short notice. I would otter him one suggestion. It used to occur to me sometimes, when thinking about these things and being conscious of the difficulty of defining hardship, that there might be something to be said for the payment of post-war credits by a whole year at a time. There are five years, and in the first year a relatively small total. We should say "Now, this year we will repay the whole of the first year's post-war credits." This is easy, administratively, because every post-war credit document does not carry an age indication of the recipient, but it does have quite clearly on the face of it the date when it was first issued. If we do not by this method give as much to many of the people concerned as we would do if we divided them into groups and on the basis of hardship or age, we should still give something to everybody and all the hardship cases would pick up something as we went along. If we can made the whole of these repayments in a comparatively short time, as I hope may now be possible, we shall not keep people waiting too long for the later years of post-war credits, even if at the beginning of this final stage of repayment, we concentrate on the earlier years.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) asked a Question about this a little while ago. It was answered by the Financial Secretary. I was not in the House at the time, but when l read it I was surprised that he
  250
  said that this plan would present great administrative difficulties. I am not convinced about that. I should have thought that it would have been quite easy. Perhaps we could discuss that again later, because I think it is a possible approach to this problem which at any rate should be examined.
  I do not wish to go over all the other arguments. I think there are great objections in detail to the way in which all this—I do not call it simply a reduction of tax, because some of this release of resources should have taken other forms, such as the building of hospitals, schools and so on—but there are great objections, which were developed very ably by my right hon. Friend, to the order of priorities in the Government scheme, and these can be further discussed, so far as the rules of order permit, in later arguments here.
  I must end by making this observation, which has been made by others before me and which will be made again and again. There are two classes of people, two groups in our community, who stand behind this Budget discussion, whose present condition is a reproach to the economic condition of the nation. First of all, the unemployed, whose number, no matter what debating gyrations the Minister of Labour may have indulged in. well written up by the Press—the most tendentious reports I have ever read of a debate in this House —is twice as large today as it was a year ago—still 550,000 People — over half a million— unemployed, half of whom have been out of work for two months solid or longer. This is a great reproach, and if all these years of the applied intelligence of the Conservative Party can produce nothing better than this, they should be thoroughly ashamed of it.
  In the second place, there is the question of the deep poverty of large numbers of old people which will also have to be discussed. We are making our own contribution to the discussion and solution of that problem, and that will continue. So long as these two groups of people stand substantially in their present condition, there is something seriously wrong with the economic and financial affairs of this country. They are very much in our minds when discussing this Budget. Nothing whatever is done for these people, except the promise that they

  251
  will not be robbed of their existing pensions by any further increases in prices. Nothing else, not a penny for any of them. It is only lately, in a Standing Committee, that a vote was taken when, by one vote, a proposal was defeated that the existing pension should be increased by 10s. a week. That was recorded and will not be left unremembered. Nothing is being offered to them at all in this Budget or by this Government— nothing whatever.
  Regarding the others, the 550,000 unemployed, it still has to be decided— and it will be one of the main tests of this Budget— how far this scheme of rearrangement and redistribution will bring them back into employment. That is what they want. If one were to say to anyone in my constituency, where they have suffered more from unemployment in the past than almost any other comparable place, " Do you want to be sure of a steady job, do you think that is more or less important than having a penny off the glass of beer?", they would certainly say that they preferred an assurance of a steady job. Then they would have the wages to buy the beer they wanted, even if they had not the penny off the glass.
  Therefore, this is the test of the proposals in the Budget. How far shall we bring back into effective employment any number of the unemployed army of today? On this test future debates will undoubtedly develop in the near future; and it may well be that the slightly " cocky " tone of the Paymaster-General this afternoon will be found to be not wholy appropriate to the reactions of public opinion.
  5.42 p.m.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: As the Committee listened to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) listing, with a watering mouth, additional reliefs in taxation and additional items of expenditure which had not been included in the Budget— excluding, of course, as usual, relief in the tax upon tobacco — one felt, rather nostalgically, that he was the same old inflationist as ever.
  The right hon. Gentleman at least would probably not agree with his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr.
  252
  H. Wilson) and my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General— on this they did seem to be agreed— that the budgetary deficit which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposes is of about the right amount. The size of that deficit the £ 721 million, shall we call it? —is, indeed, the central issue of this debate and of this Budget; and I imagine that arriving at that figure—taking the decision that that was approximately the right magnitude—must have caused my right hon. Friend the Chancellor more anxiety and more thought than all his other Budget decisions put together.
  I should like to approach that decision from the budgetary history of the last year or two. Last year my right hon. Friend the Chancellor budgeted for an overall increase in Government expenditure. above and below the line, comparing Budget estimate with Budget estimate, which was greater in percentage and in amount than had been proposed in any year since 1951. At this point I should perhaps mention that these comparisons are rendered difficult for the year 1956 by the change of accounting in that year; but I do not think that that fact invalidates the comparisons which I have to make. In the event, the increase in expenditure overall in the financial year which has just ended rose, not as was envisaged at Budget time by just under 5 per cent. but by only 2 per cent.
  There were three main factors which contributed to that. One had been foreseeable; that was the decline in the cost of financing the National Debt. The other two big factors were the decline in the cost of the agricultural subsidies and the startling, and, I think, very welcome, decline— in fact, disappearance— of the direct call upon public funds made by the Public Works Loan Board. Those three main factors, and other minor factors, together resulted in an increase overall in Government expenditure, comparing out-turn with out-turn, of only 2 per cent. That falls to be compared with an increase in the national income last year of over 4 per cent. Thus, in 1958. we experienced once again, as we have done every year since 1951, a decline in that share of the national income which is collected and spent on Government account.
  This year my right hon. Friend has budgeted for a still higher increase both

  253
  absolutely and proportionately in total Government expenditure. The increase was to have been of the order of 5.3 per cent. before the decision on post-war credits was announced; if that decision is taken into account, the increase exceeds 6½per cent. We are, therefore, comparing Budget estimate with Budget estimate — which is the only sound or, indeed, practicable form of comparison at this stage— looking forward to an increase of 6 5 per cent. in overall Government expenditure in the Budget.
  Should my right hon. Friend's hope of stable costs and prices in 1959-60 be fulfilled, as we all hope it will, then, even should that year be marked, as we all equally hope it will, by a resumed increase in industrial and total national production, the result must still probably be that in this financial year, for the first time since 1951, we shall see the Government's share of the national income, the share of the national income which is spent on Government account, increasing instead of diminishing. That will be a reversal of the trend of the last seven years.
  It is as a corollary of that change la prospects and intentions that my right hon. Friend, before his Budget decisions, found himself facing an overall deficit to be met by borrowing of £355 million in this financial year as compared with £182 million in the last. But of course, as the Committee knows, the Budget decisions which he announced, the additional expenditure under the heading of postwar credits and the alleviations of taxation, raised that deficit to £721 million. To that figure there falls to be added the cost, whatever it may turn out to be, of the promised increase in public service pensions. Thus it is that this figure of over £ 720 million, to be borrowed in this financial year, dominates the Budget, and, in a sense, will dominate Government finance in the coming twelve months.
  It is a stupendous sum; perhaps one way to recognise the size of it is to remember that it represents an increase, in one year only, of no less than 2½per cent. of the whole National Debt. That gives one some idea of the proportions of the sum with which one is dealing. Certainly, the crude comparison between £ 182 million borrowed to meet last year's deficit and £ 720 million or more, four times that amount, to be borrowed to
  254
  meet this year's deficit, is not in itself necessarily accurate. In the coming year my right hon. Friend should have at least two favourable factors on his side. He will no longer be having to find internal finance for the large and most gratifying increase which has taken place in our reserves of gold and convertible currency; so that one internal strain which always accompanies an increase in the reserves will this year be absent.
  It also seems certain that he will have to meet a much smaller block of maturing Government stocks than in the twelve months that have elapsed. One can never estimate the burden of maturing stocks exactly, because the total amount maturing never represents the total which is still in the hands of the public. Putting on one side that difficulty of arriving at the exact quantity, however, it seems certain that in the next twelve months the burden of maturing debt will he less of a problem for my right hon. Friend and will exert less claim upon the funds coming forward to be lent to the Government.
  On the other side must be mentioned the fact that the extremely favourable conditions for selling gilt-edged stock which have prevailed during the greater part of the financial year now closed can hardly be expected to repeat themselves. The virtual certainty during much of that period that the next change in interest rates must be downward was of great assistance in the great funding achievement of my right hon. Friend in the past twelve months. It was assistance on a scale which can hardly be expected to be repeated in this financial year. So, after making allowance for changes both ways. We have to face the fact that we are planning to borrow approximately four times as much in the coming financial year as we had to do in the last financial year. We are expecting to come to the lenders for at least £ 720 million.
  Two questions now arise. To one of them my right hon. Friend no doubt knows the answer, though I should not dream of expecting him to give it to us. To the second question, no one knows the answer. The first question is: how much of the £ 720 million does my right hon. Friend intend to try to borrow from the public and how much from the banks? I dare say that he has made a broad decision of strategy on that important point. Indeed, unless he contemplates

  255
  that some part of the necessary borrowing will be from the banks, will be, in other words, expansion of the money supply, it is difficult to see how the additional demand which he wishes to impart to the economy by the Budget can be successfully imparted, after the initial effect of higher Government spending and the psychological effect of recent Government decisions and of the Budget have spent themselves. One may therefore, assume that my right hon. Friend does not intend to have to borrow the whole from the public. No doubt he intends to borrow a proportion from the banks. Yet for the greater part of the deficit of over £ 720 million he must surely intend to have recourse to the public.
  The second question, the one to which nobody knows the answer, is: how much will it be possible to borrow from the public in the following twelve months? On the answer to that question, when we eventually know it, much must hang for the fortunes of this country. It is a speculation dependent upon prospects which can at this stage only be conjectured. Over and over again in his Budget speech my right hon. Friend emphasised how material to all his plans and to all our prospects was stability of wages and prices. If, by some ill chance, we should in the coming months not succeed in maintaining that stability, it can hardly be doubted that the effect would be direct and serious upon the amount which it would be possible for the Government to borrow from the public.
  Nor is it only internal movements of that kind, internal checks, which can affect the Government's prospects of borrowing. Events outside this country, as we have seen more than once, affect directly or indirectly confidence in the value of our money at home and abroad, and can react drastically and rapidly upon the power of the Government to borrow from the public. We are therefore, to the extent of the amount of the deficit, of this immense sum of about three-quarters of a billion pounds—in American terms —giving hostages fortune, to the chance that the Government will be able successfully to borrow from the public and to continue funding. Such is the danger, and the difficulty, which attach to the engineering of economic expansion by increases in Government expenditure.
  256
  This risk, which my right hon. Friend is deliberately and with calculation taking, points a moral. The moral is that we ought to rely, and that we must rely, primarily upon other forces and other sources for the renewal and carrying forward of the expansion of our economy. The true, the real, the lasting source of economic expansion lies within the people and within the economy itself. It lies in the progress of invention and science, in the diffusion of skill and knowledge, in the increased readiness of our people to save, to invest, to take risks and to compete. It lies in the real world to which all these things belong. Only on forces arising in that real world can a true and sustained increase in the national prosperity be rested.
  I believe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor would be the first to recognise that the assistance which he can give by monetary means, by means of Government expenditure, and by the manipulation of budgetary deficits, can be only temporary and ancillary, compared with those real and underlying forces upon which, in the last resort, we must rely. That is where the gulf exists between this side of the Committee and the Opposition side.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has quoted passages from the central part— I might almost call it the "dead heart" — [Interruption]. — yes or the "soft centre" —of the Labour Party's policy statement. There we read their prescription for dealing with what they are pleased to regard as Tory stagnation. That prescription is, in a single word, "Control ". I will trouble the Committee with only one quotation:
  "Through the Budget and key controls Labour will ensure that this vital expansion programme is not held up by lack of money and equipment, or by any timidity on the part of managers and investors."
  So the policy of the Labour Party for summoning up the energies and the forces of progress in the nation is to threaten, to accuse of timidity, and to impose controls on those very elements in the economy upon which our future progress can alone lastingly depend. What the Labour Party describes as "a policy of controlled expansion "would prove, if, unhappily, it were ever attempted, a policy of resumed inflation combined with more Socialism.
  6.0 p.m.
  Mr. J. Grimond: There were one or two curious omissions from the Chancellor's Budget speech. I thought his failure to comment at all on the proposed increase in Government expenditure was indeed odd, as the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) has indicated.
  I can remember previous elections when Conservative candidates in the days of Socialist Government invariably inveighed against the extravagance of the Socialist Party and the tremendous height of Government expenditure, but of recent years under the Tories it has risen steadily year by year in total, though as a proportion of the national income until this year it tended to fall, but in fact it is now going to be higher than ever. No comment was made on this by the Chancellor, nor did he give an indication of how it is to be controlled. I agree with the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) that Government expenditure and taxation will always he too high for some people, but equally at the same time there will be plenty of people suggesting new things the Government should do, and within the Government itself there will be sufficient pressure to keep them reasonably high.
  I do not myself think that the great bugbear of which we should be frightened is a severe drop in Government expenditure or taxation. I am indeed more than a little surprised that a Conservative Government should not be frightened of that high level which leads to great difficulty in managing the financial affairs of the country. Of course, this is an election year, but the reputation of the Chancellor is such that no one can even begin to suspect him of producing an electioneering Budget. He even produces a bottle of beer with the air of extreme respectability usually seen only in old family retainers, absolutely above suspicion. But, although it is not a vote-catching Budget, it may be a fund-raising Budget and an indication that although there may not be an early election there is a preparation for an election later in the year. By that time, perhaps, the Government will have come round to doing something for the old-age pensioners.
  I should like to make two points about old-age pensioners. Like other hon. Members, I must confess that it seems strange
  258
  if, as the Government admit, they are engaged in pumping out more purchasing power to the economy they do not give some of it into the hands of the pensioners.
  Secondly, on his own figures the Chancellor has a certain amount in hand. Perhaps before the end of the debate he will indicate whether he contemplates using that to improve the position of the pensioners.
  Now I should like to begin by testing the Budget on the Chancellor's statement about its theme. He said yesterday:
  " The conclusion I reach is that it is impossible to exaggerate the importance of our maintaining and, indeed, improving our competitive position through efficient investment and lower costs. This is. to my mind, the key to success in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1959; Vol. 603, c. 40.]
  Somewhere in the speech I think he said his theme was to make our industry competitive—though I must confess I now cannot find the place. Which parts of the Budget are directed towards this great theme? It can hardly be said that the reduction of beer duty will make our industry very competitive. It was argued by the Chancellor that it would reduce the cost of living, but in fact what he meant was that it would have an effect on the cost-of-living index, which seems to be a slightly different thing. There are many people, particularly old-age pensioners and others on small incomes, in whose budget beer does not appear very largely. It seems a little like Marie Antoinette to reduce the cost of living by taking 2d. off the pint.
  The other major change in the Budget is the reduction in Income Tax. I must say that my heart warmed when I heard the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland regretting that 1 s. had not been taken off the tax. Despite a certain feeling that it is a pity that his record still stands, the reduction is still 9d. and is not to be despised. After all, it took a world war to get 1s. off and I do not think we want to go back to that simply in order to get a reduction in taxation when it is over.
  Looking at the taxation system, and particularly at Income Tax, it seems to me that the effect of the reduction is curiously small seen against the incidence of the tax as a whole. Secondly, the present rates of Income Tax and Surtax are extremely difficult to defend. If we look at the salaries and emoluments paid to directors of great companies we see

  259
  that they appear astronomical. The directors of one company share £447,000 annually between them. [An HON. MEMBER: How many are there?] There are twenty-three. I am not saying that it is wrong. I am not one who believes that top-level management is easy to get and can be obtained on the cheap, but, if we have to lay aside that sort of thing in order to reward top-level management in our companies, something seems to be gravely wrong with our tax structure.
  These figures have risen considerably. It may be argued that an increase in profits is on a different basis to an increase in wages as, strictly speaking, profits are not a direct cost on production, but salaries and emoluments to directors are and they have risen on the whole more steeply than have most wages. The Chancellor ought to have a look at the whole position of Income Tax payers from about the range of £1,500 a year to £3,000 or £4,000. I suggest that at the very top of the range people do pretty well. They have expense allowances, free houses and free cars, but a lot of professional and technical people in the middle ranges are tightly squeezed and it is on them to a greater extent that the economy must depend.
  I agree that ultimately all our welfare depends on the skill and hard work of people who run our affairs and not on the Government at all. I do not think we should squeeze these people to death. It is on this level that the main squeeze operates so harshly today and for these people some further alleviation of Income Tax is necessary. I suppose the Chancellor would claim that his investment allowances are also assisting our industry to become competitive, but surely it is a very bad thing for industry to have this continual chopping and changing about of allowances. If investment allowances are to become part of our financial structure, they should become a permanent part of it.
  I think there is a great deal to be said for making some change in depreciation calculations instead of doing that. I believe the Swedes allowed companies to depreciate as they like. The only trouble was that one could never define what was productive and what was non-productive and a lot of non-productive building was depreciated at a high rate and escaped tax. If it is not possible for companies
  260
  to depreciate more quickly and we are to concentrate on investment allowances, they should not go in or out year by year. If, as they say, the Government are confident that the economy is on an even keel, that we can sail steadily ahead, the weather is better and all that, they should attempt to even out the chopping and changing which goes on, not only in investment allowances but in other things. It has a very disturbing effect, not only on the private sector of industry, but on the public sector. Changes in the investment programme in the public sector may be convenient for Government, but they are inconvenient for those who want to get on with railway modernisation, electrification and so on.
  If we are to make industry competitive, and that is the main theme, there are two or three glaring omissions from the Budget. First, I should have thought it more useful to take something off diesel oil and petrol rather than off beer. That may not enter heavily into the costs of many industries, but it enters into the costs of quite a few, including country bus services, which the Chancellor alleged he is anxious to help, and increases the costs of many industries, if only in a small way. I remember well the days when the Conservative Party bitterly complained that the Labour Party put an extra tax on petrol; but, so far from it being taken off, it has been increased and there is no sign of it being reduced.
  After an early reference to international trade the matter seemed to drop out of the Budget statement. To make industry more competitive and to keep down prices of raw materials, is not this a year for making some cuts in import duties? Could not the Chancellor have told us more about the effect of the exclusion of this country from the Common Market? That was entirely ignored.
  Another subject which seems to have been ignored and which is very worrying is that of heavy pockets of unemployment. There was nothing, for instance, about State assistance to deal with redundancy. There was no indication that it might be worth while to increase the road building programme in certain places like Lancashire to make it easier for industry to go to such places where unemployment is very heavy. If we are

  261
  to tackle this problem of local unemployment we have probably to look again on the whole system of wage negotiation. If that is done on a national level it leads to great difficulties for some areas faced with unemployment and the difficulty of attracting new industries.
  Another striking omission from the Budget was any indication that the Chancellor is anxious to stimulate voluntary saving put into industrial investment. Again I follow the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West in believing that this is the right way by which we should build up our economy. No doubt there is a need for a certain amount of forced saving, through the Government for the nationalised industries, but we think that more and more people should be taking an interest of their own accord in the private sector of the economy. Why, for instance, did the Chancellor not take off the Stamp Duty? Why did he not examine sonic of the proposals for allowing a certain amount of saving, particularly saving invested in industry, to escape taxation unless the savings were withdrawn and spent? At present there is too much emphasis on getting savings into Government securities and too little emphasis on getting it into industry.
  I wish to make one or two comments on other particular items in the Budget. As to Purchase Tax, I do not accept the view that the articles which the housewife has to use are fair game for the Chancellor to put tax on. We want to encourage the housewife to improve her tools of trade and it is just as important for her to have labour-saving devices, and so forth, as it is for industry. There are also these items like clothing which still bear Purchase Tax and which I should like taken out of the Purchase Tax Schedules altogether. I have grave doubts about the whole Purchase Tax system, but I feel confident that the direction in which we should move is to free necessities and to move towards a common rate for the articles for which Purchase Tax must be, temporarily at least, retained.
  Further, there is no mention of any reduction or abolition of the 10 per cent. tax on the building societies' surplus. Very strong representations have been made about that and it would have been a very small matter, but an important one, to abolish it.
  262
  I welcome the fact that post-war credits are to be paid two years earlier and I welcome the fact that certain categories of people are to get them. Cannot post-war credits be made transferable now? The Chancellor is to pay interest on them. If he could map out ahead the dates upon which various blocks could be redeemed would not it be possible to allow the present holders to sell them to other people as ordinary interest-bearing securities? There are difficulties about this suggestion. It has often been raised before. But if interest is to be paid on them we are getting a little nearer to the position of making them transferable, and it is a very desirable one.
  Finally, as has been said. the Chancellor is to rely a great deal upon borrowing. He is to be faced with finding about £720 million. One of the difficulties of the economy at present is that, as soon as we begin to move forward, if the Government borrows heavily the credit base is greatly extended and we are back to inflation. I do not believe that the ordinary people of this country will settle down for ever to the prospect that the only time when they can expect heavy tax cuts is when there is unemployment and stagnation. If we are to run a private enterprise system. we must be able to run it so that we do not depend upon having a semi-depression before the ordinary people get any remission on beer duty or Income Tax or any other duty.
  Therefore, I believe that we must examine the whole credit structure and ascertain if it is not possible to divorce Government borrowing from the indefinite creation of credit. Further, I had hoped in this Budget that the Chancellor would have said rather more about the nationalised industries. One of the things which bedevil long-term Government borrowing is the immense sums required by the nationalised industries. Those sums cannot be raised in the market. They still come out of the Budget.
  If and when the Chancellor introduces a new Budget, I hope that some further attention will be paid to these underlying difficulties in our economy and also that we may have a Budget really directed to making industry in this country competitive and to enabling us to employ our resources, if not to the maximum, which I agree is difficult, at any rate to a very much greater degree than we have been doing for the past year.
  6.15 p.m.
  Mr. David Price: I find myself in agreement with many of the remarks of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond). It struck me that his criticisms of my right hon. Friend were very much on the lines of the criticisms of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton). Their criticism was that we were not spending enough in the public sector. There were various suggestions as to where we should spend more. It was also said that my right hon. Friend had not gone far enough in tax remission. The simple arithmetic of that clearly is that they were not satisfied with the extra amount of purchasing power which my right hon. Friend thought was proper to put into the economy. The fears of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) would be even more emphasised if my right hon. Friend were to adopt the policies advocated by the two hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  Mr. Grimond: I do not want to make another speech, but I suggested substituting certain tax concessions. I do not think that in total I suggested any drastic increases.
  Mr. Price: We will not develop the matter further, otherwise we shall be involved in an arithmetical argument. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland has made his position clear.
  I fear that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland was, as always, straight inflationary. He was saddened by the shortage of the public's memory of the beneficence of previous Chancellors of the Exchequer. To some hon. Members on these benches the memory of a Labour Chancellor emeritus and his performance today was infinitely more agreeable than the performance of a Labour Chancellor aspirant. Whereas the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland continues to have a song in his heart, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) has only vitriol in his heart. When I listened to his speech, if one can call it that, it struck me as being one of the cheapest forms of gutter electioneering. [An HON. MEMBER: " The hon. Member should know."] I am learning fast. I was reminded of the remarks of Charles Churchill, who said:
  " Who wit with jealous eyes surveys
  And sickens at another's praise ",
  264
  because I think that the whole country praises my right hon. Friend for his very clear exposition yesterday of our economic situation and our prospects.
  My right hon. Friend told us, as we had already known by reading the appropriate White Papers issued within the last few weeks, of the success of the Government's Measures last year. I say " success " unrepentantly. Reserves rose from £661 million in September, 1957, to £1,121 million in March of this year, and that includes a repayment of £71 million to the International Monetary Fund. For the first time for many years we had £120 million on visible trade account, which had not been achieved for a very long time.
  Mr. John McCann: Since 1951.
  Mr. Price: It was not achieved in 1951. It has not been achieved either under a Labour Government or under Conservative Governments up to 1957, but it has been achieved now. There is, in addition, a balance of payments surplus of £455 million.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton spoke a great deal about capital investment, and quite rightly so, but I did not hear him mention that we now have capital investment running at 20 per cent. of the gross national product. My right hon. Friend developed that point in his Budget speech, but the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton avoided any reference to it.
  I noticed that the right hon. Gentleman also avoided any reference to the increase in our long-term overseas investments. Last year, we exported £240 million of capital—double the rate of eight years ago. Many of us would like to see the figure go even higher, and I should have thought that the party opposite, which has so often, and quite rightly, reminded us of the problems of the under-developed world would take same interest in the Government's achievement. We would like to see the figure even bigger, but at least it is bigger than it has even been before.
  The right hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned personal savings, which, last year, were as high as they were in 1957. In 1949, when the Labour Government were in office, personal savings amounted to £224 million. In 1957, they

  265
  amounted to £1,484 million. Making all possible allowances for the declining value of money, there is still a vast increase in real terms. Again, prices have been steady. The right hon. Gentleman dismissed that in his usual rather cocky way of addressing us, but I am sure that had he and his colleagues been in office they would have been pleased to have had twelve months of steady prices.
  Stability has been brought into the economy against a world background of moderate recession. That fact was not mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. He always addresses us on economic matters as though we were a little island with a self-contained economy; as though the Government of the day could order all things, and all the factors affecting the economy were under their control. In the technical sense of the word, the right hon. Gentleman stands for a policy of national Socialism. I merely ask the Committee to consider what would have been the present state of our economy without the severe and austere measures that my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) had to take in the autumn of 1957? What would have been the position of the £? What would have been the state of our reserves?
  It is true that, on the negative side, production is 1 per cent. down on last year, but the main cause of that is not what the right hon. Gentleman, in his attractive terminology, referred to as " deliberate stagnation " but is due, as the White Paper suggested, to a 3½ per cent. fall in exports—and I want to talk about exports in due course because, looking ahead, I believe it to be the most disturbing feature of our future prospects.
  We hear of unused resources of capacity and labour. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research suggests that they are such as to permit of a rise of between 10 per cent. and 15 per cent. in the next two years. These, however, are very difficult figures to compute. For instance. when we talk of potential resources of machinery, are we thinking in terms of day work or of three-shift working? It makes a lot of difference. One can only take the figures, as my right hon. Friend has, as a guide. One cannot argue on the basis of them in too much detail.
  266
  Looking ahead, two things worry me particularly in the world economy. The first is the danger of continuing world deflation. Some of my colleagues in the economic profession would have people believe that one can just turn on the taps of demand overnight. I do not believe that that can be done as easily as some academic economists have led the public to believe. As my right hon. Friend pointed out yesterday, there is not too much that we alone can do about stimulating trade. It requires international action.
  We are all pleased, of course, that we have taken part in increasing international liquidity by our increased contribution of 50 per cent. to the International Monetary Fund and an increased contribution of 100 per cent. to the World Bank. I do not know whether hon. Members have had an opportunity of studying the Tenth Annual Economic Review of the O.E.E.C.—" Policies for Sound Economic Growth "—but if they have they will recall that one of the conclusions is that
  "… countries in a stronger economic position have the major responsibility for taking adequate measures to ensure a renewal of growth."
  I believe that my right hon. Friend has discharged that responsibility. Looking towards the end of the year, he took a calculated risk over our balance of payments. because if his stimulant works there is a danger of our imports of raw materials increasing to satisfy an increased demand from British industry. On the other hand, for reasons that I shall shortly give, he took a chance of exports not increasing equivalently. My right hon. Friend is taking a calculated risk, and I want there to be no doubt that it is a calculated risk. There is no certainty that exports will rise correspondingly. But I believe that it was a risk that he was absolutely justified in taking if we are to fulfil our international obligation to stimulate world trade. In the long run, that is not only a " do-gooder " act, but is in our own interests.
  It was in the same line of fulfilling that responsibility that my right hon. Friend has told us of the £20 million to be advanced to colonial Governments, and of the increase of £28 million in the funds allocated to the Export Credits Guarantee Department, of which, as the Committee knows, quite a large proportion is to go to the under-developed territories,

  267
  consequential upon decisions taken in Montreal.
  If there is this danger of continuing deflation, there is, on the other hand, the danger of people misunderstanding the nature of inflation, and of regarding it as a disease that can be cured once and for all if the right measures are taken. This is true, of course, whether we have a Socialist or a Conservative Government. In this Committee we have hon. Members on both sides who say, " Vote for us. Take the appropriate measures, pursue them with determination, and inflation is over once and for all."
  That is a complete misunderstanding of the nature of inflation, of its incidence and of the harm it does. In simple language, inflation arises when we have an excess of demand upon the available supply of goods and services, and arises mainly from an excess of monetary supply. How to steer the economy between the Scylla of inflation and the Charybdis of deflation is the constant task of any Chancellor and of any Government's management of the economy. The fact that at one moment it is being done successfully does not guarantee of its being done successfully next year or the year after.
  There is no simple blueprint. To realise that, one has only to consider the sheer difficulty of trying to get into accurate figures exactly what supply and demand will be in, say, six months, nine months or a year ahead; the number of factors that lie outside the control of any British Government, and further, the factors that are not amenable to accurate forecast or statistical measurement but which all affect the economy.
  If the summit talks fail, if the Berlin situation gets worse, what statistical calculation should a Chancellor make this April in relation to the effect of possible aggression on world opinion—stockpiling, rearming, and the like? What allowance should he make this April to prepare for such an event, which we all hope will not happen? It is, therefore, the constant task of any Chancellor to steer a very delicate way between inflation and deflation.
  Economists—and we, as politicians—sometimes give the public the idea that we are wiser, abler and shrewder than we really are. We are reluctant to admit
  268
  that so many of these factors which affect the economy do not lie completely under our control. We might occasionally do better if we explained to the public the very great difficulty of steering the economy between inflation and deflation, and pointed out that there is no single remedy, no single tonic that can be taken. We might do better to say to then, in the words of Hilaire Belloc:
  " Physicians of the utmost Fame
  Were called at once; but when they came
  They answered as they took their Fees
  'There is no cure for this disease.'"
  What are the prospects for the financial year we are now entering? My right hon. Friend has said, " Steady ahead." My own doubts are about exports. Last year, they were down by 3½ per cent. I believe that the favourable terms of trade we have been enjoying may, in the long run, be against our interests. In fact, I go so far as to suggest that they are. This country provides 50 per cent. of the imports into the primary producing countries. To put it another way round, that amount of goods represents 50 per cent. of our exports. Therefore, it is essential for those primarily producing countries to keep up their overseas incomes and earnings for us to be able to maintain a high level, let alone an expanding level of exports to those countries.
  I believe that the problem of the underdeveloped countries is rising in importance. 1 believe that some of the creditor nations are not playing their part, particularly one or two nations on the other side of the Channel who are in a prosperous position, especially Germany which, I think, should play a larger part in helping the under-developed countries.
  This is an international problem which we cannot handle on our own. In the long run the gradual resolution of this problem and of raising the level of economic development in the world is of direct importance to our export potential. I also believe that too many of our exports are of a speculative nature. That is inevitable. One can be too successful in the North American market and pay the price of success in increased tariffs, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) will confirm, over wool exports and hon. Members for Birmingham over bicycles, and more recently, as hon. Members know, over power station contracts.

  269
  We can do too well in America and then find them slapping up tariffs against us. That is understandable, because they have 6 per cent. unemployment. It means that many of our exports are at risk. We have the recent position of B.O.A.C. over its air route round the world. There is also—and this was mentioned recently in the House—rising competition from behind the Iron Curtain. I could speak or certain products in my own industry in certain markets where this is not a potential threat but an actual threat at the moment.
  Then the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland mentioned the danger of the gradual exclusion of British goods from the centre of Europe. Last year 16 per cent. of our exports went to the Common Market. It is not so much the fact that it was 16 per cent. but the fact that among the make-up of those exports were many of our more sophisticated products where the percentage was not so much 16 per cent. as 30 per cent. I used the words sophisticated exports to refer to those high conversion margin products where brains, skills and capital play a large part in the total cost make-up and where the cost of the imported raw materials is low compared with the final selling price. These type of products arc those upon which we increasingly depend for our export trade.
  We must also remember the effect that the Common Market may have on the export of the oversea sterling area. Western Europe last year took 30 per cent. of the exports of the overseas sterling area. The Common Market today has in many ways as important an influence in the world as the American economy when one looks at its present position and the rate of economic expansion which has taken place in Europe over the last ten years.
  Prospects at home, I believe, are good; my fears were for the exports. One reservation which I have is the danger of wage inflation. We had last year 3½ per cent. increase in wages which we got away with because of lower import prices which covered it. But as my right hon. Friend said yesterday, almost everything depends on the degree of restraint shown in wage negotiations this year.
  We all agree that what we want to see. in practice, is wage increases covered
  270
  by increased production and by increased productivity. I should like to remind the Committee of what the Cohen Committee said in its second Report in August last year:
  " For annual increases in wages of 3½ per cent. are not merely higher than the present rate of productivity increase: they are higher than any rate of productivity increase which can reasonably be forecast over any long period of future years. It is virtually certain that a continuance of wage increases on this scale year after year would lead to a resumption of price inflation."
  Similar views are expressed by O.E.E.C. in its tenth Annual Report, which states:
  " But wage claims should be settled in the light of overall demand and cost considerations and should allow increased productivity to lead to price declines for some products, if steady increases in the general price level are to be avoided. Similarly, the link between wages and cost of living indices should not he too rigid—particularly when the cost of living is affected by temporary factors."
  The warning is clear enough. Will it be taken? It is a free economy. This problem will be the same for the Labour Party should it, by mischance, become the Government, because the Labour Party has told us that it has no intention of going in for the direction of labour or a national wages policy. I do not really believe the little bit of electioneering of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton when he said that if we had socially just policies the trade unions would show the necessary restraint in not pressing wage claims. I do not believe that the difference in social policies, if the right hon. Gentleman should find himself Chancellor of the Exchequer, would be so substantial or so significantly different that there would be a complete change in the attitude of the ordinary trade union members towards pressing wage claims.
  As my right hon. Friend told us yesterday, the object of the Budget was to assist expansion and assist the economy to become more competitive. The great question which my hon. Friend raised was what extra purchasing power is right to be injected into the economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's figure has been about £366 million gross, tax concessions £295 million and post-war credits £71 million. I cannot cavil at that figure. because a month ago, in a speech I made, I suggested that the right figure should be £350 million. If I am wrong, I am wrong in good company. The object is to stimulate trade and make it more

  271
  efficient. Does the reduction in the standard and lower rates of Income Tax help to stimulate trade? I believe that it does, not only for its effect on company finances but more particularly for the incentive effect that it will have on individuals.
  We hear it said that there are many people who do not pay Income Tax. A Question was recently asked by an hon. Member opposite and the Treasury gave a reply in which we were told that of the 21 million taxable incomes—remember the joint incomes of husband and wife count as one—only 21 million did not pay some form of Income Tax, which means that of all incomes as assessed by the Revenue only 11 per cent. do not pay Income Tax in some form and at some rate. That seems to dispose of the argument that the reduction of the standard rate and lower rates of Income Tax is merely a concession to the higher paid.
  Let us also remember that if one accepts the argument—and I think most of us do that there should be differential earnings for different jobs and that we should not merely have a flat-rate wage for all irrespective of job, when we come to reduce direct taxation, those earning higher incomes will, in actual figures, have a higher reduction if we are giving the same percentage reduction. If we say that we will always give in actual cash the same reduction to every taxpayer we are very near to saying that everyone should get the same wage irrespective of what they are doing or what their qualifications are, or how well they do the job.
  I think that that is a policy which, if hon. Members think it out, they would not support. If there is any reduction in direct taxation the people who pay most cash in actual cash terms will have a bigger cash reduction than those who pay less. That is in the nature of a progressive tax. Conversely, if we put up the rate, those with higher incomes pay more and when it comes down they pay less. I cannot see why hon. Gentlemen opposite should cavil at that. The right hon. Member for Huyton, of course, cavils at it because he sees a chance of making a cheap election jibe.
  The Purchase Tax reductions have been very substantial, but it seems to me that we are moving towards a more rational form of Purchase Tax structure
  272
  which will, in my view, probably culminate in a four-tier sales tax, the fourth tier being those products which do not attract any tax at all, which will be all the things which are outside Purchase Tax at present. It seems to me that this tax will remain permanently because it is of great assistance to the Exchequer, and this is a sensible approach to it. The question has been asked: why not abolish the 5 per cent. Purchase Tax category? In my view, if we are moving towards a sales tax, it is reasonable to leave the 5 per cent. tax in, because it covers quite a wide range of goods.
  I do not accept the proposition that reducing the Purchase Tax on the ordinary motor car from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. is a great concession to the rich and the plutocrats. The right hon. Member for Huyton made another of his cheap gibes about Rolls-Royces and Bentleys. He would do well to walk round his constituency—I have no doubt he does—or to walk round my constituency, Eastleigh, again, if he wishes, and see the number of motor cars which our ordinary constituents are, happily, in a position to buy. In parenthesis, I will add that the more often he comes to Eastleigh the larger will be my majority at the next election.
  I agree very much with the argument of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland in his comments about the investment allowances. Frankly, I accept them reluctantly. Like investment in the public sector, to which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor referred, investment in the private sector cannot be turned on and off as though with a tap. In my own view, there are certain essential conditions necessary to stimulate investment. Investment does not take place in vacuo. First, there must be market prospects. If a manufacturer sees a chance of expanding his business, he will do it if he has any " go " in him. Secondly, there must be an adequate level of savings to provide the investment capital. Thirdly, we must have a stable currency. If those three conditions are satisfied, investment will flow naturally of its own.
  The proposition that one can stimulate investment without regard to markets will lead one only to the embarrassing position of putting a large amount of capacity to work with raw materials

  273
  which one has to import and pay for on one's balance of payments, finding in the end that one has a lot of goods one is not able to sell. The two—markets and investment—things must go together. That is why I have devoted so much attention to our export prospects. I believe that they are the key to Investment. Provided that one maintains a reasonable level of savings, which we have, and a reasonably stable currency, investment will flow, provided there are reasonable prospects of maintaining and expanding markets.
  I should have preferred it if my right hon. Friend, instead of providing for these investment allowances, had concentrated on depreciation rates. It is the total figure allowed for depreciation, even mare than the rate, which matters. I do act want to take up further time on the matter of replacement cost over original cost, but I think that any hon. Member would be very bold if he were to say that the £ sterling would in twenty years have the same purchasing power as it has today. When putting in a machine, one has to think not of what it costs originally but of what it will cost to replace. Furthermore, replacement is not merely replacement of a machine because it is physically worn out. Far more often in modern industry, replacement is necessary because the machine is technically obsolete although it is still working very well.
  It would have been a bold measure, and my right hon. Friend would no doubt have had many accountants and certainly the Revenue against him, but I should have preferred him to move over to replacement cost instead of original cost. I believe that such a move would give the greatest possible continuing help to industry, rather than this in-and-out business of initial allowances and investment allowances. It would be something permanent upon which we, in heavy industry particularly, could plan. I believe that my approach is right for modern industry, and I suggest that our authorities should heed the words of Thomas Carlyle—
  " The foul sluggard's comfort: It will last my time."
  The trouble with British industry is that there are too many machines in use which people have said will last their time. Indeed, because they have been
  274
  well maintained and looked after, they are lasting their time. Part of the spare capacity we have unused at the moment is capacity which we should never use. It is out of date and it is high-cost capacity. If we want this stimulus in industry, I seriously suggest that we ought to adopt a rather different approach.
  In the long run, our success and the success of this Budget will be judged by the general stimulation produced in the economy. It would have been possible for my right hon. Friend to give greater stimulation at home. I believe that that course would have led to balance of payments problems within a year or eighteen months and would certainly have led to more inflation at home. I think that my right hon. Friend was right to take the figure he did. I believe that he has taken risks. For the reasons I have given, I am worried about our export prospects for the next eighteen months.
  6.46 p.m.
  Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We have listened to a very long speech from the hon. Member for Eastleigh—
  Mr. D. Price: I apologise.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: —composed of two parts. In one part he simulated anger against my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) but seemed, nevertheless, to accept much of his argument. In the other part, which we shall read with some interest, he adopted a more rational approach. I was a little amused to hear the hon. Gentleman apparently attacking my right hon. Friend for, as he said, dismissing the good fortune which this country has had in having a favourable trade balance and speaking of it as a windfall.
  Apparently, the hon. Gentleman regarded what my right hon. Friend had said as very wrong. Later, however, in one of the more rational passages in his own speech, the hon. Gentleman himself deplored to some extent the advantage which we in this country have gained because of its effect upon the underdeveloped territories of the world concerned in producing primary commodities.
  This is the very point. We have been enjoying this windfall. We are doubtful about the use the Government have made of the time which has been given to them

  275
  and the country, and we are concerned, also, like the hon. Gentleman, about the effect which our windfall has had upon those markets abroad and the standard of living of the peoples there which has been so much affected recently.
  The Government having enjoyed a windfall, it is worth while for us to examine the way in which they have made use of it. It is the priorities which they have established which are of most interest to us because they indicate the attitude of mind of members of the present Government and suggest to us that it is very important that Her Majesty's Government should be changed as rapidly as possible.
  The first matter of great concern, which has been mentioned already by several of my right hon. and hon. Friends, is the way in which the Government have dismissed the claims of social service expenditure in their determination of priorities. When we examine the large figure at their disposal and the use which they have made of it, and when we see the large area of social service expenditure which has been left out, we are perfectly right to call the Government to account.
  I would first refer to a point touched on by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. It is the question of the Government's withdrawal some time ago of housing subsidies, and the value that there would be to the economy as a whole if those subsidies could now be restored—the very small financial cost it would inflict on the Government as against the very real advantages to the economy that would undoubtedly flow from it.
  In response to a Question asked only yesterday, the reply from the Minister of Housing and Local Government showed that there had been a fall in building by local authorities of houses to rent. The figure in 1954 of some 257,000 houses built by local authorities was down to 145,500 last year. Indeed, there has been a dramatic drop in the house building activities of local authorities.
  It can be fairly said that in 1958, compared with five years before, only half the number of houses have been built for renting, and we know perfectly well why this has happened. It is because of the prohibition by the Government of local authorities carrying out general
  276
  building, and their action in stopping housing subsidies, except those for slum clearance and old people's houses. I am sure there is no doubt in the minds of my right and hon. Friends that one of the priorities that should have been given urgent consideration was this one, all the more because it is apparently common ground that we want to make full use of resources that at the moment are not being used because of the Government's inaction.
  What is the position? We know that a very large part of those who are unemployed today are building trade workers. One of the worrying factors is that although there have been improvements—which we noted with pleasure—during the past month, it is still true that very large numbers of building trade workers are out of work throughout the country, in my own constituency and elsewhere. These workers could now be building the houses that are so urgently wanted, especially for renting. There is an urgent need for more houses to rent in our big cities, and this need cannot be met by additional private house building for sale. This need could be met satisfactorily if the Government were prepared to allot a very small amount of this windfall at their disposal to local authorities for this purpose. That this opportunity has not been used shows how shallow is the Government's claim that they are eager to see an end to the lack of use of our resources. We on this side of the Committee will see that the Government are not allowed to forget this point.
  There are other examples. Recently there have been important debates in the House about the Government's policy on important social problems such as the development of the mental health services and the care of old people. On every occasion we were assured from the Treasury Bench of the good intentions of the Government and how much they were concerned with these problems. It was pointed out that the Government were in the course of passing through the House a new and important Measure relating to mental health. Tragically again, finance has not been provided either there or for the developments that are agreed to be necessary for provision for old people.

  277
  Not long ago there was a discussion in the House on the provisions the Government were making for mental health. To start with, they are not making any direct provision for mental health at all. They are making only an addition to the general block grant which may or may not be used for these purposes, or for other purposes that local authorities may decide on. The contribution that the Government have agreed to make to the block grant is so small that it cannot make any impression on the problems that face local authorities in the years immediately ahead. There is very real danger that a Bill that we all want to see carried out may in fact come to nothing because of the refusal of the Government to provide adequate financial support and to ensure that the finance is directed to this purpose.
  Here again, there is an indication of the way in which the Government are refusing to face the obvious needs of the country and refusing to satisfy those needs when the opportunity is available. When, a short time ago, the House was discussing the whole question of these new block grants to local authorities, the Government were complimenting themselves on the way in which this would enable considerable improvements to he made. They were challenged and it was discovered that the so-called improvements were almost non-existent. Local authorities were not to be able to spend any considerable sum of money in extending their services, for example, for old people. It meant that, in a service which we all agreed to be important—the providing of extra domiciliary care and proper residential accommodation for old people —our cities and counties would each be able to provide another ten places for old people during the next year, and that was; all. if some authorities wished to go further they would have to find the money out of resources which were needed for other purposes.
  These things are so clear that it is impossible to accept the sincerity of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench when they claim to wish to make progress. One could quote many further examples, but the care of old people is one of the most striking.
  Several right hon. and hon. Gentlemen have referred to the fact that no provision
  278
  appears to have been made by the Government so far as the actual money allowances for old people are concerned. An equally important matter is the development of services for old people, and there again the Government have clearly put this claim to one side, even though they are saying at the same time that they wish to see the services developed. There is no better example than that of the hypocrisy with which these claims are made.
  Let me turn to another matter that my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton raised when he spoke today. It was the question of the opportunity that was presented to the Government to take action with regard to the Health Service charges, or at least some of them. It is to us an amazing thing, after the criticism which there has been of the way in which the charges have been imposed -purely, it was said, to meet urgent needs at a time of great stringency—that this opportunity has not been taken to get rid of at least some of these charges.
  My right hon. Friend referred in particular to the prescription charge. We have evidence now, which has been presented to the House, of how the additional prescription charge which was imposed not so long ago has led to waste, to over-prescribing, and to possible medical danger as well. We all have from our constituencies examples, particularly among old people, of those who are quite seriously affected by these charges as they are enforced today.
  One would have thought this an obvious matter of which to take account when sums were available of the size referred to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget speech yesterday. Here are these hard cases of people who, perhaps, do not qualify for complete refund from the National Assistance Board, marginal cases who have to go to all the trouble of application to the Board only for the applications to be rejected, or to be accepted only in part. These hard cases could easily have been done away with by a relatively modest expenditure by the Government out of the funds which they admit they have at their disposal. Since we have those cases it is intolerable that these funds have been used to benefit those whose claim is surely, by common agreement, far less important than that of those I have mentioned.

  279
  I have already suggested ways in which the Government could have done far more if their object was indeed to improve employment in the country. Here is an instance where clearly they could have made a very real and important contribution to the maintenance of the sense of social justice. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eastleigh suggested that a sense of justice was not enough. Maybe, but it is a very important contributory factor in making our appeal for a better contribution by our people. My right hon. Friend rightly said that there are many among those who enjoy and will enjoy the remission in the duty upon beer who would have preferred to have seen some at least of that money used far the sort of purpose I have been mentioning.
  The prescription charge which has been condemned by the professions and attacked by social scientists and others is not the only charge which the Minister should have looked at. There is also the dental treatment charge which the Guillebaud Committee years ago unanimously called upon the Government to review as soon as financial circumstances permitted. Presumably we are not likely to have a better opportunity of financial circumstances permitting than this. Here, presumably, is the opportunity which the Guillebaud Committee had in mind when it reported. The Guillebaud Committee said clearly that it recognised that the speed with which charges could be withdrawn would depend upon economic circumstances, but it also clearly said that in its view one of the first to be tackled was the charge upon dental treatment, which, in its view, had done a great deal of damage to our dental health services. I think we would take much the same view.
  Indeed, the Guillebaud Committee, a very independent Committee, made a similar recommendation affecting spectacles. Although the Government have taken no account of those recommendations, there is no doubt that these charges have imposed a good deal of hardship, especially among older people, who are entitled to some help and encouragement at this time. There are the smaller charges, too, which I think it is fair at any rate to remark on, for artificial limbs and for other services which our hospitals provide. It is quite
  280
  monstrous that there should be continued charges for surgical boots and all kinds of equipment which are quite vital for a disabled man to carry on at a job. These are charges one would have thought the Government would have been eager to get rid of.
  It is, of course, possible—all things, presumably, are possible—that the Government have it in mind to bring in the necessary amending legislation later.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: Nearer the election.
  Mr. Blenkinsop: Nearer the election, as my right hon. Friend points out, but I must say, because of my desire to see these charges got rid of, that I would welcome that action being taken by the Government.
  We therefore challenge the Government to say now, while we are discussing their own proposals, whether indeed the Chancellor is considering this proposal, or whether he is regarding all these Health Service charges as a permanent part of our legislation, never at any time to be remitted. Or is he not going to take the opportunity of advising the Minister of Health to bring forward amending proposals to deal, if not with the whole of the charges, at least with some of those which have affected both young and old very seriously indeed in these past years?
  As the Chancellor is in his seat, I would particularly direct his attention to the matter which was referred to by my right hon. Friend, the urgent need to deal with the prescription charges and the additional charges which were imposed only a relatively short time ago and which have been the subject of such bitter criticism both in Parliament and in the country and which, in our view, impose such great hardship.
  While I am referring to matters which show a lack of sense of social justice exhibited by the present Government, I would quote one other example. It is a matter in which I have been particularly interested for some years. The Government make relatively small contributions to the United Nations and to one of its agencies, the World Health Organisation, which is one of many. The World Health Organisation has been doing remarkable work over the past years with really very little money. In order to tackle a major world problem—indeed, disaster—which can now be solved, that

  281
  of malaria, it instituted a special fund, with the object of getting rid of malaria M the whole world within five or six years. That was its hope, and it believed that it could be achieved.
  It appealed for special contributions from countries all over the world. It invited countries to volunteer contributions for this purpose. America, I must say, has made successive contributions. This country has made absolutely none. It seems to me fantastic that we are not prepared even to show our good will, that we are not prepared to act as leaders to encourage other countries to come forward as well with their contributions for a purpose which is so much in the common interest of the world as a whole.
  I believe that the Government's refusal to take any notice of appeals of this kind shows how shallow is their claim to have an interest in wider issues of world welfare, or, indeed, to have any sense of the importance of social justice in this country. That is the reason I feel that the Budget proposals, while offering many welcome remissions, show the Government's hypocrisy in their major claims to the country and demonstrate how urgent is the country's need that these more important matters should be given attention by another Government soon.
  7.10 p.m.
  Mr. H. A. Price: I sometimes feel, Mr. Blackburn, that you and your colleagues in the exercise of your discretion, and, perhaps, to relieve the tedium of your task, have quiet little jests of your own. I fancy I have detected one this evening in that you have called from this side of the Committee consecutively my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. D. Price) and myself. Perhaps it is not inappropriate that in a debate on the Budget "prices" should be to the fore.
  I shall confine my remarks to two separate categories, neither of which will take me very long. First, I will comment on the Budget itself and, secondly, on its possible consequences.
  When we are discussing a matter which affects almost every aspect of national life it is very easy to find subjects for criticism. It is extremely easy to accuse the Chancellor of sins of either omission or commission. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), for example, expressed regret that the Chan-cello- had done nothing about Schedule
  282
  A tax. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I understand that the 2d. a pint off beer will cost the Exchequer £40 million. I wish that that money had been devoted to the reduction or the abolition of Schedule A tax. But it so happens that 1 am trying to buy my own house and that I do not drink beer; it may be that my view is influenced by that.
  There are two points about the Budget which I feel are open to criticism, and both of them have been mentioned. First, I agree with those who have said that they wish that the Chancellor had found it possible so to arrange his Income Tax concessions that those who were at the lowest level of Income Tax were relieved of Income Tax altogether. It could have been done in many ways, and the Chancellor knows them better than I. Why I am so keen on this is that it would exercise an incentive effect far greater than similar amounts of money devoted to concessions higher up in the Income Tax level.
  The second point of criticism is one on which I feel even more strongly. It concerns the Government's attitude towards Purchase Tax. The principle which the Chancellor has followed of reducing Purchase Tax by one-sixth is, I think, unfortunate, and in this I agree, surprisingly enough, with the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), who said that a substantial proportion of these concessions will not reach the public. I did not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he accused the manufacturers, for I think that this process of withholding the benefits from the public takes place more in the shops than at the manufacturing level. Even so, I am not criticising the shopkeepers. As I will try to show, the process is almost inevitable.
  I will try to demonstrate it by reference to articles about which I know a little—articles made of paper. I will take greetings cards as an example A greetings card which sells in the shops at 6d. carries Purchase Tax at the old rate of 10s. 8d. per gross. The reduction in the Budget is 1s. 9½. per gross, or roughly one-seventh of a penny per greetings card. If anybody can tell me how a retailer can pass on to a customer a reduction of one-seventh of a penny, I will tell my shopkeeper friends, but so far neither they nor I have been able to think of a way.

  283
  Even if we turn to prices higher in the scale, the reduction in Purchase Tax on a greetings card which sells in the shops at 1s. is only about one farthing. Do we expect the shopkeeper to sell such a card at 11frac¾? I do not. Shopkeepers never have done so and never will. We have to go to a retail price as high as 4s. on articles chargeable at 30 per cent. Purchase Tax, before the reduction is as much as Id. It is only at that level that the reduction becomes one which can reasonably be passed to the customers.
  Of course, when one goes higher in prices to articles costing £10 the reduction is measurable, but on lower prices of 4s. or less, which covers a very wide range of articles indeed, it is practically impossible to pass on the benefit of the reduction in Purchase Tax to the customer and it is held back somewhere earlier in the chain. I do not know whether it is possible for the Chancellor to do anything about this. I think that the only solutions are to relieve such articles from Purchase Tax altogether or to leave them as they are. I should prefer the former method. I pass these comments to the Chancellor in the hope that the practical problem will receive consideration.
  I turn to the consequences of the Budget, a theme on which I feel a good deal of concern. Since the end of the war and until eighteen months ago we have had constant, uninterrupted inflation in this country. Inflation is a complicated subject in which many factors play their part, but I am satisfied that the biggest single factor is that of wage and salary increases unmatched by increases in productivity. I have here some figures which I observed the other day and which illustrate the point clearly.
  Since a date which I have not noted. and which does not matter because it does not affect my argument, there has been an increase of 85 per cent. in the gross national product, but only 29 per cent. of that is increase in real wealth. The other 56 per cent. is due entirely to higher prices. Against this increase of 29 per cent. in real wealth during the period wages and salaries have risen by 90 per cent. and profits by 67 per cent. No wonder that money has bought less and less, that savings have shrunk in value and that there have been insufficient savings to finance essential capital investment.
  284
  In an era of over-full employment in- creases in wages have been too easy to obtain, and in an era in which demand has appreciably exceeded supply profits have been too easy to make. By eighteen months ago the condition had become chronic. Neither Government had been able to solve it. It was not until then that this Government took drastic steps to deal with the problem, steps initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) and continued by his successor, the present Chancellor. It seems that their policy has succeeded and that almost, if not quite, inflation has been ironed out of the economy. But we have had to pay a price. The price has been an appreciable increase in unemployment, which in January this year reached a figure of 620,000, or 2.8 per cent.
  Some hon. Members opposite sometimes say, and even more often imply, that this increase in unemployment has been deliberately sought by Her Majesty's Government. I say to them in all frankness that that is importing an undesirable element of prejudice into the argument. I am quite satisfied that that was not the Government's purpose. Their purpose was to defeat inflation. It could be argued that the increase in unemployment flowed from that determination, but it was not the Government's purpose.
  Nevertheless, unemployment reached a level at which it became uncomfortable. Since it was foreseen six months ago, the Government began then to take measures to increase demand, to expand the economy and to hold down, and later reduce, unemployment. That is the process upon which we are now embarked and the present Budget, by pouring £366 million into the economy, will go still further along that road. But I have a nasty feeling that before very long we shall be back where we started, in an era of inflation.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General said in his speech that America had been making a remarkable recovery from the recession and that Western Europe was moving into an era of expansion. So are we. I also gather that commodity prices, which have been moving in our favour for some time, have begun to harden and have, indeed, begun to move against us. Now, we have

  285
  another £366 million poured into the economy. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has not gone too far.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General also expressed the hope that we should not be faced with a round of wage claims unmatched by productivity and unrelated to the cost of living figure. I hope so too, as did my hon. Friend the Member far Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell). I am sure we all hope so. I wish, however, that we could have something a little more tangible than hope. How firm is this hope? Is the Chancellor at all confident? I am not. I have an uncomfortable feeling that under the influence of the trends which have already been referred to, we shall move back into an inflationary economy, prices will soar again, money will lose still more of its value, there will be still less left for capital investment and again we shall have to adopt measures to cure inflation and we shall be back where we started.
  The only people to whom such a process. would bring any comfort would be the leaders of the Communist world. Their influence is spreading all over the world. One has only to look at the map and consider recent developments in the Middle East and in Africa. It is spreading by the use of economic, not military, weapons. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote an interesting article in the April issue of a well-known magazine in which he referred to this very point—that Russia is fighting an economic war. If we are to win the economic war, we must fight it with economic weapons. I suggest that we have not been doing so these last ten or twelve years and that we shall not be able to do so in the future if my fears of a return to inflation in a few months' time prove to be justified.
  Is there anything that we can do about this? I have a feeling that there is. It is based mainly upon an impression which I have received from speeches delivered by certain eminent industrialists in recent months and letters written over their signatures in several organs of the national Press and from the speeches of prominent trade union leaders. I have a feeling that they are all very conscious of this problem and are willing to do
  286
  something about it, but that they are waiting for a lead and that their desires have to be co-ordinated and harnessed to a programme in order to be effective.
  The way I see it is that for the last twelve years we have been on a see-saw —inflation up, unemployment down, then inflation down, unemployment up—and now, perhaps, we are moving in the opposite direction again. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor tells us, and I believe him, that at the moment we are comparatively stable; the see-saw is level. I wish I could think that it would remain so. Does the Chancellor really believe it to be possible to hold it there for any measurable period of time? I doubt it. If we are to get off it, the time to do so is now, while it is stable. It is a little difficult and dangerous to jump off a see-saw while it is in motion. Now while it is stable, is the time.
  What we must do is to make a supreme effort to seize this opportunity, which may not recur, to move into a price-reducing economy and make a positive effort to reduce prices. Here again, I can illustrate what I have in mind by some figures related to 1957. In that year. Britain's total outlay on consumption rose by 4.6 per cent., but the real rise in consumption was only 2 per cent. The other 2.6 per cent. was accounted for by increased prices. Had prices risen by only 1.6 per cent. instead of 2.6 per cent., the increase in consumption would have been 3 per cent, instead of 2 per cent.—in other words, 50 per cent. higher than it was—and the small loss in profit would have been compensated for by increased turnover.
  Such a process, once begun, would feed upon itself. A reduction in prices would mean increased consumption. Increased consumption would mean greater efficiency and still further reductions in prices. We could face with confidence the battle to maintain, and even to increase, our exports against the ever-increasing competition from abroad and we could put ourselves in a position to meet the economic war which we have to face from behind the Iron Curtain.
  The Government could help by legislation. The Chancellor has already helped by the restoration of the investment allowance. That is welcome and will make a contribution. The Government could help still more, but I recognise that

  287
  the extent to which they can help by legislation is not very great. They could, however, help by giving a lead; by calling together the leaders of industry and of the trade union movement to point out the dangers and the consequences of failing to measure up to them, and to the nature of the present opportunity and calling upon both sides to make an all-out effort to increase productivity, to harness increased efficiency and up-to-date machinery to the task of reducing prices and to pass on those reductions to the consumer; not to absorb them in increased profits or in higher wages.
  To the wage earner, a reduction in prices is just as good as an increase in wages in the short run. In the long run, it is even better since it strengthens our export position. To the producer, a smaller margin of profit on an increased turnover is just as beneficial as a higher margin on a smaller turnover, and in the long run he increases his export capacity too.
  I repeat that I believe the danger to which I have referred is present. But I believe that the opportunity to meet it is there. I call upon the Government to take a lead in seizing it while it lasts.
  7.30 p.m.
  Mrs. Jean Mann: I am sorry that I cannot follow the hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) in his argument. I hope to say a few words about Purchase Tax later. I think that on the whole this is a very comprehensive Budget, showing traces of a very humane Chancellor, who I think has the respect of Members on both sides of the Committee.
  This Budget is rather like those which I made up myself every week, in which I was able to give great satisfaction to some of my children, whereas others were told that they would just have to wait. They would not be jubilant about this Budget, but I think that every parent in budgeting would probably first ensure that there was security overhead and would then attend to the members of the family who needed assistance most. It is because there are members of our British family who need assistance most that I want to take the opportunity to bring their plight to the attention of the Chancellor because I know that my words will not fall on stony ground. I
  288
  am not referring to old-age pensioners. They have their pressure groups. They can lobby Members in the afternoon, can write out their resolution and make their threat. They are well organised. Certainly they have a just and needy cause and I hope that care will be taken of them.
  I want to talk about widows and orphan children whose mothers get nothing whatever from the State for their upkeep. I know that some hon. Members have always thought that children of a widowed mother receive the benefit of the widowed mother's allowance. However, that is not so if their dad died under the wrong Act. There is the widow who receives 10s.—out of which she has to pay 7s. 10d. for the stamp—but nothing whatever for her orphan children. She is deprived of the £1 for the first child and the 12s. for the second child. She is told by all parties, "Go out and work."
  What a strange thing, when we consider that in 1948 we in this House decided that it was a bad thing for a young widow with young children to go out to work, so bad that we imposed an earnings rule on her. Yet we say to her, "Get out to work. It does not matter whether you have young children. We are not giving you anything for your young children. Their dad died at the wrong time." Such mothers write to me complaining that the father had paid for the insurance stamp all his life, but under the wrong Act. It is inconceivable that we can have widows and orphans in this Christian country, which believes that true Christianity is to look after the widows and orphans, who come right at the bottom of the ladder, forsaken and forgotten.
  If anyone thinks that I am drawing a long bow, I should like to refer to a reply which I received from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance. The reply stated that the fact that a widow has young children does not in itself give entitlement to a National Insurance widow's benefit. She is told, in effect, "Get out and work for your young children. You will get nothing from us." Fifty thousand of these young widows are on National Assistance.
  When we decided in 1948 that it was wrong that widows with young children

  289
  should go out to work, we had the bright idea that they should have a full maintenance allowance. That does not apply to the widow receiving 10s. We decided that they should have a full maintenance allowance and that if they then went out to work we would penalise them. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King), who I am glad to see on these benches, has fought time and again in the House for the 10s. widow. I believe that he has organised a group on their behalf in Southampton. I think that there should be a march, not from Aldermaston—although I do not disapprove of that by any manner of means —but a march of the 90,000 widows who are getting 10s., less 7s. 10d. for the stamp, and nothing for their children.
  The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance on one occasion, when I thought that I was getting the support of the House on this question, told me that I was merely citing the case of ladies whose opposite number get nothing at all. In other words, we on both sides of the House—this is not a question of politics —are led to believe that the 10s. widow is getting something more than her opposite number. That reply from the Minister somehow or other got into the Press, and I was inundated with letters from widows who said that it was not true. On my landing there is a widow of the same age as myself who receives 50s. with no stamp deduction and 32s. for 'her two orphans. One woman wrote to me saying, "My sister is in the same age group as myself and she gets 50s., 32s. for her orphan, with no stamp deduction, whereas I get 2s. 2d. and nothing for my orphan".
  I became a little bolder and put a Question to the Minister to clarify once and for all how many widows in the 50 to 60 age group were getting 50s. and how many were getting 10s. The reply was that 165,000 widows are receiving 50s., and the orphan allowance with no stamp deduction. There are 90,000 widows who are getting 10s. less 7s. 10d. with no orphan allowance.
  Psychiatrists often tell us what leads to criminal tendencies and what makes certain people take the wrong way. If my widowed mother were struggling, knowing that the State had no regard for my brother or myself and insisted on her going out to work until she was 60, while there are so many other widows, often
  290
  like myself, who are receiving the full orphan and widows' allowance, I would think that it was a crazy State with a crazy, cold, heartless system for its widows.
  Three women have lately been to see me in my interview room. First, there was Amy, a widow with three children. She lived in a bungalow on which unfortunately she still had half the mortgage to pay. Most of the people who live in bungalows in this district vote Tory and so unfortunately does she, but I think that she will be a non-voter in future. Who would blame her? She goes out to her old job at £7 10s. a week in order to keep up payments on the bungalow and to maintain her children, one of whom is a deaf-mute. Because she goes out to work. £2 10s. is deducted from her widow's pension.
  Across the street there is a woman of her own age who works in the same office and whose husband also works. She doers not need to go to work but she says that there is always a little extra for the children if she does. Amy's children had nothing extra at Christmas time, but the other woman's children had expensive toys, including a lovely motor car and a pram. If it had not been for a kind benefactor, Amy's children would have had nothing. It is true that the benefactor could not afford to give expensive toys, but she saw to it that Amy and her children had a good Christmas dinner and that Amy was able to buy a couple of good Burberry coats and a good pair of winter shoes.
  The second woman, Dora, came to see me on Sunday. She is a fine specimen of a woman with three fine children. She is a school teacher and she told me that she kept at her job when she lost her husband. She received from the Chancellor £390 in Income Tax allowance when her husband was alive, but when her husband died she lost £250 of the allowance, for she is now treated as a single woman for Income Tax purposes and has £8 8s. a month deducted from her widow's pension. I would tell my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen that here is one who is willing to lead the march.
  The third woman is a nurse, and we all know how much the country needs urgently teachers and nurses. She writes to me that she needs the full hours she

  291
  works at the hospital as much as the hospital needs her. She needs them for her three children. She is ambitious for her children, but she adds that every hour of part-time work that she does at the hospital is given voluntarily and she is just about the last person who can afford to do that.
  Although there are very few hon. Members in the Chamber, I am sure that what is lacking in quantity is made up in quality. When the time comes when I am no longer doing this kind of work, I am quite certain that some hon. Members will remember and carry on the fight for the widows.
  Dr. Horace King: I am sure that the Committee is listening with interest to my hon. Friend, but I should like to remind her that there is a third group of widows apart from the 50s. and 10s. group. There is a " no shilling a week " group.
  Mrs. Mann: Yes, I am glad that my hon. Friend has reminded me, as I am constantly reminded in my correspondence, that there are widows who get nothing at all, not because they have not paid for the stamp on their cards over the ten years but because some of those years have been in the wrong date group.
  Purchase Tax talk leaves me quite cold. I had a good laugh when I read in a newspaper this morning the comments of the owner of a cosmetics shop who said:

  "This is certainly good news. Women have had to pay this rather large Purchase Tax on cosmetics for long enough."
  Now they are to have a marvellous reduction on the price of a 7s. 6d. lipstick. They will have the great amount of 3d.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: Do lipsticks cost 7s. 6d.?
  Mrs. Mann: Yes. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the matter. A lipstick really ought to cost 6d., if my son, in a little medical research which he has conducted, has diagnosed the contents properly. Now we are expected to give utter whoops of delight because there will be a 3d. reduction. The old lady who is receiving no increase in her pension will have a penny reduction when she buys a new frying pan—if she can buy a new frying pan at any time. It is more than likely that she is condemned to use one in which the holes are past patching up.
  292
  Again, on a £30 carpet there is to be a reduction of 11s. Purchase Tax talk leaves me cold after my experience a year ago when I probed it to its depth and found that there is no enforcement whatsoever by the Government to ensure that the reduction in the tax reaches the consumer. Retailers can pass it on if they like. The honest, reputable merchant will probably pass it on whilst a merchant next door or in the next street makes no concession at all. I asked the Chancellor time and time again about this during the passage of the Finance Act last year, but he passed the buck to the President of the Board of Trade who, hemmed in, answered " No, Sir " when I asked if he would do anything to see that Purchase Tax concessions were enforced and the consumer received the benefit.
  I must tell the Committee why Purchase Tax talk leaves me cold and why I do not trust the Government in the matter of the stability of the cost of living. I prefer the expression "stability of the cost of living " to " stability of prices ", because I am reminded of Oscar Wilde's description of the man
  "who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing."
  In this age of prepackaging, when everything is handed over the counter with no weight stated on the box or on the cellophane wrapper, and no weights stated on the packet of powder or detergent or even on a piece of wrapped cheese, people know the price of everything and the value of nothing. It will be quite in order if I point out to the Chancellor that over a full year I paid stable prices for everything that I used in my house by way of food and other commodities, yet by the middle of each week I found that I had to renew supplies because of the fluctuating weight and content of the packets sold to me.
  I have here a memorandum which I have brought to the notice of the President of the Board of Trade. It is dated 30th January, 1959, and was sent out to shopkeepers by Radio and Allied Industries Limited. It states:
  " We want to accelerate the movement of our whole range.… We have chosen to offer supplies to all our dealers, special nett prices leaving the list prices unchanged. These nett prices, as you will see from the list below, provide the inducement of a substantial extra profit which will enable you to give an extra incentive to your sales staff.…"

  293
  Not, mark you, to reduce the price of the article. The instruction is that the list prices must remain unaltered. The extra profit is listed as follows: on a 32 guinea set, £5 10s. 3d.; on a 55 guinea set. £7 17s.; on a 59 guinea set, £9 Os. 10d.: on a 67 guinea set, strange to say, £8 8s. 5d. 1 cannot understand that fluctuation. I see that on the 67 guinea set of which the old trade price was £53 8s. 4d., the new net price in this memorandum is £45. I believe the labourer is worthy of his hire, and I am not against a reasonable profit, but I think a 67 guinea set reduced to £45 can well stand the £8 8s. 5d. being passed directly to the consumer.
  When I sent this memorandum to the President of the Board of Trade and asked him what steps, if any, he would take to ensure that this practice would be stopped, I received the usual reply, "None, Sir." So when I read my Daily Express, which tells me to whoop and shout for joy because there is a Purchase Tax reduction of £2 on a £60 set, and I know that there has been a reduction of £9 already, about which the President of the Board of Trade said they could do as they liked, I am not entirely enraptured, because I know that the same attitude is taken by the Front Bench opposite towards this £2 reduction in Purchase Tax, namely, that the shopkeeper can pass it on if he likes.
  Our warm-hearted Chancellor has a different attitude towards beer. He gives 2d. off the pint and he lays down the law specifically from the Box. I quote his words:
  " I intend that the benefit of this concession shall he wholly passed on.
  I know that he must pass by in his own life many women who would probably jump at the chance of him. We should not be surprised, perhaps, that where housewives and women are concerned he passes on and will not give us any guarantee that his Purchase Tax reduction shall be passed on to the consumer, only to the man who wants his pint of beer.
  I conclude with what I regard as the greatest indictment of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the cost of living. Whilst paying due regard to the stability of the cost of living as being of the utmost importance to the economy of
  294
  the nation, the right hon. Gentleman said that he must consult his right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General as to whether food prices would rise or not.
  Mr. Amory: I think the hon. Lady is misquoting me. What I said was that I thought, by the law of averages, we could hope for a better potato crop this year and—rather a poor joke, I admit—I said that I would ask my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General to consult " Ernie " to see whether he could tell me what were the exact chances of a better potato crop.
  Mrs. Mann: The last time the right hon. Gentleman and I had a brush about potatoes in the House of Commons he told my right hon. Friend the Member for Warrington (Dr. Surnmerskill) and myself that we were both very poor housewives, that he could buy potatoes cheaper than either of us. I am certain that the right hon. Gentleman would be easily spoofed by potatoes done up in a cellophane bag, where the specks and spots on them were hidden so that he could not see them. That is why he got them for 3½d. when we wiser housewives were paying 5d. a pound.
  I come back to the question of price stability. This is the age of the self-service store. Every day more and more goods are coming on to the market, and the pre-pack trade is in itself now a formidable industrial group. My grocer tells me that the pre-pack group simply will not stamp their packages with the weight but have been offering 3d. off the packet. Again they are like the radio people. The grocer is given the money and he can pass it on if he likes. He is given 3d. for every label left in the shop.
  My grocer wrote to me to say that he could take 6d. off the price of the package but that if he liked to put 3d. in the till he was free to do so. That is Tory freedom. Tory freedom works. Let us have the full play of free competition. But where is the competition today? There are monopoly groups on every side. That same grocer told me that he told the traveller that on his shelf there was a packet which contained two ounces less than it should do, and yet the price was the same. The traveller said something about condensation or evaporation. " But ", said the grocer, I have some of the old stock also. Would not that suffer

  295
  more from evaporation? Yet there are two ounces more in the old stock ". Hoy, can any Minister of Labour or any Chancellor accurately assess the cost-of-living index figure if he relies entirely on prices and shuts his eyes to the ever-changing weight in the packages, in the boxes and in the cellophane packets?
  I apologise for keeping the Committee rather long but I hope that some change will be made.
  8.0 p.m.
  Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: I am delighted to follow the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann), because this is the first time I have had that pleasure in any of our debates. She devoted her speech largely to two subjects, and I think we all recognise her sincerity and the nearness to her heart of these social problems which she touched upon, particularly the widows in the circumstances which she mentioned, and especially what are known as the 10s. widows.
  I hope quite frankly that full note will be taken of the personal experiences which the hon. Lady has had, because they are not all that different from what many of us have found. This is a problem which many of us have found from time to time a little difficulty in answering on the basis of the official letter on this subject. Therefore, I certainly would be grateful if it could be examined. There are a lessening number of these people as the years go by, and possibly it would not be too bad, however illogical it might be, to see if we could bridge the gap between the two classes of widow. I, personally, would welcome it. I recognise the sincerity with which the hon. Lady addressed herself to this subject.
  So far as the other subject, that of Purchase Tax, is concerned, I could not quite follow the hon. Lady or entirely agree with what she was saying. Nothing alters the fact that reductions in Purchase Tax have been made amounting to something like £80 million in a full year, and that is an enormous sum. One can always make a fuss about odd examples and say that it is only a penny off this or that, but many of us buy a lot of odd articles in the aggregate in the course of a year, and they add up in our spending. It is fair game for any Opposition, and it
  296
  is always easy to hold up something and say, " It is only a penny off this or 2d. off that ", but the fact of the matter is that nearly all the articles, or the great majority, in the Purchase Tax field are common purchases. I admit that a few are in the luxury group, but there must be some overall advantage.
  I get tired of hearing about this business of the enforcement officers and all the rest of it. I suppose it is typical Labour Party policy, which is one of the reasons why I am a Tory. There are several others, but that is one of them. I think that this is underestimating the standard of common sense of our people, and it really does disturb me. Even our own sex are quite able people quite capable of knowing what is a good buy and what is a bad buy. We all get " done " occasionally, but we get " done" anyhow, even when we get a packet marked so many ounces. Not many of us know what fourteen ounces of a commodity look like in a container. I have spent years in the pharmaceutical business, and I know quite a lot about packing, and when walking round a factory or a laboratory I have often queried whether certain packages contained what they should, because they looked so much less. Even when I have had the contents tipped out and measured, they have only looked different because of the container. No one should imagine that we should all become brilliant judges of weights if all packages were marked.
  This is so much nonsense. It might well be, and probably is, good politics, but it certainly is not common sense. I think that there is enough common sense in the majority of our people that if they find that any manufacturer is " doing " them, they will soon change to somebody else. If the manufacturer fails, he will get no sympathy from me.
  My right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General, rather early in his speech, said that very little had been said in the debate about the Budget. I think this is true, and I think that the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) actually squeezed his sour grapes until the last reluctant pip squeaked. He certainly made the kind of speech for which, as a professional after-dinner speaker, he might have been paid a high fee. We

  297
  had it for nothing, but 1 must say that it had very little to do with the Budget. I found that the speech which had a little bit more to do with the Budget was that of the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), whose speeches I always enjoy the further away he gets from the Front Opposition Bench.
  There is only one thing with which I will grumble, and it is about this idea about unearned income, which positively makes me tired. The way in which some people talk about this makes unmitigated nonsense. Unearned income, or as I prefer to call it invested income, or savings. in fact, is just as valuable as any other form of income. Where on earth should we be now if a lot of firms up and down the country had not put their savings to the support and extension of their businesses? Nearly every big business today started as a relatively small business. in which savings—the unearned income—have been used to build up the business from which they get some return, to which they are just as much entitled as labour. Over recent years, they have not had an awful lot, and it is nonsense to talk of unearned income as something to be ashamed of. This sort of talk is all right for the platform, but here we ought to have a little more sense and more regard for the facts of the case.
  Mr. Lindgren: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but this is a vital point. The fact is that there would be no profit but for the basic earnings of the person who is the primary producer. It is a fact that wages have been low and those at the top have taken an undue proportion of the value of the work produced by the workers and it is from that that they have got their unearned income.
  Mr. Hirst: No. I will not enter into a debate on what the proportion is now or has been. I say that capital and labour must be a partnership. I will not argue about whether the proportion has been wrong in the past, but the fact is that we must have a partnership of both, and to suggest that unearned income is something to be ashamed of, something which ought to be more heavily taxed, is quite out of date and begs the whole question of regard for a sensible industrial practice.
  298
  Several hon. Members have mentioned investment allowances in respect of depreciation which my right hon. Friend has included in his Budget. I rather share their views. I know that it is difficult in any industry to plan ahead when one does not know whether one is to have an investment allowance or not, or whether it will be taken away and all the rest of it. That is why I myself feel that some new basis of depreciation, although I think it could be costly in the first instance, would be a better way. I have made at least eight or nine speeches in the House in recent years asking for the depreciation basis on replacement value rather than on the historic value.
  It is not at all difficult to get, but it would mean a revaluation, though after that there is a formula that can be applied. It is not difficult to do, but I admit that in the first instance it would be costly. Ultimately, we must be placed in a position of equality with our competitors, very many of whom have much better systems of depreciation allowances than we have in this country. I hope that if all goes well, and I have every reason to believe that it will, and there is an opportunity in the next Conesrvative Budget, which will presumably be in a year's time, this matter can he looked into and dealt with.
  I have no hesitation in praising my right hon. Friend for the courage, and I think on the whole the wisdom, of his Budget. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) that a risk is being taken, and that is clear to anyone who follows these matters in the slightest degree. There is a distinct risk being taken, and there are some conundrums to be faced, but it was a decision which had to be made one way or the other. I think that my right hon. Friend has done the right thing, and I am glad that he has not tried to dilly-dally, because it would have been much worse if he had done only half the job. The Budget will be a considerable boost to production and also to the employment of labour, and I praise wholeheartedly my right hon. Friend's proposals.
  I believe in leaving industry, through lower taxation, to its own resources so far as possible so that it may develop and modernise itself, rather than offering " carrots " in the form of investment allowances, initial allowances and the rest

  299
  of it. Had I been planning this matter, if I may be vain enough to say so, I should have preferred to see 1s. off the Income Tax and not so many " bits and pieces." I am convinced that a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax, with the necessary reductions in the lower rates, is the greatest possible incentive to industry. There is nothing to equal it for getting the wheels of industry turning. It is far better than a lot of "clap-trap " about putting up factories all over the place when there is no knowledge of the amount of orders which will come to them. Trade is not stimulated in that way. The market must be encouraged so that industrialists will re-equip themselves to take advantage of the opportunities which they can see. They do not carry out programmes of re-equipment for fun; nor will the "carrots " I have mentioned attract them any more than the kind of controls which are imposed by the Labour Party.
  Last year I declared a modest interest in the matter of Customs and Excise, not for the first time, when I expressed my desire to see a reform in the licence duty. In a speech which took up a considerable amount of space in the OFFICIAL REPORT I discussed the historical background of this interesting subject, and so T must say a big "Thank you " to my right hon. Friend. He has gone much further than the 25 per cent. reduction for which I asked. Incidentally the figure was identical with what was promised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) in 1929 but on that occasion, owing to an unusually speedy election, the promise was not fulfilled. On this occasion, obviously, there is no danger of that.
  In the same connection I think it a good thing that there should be something off beer. I support what was said by my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General about beer paying a " Purchase Tax "—that is the way they like to look at it—paying on average gravity of something like 150 per cent. That is a phenomenal amount. I do not see why a little cheer should not be given in that direction. It is appreciated by a lot of people and has been long deserved.
  We cannot have everything. 1 have heard a few "shopping lists " read out today and I will spare the Committee my own, but I must say that I am a little sorry that the problem of the Stamp Duty
  300
  has not been tackled. That is only because I want to see the way clear for some scheme which I trust the Government are considering, in addition to those which are already operating, to help the small man to engage in industrial saving. I should like to see the ordinary wage-earner able to invest in industrial securities and, where it is suitable, in the firm in which he works. That sort of stake in the country not only represents sound Conservative policy but, obviously, is a sound policy from the national viewpoint; because the more people there are with such a stake in the country, the greater the stability of the country and the less risk of Communist infiltration.
  I was also interested in the matter of expenditure, although not only in the rather technical way in which it was approached by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West. I can foresee that the time will come when, to assist the economy and achieve tax reductions, aid will have to come from totally different sources and in a different way from that in which reductions are being achieved this year. It will have to be carried out by means of a reduction in the demands of Government Departments. That is a matter which must be examined. I plead for some system of examination of Governmental expenditure.
  We know only too well that Ministers have not the time to be, as it were, managing directors of their Departments. They may act as hard-working chairmen, but they cannot be full-time managing directors. Therefore, there must be some system whereby expenditure can be overhauled, and some machinery must be devised which will be independent of the Departments. I appreciate the difficulties, but a way can be found if we have the will. It is no use referring these matters back to the Department concerned. It is necessary that there should be some separate machinery to ensure that an independent investigation is made of forms of expenditure which appear unnecessary. Despite all the work which has been done in that direction during the last few years, we must search for other ways of making considerable reductions in this form of expenditure.
  The economic side of the Chancellor's speech was, I thought, summed up to-day by the Yorkshire Post in this quotation:
  "The vital point to be grasped is that monetary policy alone cannot ensure this

  301
  country's prosperity. The nation's well being depends to a very large degree upon our success in selling our products abroad: and we shall not continue to maintain headway against our formidable rivals in foreign markets unless we pay close regard to our production costs."
  There are two fundamental aspects of production costs. One is modernisation and efficiency in industry, to which this Budget will take us in greater degree. The other has been made clear by the Cohen Committee, the Three Wise Men, the Economic White Paper and by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor; that is, realistic wage levels in the sense that there should he some reasonable regard to the productivity of the country.
  Thought might be given to some tribunals which would appear not to have served the nation too well or had regard to such relevant matters as the amount of money in the economy. There was, for example, the recent award to town clerks. It is not reasonable to pay £800 or £900 here and there. That kind of thing does not make it easy for those trade union leaders who desire to be reasonable to explain to their members why they cannot receive something. It would appear front the decisions of some of the so-called independent tribunals that they have paid little regard to the economic factors which really decide these matters and indicate whether a particular wage award is right or not.
  My right hon. Friend was extremely modest in his speech yesterday. He underestimated some of the actions of the Government. He was absolutely right in his modesty to indicate that the greatly improved balance of payments position was substantially due to lower import prices from which we benefited. But the climate of opinion, particularly among people abroad in relation to our country, has been affected by the action of the Government in killing inflation and showing the world that we could achieve substantial stability and come through a depression in international trade with an unemployment figure less than that in other countries. The unemployment figure in Italy and Canada has been three times greater and in Germany and America it has been twice as great as ours. We have weathered the depression with less effect on the economy than has been the case with some other nations.
  302
  Sterling has been shown, under the Conservative Government's administration, to be quite equal to the dollar, which is something which we had not seen since the war. It is a very important factor indeed. There is a slight doubt in the minds of some people abroad, a rather foolish doubt, whether there is not the slightest danger of a change of Government. It is undermining the final decision of confidence in our standing. For all the reasons I have given, we have much for which to congratulate the Government and my right hon. Friend. They have been a little lucky, and one of the great features for which we can thank them is that they have known how to use their luck in the interests of the nation as a whole.
  8.21 p.m.
  Mr. Douglas HoughtonThe hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) should not complain that the debate has gone rather wide. It has been customary for many years for us to discuss the general economic situation at the same time as we discussed the Budget Resolutions. It has become the convention that we should range widely over the economic problems of the country and we have the Economic Survey to assist us.
  The hon. Gentleman disparaged the suggestion made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) about improvement in earned income relief, and he brushed it aside rather roughly, bearing in mind that his right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is on the record as expressing the hope, when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer, that earned income relief should be increased from two-ninths to one-quarter.
  Mr. Hirst: I was not brushing that suggestion aside. I was merely arguing that I did not see the distinction to be drawn between earned and unearned income. They are both partners in helping the economy.
  Mr. Houghton: No one suggests that unearned income has no right to consideration in our fiscal policy. I believe I have told the Committee previously about an Irishman who was a member of an earlier Royal Commission on Taxation who could see no reason for discrimination against unearned income. He said that Income Tax was based upon an assumed ability to pay and that

  303
  it did not matter twopence where the income came from: it stood equally when assuming ability to pay. We have departed from that point of view for many years. Earned income relief is a traditional feature of our taxation system.
  The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) was searching for a passage in the Chancellor's speech which I think I had in my hand at the time. I was going to make a reference to it as the beginning of the remarks I proposed to make. It is in column 47, where the Chancellor was saying that every Budget should have a main aim or theme related to the current needs of the country. He went on to say:
  "I have no doubt whatever what the first requirement is today. It is an improvement in the competitiveness of our economy. All our hopes for the future depend on this."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th April, 1959; Vol. 603. c. 47.]
  Perhaps I should first ask the question, What message has the Budget for a constituency like mine, which is in growing difficulty on account of the recession in cotton textiles? Contrary to the general belief, cotton textiles are made in Yorkshire as well as in Lancashire. Towns on the fringe of the Cotton Belt, as it is called, may be as grievously affected by recession as some of the towns in Lancashire. This is rather a futile question to ask, because the Budget has no message for my constituency different from any other constituency; no more and no less.
  Of course, we recognise the limitations of budgetary policy in dealing with our stricken textile industry, which is casting a blight over a very large number of people for whom there appears to be little hope. The mayors of a number of cotton textile towns are coming to see the Prime Minister on 17th April. What will he tell them about their future? This is where the capitalist system breaks down. An industry has grown up over the years concentrated in a particular area and a very large proportion of the workers in the area are dependent upon it. It falls on evil times. One of the main causes of its difficulties is the entry into the country of cotton textiles and made-up goods, duty- and quota-free, from certain Commonwealth countries.
  The classic remedy for that position, according to Tory philosophy, is protec-
  304
  tion. The demand is therefore made from those towns for protection, but the Government say, "For the wider interests of Commonwealth trade policy, we do not propose to give protection to you. It would be contrary to our general economic relations with Commonwealth countries and would have an adverse affect upon their ability to buy from us ", and so on. If protection is not to be given, what is to be the fate of those places? If this industry is to suffer in the interests of the nation as a whole and to preserve relations between this country and the Commonwealth, what is the nation prepared to do for the stricken areas which are bearing the brunt of the suffering?
  I know that we have the Distribution of Industry (Financial Provisions) Act, but, as the Economic Secretary to the Treasury knows quite well, it does not come to the rescue of a town or area until there is a high level of unemployment which is likely to persist. As I have said before, the doctor arrives only when the patient is very ill. Not only has he to be very ill, but it must be expected of him that he will be ill for a long time unless something is done. Could not some of the resources of the Budget have been placed at the disposal of these areas for the development of other industries or for the modernisation of plant which, given that advantage, might still maintain a competitive position despite imports from overseas? Is there any message which can go to these areas represented mostly by hon. Members on this side of the Committee?
  Although I am not going to pretend for a moment that the removal of the 5 per cent, level of Purchase Tax would have made a material difference to this industry, at least it would have been a gesture and psychology matters so much, as I shall attempt to show, in connection with the whole of budgetary strategy. I do not think there is any answer to that in the context of the Budget provisions. There seems to be little enough answer in any other context. I think it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to tell those areas what the future has in store for them so far as they can see and what they propose to do about it.
  Let us look more generally at the general test which the Chancellor has applied. I find difficulty in reconciling

  305
  the Chancellor's stated aim with what he has done. In the course of this debate, we ought to be more satisfied that what the Chancellor has done really flows directly from the aim for improvement of our competitiveness and for the expansion of our industrial production. Let us look at personal taxation. I am frankly sceptical of the effect which tax relief has on incentives at any level of individual effort. That may be a view not shared by other hon. Members, but I suggest that there is no real evidence that the level of personal taxation has been a disincentive or discouragement to effort or production at any level. The Trades Union Congress, giving evidence to the Radcliffe Commission some years ago, certainly left the Commission in no doubt of the view of the T.U.C. that the level of taxation and deduction of Income Tax from earnings was not a material factor in individual productivity.
  Mr. Alan Green: I have great sympathy with the views the hon. Member is expressing, but will he explain why so many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee complain that young, extremely experienced and highly skilled technicians tend to go overseas where the level of taxation on the work they put in is so much less severe?
  Mr. Houghton: If such do leave the country—and I believe the number can be exaggerated—I am not certain that it is desirable for them to stay here. After all, there is something in utilising technical knowledge and ability, provided in many cases at the expense of the State, within the community where that training has been given. I do not think there is any real evidence that the will to achievement is dependent upon the rate of Income Tax. It would be an insult to suggest that it was, because I am convinced that character, ability, desire for legitimate power, the satisfaction of creative instincts, the desire for esteem—these and even more intangible and mysterious forces—are at work in most of us.
  It must be recognised, if we are honest, that there are limits to fiscal policy as a stimulant to individuals, or, indeed, to the nation as a whole, by lowering the level of taxation. Does the slogan, "You will keep more of what you earn " do anything to anybody which can be counted in output, efficiency or initiative? I really doubt it. I believe the conditions
  306
  of our greatness and survival and out ability to earn a living as a trading nation go much deeper than that. believe that a feeling of social justice, of community spirit, of real co-operation, are essential conditions for the release of the spirit of endeavour.
  At the same time one is not going to say that tax reductions should not be made because the return from them cannot be directly measured in terms of efficiency and higher production. But the Chancellor was so specific about the principal aim of the Budget. If he had said, "It probably will not make any difference, except that I want to make the people happier and I have money to spare. There is no reason why I should retain a level of taxation which is not necessary, and therefore I will make tax reliefs which seem to be fairly distributed over the whole field of taxation ", I should have understood it, but he did not say that.
  Although the Chancellor's desire for equitable distribution for tax reliefs was rather slurred into his main theme, he may have thought that he wanted as far as possible to harmonise the two purposes. I ask myself where the money has gone and where it will go.
  The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) stressed that the Chancellor wishes to borrow back more this year than last year, absolutely and relatively. The hon. Member expressed some doubt whether the Chancellor would be able to borrow the large sum required to finance expenditure below the line. Whether or not he meets with that difficulty, the fact is that the Chancellor, after having made substantial tax reliefs, asks those who have received them to lend him back the money in even larger quantities. That is in order that he can, for example, finance the capital expenditure of the nationalised industries.
  It could be asked why in those circumstances the Chancellor does not retain the revenue in a larger surplus in order to finance the nationalised industries out of his surplus instead of giving tax reliefs only to borrow them back. These are obscure aspects of budgetary policy. It is a little difficult to relate reliefs on personal taxation in the Income Tax field to the main theme of the Chancellor's Budget. These reliefs are substantially in a band of income from £1,000 a year upwards. Below that the reliefs are

  307
  negligible. Even in the Chancellor's Purchase Tax reductions the maximum relief is given to those tax bands in which the better-off people will make the largest purchases. Therefore, a double relief is given to them.
  On top of that, if the newspaper reports are anything to go by, the Chancellor's hon. Friends were quizzing him last night as to why he had not abolished Schedule A Income Tax. That would have been the crowning insult, because at a time when subsidies are being squeezed out of local authority housing, and rents are being increased for privately occupied houses it would have been manifestly unjust if the Chancellor had begun indirectly to subsidise those who are in a position to buy and own their own houses. I hope that any hon. Member opposite who is interested in this matter will get the opportunity of moving a new Clause to the Finance Bill so that we can debate the subject thoroughly.
  Had the Chancellor wished to help companies by freeing resources for expansion and investment over and above the provisions he is already making, he could have done so by dealing with Profits Tax without any or not as great a reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax. Unfortunately, last year he threw away the provision for discriminatory treatment, for Profits Tax purposes, of distributed and non-distributed profits. However, he could have done it in that way.
  He has returned once more to investment allowances. If there is anything in our taxation system with a more chequered history than the initial and investment allowances. I should like to know what it is. When I saw the right hon. Gentleman in another connection a little time ago I asked him whether he had made any research into the relationship between the actual level of investment in the private sector and the fluctuations of investment and initial allowances. That subject would repay investigation.
  He might be surprised to find how little bearing on investment programmes these allowances have. From experience, industry has been unable to rely on them and has had to make its plans irrespective of whether or not any relief in that direction would be given. There is a risk, and the Chancellor must face it, that by his
  308
  proposals some part, I do not know how much, of the tax relief to industry will be distributed in higher dividends—and, indeed, some part may be distributed in higher wages—because these two demands on the resources of industry cannot be left out of any forecast of the likely consequences of the proposals. I very much doubt whether those who will principally benefit from the reliefs will matter economically as, perhaps, they matter politically.
  The hon. Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. H. A. Price) expressed forebodings about a repetition of the old story that our economy is being run by fits and starts. We boost, then we pull back, then we relax, then we spur it on, and then we have to pull it back again, and then we say, " Now the time has come for a great surge forward ", and off we go, with the possibility of again letting loose forces that have previously had such an adverse effect upon our balance of payments and the strength of sterling.
  Unfortunately, the Budget proposals do not give to the great mass of workers reliefs in proportion to those that are being given to the higher income groups. That is a possible source of discontent —though far be it from me to exploit that in any way. We shall watch the next few months, not only with close interest but with some apprehension. The Chancellor has taken a risk. He is not a man, perhaps, given to taking risks, so he must have very great confidence in his judgment or in the surrounding circumstances of his Budget.
  If our imports rise, as they must, in advance of an increase in earnings from exports, and if, as he says, a rise in imports is a pre-condition of expansion, there may be danger if the gap gets too wide and lasts too long. Therefore, we must look for the upsurge of earnings from exports to draw abreast of the increased level of imports fairly quickly, otherwise our economy must become weaker. The general verdict on the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will, therefore, be one of caution.
  I conclude by saying that I think it would have made his proposals more socially acceptable if he had been prepared, at a time when he is making the second largest reduction in the standard rate of Income Tax since the war, to put a stop to the malpractices which are

  309
  ever increasing in Income Tax fiddles and avoidance and which are a source of a great deal of cynical discontent.
  I suggest that the Chancellor should study what has just been done in Australia. where an omnibus protection of the revenue is being written into law, so that the Inland Revenue will have a defence against the new tax dodgers, the new form of bond-washing and dividend stripping. But some of those practices would probably be outside the scope of even such comprehensive protection. There are people who pretend that they are in business as market gardeners or as poultry keepers and who are merely using that as a means of carrying the expenses of running their property and the amenities of it as a charge against the profits of a business which will make a loss anyhow and the losses are thereupon set against other income.
  Even a condition that the loss admitted for tax purposes should not be allowed to exceed the gross takings would—astonishingly enough—be a restriction upon this racket. When the time comes, I think that the Committee should devote itself more thoroughly to what is now a widespread evil in our taxation system. If the Chancellor is to reduce taxation for the Income Tax payers and if he is to try to lighten the burden upon their shoulders, at least he is entitled to ask them to play fairly and honestly by the Revenue and drop all the malpractices which they now indulge in, otherwise he must take drastic steps to cleanse the fiscal system of their activities.
  8.49 p.m.
  Mr. Cyril Osborne: I heartily agree with the last few remarks of the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton). I should like to see those who fiddle stopped. It is not very easy, as he knows as a tax expert, because as one gap is closed by the Treasury officials so the clever lads find another way round or through. All he has asked—and I support him—is that the Treasury should act as quickly as the clever boys in the City and that as soon as a gap is made it is plugged. Obviously, the more fiddling that goes on the more those of us who do not fiddle have to pay. I hate paying my fair share of Income Tax, but I hate even more having to pay more than my fair share. I support him to that extent.
  The hon. Lady the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) made a
  310
  very moving appeal to the Chancellor, who was present at the time. She said that we had a very human Chancellor. She made a special appeal to him, and I should like to put it to my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench. She said that those who needed help most should be at the top of the queue. I thought that she was going to refer to the old-age pensioners, but she did not. She said that the old-age pensioners were well organised and could look after themselves. The hon. Lady appealed for the widows and orphans who receive practically no help at all. I confess that I am not conversant with the details of the case which she put forward, but she made a very moving appeal. I wonder whether before the debates close the Treasury can give an estimate of how much it would cost to close that gap, a gap which it is very right should be closed, in order to help the widows and orphans who seem to be in neither one category nor another but whose case is just about the most deserving of all.
  I welcome the Chancellor's tax concessions. Broadly, the difference between the two sides of the Committee is that we on this side regard taxes as a necessary evil, as something which we wish to see kept as low as can be, whereas hon. Members opposite, quite sincerely, I think, like to use taxes as a means of securing what they consider to be social justice. Hon. Gentlemen opposite, however, in their desire to impose taxation in order to bring about a greater redistribution of national wealth would cause a slackening in the economy and a decrease in efficiency which would damage the very people whom they, in a very honourable manner, wish to help. After all, one can take out of the pool of our national life only what is put into it.
  After twenty or twenty-five years of legislation to even out differences and redistribute wealth, the problem today, as I see it, is not one of bringing about a greater redistribution of the national wealth. The problem is to create greater national wealth.
  I am delighted, therefore, that there have been reductions in Income Tax. We are still far too heavily taxed in this country. Income Tax at the top level in certain categories, at 17s. 9d. in the £,

  311
  is still far too high. Every man, I believe, ought to be entitled to keep at least a quarter of what he earns. I say to my hon. and right hon. Friends on the Front Bench that 15s. is the most that they ought to take out of every £. After all, the human donkey is entitled to some sort of carrot if he is to continue to work.
  I wish that it had been possible to repay post-war credits five years earlier instead of two years earlier. There is hardship here upon quite a large section of the community, the older section, and I hope that we can look forward to the other three years being added next year, assuming that we still have a Conservative Chancellor and a Conservative Budget then.
  I want to make a point to hon. Gentlemen opposite about industrial investment. I am glad of the extra allowances which are to be given to industry. Obviously, if industry is to work to maximum efficiency it must have the most modern machinery. On the other hand, hon. Members opposite generally assume that the way to cure our economic problems is to cram factories and plants full of the latest machinery in the belief that, ipso facto, the problems will be solved. They will not. I have seen many factories with the finest of up-to-date machinery which still work inefficiently, and I have seen old machinery which still works well and produces fine results. It is day-to-day management and know-how which is important. How the machines are worked matters more than the amount of capital outlay. Hon. Members opposite will remember that Sir Stafford Cripps, in 1949, I think it was, offered the Lancashire cotton trade a great deal of help for re-equipment. Much of that, which was paid for largely by the taxpayer, was never productively used. The provision of extra machinery and plant does not necessarily mean that our problems will be solved.
  I will give this example. In the coal mining industry over the last ten years no less than £620 million has been spent on fixed capital expenditure. During the last three years about £100 million has been spent each year, but at the present time we have 20 million tons of coal, some of which has been produced at a loss of £4 a ton, dumped in unused quarries and left to deteriorate, which will
  312
  not be worth anything like the money we paid to get it out. All the new investment in the world will not help the coal mining problem because far too many manufacturers and producers are finding that oil is more convenient to use than coal. When atomic power becomes available it may well be that coal will go out altogether. That is looking twenty, thirty, or forty years ahead.
  It may be a tragedy, but that is the point I want to put to the hon. Gentleman. It is no use putting a lot of new capital into an industry that is doomed to die. The very essence of life it change —it cannot remain static. Whilst I am grateful for this investment allowance that has been granted, I want to warn hon. Gentlemen opposite that it will not necessarily solve our problems.
  Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Gentleman ought to warn the Chancellor.
  Mr. Osborne: I hope that what I have said will be read by the Treasury tomorrow morning. I do not say this in any nasty way, but the Chancellor is nearer the problem than some hon. Gentlemen opposite.
  My other comment on the Budget gifts, as it were, is this. I regret no promise has been made this time for further help to the old-age pensioners. I would willingly have sacrificed a penny off the concession on beer and 3d. off Income Tax—much as I like to see it come dow—to provide a nest egg for the widows about whom the hon. Lady the Member for Coatbridge and Airdrie spoke so movingly. I do not expect an announcement now, but I would like the money put on one side ready to meet the just claim of old-age pensioners. Most Englishmen enjoy their own good fortune and good luck all the more if they feel that their poorer brethren are getting something as well.
  Lest this be thrown at me too hard, may I say this to hon. Gentlemen opposite. The old-age pensioners did far better, and have done far better, under successive Conservative Chancellors than under Socialist Chancellors. There is no argument about that. Do not let the meanness of the Socialist Chancellors be the standard for our policy. If no statement can be made today, I hope that before the Budget debates are finished

  313
  someone from the Treasury Bench will be able to say whether the money is there in order to give widows and old-age pensioners the next cut.
  George Schwartz, who writes amusing and sometimes wise articles in the Sunday Times, on 5th April, 1959, said this regarding the Economic Survey:
  "The country is in better economic shape than at any time since 1913."
  I wonder if I can believe that in view of the loss of overseas investments between the First and Second world wars. I think it is rather an exaggeration and overstatement. But there is no doubt about it that the Economic Survey shows that the country is in a far better position than it was, say, in September, 1957, and that is a wonderful tribute to the present Government, and especially, I think, to the present Chancellor of the Exchequer. It reveals that since we were put on the spot by the run on sterling in September, 1957, when a 7 per cent. Bank Rate had to be introduced and the credit squeeze, the country has made a remarkable recovery, and I think we should acknowledge this.
  However, I want to issue a warning to my hon. and right hon. Friends. I think there is great danger in taking too optimistic a view, as George Schwartz does. I should like us to remember that the present good position is largely due to what I call the Thorneycroft austerity measures. Without them, sterling would not be as strong as it is today, nor would our reserves be as good, and if sterling were not as strong our foreign trade could not be conducted as well as it has been. What the Thorneycroft measures did was to make the nation more conscious that it had got to live within its income. Therefore, I should like to support what the Chancellor said, that this is no time for a spending spree.
  I want also to say this to my right hon. Friends. Will the Chancellor keep a very keen watch on all the spending Departments, both nationally and at local levels, to see that extravagance and waste is eliminated? In recent months there have bean too many Reports from the Select Committee on Estimates showing that public money has been thrown away. There has been shocking waste in some cases. I should hate the spending Departments to feel that merely because the Economic Survey shows that we are
  314
  in rather better fettle a good time can be had and that all the tightening-up done by the former Chancellor can be relaxed. There is a great danger there. It is so much easier to spend other people's money than one's own, and, if I may say so, it is such a great danger that those who have not had a lot of their own to spend may satisfy their appetites by spending other people's money. I beg of the Treasury to see that the spending Departments are kept well down, and that the taxpayers get good value for money.
  If the Committee will forgive me for saying this, I fear, especially looking at the Press this morning, with the headlines about 2d. off this and 9d. off that, the suggestion that a good time can be had by all. It reminds me of what was said in the old Book when the same atmosphere was created and a man said to himself:
  "Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years; take thine ease, eat, drink, and be merry."
  If we take that line, then just as certainly as we are here today someone will come to give us the same answer as was given to that man:
  "Thou fool, this night thy prosperity shall be required of thee."
  The Times yesterday had a much better article on the position than George Schwartz. It said in a good editorial, which I should like my right hon. Friend to look at:
  "Trouble still lurks ready for any unwary Government. World export trade has not picked up as optimists a year ago thought it would."
  That is not the fault of this Government, but of the general economic situation throughout the world. Secondly, The Times said—and this is the point which it is difficult to get the ordinary person in the street to understand:
  "Britain is less insulated than any other major industrial country from the impact of world economic conditions."
  We are affected more quickly, more vitally, than any other nation in the world by what happens in any corner of the world. We are very much as the mercy of what happens elsewhere.
  Lastly, The Times said:
  "Meanwhile, the stiffer challenge in export markets means that British industries must make themselves still more efficient in order to maintain their present position, let alone improve it."

  315
  I like this very much better than George Schwartz. It is easy to tell people how good things are and so urge them to take. their ease. In some respects I would rather have some of Sir Stafford Cripps back in our economy than George Schwartz.
  There is only one economic test of the Budget and it is, will it stimulate exports? If it does not, then it is the wildest gamble that a cautious Chancellor could have taken. I was alarmed to read on page 11 of the Economic Survey—the most important statement in the Economic Survey—that
  "In 1958 the volume of exports of goods and services was about 2 per cent. lower than in 1957."
  That spells ruin. It is more true of this country than of any other country that we must export or die. If the volume of our exports continues to fall, nothing can stop a fall in the standard of life in this country and another wild bout of inflation.
  I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General is here to listen to my speech. I put it to him that if the Budget proposals stimulate the home market, the domestic economy and what I call the sheltered industries and leaves the export trade unaffected, then nothing can stop a wild inflationary movement which would make 1957 look like child's play. It is a great gamble and an act of faith on the part of the Chancellor.
  It is fair to tell hon. Members opposite, because so many of them believe the contrary, that it is impossible for the United Kingdom to spend itself into prosperity. It is foolish to say, "Let us create more spending power and trade will improve." That is nonsense.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: But that is what the Chancellor has said that he is doing.
  Mr. Osborne: I am saying what I believe to be true. If we stimulate home demand and do not increase our exports, nothing can prevent wild inflation.
  Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree. I was only commenting that the Chancellor told us that he was doing that very thing—increasing home demand in the hope that exports would follow. The hon. Member should address his remarks to the Chancellor.
  Mr. Osborne: If the right hon. Gentleman will listen to the end of my speech he will hear the other side of the story. I am saying that the Treasury and the country must be made to face the fact that the United Kingdom cannot spend itself into prosperity.
  Mr. Ellis Smith: We have faced it all our lives.
  Mr. Osborne: I am asking my Treasury friends whether they can bring greater pressure on British industry and businessmen to foresake what I call the soft, easy and more profitable home market and to go out and work in the more difficult, more tiresome, more vexatious and less profitable export market, because if they do not do so we are sunk, irrespective of which party is in power.
  My right hon. Friend knows full well that 30 per cent. of all that we manufacture must be exported in order to pay for our imports of raw materials and foodstuffs. Since no Government of any colour in this country can compel the foreigner to buy British, because the foreigner will buy Japanese or German or Italian or American on price, quality and delivery our business men must seek exports. It is a mean and cruel fraud for hon. and right hon. Members opposite to say that they will guarantee full employment. How can they guarantee full employment to men employed in the manufacture of exports when other people cannot be compelled to buy what we produce? It is a terrible, cruel fraud, and I am surprised that such an honourable man as the Leader of the Opposition should indulge in it the other day, when he said in the country that he would guarantee to bring back jobs for all. He cannot do it. Nobody can do it.
  This is what we must get over to our people. The 70 per cent. that we consume at home can only be maintained if we import the necessary raw materials and foodstuffs. If we do not sell our exports, not only those engaged in the export producing countries will suffer, but ultimately all those who are producing for the home market will suffer. We export or we die. The only way that we will increase our exports is by lower prices and higher quality. As I said once before in the House, we must produce Rolls Royce quality at Ford prices, and it will

  317
  not be easy. It will not be possible until both sides of industry realise the size of the problem we face. I believe that it can be done, but it will not be done merely by trying to keep alive the older industries that normally would go out of existence.
  The right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) keeps on saying that he would pay for the new Socialist programme by increased production. What on earth is the good of producing things we cannot sell? What is the good of increasing production from the coal mines when we cannot sell what they are already producing? To increase their production would be a loss to the nation. What is the good of asking Lancashire to produce more when its products cannot be sold? The time will come when we cannot buy the cotton with which to produce our yardage.
  The danger of this year's Budget is that it may leave the country feeling that everything is all right now, all our troubles are over, we can sit back and take our ease and things will work well for us. In recent years, I have been to Russia. Czechoslovakia and Poland. The way that those people are working is terrifying. Of course, they must work - they have no option—but the price at which they are producing stuff and offering it in the international market against our stuff would not make anyone in this Committee feel that things were all right.
  We face some terrific hurdles. Therefore, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. having given out these reliefs, for which we are grateful, will now take upon himself the role, as I have asked previous Chancellors of the Exchequer to do, of going round the countryside and explaining in the simplest possible terms to everybody, to the employers as well as to the trade unions—because the restrictive practices are not all on one side—the problems that we face and the penalties we shall have to pay if we fail.
  This Budget is either a gamble or an act of faith. I hope that it comes off. If it does not, and we have stimulated OUT home market and we do not sell extra goods abroad, our second state will be worse than our first. Hon. Members opposite have criticised my right hon. Friend the Chancellor many times and said that the terms of trade have been in his favour and he has been lucky. I
  318
  would rather be governed by a lucky than by an unlucky man—the whole nation would be. All I hope is that he continues to be lucky and that the nation is lucky with him. Good luck to him. I am grateful to him for such a good Budget.
  9.15 p.m.
  Mr. Donald Chapman: The theme about the volume of our exports has been continuous throughout the debate. While hon. Members opposite have been congratulating their right hon. Friend the Chancellor on taking a gamble, they have kept saying that the one thing that frightens them in the coming 12 months is the prospect for our exports. Indeed, I think that the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has emphasised that point more than any hon. Member opposite. I make no apology for the fact that I want to take up that point in relation to motor cars in particular.
  I know that the hon. Member will sympathise with me in this respect—we have exchanged remarks across the Floor of the Committee about this point before—because he knows the enormous importance of this industry to our present exporting position. Our motor car industry is now producing about £500 million worth of exports every year, which is about 15 per cent. of our total exports. The outlook for the British motor car industry, even though it is confident, enthusiastic and anxious to meet every possible challenge, is not as rosy as people seem to think, based on the present buoyancy. I am glad that the Paymaster-General is present, because it is the European position in particular about which I want to say a few words.
  Perhaps I may preface what I want to say by briefly describing the present position in the industry as it is seen not so much by me as by the industry itself when it put its case to the Chancellor this year. We are now making one million cars annually. We are exporting half of them and consuming half of them at home. That is a very fine position, but the deterioration of our position in the last four years in relation to our main competitors has been quite striking and it is now giving the industry cause for considerable concern.

  319
  Four years ago, of our main competitors in world markets—who are, frankly, only France, Germany and now Italy—France and Germany were producing only about half or two-thirds of our motor car production. Italy was a negligible producer. What has happened in the last four years? We are now making one million cars, but so is France, practically. Germany is now producing as many as 1¼ million cars and, whereas formerly it produced half or two-thirds of our production, it is now way out ahead of us. Italy, which was a negligible competitor, is now a quite significant one in parts of the world where it tries to sell cars.
  Let us consider the position in another way, not only from the point of view of the absolute figures which have been reversed and have given us such cause for alarm in the last four years, but percentage-wise. Over the last four years, while we have been raising home consumption of cars by about one-quarter or one-half of our 1954 figure, the home consumption of the three competitors which I have mentioned has gone up 65, 75 and 100 per cent. Their production is up 100 to 150 per cent., while our production has risen by one quarter to one half. Their exports are up 150, 200 or 250 per cent., while again ours have risen only by one quarter or one half of the 1954 figure. However we look at the matter, this is not a situation in which we can be complacent about the future of our exports of motor cars. The countries which I have mentioned are chasing us hard and are beating us in some parts of the world.
  Why does the situation appear to be so good on the surface? The answer is that in the last four years we have made a sudden spurt in the American market which has covered up the fact that in our most vital market, Europe, we have been losing ground.
  Let me now bring to the attention of the Paymaster-General—I am sure that he knows a lot about this matter and I hope he will forgive me if I try to put it succinctly—how the motor car industry has expressed its concern about the future. The industry says of our future in our main markets firstly that we sell one in five cars at the moment to the Commonwealth and our prospects in 1965 are only
  320
  of holding our present absolute number of sales there. The prospects of increasing our sales are very slender and indeed practically non-existent, because Commonwealth countries are producing their own motor cars and the Germans are eating into our established position. Two out of five motor cars go to America and Canada where we are selling 200,000 cars, but the industry says that we can only hold that position in 1965, on the most optimistic assumptions, because the Americans are now likely to start producing their own small cars. That leaves us mainly with the European market as our potential market for expansion in the next five years.
  The industry says, moreover, that Europe now is a market in which more people are lust on the threshold of owning a car than in almost any other part of the world. It says that somebody may sell there half a million more cars each year five years hence, and it says that we must get into that market somehow as the only real tangible hope of expanding our motor car exports. The other markets will not be easy to hold, never mind to expand.
  As I said earlier, the greatest worry about this situation is that that is precisely the market in which we have been losing ground in the last four years. We are now selling 100,000 cars in it instead of the 125,000 that we were selling four years ago, and manufacturers say that they are already at the point where in Europe they are "cutting their prices to the bone " and making very little profit in order to hold the market. I know that the Paymaster-General is as worried about this as anybody else and I should like to say three things to him.
  First, it is absolutely vital that if this industry, which is making such a valiant contribution to our export record, is to go further or even to hold its place, we must somehow find some way of getting further into the European market. Some relationship must be established with the Common Market nations. We must get into Europe as the one big hope for the motor car industry in the next five years.
  Secondly, I know that some of my hon. Friends do not like the reduction in the Purchase Tax on motor cars. I am very glad that it has come. This is the one year in which we could have hoped for it. The Purchase Tax has been removed

  321
  from commercial chassis, thank goodness, and the Chancellor has also made a start on reducing the Purchase Tax on passenger cars. I compliment him upon it, but it is not enough yet, because what the industry has gone on to say, beyond all that I have listed so far, is that we shall never be able to compete in Europe or anywhere else except on the basis of lower costs. The only way that manufacturers can reduce costs is by having a much bigger home market so as to spread over a great number of motor cars the fixed costs, which in a motor car amount to 40 per cent. of the total cost of production, and thereby reduce prices. The manufacturers say—and this is very significant—that if they could have a big reduction in Purchase Tax they might be able to sell another quarter of a million motor cars at home.
  Then my third point: they add that if enormous strides were made in raising the standards of living, so that more people would buy cars and we got out of the doldrums of production of the last few years and there was an expanding motor ownership in a really prosperous economy, they might be able altogether to sell 400,000 or 500,000 more cars in the home market. They say that on the calculations they have made this will enable anything up to a 10 per cent. reduction in cost, and it will make all the difference to the motor car industry in the European market and also in other markets where they are hard-pressed.
  So, in so far as I can pay any compliments to the Chancellor, I can congratulate him on making this reduction. I am glad that it has been made. I ask him to note the fact that our home consumption has been held down by the stagnation of the last few years, and that it must increase at the pace at which the home markets of our European competitors are increasing. Their home markets have been expanding much faster than ours have done within the last four years. Only this policy, carried further, will put the industry in a strongly competitive position, particularly in Europe.
  In saying all this I have not tried to be pessimistic. I do not think the industry is pessimistic; indeed, it is buoyant and confident. But do not let us think that just because things look right on the surface at the moment, just because employment has been kept up in the Midlands mainly by motor car manufacture, this is
  322
  destined to go on automatically. The situation is not as rosy, easy and confident as the surface appears to show. We have a long way to go to beat the frightening competition which has brought our European competitors from one half to two-thirds of our production, up to and way beyond ours in the case of Germany and, in the case of Italy, coming up from negligible competition to significant and even nuisance competition in some markets.
  The situation is one in which we can do very well. Our models have improved. It was not a pleasant time in. I think, 1956, when we were all complaining volubly in the House of Commons—I think sincerely—about the poor servicing of motor cars abroad, about the lack of after-sales service and about poor salesmanship in foreign markets. It was not pleasant to be saying all that, and it is good to be able to say that those things have been met, that there is now a spirit of enterprise, of new design, of salesmanship and of after-sales service in world markets which has overcome the frightening situation of two or three years ago. Even so, with all that said, I am still not all that happy that we shall hold our position in face of all the existing competition.
  It is not often that somebody on the Opposition side can give at least one word of congratulation to the Chancellor on such an issue, but we must face the fact that this reduction of Purchase Tax from 60 per cent. to 50 per cent. had to come. I hope it will be the forerunner of a reduction to the 25 per cent. bracket, because I believe that this is the only way to secure a firm home market on the basis of which our cost of production can be reduced.
  In that respect, at least, I wish the Chancellor well. I will add only that if there is this trouble facing us, he must. himself accept some of the responsibility,. because the stagnation and the poor increase of home consumption over the last three or four years has to some extent made it difficult for the industry to bring down costs. So far as we are concerned, he can go ahead with further tax reductions but he should make sure that these are linked with firm steps to secure great strides in our standard of living at. home, and a firm policy, a placating policy if need be, to find some means of

  323
  living with the European Common Market.
  If he can do that, I believe that the industry will go on contributing, as it has been doing, 15 per cent. to our exports and being, what it presently is, one of our best hopes of survival in the exporting world.
  9.31 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Green: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Chapman) has made a specialised and very good plea for the industry which is of particular interest to his own area, but he would, I am sure, agree that the motor-car industry is not the only one to which his remarks could be applied. There are plenty of other industries which are likely to require over the next several years at least as free access to the growing European market as he wishes for the motor-car industry.
  Furthermore, the remarks which he made about the value of the reductions of the Purchase Tax and the cost to the home buyer of motor cars apply just as well to all those other industrial products requiring a high skill content in their production, whether they are classed as luxury articles or not. For example, the jewel trade. High-class British workmanship in jewellery and cutlery today carries Purchase Tax at a high level, and, as some of his hon. Friends say, ought to do so because they are luxuries, but they are in exactly the same position from the cost of production point of view, if there is not a decent home market, as are motor cars.
  I hope that we can move away from this real confusion of a luxury article available to the consumers in this country with an undue luxury tax on it. I think -we should move away from that sort of confusion with social justice, because if these high quality articles that are called luxury articles cannot be made and sold in this country, highly skilled craftsmen will be out of work and their skill will be wasted. I am certain that we must get away from this confusion of tax and social justice which so often clouds our thoughts and judgment when we come to talk in party political terms of a national economic policy. I certainly hope that the confusion will not be worse confounded than it is at the moment.
  My right hon. Friend, to do him justice, did state in the course of his Budget
  324
  speech that unless we could maintain and indeed improve our exports in conditions of price stability while maintaining the value of the £, any efforts to increase the general standard of living in this country would go for nothing. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have not, perhaps, gone back to that statement and given my right hon. Friend credit for making it. Does the Budget in fact help to secure that stated objective of my right hon. Friend? We all have our pet ideas about how tax relief should be given or public money spent. Perhaps hon. Members opposite prefer to think in terms of spending public money widely and, no doubt in their view, beneficently. We on this side of the Committee prefer to say that we should give tax relief when we can, because even after this Budget we are so highly taxed as a nation.
  I was glad to find that the Income Tax remissions promised in the Budget have been welcomed generally on both sides of the Committee. I am sure that it is a wrong idea that individuals or corporations who have borne a staggering burden of direct taxation for nearly 20 years should not have some relief. Despite complaints of tax avoidance and tax evasion they have discharged their tax paying liabilities with remarkable fortitude and honesty, and it is high time that this load of direct taxation was lightened. I am delighted that it will be.
  I join issue with the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) about whether a remission of direct taxation is an incentive. I think it is. I do not say that it is the only incentive, and T do not seek to exaggerate the value of a reduction in taxation, but it would be hypocritical to maintain that people do not work for more money, because they do. Of course, they work for other things as well, but we should be hyprocrites if we said that they do not work for more money. Were that not the line of thought, no trade union would ever ask for higher wages and no one would ever want more money. Yet we all know that people do ask for more money. Were that not so, perhaps even the old-age pensioners, bless their hearts, would not ask for an increase in their pensions. I do not seek to exaggerate, but I say it is an incentive, and one which cannot, must not and should not be disregarded.
  Mr. Houghton: It is one of those strange kinks in trade union thinking that they attach more importance to a wage increase from the employers than from the receipt of an increase in income in the form of a tax remission from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  Mr. Green: No doubt, but the thinking is the same. After all, 18s. 6d. in the £ as the top rate has been taken away by the Chancellor in the past, which is a lot to take away. No one can pretend that it will not give people a little more freedom and a feeling that the thing is more worthwhile if there is a reduction in the heavy load of direct taxation. Furthermore, the more we can relieve the incidence of direct taxation the less tax avoidance there will he. There will be less incentive to find some hole-and-corner way to avoid paying taxes. In circumstances where the weight of direct taxation is unduly high, I do not believe that any Chancellor, however ingenious, would be able to stop up all the ways of avoiding payment if the incentive is sufficient to make it worth while trying to avoid the payment of taxes. So, in the interests of public morality and private morality and in the interests of enterprise and the economy, I welcome the proposed reduction in Income Tax. I only wish it could have been a shilling reduction, like the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton), although, unlike him, I do not despise the 9d.
  I want to say a word or two following the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), who put his finger on the most anxious problem posed by the Budget, namely, the tremendous figure of below-the-line expenditure. Again, let us do credit to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who did not flinch from pointing out that this was an enormous figure.
  Up till two years ago, not enough people in this country understood that if we tried to invest what we had not saved we were on the high road to inflation. It is equally true that if we fail to invest what we have managed to save we are on the high road to deflation. Both roads are equally bad. My right hon. Friend feels that he has at present a sufficient amount of savings to finance large below-the-line expenditure. I take it that that is his view, and if it is. my hon. Friend the Member
  326
  for Wolverhampton, South-West was quite right; there is a danger of inflation in the months to come.
  Perhaps that is a worth-while risk to take, if the Chancellor keeps his eye closely on matters as they proceed and is prepared, later in the year, to step in to stop inflation from going too far. That my right hon. Friend is taking a risk we all recognise. We hope that he will keep his eyes very wide open, measuring all the time the size of the risk and seeing that it does not get out of hand. If there is one thing which can kill our export chances it is the emergence of a real inflation. We would never get into the European market, on a long-term or short-term basis; we would never hold our own with America or be of assistance to the developing countries of the Commonwealth; we could never take advantage of openings for trade offorded to us in Russia or China, if inflation again crept into this country.
  We have to be extremely careful that we do not, in particular sectors, stimulate activity for short-term reasons to the detriment of our long-term prospects. It is for that reason that I am sorry—I know that many of my friends in industry disagree with me about this—that we have reinstituted the investment allowance. I quite see its potential value as a short-term shot in the arm to take up the slack in certain industries. I have personal interest in the production and supply of capital equipment, and I ought to be welcoming the investment allowance in my own trade. If the shot in the arm works I quite see that machine-tool factories, all makers of capital equipment, will have a sudden, short-term rush of orders for the home market. Perhaps two or three or six months from now they may find difficulty in giving the quick, snappy delivery response to a foreign inquiry of the kind that must be given if the capital equipment industry of this country is to get export orders.
  It is a prime factor for the gaining of export business in capital equipment that it be not priced out of the market. This industry is every bit as good in most of its lines as any similar industry among our foreign competitors, but it still has some difficulty in giving that sharp, clear, hard delivery date that is the first consideration today of a buyer who seeks to place a large order for capital equipment. If there is too much preoccupation with the

  327
  filling of orders for the home market for capital equipment, we may lose export opportunities which we desperately need.
  Yet, if the investment allowance does not work and does not result in the flood of orders we want, the shot in the arm for short-term purposes will not have been effective. I would much prefer to have seen an increase in the rate of write-up. I should like a 50 per cent. increase which might have cost £150 million a year, but the whole of that £150 million would, of course, be an industrial saving because it would be put back into investment. It would not be consumed nor frittered away in any stupid fashion but would be the kind of additional inflation of the money supply which can be best afforded. I should much have preferred to see that because the higher rate of depreciation would then be much more likely to stop with us. With that we could have looked forward many years with confidence.
  I should like to have had that because the producers of capital equipment require to see for years ahead. What we need to do to get our export trade going is to increase the number of highly skilled men. There is an absolute shortage, not only in Britain, but throughout the world of first-class design engineers. It is important that companies which make capital equipment and employ that kind of person, good class draftsmen and high-class design engineers, should be able to carry such people while they are taught a highly specialised branch of their trade. It may be four or five years before such people are of full use to a particular firm and so they may be carried on the books of the company with the company having the knowledge that for many years ahead industrial capacity will be encouraged and not encouraged for just one or two years ahead.
  I distrust the investment allowance because it can so quickly be taken off again. We should increase the rate at which capital equipment can be written off, and I should have considerable confidence that no one would take that off in the next year or three years. It would be an incentive to the producers of capital equipment to carry additional numbers of young engineers and draftsmen on their books in order to train them in specialised tasks over three, four or five years when they could go out into the world and sell with confidence in export markets designs
  328
  at least as good as if not better than their foreign competitors. I should much prefer depreciation rates to be increased than investment allowance reinstated, recognising as I do that investment allowance can be and often is a shot in the arm and that a shot in the arm at the moment appeared to be necessary.
  In conclusion, I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a bold Budget. I hope all his assumptions will come right. I know he is a cautious, wide awake man. I am sure he will keep his eye closely fixed on the level of savings and if they do not come up to expectations he will not hesitate to reduce the amount of public money he seeks to invest. Otherwise, I fear we would be running into trouble. I hope he will do that and not be afraid of going a little back rather than seeking to rush blindly forward. I congratulate him on reductions in direct taxation which were long overdue.
  I am delighted that he has met the real moral commitments about post-war credits. I do not think any of us are any longer proud of the inception of post-war credits, which was not a very good idea. I was not in the House then, but we must accept the fact that it was done and it is a moral commitment now to do something about it. I am delighted that it is this Government that has taken the first step towards doing it, although I accept at the same time that the Opposition would have done the same in the same circumstances. I do not think that this is a terrific party point between us. It is a moral commitment that is being met, and the whole House can take pride in it.
  My right hon. Friend perhaps may not be able to drop his investment allowances and go back to depreciation rates in this Budget. That would be an unrealistic suggestion. However, I hope that he will apply his mind to that thought. I have great confidence in him. I have great confidence in my own party. I am quite sure that this is not his last Budget. I hope that in his next Budget he will be able to think in longer terms than investment allowances, in the interests of the continuing welfare of the British export trade.
  9.51 p.m.
  Dr. Horace King: I have time to make only a few brief points. I welcome the Purchase Tax concessions as far as they go. They

  329
  ought to have been larger. I wish that they had been distributed a little more equitably and that the Chancellor had taken more off goods bearing the smaller percentage Purchase Tax, because they are, in the nature of things, taxes on articles most used by the people, such as clothing and furniture. I hope that when the Finance Bill comes to Committee we shall be able to persuade the Chancellor to do some of the little things that he said yesterday he was tempted to do but chose rather to concentrate on one or two big things. I think that the Chancellor must have some money up his sleeve, and I urge him to remove the iniquitous Purchase Tax on stationery, which for years even Conservatives have said is inflationary, and particularly the tax on educational stationery.
  I hope also that the Chancellor will respond to the pleas that have been made again and again from both sides of the House to end the shocking position that Britain is the only country in the world to tax music and musical instruments. I hope that before the Budget leaves the Committee in its Finance Bill stages we shall have removed all purchase taxes on education and culture and secure further concessions on household goods.
  Cinemas are closing every day. I know that tax relief will not solve all their problems, but it will at any rate give some of the more efficient cinemas a sporting chance of survival and help to preserve the great art of British cinemas. Nobody will continue in business at a loss merely to act as a tax collector for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I have been given the trading figures of a cinema group—the Palladium—in my own town. It paid £9,360 tax last year but lost on the year £2,600, as a result of which it has closed down one of its cinemas.
  I have time tonight only to point out that the major defect of the Budget is that it does most for those who need help least and least for those who need help most. It does very little for the people whose income is too small to benefit from Income Tax or Surtax concessions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is giving £229 million to those whose incomes are big enough to be taxed. The bigger the income the bigger the relief. This is a case of To him that hath shall be given ". The married man with one child who had a net income, even if he does not earn it, of £12,000 a year before the
  330
  Budget will receive £15,500 as a result of the Budget, which is an extra £3,500.
  I call the Chancellor's attention to one serious regressive anomaly in the Budget. The Income Tax concessions help the single man more than the married man. It ought to be the other way. We are moving today in many professions towards the time when we have achieved equal pay. I welcome equal pay. I have been a lifelong feminist. But equal pay as it comes into the professions of this country spotlights the economic difference between the married man—especially the married man with children—and the single man or woman earning the same salary.
  I hope that we can improve these proposals so that the movement will not be opposite from the direction in which we should be moving—to give greater relief to the married man, and especially to the married man with children. The Chancellor will know that the National Union of Teachers, for instance, is asking that as the teaching profession moves towards equal pay there should be some financial provision that will equate the condition of the married man with a family with that of the single man or woman earning the same amount.
  For a fraction of the £229 million in tax concessions, the Government could. in Committee a week or two ago, have helped the old-age pensioners by accepting the Opposition amendment to raise retirement pensions. I know that the British workman will like the 2d. off his pint of beer, but all the British workmen whom I have met since the Chancellor's statement have said they would have forgone that concession had the money involved been given to the old-age pensioners.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Coat-bridge and Airdrie (Mrs. Mann) has already made an eloquent plea for widows. I have with me a petition from widows in the south-east section of England—because the widows' movement, the Ten Shilling a Week Pensioners' Guild, is growing—signed by some 1,872 people, asking the Government to give justice to the 10s. a week widow and to the no-shilling a week widow. The petition asks the House to recognise at long last that ever since we built up our National Insurance scheme we have been notoriously unfair to the widows. Tonight, I have not the time available to

  331
  argue their case in detail, but I support the plea made, by my hon. Friend in her moving speech.
  In common with other hon. Members, I have pressed for years the claims of the railway superannuitants—veteran railway servants whose pensions, meagre enough at their original value, have now shrunk to a derisory amount. A Motion on the Order Paper signed by quite a number of hon. Members calls attention to this. It reads:
  That this House, being of opinion that exceptional hardship has resulted to British Railways superannuitants, many of whom are not in receipt of National Insurance benefits, in a period of declining money values, calls upon Her Majesty's Government to bring forward proposals for the alleviation of this hardship.
  I have in my constituency quite a number of retired Post Office workers. Their average pension, awarded ten or fifteen years ago, seems to be about £2 a week, which was not bad in 1938. The last pensions increase Act gave such men an increase of only 4s. a week to meet the ever-increasing cost of living that has gone on since 1938. I am delighted by the Chancellor's reference yesterday to the prospects of a new pensions increase Bill. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald) may again have been doing some of the excellent back-room work that he did prior to the last Bill of that type.
  I hope that we will move towards tackling the root of the injustice; that the veteran pensioner today finds his pension quite out of all relation to the equivalent pension earned by someone doing the same work but in more recent times. Pensions are based on salaries, and salaries, even apart from cost of living, have improved. The cost of living has whittled down the value of pension after pension of veteran pensioners in the police force, the Civil Service, the Post Office,
  332
  local government and the teaching profession.
  Some indication of the feeling of the teaching profession on this subject was shown at their conference at Douglas, when they gave No. 1 priority—over all their own salary claims—to urging the Government to do something for the veteran teachers. The National Association of Retired Police Officers is fighting exactly the same battle, and I hope that when the proposals mentioned by the Chancellor yesterday come before the House they will have the full support of all hon. Members.
  I urge the Chancellor, when that Bill is put forward, to widen the net even further than the all-embracing net of the last pensions increase Bill, so as to include such groups as the railway super-annuitants, for whom, after all, we have some moral responsibility. Again I believe that £40 million given to veteran public service pensioners would have been a much better contribution even from the economic, apart from the moral, aspect, than using the money to make the concession on beer; but I urge him to do more than that, for a country which can afford to forgo nearly £400 million in taxation cannot afford, in human decency, to leave the old-age pensioners where they are.
  It being Ten o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report Progress and ask leave to sit again.
  Committee report Progress: to sit again Tomorrow.

  BUDGET PROPOSALS AND ECONOMIC SITUATION
    DEER (SCOTLAND) BILL
    Instruction to the Scottish Standing Committee that they have power to extend the Deer (Scotland) Bill to the whole of the United Kingdom in so far as the said Bill relates to the amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957.—[Lord John Hope.]

  TELEVISION RECEPTION , WEARDALE
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Brooman-White]
  10.1 p.m.
  Mr. William Ainsley: I make no apology to the House for returning to the problems of the North-East and that part of the country beyond the Midlands which seems to be neglected and forgotten by the Government, whether it be in industry, roads, employment or other social services.
  It is exactly two years since I spoke against the proposed increase in the annual licence fee for television sets from £3 to £4 per annum. I did so under two headings. One, that we in the North-East had long suffered under the shared sound waveband with Northern Ireland. With due respect to Northern Ireland, we have nothing in common, except that Northern Ireland and we in the North-East have continually protested about this sharing, but it seems that all our protests have been lost in the mush area " of the Irish Sea.
  My second point then was about poor television reception and the electrical interference. As long ago as 1956, the Weardale Rural District Council raised in correspondence with the B.B.C. the difficulties encountered in reception from the Holme Moss station. Later, a station was opened at Newcastle with its mast at Pontop Pike. As television sets increased in number, some of the older sets were tuned to the Holme Moss waveband and others to the Pontop Pike mast. That seemed to raise a problem for the engineers, who pointed out that in many of these villages difficulty arose because of the conflicting beams and the sets being attuned to two wavebands.
  The villagers themselves sought to rectify that problem at their own expense by having their sets tuned to the Pontop Pike beam. Pontop Pike is only 14 or 15 miles from the Wear Valley area. The Post Office engineers said that because of the lie of the land, reception of weakened signal was more susceptible to interference. That was stated in the corre-
  334
  spondence which I have had with the Assistant Postmaster-General over the last two years. As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have had correspondence from individuals, from village associations, and from the Clerk of the Weardale Rural District Council. Since it was learned that I was to have the Adjournment debate tonight, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has had correspondence from some of his constituents, his constituency being contiguous to the area with which I am now concerned.
  The Clerk of the Weardale Rural District Council secured from the head postmaster of Bishop Auckland information about the number of licences issued in some of the villages. In Frosterley, there are 162; in Stanhope, there are 280; in Rookhope there are 48; in St. John's Chapel there are 38, and in Wearhead there are 32. In that area, therefore, there is a total of 560-odd licences now in force, apart from those in other villages such as Westgate, Eastgate, Daddry Shield, Cowshill, Ireshopeburn and Lanehead. These are all in the Wear Valley area.
  On the 19th February, the Assistant Postmaster-General informed me that he had asked the B.B.C. about the suggestion of a static deflector, which does not " involve the use of another channel but may worsen some reception for some viewers." This is where I come to the irony of the situation. In the reply I have received from the Assistant Postmaster-General, he says:
  " In the circumstances, I really think that the villagers of Stanhope are to be congratulated on tackling and solving the problem for themselves."
  I want the House to realise the nature of the problem in this area. One letter I have received says:
  " Weardale has no train service, no cinemas, a poor bus service, and, fact, very few amenities enjoyed by townspeople. Therefore, television is about the only form of contact for news and amusement. Yet, as a result of the weak signal strength, even this cannot be enjoyed."
  The North-East Industrial Association was approached. It is suggesting that the area should be made a tourist area. How can we attract tourists if we cannot provide them with even a reasonable television reception for the evenings, for maintaining some contact with the rest of of the country and the world, and for amusement and news?

  335
  I come now to a more serious and challenging factor. In three villages, Rookhope, Stanhope and Frosterley, private contractors have linked up 35, 117 and 33 receivers respectively through the erection of a simple pick-up. Through this pick-up they have wired the sets in the homes of the villagers and the service is received on payment of £2 and a guarantee for 12 months that 2s. a week will be paid. That is the condition which has to be satisfied in order to have normal television viewing in that area. In another village, the cost is 2s. 6d. a week on condition that the person obtains his set through a certain dealer, who will then link it with the static deflector or pickup as the case may be.
  That is the irony of the situation. If a private dealer can meet the problem and find a solution which seems to contradict all that the Assistant Posmaster-General has stated in his letter, it is a challenge to the Postmaster-General and his technical staff. The B.B.C. staff have claimed in the correspondence that 98 per cent, of the population are now linked up. Private enterprise has got to step in to supplement the work of the Postmaster-General by erecting satellites or translators which the B.B.C. and Post Office engineers suggest are possible.
  This is a challenge to the Postmaster-General. I go to my telephone, pick up my receiver and a voice says, " Good evening; can I help you?" I reply, " Yes, Mr. Postmaster-General, will you please accept this challenge, remove this anomaly, and give justice and fair play to these village people in the remote area of Weardale".
  10.11 p.m.
  Mr. Charles Grey: It is a tribute to our Parliamentary system that we can debate the important issue of the Budget and then for the latter part of the day raise constituency issues in order to help those whom we represent. My hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) was very fortunate in obtaining this Adjournment debate in order to express the grievances of his constituents concerning reception in the Weardale area.
  I support the hon. Gentleman's claim that something ought to be done. I do not know how it can be done, but something ought to be done even if it is only to
  336
  reduce the licence fee that these people pay.
  The hon. Gentleman said that we did have quite an issue with him on the question of shared wavelengths. This went on for a considerable time. We now have the palliative of very high frequency, but in order to get reception on the very high frequency range one must either adjust one's set or buy another one. That adds force to the argument that people in the North-East should not pay the same as people in the rest of the country.
  About two years ago in the Finance Bill we did put in an Amendment—it was not called as it was out of order—to the effect that people should not pay the increased licence fee because they did not receive the kind of service that the rest of the country did. I do not know what contact the hon. Gentleman had with the Treasury before this Budget was presented, but perhaps even at this late stage he may be able to have a talk with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and in the Committee stage insert an Amendment to reduce the amount of television licence fees for £4 to £3 in areas that do not get the kind of reception that the rest of the country does.
  In the Weardale area two private firms, I understand, have been able to erect a form of transmission which I think my hon. Friend called a static deflector. No one is complaining that these people have a right to link their homes to these deflectors, but to do it they have to pay, in the case of one firm, an extra 2s. a week, I understand. In the case of the other firm, they have to pay 2s. 6d. a week and have to buy their sets from that firm. I do not know how that stands in law, but it certainly sounds pretty unfair, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give his mind to this issue and, if it is right that this should be done, perhaps he may be good enough to take the line that as these people have paid that much to the private firms they should have at least that much taken off their licence fee.
  Mr. Speaker: This would seem to involve legislation.
  Mr. Grey: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I give full support to my hon. Friend, and I hope that the Assistant Postmaster-General will give his mind to this issue in order that the people in that area may in future be satisfied with the reception they get.
  10.16 p.m.
  Mr. Edward Short: I want to raise one small point. I do not expect the Assistant Postmaster-General to be able to reply to it now, but perhaps he will look into it. It is precisely the same point as the one my hon. Friend the Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) has been making, though it relates to the Lake District.
  That is an area which is supposed to be covered by television, but the reception in some parts there is extremely bad. I have associations with the Ullswater Valley, and I know the reception at the head of the valley, in the villages of Glenridding and Patterdale—which. I see, the Assistant Postmaster-General knows. Really, television sets there are of very little use, for the picture is extremely bad and the people really do not get fair value for their licence fee. There are very few amenities for the people there. The Assistant Postmaster-General knows this valley. There was a cinema there, but that has now closed, and the nearest cinema is some fifteen miles away at Penrith. Transport is extremely bad, especially in the winter months. The people in the remote villages and on the farms and in the hills are quite shut off and ought to be given some special consideration.
  I understand that there is a technical way out of this difficulty without very much expense. It does not affect all the valleys in the Lake District, but it does affect some. I understand it has something to do with the way in which the hills lie. I ask the Assistant PostmasterGeneral—and I apologies for not having been here when my hon. Friend started his speech—if he will look into the question of reception in the villages of Glen-ridding and Patterdale at the head of Ullswater to see whether anything can be done to assist the people there.
  10.18 p.m.
  The Assistant Postmaster-General (Mr. Kenneth Thompson): I think 1 should assure the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Mr. Ainsley) and his hon. Friends that he does both himself and them a good deal less than justice in suggesting that the North-East is forgotten either by this Government or by this House. No Minister, however unimportant he may be, could possibly labour
  338
  under any illusions about the correct degree of importance to attach to the North-East after he has listened to the advice given him by hon. Members representing constituencies there. Certainly no Post Office Minister could possibly be faulted for not having a real awareness of the importance and significance of these areas.
  I hope that the House will allow me to say on behalf of the British Broadcasting Corporation and the Independent Television Authority that they, too, as important public bodies, are aware of the needs and the difficulties of the areas to which hon. Members have referred. The truth of the matter is that it is a very difficult problem. Many difficulties are presented by what may seem to be a fairly simple organisational problem of getting television programmes to cover pretty well the whole country. The House is aware that the B.B.C. has taken its television coverage to about 95 to 98 per cent. of the population of the country and before long will have reached its optimum figure of about 99 per cent. The Independent Television Authority has taken its coverage so far to 85 per cent. of the population and is going on with further plans which will raise it nearer and nearer to the total achieved by the B.B.C., which is also its target. Nevertheless, by the nature of the problem we are dealing with, there are bound to be areas which either come very late in the queue or may not be covered at all by the normal provision of broadcasting stations as planned by the two Authorities.
  I think that the House knows that a television broadcast covers an area, varying according to the power output of the station, of from a few miles to about 40 or 50 miles. In the case of the B.B.C. it operates on one of five channels in Band I, and there is similarly restricted freedom for the I.T.A. No two stations using the same channel can be so near to one another that their broadcasts within this distance limit which I have described would impinge one on another. If that happened, we should have in television broadcasts the very problem which we have had to discuss on several occasions with hon. Members representing the North-East in connection with sound broadcasts—the creation of mush areas in which everyone's programme would be, spoiled. Thus, the planning of a large

  339
  number of television stations by either of the Authorities over the whole country and to cover the largest possible percentage of the population is a highly complicated and highly technical operation calling for the greatest degree of skill and care.
  Mr. Ainsley: Is it correct that it is possible to have a stronger beam broadcasting north and south of the station than broadcasting west of the station? That is the information which I have received.
  Mr. Thompson: That may well be so. To some extent broadcasts can be directional, according to the needs of the area to be served and the danger in certain directions of impinging on the broadcasts of another station. In coastal areas on the South Coast it is necessary to avoid impinging not only on our own stations but also on some Continental stations which are only a short distance away and which might come within areas of broadcasts from British stations—or vice versa.
  If I may take that point, since it is clear what is in the hon. Member's mind, the power of the broadcasts from either the I.T.A. station at Burnhope or the B.B.C. station at Pontop Pike is not a limiting factor in making television reception so unsatisfactory to the residents of the villages in Weardale. Here the B.B.C. is facing what in the end will be its great residual problem of how to cover the final I per cent. or 2 per cent. of the population and how to get programmes from broadcasting stations down into the coastal villages, the valleys and the hamlets on the coast below the cliffs away from the normal line of sight along which television signals normally travel. The problem in the Weardale villages in the valley to which the hon. Member referred is not a problem of the power at which the programmes are sent out from the stations. It is a problem produced by the screening of the programme by the hills intervening between the station and the aerials which the owners of the sets provide.
  I was rather sorry that the hon. Member scorned my comments of praise for those villages which have managed to help themselves. I see nothing wrong in people helping themselves, and I am sure that on reflection the hon. Member will not feel that either. Here is a case where,
  340
  with the best will in the world, neither the B.B.C. nor the I.T.A. could within reasonable time at reasonable cost and in the light of all their multifarious commitments over the whole country and over a large number of similar areas have got their programmes to these villages easily or quickly. And so the villages—
  Mr. Ainsley: I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will realise that a lot of these are old people's homes. How can they afford to pay the additional 2s. and 2s. 6d. a week in addition to the fees that they are called upon to pay annually? That is the problem for the majority of them.
  Mr. Thompson: Yes, indeed. I am not blind to it. I am coming to the question of the licence fee that is charged. Nevertheless, where these problems exist and where they cannot easily or quickly be solved by the resources of the public authorities, there is nothing whatever wrong in people setting about helping themselves, even though there are some who find it difficult to make their contribution to that solution. Do not, therefore, let as scorn the efforts of those who help themselves. Indeed, I repeat, for it is worthy of repetition, my admiration of those, both in Rookhope and in Stanhope and in St. John's Chapel, who have set about solving the problems for themselves. Great praise is due to them.
  The question has been raised whether it is appropriate that the people who do not get the broadcast direct from the public station but have to use a means which they themselves provide to intervene between the station and their sets to make sure that the picture they get is a good one, should be called upon to pay the same licence fee that is paid by the television user elsewhere who gets his signal direct from the broadcasting station.
  This is a difficult matter and not easy to solve. It raises a number of important and complicated questions. If we accept, which, 1 am sorry to say, I cannot, that there could be cases where special exceptions should be made to abate either the licence fee itself or the Excise duty which forms part of the £4, in cases of hardship of one kind or another, who is to define the point at which hardship becomes qualified for relief? I doubt whether Members of this House would gladly set about the debates that would follow the moment that principle were accepted. The

  341
  House has, in fact, discussed the matter on a number of occasions and each time it has decided that it simply could not face the task.
  That, however, is not the real point. The licence fee is not charged either for the quality of reception or for the amount of reception that the payer of the licence fee enjoys. The licence fee is for a licence which permits or authorises the individual to install the set. It is no more than that. He need not use it. He may abuse those who provide the programmes and decide not to look at them. Indeed, a good many people take that view. Even so, however, he is not absolved from having to pay the fee to give himself the authority to install the set.
  That applies not only in cases such as this, where the reception is admittedly unsatisfactory. It applies in areas where the reception is very good but the viewer nevertheless chooses to use a relay service rather than rely on his own set. There are many such areas in the country. There
  342
  are many better claims, I would have thought, for relief, if relief of any kind were to be given anywhere, rather than for those who are referred to in the remarks made tonight by the hon. Member.
  I am sorry indeed that it is not possible for me to be more encouraging to the hon. Member and his constituents. I believe that a solution is available to them. They can, if they wish, combine together to provide themselves with the means of receiving television broadcasts with good and satisfactory results to themselves and at what is, in the light of the kind of benefit they are getting, not a very great cost. Certainly, my Department will do what it can to help with advice if the villagers in these areas decide to set about helping themselves and I will give them all the encouragement I can.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Ten o'clock.

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE
  Scientific Research Workers
  Scientific Research Workers
  Commonwealth Consultation
  Commonwealth Consultation
  N.A.T.O.
  N.A.T.O.
  Officer Courses
  Officer Courses
  LAW OF THE SEA (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
  LAW OF THE SEA (GENEVA CONFERENCE)
EMPLOYMENT
  Bristol
  Bristol
  School-leavers, Ilkeston and Alfreton
  School-leavers, Ilkeston and Alfreton
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
SHIPPING
  Safety Regulations (Flexible Vessels)
  Safety Regulations (Flexible Vessels)
ROADS
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Horticultural Industry
  Horticultural Industry
ROYAL AIR FORCE
  Habbaniyah
  Habbaniyah
NORTHERN RHODESIA
  Kariba Dam (Protection of Animals)
  Kariba Dam (Protection of Animals)
SOUTHERN RHODESIA
  Detained Persons
  Detained Persons
RHODESIA AND NYASALAND
  Detainees and Prisoners
  Detainees and Prisoners
NYASALAND
  Commission of Inquiry
  Commission of Inquiry
    NYASALAND COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
    NYASALAND COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
COLONIAL TERRITORIES
  colonial Development Corporation (Committee of Inquiry)
  colonial Development Corporation (Committee of Inquiry)
COAL
  Opencast Mining
  Opencast Mining
TELEPHONE SERVICE
  Subscribers (Withdrawal of Service)
  Subscribers (Withdrawal of Service)
POST OFFICE
  Postal Codes
  Postal Codes
TRADE AND COMMERCE
  Merchandise Marks (Country of Origin)
  Merchandise Marks (Country of Origin)

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St. Albans.

LORD NETHERTHORPE
Sir James Turner, Knight, having been created Baron Netherthorpe, of Anston in the West Riding of the County of York —Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LORD JENKINS
The Right Honourable Sir David Llewelyn Jenkins, Knight, a Lord Justice of Appeal, having been appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, under the provisions of the Appellate Jurisdiction Act, 1876, as amended by subsequent enactments, with the dignity of a Baron for life, by the style and title of Baron Jenkins, of Ashley Gardens in the City of Westminster—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
LANCASTER CORPORATION BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
2.57 p.m.
EARL ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, owing to the number of speakers in the debate this afternoon it would appear that we shall continue until a fairly late hour. It has therefore been arranged that dinner will be available in the refreshment room, and there will be no adjournment for dinner. It will be appreciated if your Lordships would inform the manageress of the refreshment room as soon as possible if you wish to take dinner.

CRIME AND PENAL PRACTICE
2.58 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM LORD PAKENHAM rose to call attention to crime in Great Britain at the present time; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be that various views will be expressed this afternoon about the adequacy of our criminal statistics. On that subject, as on so many others, of course, we shall listen with special interest to the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who is to introduce his own Motion following mine, and who holds a special position—a position all his own—in the field of penal reform. Among other speakers there will be the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, Chairman of the Institute of the Study and Treatment of Delinquency, and renowned sociologists such as Baroness Wootton of Abinger. If I may say so without impertinence, it is a special pleasure for all of us who have taken part in these crime and prison debates for some time to find that we are to be advised and guided this afternoon by two most eminent Judges. We have missed them for some while in the past, but to-day Lord Denning is to speak, and the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, will be making his maiden speech. I feel that those facts add a special weight to our discussions.
Whatever we may say and feel about criminal statistics, I, at any rate, should find it impossible to challenge the first sentence in the White Paper, that most candid, brave White Paper called Penal Practice in a Changing Society, which was presented to Parliament by the Home Secretary in February. Your Lordships may recollect that the White Paper opens, as follows:
"It is a disquieting feature of our society that, in the years since the war, rising standards in material prosperity, education and social welfare have brought no decrease in the high rate of crime reached during the war: on the contrary, crime has increased and is still increasing."
I suppose that a really systematic description of crime would divide itself under four heads: the facts of crime, the causes of crime, the prevention of crime and the treatment of the criminal, with a good deal of overlapping, of course, between the different headings. There are also most interesting philosophical issues, such as the nature of criminal responsibility; and I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Winster, will be dealing with some

401
of those this afternoon, as no doubt will other speakers. We could also discuss, and perhaps we shall listen to a discussion of, the relationship between crime and sin. I shall try to be fairly brief. I cannot promise to be—and it would be affectation, rapidly penetrated, if I said that I should be—very brief; but I shall try to be brief on the facts of crime and its causes and prevention, hoping that other speakers will supplement the deficiencies. I shall hope to be allowed to use the greater part of my time on the treatment of prisoners, both in prison and after their release from prison.
First, as regards the facts of crime. according to criminal statistics there were 283,000 indictable offences known to the police in 1938. We all know how difficult it is to take in all these figures, but in fact the broad picture which is raised is pretty clear, as I shall hope to show By 1945 the number of such indictable offences had increased to 478,000, or 69 per cent. higher than pre-war. By 1951 with an intermediate peak in 1948, it was 86 per cent. higher than pre-war. By 1954 we had begun to come down, and in fact the figure was down to 434,000. which was a lower figure than in 1945; and there were optimists who hoped that we should then return to the pre-war level. But since 1954 there has been a steady and very disquieting increase in crime in this country. In 1957, the last year for which we have the full figures, the total was 546,000, or 93 per cent. higher than in 1938; and for the first nine months of 1958 the total was 15 per cent. higher than for the corresponding period in 1957. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, for letting me have the latest figures in reply to my Question, and to say how pleased I am that he is taking his place this afternoon in the very strong team led by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee.
Our crime total to-day, according to the latest figures, is roughly twice what it was before the war, though we should make just one allowance—for the increase in the population since pre-war days. That increase amounts to about 8 per cent., if we take the population over eight years old. Sexual offences in 1957 were more than three limes the 1938 figure, and the figures for crimes of violence
402
against the person were four times as high. When we become disquieted, as we must, with those last figures, as indeed with all the figures, we must bear in mind that the combined total of those two types of offence—sex and violence—was only 30,000 out of the 546,000 mentioned, or about 5 per cent. of the total.
Within the general increase of crime since pre-war days learned people seem inclined to distinguish at least three elements. First there is the general postwar increase; then there is what we might call the "wave movement", reaching peaks in 1948 and 1951 and at some date yet to be arrived at—because I am afraid that we do not by any means seem to have reached the peak. Thirdly, there is what may be called the criminal propensity of a particular generation—those born between 1935 and 1943, and particularly the generation born between 1938 and 1941. Those of this particular generation, for whatever reason, appear at all stages of their lives to have done more than their share of crime, and they are now responsible for the special weight of crime among young persons between the ages of 17 and 21.
On the other hand—and this is really the only encouraging feature in the figures—the same experts call our attention to the relatively light criminality, up to the present time, of those born since the war. If we take the population whose ages now are between 8 and 11 years, we find that crime per head of the population between those ages—people born since the war—was in 1957 only about 12 per cent. higher than in the pre-war period; and, allowing for the considerable possibility of error in the figures, we are entitled to say, if we wish to be optimistic, that the latest generation of all, that is post-war children, up to the present are not proving any more criminal than their pre-war forerunners, and a great deal less criminal than their immediate predecessors.
I am warned, however, that, although we cannot be sure, there is a kind of postwar "danger age" which these young people have not yet reached, so that we must not congratulate ourselves too soon. Meanwhile, we are faced with a situation which I am sure all would agree imposes a very heavy burden upon our social conscience. I must say one word (it can hardly be more, though I hope the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, will deal with the

403
topic, among other matters) on the causes of crime. Some five or six years ago, under the auspices of the Nuffield Foundation, I embarked, with a good deal of expert help, on a critical examination of current views about the causes of crime. I repeat my gratitude for the great assistance I obtained at that time from the facilities which were accorded me and my colleagues by the Home Secretary of the day, now the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. The book eventually appeared, on my own responsibility, last summer, and I would assure any noble Lords who have been unable to obtain copies that that is due to the fact that it is being reprinted. For all I know, that may be due to the Appendix supplied by Mr. Lodge, the masterly Home Office statistician.
Perhaps I may say only one other thing. Had I been asked to offer my own opinions, instead of weighing up the opinions of others, I should have tried to be more positive, and even speculative. Certainly no Home Secretary or Government can wait for scientific proof in this field. I remember the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor saying, when he was Home Secretary, that he had adopted a certain set of factors as a working hypothesis; and if I may say so, with respect, that is a very suitable attitude for a Home Secretary to adopt.
I have time for only two suggestions in connection with causes. First of all, the amount of research which we in this country have devoted to criminology, including, of course, the causes of crime, has hitherto been pathetically small. Two years ago we spent about £3,000. I remember quoting that figure in this House, and some noble Lord said that I must have got my figures wrong and that I must mean £3 million. I looked again and I said, "No, the figure is £3,000", as in fact it was. I see that this year it is to be £15,000. Here I am referring to grants from the Home Office to outside research. We must give credit also to the Home Secretary for initiating a Research Unit, still small but growing, at the Home Office. We are all encouraged to know that the Institute of Criminology is going forward under Dr. Radzinowicz, an excellent choice, as it first Director.
I must congratulate Cambridge on having shown in this matter an initiative
404
which, so far as I can see, has not been forthcoming from Oxford, from which disquieting rumours reach me in that connection. But unless my old university has very much changed since I was a don there, any comment of a critical nature by a politician, and particularly a former colleague, would have exactly the opposite effect to that which was intended; so I refrain from saying anything about Oxford. But we are all aware, or we should be, that it will be years before the fruits of all this admirable research are available to influence in a large way our practical policy.
Secondly (and this is my only other point about causes), I am not arguing for a moment that the crime figures are a fair index of the moral health of a nation, or that because we appear to have more criminals among us than we had before the war, we are necessarily, on balance, less moral: I think that would be a quite unsupported conclusion. But I do think that our level of crime can fairly be described as the biggest blot on our social showing in these postwar years; it is our social Achilles' heel. I ask whether this phenomenon is really quite so surprising as is sometimes suggested when it is now generally agreed that our national arrangements for dealing with delinquents have been allowed to lag far behind the general level of our social services since the war.
We know, for example—I think we all know—that our probation officers have been grossly underpaid and under-recognised. This is one example. We hope and pray that the new inquiry announced the other day into the Probation Service will lead to a transformation. But I am afraid that the way these devoted people have been treated is rather typical. In 1956 our prison services as a whole were described, after a unanimous condemnation in this House, in a leading article in The Times, as "last in the queue"; and, as I shall show in a moment, the situation to-day is in many respeots worse, not only relatively, but absolutely, than in 1956 when they were already "last in the queue."
My Lords, if we have seriously undernourished our prison services, we have shamefully starved the after-care of our prisoners when they are released. When we really need something we pay for it —£1,500 million a year on defence, for

405
example. I am not for a moment saying that that is too much where physical self-preservation is at stake. But moral self-preservation is involved just as intimately in the battle against crime; and even this year, when the figures are going up by nearly £4 million, we are spending only about £14½ million net on prisons; and the only figure given in the Estimates for direct State assistance to after-care for prisoners is one for £182,000—not millions at all—an increase of £35,000. That, as I say, shows quite a considerable percentage increase. To that £182,000 on after-care we should have, in practice, to add the funds raised by voluntary societies; and it would also be right to add some payment for the services of probation officers, who of course do quite a bit of this work, although after-care is, in fact, a very small part of the total work done by probation officers. In short, my Lords, we try to deal with the criminal, and with those who devote their lives to helping and reforming criminals, on the cheap. But human nature refuses to be disposed of quite so easily, and in this sense, among others, we get the amount of crime we deserve. Here at least, in our failure to deal with delinquents, is one cause of crime which is perfectly obvious and could readily he eliminated.
I said that my original headings would overlap, and I find myself passing from causes to treatment. But before coming to that subject properly I must say one word about one aspect (and it can only be one) of prevention. Most of those concerned with young people to-day, as we found in the youth debate, are proud of the rising generation; there is no need to give an apology for that generation at all. But there seems a general agreement that the fashion of carrying dangerous weapons is more widespread to-day than it used to be. It would he quite untrue, of course, to suggest that our ordinary young men carry knives or such things about with them. That would be a quite false picture of the young people to-day. But we read all too often of groups of young men "tooling up" (as it appears to be called) before setting off for a "show-down" with a rival gang. And this, some social workers, and police officers for that matter, with great experience, seem to feel is something new—or, if not new in kind, at least new and more serious in degree.
I heartily applaud the Bill which Mr. Janne is introducing in another place to deal with flick knives and dangerous weapons; but in this matter public opinion has a part to play beyond the reach of legislation. The Daily Mirror has been running a most enterprising and public-spirited campaign appealing to parents and teen-agers to give up coshes and knives and suchlike things; and weapons have been sent in to that paper from all over Britain by anxious parents and worried teen-agers. I notice with satisfaction that more than 400 of these weapons —I am not sure that the figure is not 600—have been sent in voluntarily to the paper, including 20 guns, and these have been handed over to Scotland Yard. The House might be interested to see one or two specimens; I thought the House should know what we were talking about. These rather jolly little implements such as I have in my hand were sent in, as I say, by people who had the decency to be thoroughly ashamed of what they were doing; and I have a wide selection outside if noble Lords would wish to study the matter more fully. This particular one, for example, looks particularly nasty; but they are all very evil things.
I beg the Government to-day to say definitely and clearly two things at least: first, that they will support the Private Member's Bill on this subject in another place, or at the very least will give it all the facilities required; but I would hope for positive support. Secondly, I beg them to show their good will, as Scotland Yard have already shown it, towards all voluntary campaigns intended to bring home the reality of this growing menace. Young people must be persuaded at all costs to soil their hands no further with such despicable toys. We can all, perhaps, do our part, but the Government can give a lead; and, indeed, only the Government can give a lead to the full extent required.
That brings me fairly and squarely to treatment of delinquents. Obviously, there are many ways of treating delinquents, apart from prison, and I must leave to other speakers, in particular to the noble Judges, the whole question of sentencing policy. On that subject, however, I must repeat the conviction which has been expressed in past debates so often in this House: that there are many

407
in prison to-day whose presence there is in no way necessary on any argument of deterrence or retribution. I am sure that many of them could be reformed much more effectively outside, and certainly their absence from prison would make it vastly easier to reform the remainder, for whom, according to our present ideas, there seems to be no alternative to prison. However, I leave that topic mainly to others.
So we come once more to the present situation itself. It is now just on four years since we began in this House, in all-Party and non-Party unison, to denounce the prison arrangements of post-war Britain as unworthy of a Christian country. In all those debates, running back over four years, nothing, to my mind, is more significant, or in the long run perhaps has been more telling, than what was said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in 1955. I ventured to quote it last year and with the leave of the House I beg the opportunity of doing so again. He said in 1955 [OFFICIAL REPORT, VOl. 192, col. 758]:
"We know what ought to be done, yet we do not do it. The result is that in certain respects, particularly in the matter of accommodation and work, so far from making any progress in a world in which a great deal of progress has been made in other walks of life, we have actually fallen back, I would almost say 50 or 60 years."
Those words carried the full weight of a particularly authoritative ex-Home Secretary.
Early in 1957 the right honourable gentleman Mr. Butler became Home Secretary, and almost at once, in an admirable speech elsewhere, he raised greater hopes of penal progress than had ever, I suppose, been raised so suddenly in this country. In view of the depressing facts which I must mention in a moment, let me hasten to say—and I know that these words will be echoed by those behind me, and I think by all in this House—that neither I nor anyone else in the penal field has questioned, or is likely to question, the genuineness of Mr. Butler's sense of mission or dedication to penal reform. But last year I was compelled to point out that when he took office he singled out three problems on which he was going to level his attack: overcrowding, understaffing, and shortage of useful work. Last year I ventured to sum up progress at the end of his first
408
year—and I do not think I was challenged—as follows. I said The overcrowding position was dreadful then, and is considerably worse now. The understaffing position was dreadful then, and in spite of an unexpected increase in numbers of staff is no better now owing to the crime wave. The work position was dreadful then and to-day is no better, some believe it to be worse."
That is what I felt compelled to say a year ago. I recognise, as any fair-minded person must, that circumstances have been very unkind to the authorities; but I felt bound to conclude then that, praise or blame apart, the story was a dismal result, as inadequate as ever.
My Lords, another year has passed. We shall, of course, await the Lord Chancellor's report most eagerly. I am well aware that there have been a number of improvements, of which the extension of what is called the Norwich system to a good many more prisons is among the most notable; and if I do not seek to mention any improvement, it will be partly to avoid stealing the thunder of the Lord Chancellor and partly because I wish to leave that pleasant task to him. Let me, however, on no account fail, even at this critical time, to pay my tribute to the selfless devotion of the prison authorities, from Sir Lionel Fox downwards. Most of them, I presume, are ordinary human beings, no better than the rest of us; but during the last five years I have encountered many times—as have others, I am sure—a noticeably high proportion in the Prison Service who labour far beyond the line of duty, and whose purpose can only be described as spiritual.
However, facts are brutal things, and we cannot ignore them. Whatever the causes of crime, the immediate cause of the lamentable position in our prisons is the increase of crime since the war, and particularly the increase of crime during the last three years. Before the war there were about 11,000 men and women in prisons and Borstals. In July, 1956, which is getting on for three years ago, when The Times described our prison services as "last in the queue", there were 20,700. Last April there were 24,300. There are now 26,300. Of course, that is well over twice the pre-war figure, and it has increased a great deal since 1956. It will not surprise the House to hear that in spite of all the efforts of the

409
authorities, which should not be underestimated, overcrowding is getting steadily worse. When Mr. Butler became Home Secretary he said that the measure of overcrowding could be broadly illustrated by the number of men who sleep three in a cell. In 1952 there had been 6,000 men sleeping three in a cell, but in 1957, when he took over, there were 2,000 sleeping three in a cell. Last year, at the time of our debate, the figure was 4,389 and now in the White Paper we find that it is 6,000. That means that about three times as many people are now sleeping three in a cell as when Mr. Butler became Home Secretary.
My Lords, how on earth are we going to improve the position, instead of letting it get, as I have said, steadily worse? One method I mentioned earlier, and which I must not stop to deal with now, is to reduce the numbers in prison by other forms of penal treatment. But, given the prison numbers, which are still increasing. are we going to shirk our responsibilities very much longer? It is, in my opinion, very much as though we shirked the responsibility of building new schools by omitting to notice that there was a bulge in the school population. Leaving over the very pertinent question whether we could build or could acquire more open prisons, I feel it right to point out to the House that the figure for new buildings and alterations in the Estimates for 1958–59 was £1,150,000, and that this year it has increased to £3 million. I do not want to belittle the improvement. In fairness, as I am being very critical, I think I should say that that figure of £3 million is slightly higher than I myself had expected. However, it may help rather than hinder the Home Secretary if the House records its opinion frankly about these figures. and I hope that neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Home Secretary will think me ungenerous if I say that, while this figure of £3 million is a great deal better than £1 million, the same rate of increase will have to be maintained for several years if we are to make any real impression on the problem.
Meanwhile, we are told in the White Paper that 11,000 out of the 15.000 now serving sentences of imprisonment— and that figure leaves out various categories: corrective training, preventive detention. civil prisoners, and so on—are in local prisons, and we must undoubtedly this
410
afternoon and this evening bend our minds to these local prisons in particular. Here I quote the White Paper, the Government's own statement—and, as I have said, I am grateful to them for their candour. It says that these local prisons
"are in themselves quite unfitted to modern conceptions of penal treatment."
That is a statement by the Home Office about our own prisons—or, at any rate, about the prisons in which the great majority of our prisoners are housed. We are told officially that the prisons in which the great majority of our prisoners are housed—and I am now quoting the White Paper again—
"were built 100 years or more ago to serve the purposes of solitary confinement, treadmill hard labour and brutal repression".
I must make it plain that here I am quoting; otherwise people will find the statement difficult to believe. The White Paper continues that these prisons
"stand as a monumental denial of the principles to which we are committed".
My Lords, while we continue to tinker with this problem, even if the tinkering is a little more energetic than it used to be, I do not see how we dare to call ourselves a Christian nation in the full sense.
Staffing and work—those other eternal topics—I must leave mainly to others, though I feel ashamed to pass them over so lightly. The staffing story is about the same as it was last year. A satisfactory increase in numbers of staff has been cancelled out by the increase in numbers of prisoners. We are all glad, I hope, that the Government has accepted most of the recommendations of the Wynn-Parry Report. It was time, and more than time, that the prison staffs were much better treated. I am sorry to find, from the current number of the Prison Officers' Magazine, that the staffs are getting
"more than a little exasperated at the delays and frustration"
in getting the recommendations of the Wynn-Parry Committee implemented. It is their view that only a generous and statesmanlike gesture on the part of the Home Secretary can now restore the situation. I find those rather sad and disconcerting words, because I had hoped that things were going a little better than that. I hope the Lord Chancellor will be able to say something to create a better atmosphere this afternoon for the

411
discussions which I believe are now in progress. It should be observed, however, that shortage of staff is still a serious bottleneck. The three-shift system of work, which is considered by some as essential for adequate hours of work for prisoners, is in force in a little more than a quarter of our prisons. Before the war it was in force in all our prisons, so that, on balance, I am afraid we can hardly be said to have made any progress there.
In the local prisons, in which, as I say, 11,000 out of the 15,000 prisoners referred to are housed, the White Paper says that the work situation
"has long been bad and is deteriorating."
My noble friend Lord Stonham, who will be winding up from this side of the House, can speak with special authority on this aspect, and if he does not go into it in detail to-day it may be because he is going to give us an opportunity on a date not yet fixed to discuss a Motion which concerns what are called the priority supplies as a whole, and that would include the prison authorities.
But on the subject of work I must say these two things in passing. I feel sure that we shall never overcome our difficulties so long as we seem to be arguing with the employers or the trade unions. as it were, across the fence. We have to get both sides of industry deeply involved with us in this problem and in sharing the responsibility for the fate of these fellow citizens in prison. I myself believe that an advisory body representing both sides of industry and committed to assist and advise the Government would be an immense step forward. There is one other point here which I make, though I am sorry to have to make it, because I have every reason to suppose that the gentleman in question has every qualification, moral and technical. The Prison Commissioners announce, with apparent pride, that they are
"now assisted by the appointment of an experienced industrialist as industrial adviser."
It may not be the fault of the Prison Commissioners—when I may criticise them I usually find that it is not their fault; usually something else has stood in the way—but to suppose that a single gentleman in a voluntary capacity (and I stress the voluntary capacity) is a serious remedy for the work problem in prisons
412
is, I am afraid, a ludicrous underestimate of a grave social issue.
Finally, there is the question of aftercare, the treatment of men and women when we release them from prison. If I call attention to the grave weaknesses here, to the total inadequacy of our national provision, it must not be taken as a criticism of the voluntary societies, least of all of those selfless people who serve them for little or no reward. I happen to be the Chairman of The New Bridge, a small voluntary society which exists to supplement the work of the official bodies with personal service to ex-prisoners, and I am the first to agree that the voluntary contribution in this field is quite indispensable. But what I am saying is a criticism—I am bound to say a very severe criticism—of what I can only call our community callousness or coldheartedness, for which we as citizens, each one of us, must take our share of responsibility.
In penal reform, the State—and that, of course, means us—has always recognised its responsibility, even though it has moved towards it with feeble, groping gestures. In after-care we have not even recognised our national responsibility. I am afraid that a revolution in our outlook will be necessary before we do so. As a community, we seem incapable of realising even a tiny part of the handicap under which an ex-prisoner labours. Some of the handicap is hardly avoidable, quite apart from any initial handicap of temperament, of which I am not speaking this afternoon. Any form of publicly administered punishment must be a terrible blow to self-esteem. and the more sensitive and more intelligent the man, the more enduring the shame and distress. I know that this problem must have come to the notice of many of your Lordships many times.
No employer—and I speak as one—can pretend that he can be indifferent to the record of someone seeking employment under him, particularly where dishonesty has been involved. And no one trying to help a prisoner with a testimonial can avoid the dilemma of whether to tell the whole truth or only part of the truth. In any society, we can foresee that these obstacles to an easy re-acceptance of ex-prisoners are bound to stand in the way. But surely, if they exist, as I think they must for some time, they impose a

413
special duty on those—and this means all of us—who have taken on ourselves the task of 'punishing and reforming delinquents. From this point of view, it makes neither sense nor Christianity, nor any form of morals, to announce that we are seeking to reform a man in prison and then to repudiate—for that is what it amounts to—any effective responsibility for helping him to overcome the peculiar difficulties inherent in his new life: or, in other words, to complete his treatment.
I submit to the House a six-point programme for after-care. First. the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee have still not been implemented, though of course it would be quite untrue to say that nothing has been done. The Committee 'recommended that so far as voluntary after-care was concerned, each prison should appoint at least one social worker. and the larger ones several, to prepare prisoners for release. By now I believe that there are fifteen prison welfare officers in local prisons and that another eight are to be appointed shortly. This is fairly slow going, and we must press for the full implementation of the Maxwell Report without further procrastination.
Secondly, the Home Office Advisory Committee have recommended—and I am glad that the Home Office intend to carry this out—that statutory after-care should be extended to cover various new categories of prisoners. Such statutory aftercare is to be carried out by probation officers, or in the London area by officers of the Central After-Care Association. The limiting, factor here is the number of probation officers, and until their status is substantially raised an adequate flow of recruits for the ever-increasing tasks which will fall on them is not likely to be forthcoming.
Thirdly, we must stress the need for hostels for homeless prisoners. on the lines of Norman House, which has won such admiration and well-deserved gratitude. The Howard League started the Margery Fry Memorial Fund in honour of that wonderful woman, who worked for so long with the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and I gather that they intend to run a hostel for discharged prisoners in Birmingham. All good luck to the Howard League! But what is really needed is a network of such hostels in all our towns and cities. Where other
414
backing is not available, they should be maintained by the local authorities. No doubt in many cases they will require a Governmental spur to action.
Fourthly, the National Assistance Board offices have a vital part to play. Any large office should have one official who should concentrate on discharged prisoners, rather on the lines of the disablement rehabilitation officer in large Labour Exchanges. Such special N.A.B. officials should keep a list of landladies prepared to accept ex-prisoners, and make arrangements for direct payments to these landladies when a homeless prisoner comes to them. At present, a vicious circle operates all too frequently—no assistance money without an address: no address obtainable without assistance money. We have to break that vicious circle somehow.
Fifthly, the same idea should be applied at the labour exchanges which, in my eyes, are at the moment the key point in the struggle; but in the case of the Ministry of Labour it should be carried higher and wider. It should be the business of the State to take special steps to promote the employment of ex-prisoners. Until the public is educated not to draw away their skirts from those who have been in prison, the adequate re-employment of the ex-prisoner will always he very difficult. A few, a very few, employers will accept those whom they know to be ex-prisoners. Many reputable firms have an iron rule against employing anybody with a prison record. Why not a Government scheme—and we seem to be forced to look for a Government scheme —for the re-employment of the ex-prisoner? The nationalised industries could set an example. The ordinary employer, particularly the large employer, should be encouraged to take a percentage of ex-prisoners, especially first offenders, and it might well be that the Government could indemnify employers against any dishonesty on the part of an ex-prisoner during at any rate the first part of his work with his new employer.
I come, sixthly and lastly, to the point made by various officers, particularly by Mr. C. R. Hewitt—and I suppose that no one has done more than he, under the name very often of "Rolph", in the New Statesman and elsewhere, to influence opinion that matters in ways that really benefit. It should be axiomatic

415
that no prisoner should be discharged without adequate arrangements being made for his immediate accommodation and proper financial provision for his first week outside, so often the absolutely crucial week affecting his whole future life. The existing arrangements of the National Assistance Board are quite useless to the man who does not have enough money to provide himself with an address other than a hostel. Ten pounds of savings to be handed to a man on discharge regardless of means test would transform the situation for the better and, of course, when we have a proper scheme of earnings in prison, the money would not have to be given to the prisoner, as now; it would be the result of his own labours in prison. There, my Lords, is a six-point programme; and, while I do not claim any kind of infallibility for it, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will deal with it seriously and carefully.
It may be asked, though not too loudly in this House: "Why should we go to all this trouble? Why should anything special be done for ex-prisoners? Have they deserved extra well of the community that something additional should be done for them?" Well, there are plenty of spiritual answers to be found to that question, and no doubt the right reverend Prelates who are to speak will supply them. But I may be forgiven for quoting one which is perhaps the simplest and best known of all. We find it in the Gospel of St. Luke at Chapter 15, Verse 31. There the father of the prodigal son says to the older son who complained that a kid had never been given him to make merry with his friends:
"Son, thou art ever with me, and all that I have is thine. It was meet that we should make merry and be glad: for this thy brother was dead, and is alive again; and was lost, and is found."
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.42 p.m.
VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD VISCOUNT TEMPLEWOOD had given Notice of a Motion to call attention to the Home Secretary's recent proposals in Command Paper 645 for dealing with young and adult delinquents; and to move for Papers. The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I have several times had the privilege of following the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, when he has introduced one of these periodical debates
416
on penal treatment. I am glad to have had the chance. The noble Lord always speaks with such a wealth of knowledge and with so much detail that he relieves me from going into a minute description of the state of affairs and leaves me to deal with these questions from a rather broader angle.
Your Lordships will see that I have put on the Paper a Motion specifically drawing attention to the Home Secretary's recent White Paper. It is one of the most remarkable documents issued from the Home Office for many years. It sets out a comprehensive programme upon which the Home Secretary intends to start, particularly dealing with the inadequacy of prison accommodation. If your Lordships will look at the White Paper, you will find that no fewer than thirty-five considerable new penal institutions are contemplated, and a building programme for the staff covering 35,000 houses. That is a remarkable programme, and I pay tribute to the Home Secretary for having got it through the Cabinet and for having obtained a general acceptance for the start of it. I can pay a particularly sincere tribute to him, because, as an old Home Secretary, I know how difficult it is to get accepted a programme that deals on any comprehensive scale with penal treatment and particularly with prison buildings.
It is worth noting—and this confirms what I am saying about the difficulty of getting a programme of this kind accepted—that there would seem to be nothing in the Home Secretary's White Paper that was not included, or at any rate inherent, in the programme that I introduced twenty-two years ago, in 1937. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, rather tended to suggest that the delays and difficulties had arisen particularly in recent years, and that Mr. Butler had been moving very slowly. Let us remember, my Lords, that every successive Government has been equally responsible for these delays, and that the country, in turning its back upon the urgency of these questions, has also been responsible.
I have a suggestion to make to avoid similar delays taking place in the future. The Home Secretary has produced an excellent White Paper containing a comprehensive programme. It does not, however, set out year by year how the programme is going to be carried out. suggest that he should produce another

417
White Paper in which should be set out, year by year, say, over a period of five years, how these thirty-five new penal institutions are intended to come into being and how the other changes contemplated in the White Paper are to be carried out. I know it is often said that one Minister cannot bind his successors, but I venture to suggest that in a case of this kind, where there is no Party feeling, and where it is most unlikely that even if there were a change of Government there would be any reversal of this policy, it would be a wise and salutary act to put down in black and white how this programme is going to be carried out.
I pass from the White Paper (your Lordships will see that I am not dealing with it in any detail, because I do not want to take up too much of the time of the House), and I come to the broad issue that arises behind it. The increase of crime has been vividly described by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I remember well that in the two years before the war the problem was not the increase but the decrease of crime; it was not a question of finding accommo, dation for the prisoners, but one of finding prisoners for the prison accommodation. One of the last decisions for which I was responsible atthe Home Office was to decide to close Dartmoor, because there was no demand for it owing to the falling number of serious criminals, and to close that ridiculous sham Windsor Castle, in Seven Sisters Road, which was virtually the only prison we had for women. Compare that state of affairs with that which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has just described to the House. It is very depressing. It is all the more depressing because this great increase in crime has accompanied a great rise in material conditions. We used to think that poverty was the main cause of crime—bad living conditions, bad housing, and inadequate education. Now what do we see? We have seen a great rise in material wealth. We have seen a great increase in the social services; and yet we have seen crime steadily rising even to a greater extent. That raises a formidable problem.
How has it come about? How can we deal with it? It is not peculiar to this country. Recent inquiries that I have made show that juvenile crime in recent years has increased more rapidly in the most progressive countries of Western
418
Europe than in the other countries. I am told that juvenile crime has increased most rapidly in this country, in Western Germany, and in Sweden, where material conditions have greatly improved, and where social services are far ahead of those in most of the other countries of Europe.
Now what does that mean? I suppose we could argue for ever about the details that make up the reason. I content myself with a very simple answer. I believe that crime has increased in these countries because temptation has increased, and the power of resistance to temptation has not been strong enough to overcome it. It is not that the Welfare State is wrong, but that the Welfare State, coming rapidly after the tremendous revolutions of two World Wars, and accompanied by the most incredible inventions and discoveries of science, has swept the world off its feet. The old landmarks have gone; the old conventions have been abolished; and the general impression has grown up that there are no particular rules in the game of life. That raise a whole series of formidable questions both here and over the whole world.
It is well that we should realise that the question with which we are dealing to-day is not confined to this country but affects the whole world. What is happening to-day in Tibet or Nyasaland is all part of this general commotion that has spread over the whole world. Let me give your Lordships a picturesque illustration—I found it in the New Statesman. It described how the young generation of Eskimos have abandoned their ancestral drum dances and fur-trapping for jazz and card-playing, and at the Equator the young Dyaks jeer at the tribal customs of their elders and sit apart in the jungle tree-tops playing poker. What more picturesque illustration can one have of the changes that two world wars, and all that has followed them, have had upon the world from one end to another?
The first fact to realise is that we are dealing not with a question restricted to this country, but with something much more profound and deep than the question of penal treatment. That does not mean that I underrate the Home Secretary's proposals for reform: I think they are excellent. But supposing they all come into operation quickly, we shall still be faced with this great central problem, the result of these world upheavals.

419
Mr. Butler has rightly said that it is no good attempting to impose severer penalties. We have already a whole series of very severe penalties, if they are properly used; and it is worth noting that in certain of the States of North America, where incredibly severe penalties have recently been imposed, crime is worse than anywhere else in the world. Mr. Butler has rightly concentrated upon bringing our penal institutions up to date. That is at any rate the first step for a Home Secretary to take. But beyond that first step there is the much more important next step of how to deal with this general moral landslide. I am not so ambitious as to suggest specific remedies. There certainly is no panacea, least of all a short-time panacea. We must approach it over a wide front with the help of everybody; the State and voluntary effort. We have somehow or other to build up a power of resistance to these new temptations which come from the sudden high wages of the young without any corresponding responsibility; and temptations which come from films and television and give the impression that the world is nothing more than a world of wild adventure. I could go on with several suggestions of that kind.
The concrete suggestions that I would, however, venture to make are, first, that there should be a closer co-operation between the State and voluntary services. I think it may be found that we pushed the State services too quickly in the last three or four years, and that more might be done as a result of a closer cooperation between the two. I think also that it may be necessary, after this ten or fifteen years' experience of the new social services, to see whether, in some cases, they do not overlap each other. That is the suggestion I have to make. I suggest, further, that we have gone much too far and fast (I am not now arguing the general case of divorce) with the facilities for divorce. I found that in my own public lifetime, a lifetime that now covers fifty years, the number of decrees absolute has risen from 2,816 to 147,858. I venture to suggest that behind those figures are very many broken homes—the direct cause of much of this increase in crime.
Lastly, my Lords, I suggest to the Home Secretary that, having now
420
analysed so acutely and comprehensively the position of crime, he should lead a campaign in the country to concentrate every possible effort upon building up resistance to the new temptations. He might do it by a series of speeches in the country; perhaps, better still, he might do it in a series of regional television interviews. Anyhow, I am sure the country is now alive to this very formidable problem of crime, and this is the moment to stir it up further and make sure that a really united and genuine effort is made to stop the increase. Noble Lords will see that I have tried to deal with this problem from a very broad angle. I have not gone into the details, but I think I have said enough first of all to commend the Secretary of State's plans; but, still more, I hope that I have said enough to show that we are dealing with a great moral problem that faces the whole world at a time of unprecedented change. We cannot afford to let this blot remain upon the surface of the Welfare State, but by a united effort, perhaps over a long period of time, we must prove that here in this country we can deal with these new temptations, and that we can create a power to resist them. Before I sit down perhaps I should say that I do not propose to move the Motion in my name as this present debate covers anything I proposed to say.
4.2 p.m.
LORD MOYNIHAN: My Lords, once again we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for introducing this debate in a year when things are no less acute and the crime figures are more startling than they have ever been before. I would at the start of my speech say just one word to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, about his book The Causes of Crime. To me it was very useful, and I would commend it most sincerely to anyone who is at all interested in this subject. The noble Lord has received the greatest compliment an author can get by having his publication require a reprint so quickly.
This afternoon I wish to talk mainly about the White Paper and points that arise in it. When I first read it, though I found it full of truths and of good intentions, it seemed to me, if I may be quite blunt, to be rather a shocking admission of lack of progress on the part of a Government which has been in office so long. Year after year your Lordships

421
have been asking for these very improvements, but it is not until the crime rate is higher than it has ever been before that these promises are given that something at last is to be done.
I do not pretend for a moment to be an expert in criminology, but I suggest that even the most knowledgeable would not find it any easier to explain the root causes of the present rise in crime than any interested amateur; and whether these improvements, welcome though they are, will in actual fact be the answer remains to be seen. In my humble opinion, despite the impossibility of pinning the causes of this rise to any particular thing or things, there can be no lasting improvement until the moral standards of this country are raised. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, quite rightly said that a rise in crime does not necessarily mean that our moral standards are low, but I think the opposite is also correct: that if your moral standards are low, then it is almost certain that you will have a rise in crime.
The noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, has already, in one word, put the whole position clearly: it is a question of temptation. Unfortunately, my Lords, as with every other point in the debate this afternoon, one could spend the whole of the time discussing that one point, but it would be like a clergyman who, with maybe a full congregation, attacks them for not going to church, when in actual fact they are the only people who do go to church in this House, if one went into it in too great detail it would be like attacking the people who are really sympathetic and understanding about the problem. If we look at history, though we shall find that the first years after the last war will prove to be the period when more was done for the people of this country than ever before, I think history will also show that those improvements were attempted too quickly, and instead of the immediate gain we hoped for we shall see rather the contrary. Such is the Welfare State: quite excellent in theory, but is it not in practice turning out at the moment to be an ill-timed attempt to alleviate the fears and increase the happiness of the masses? Through the speed in which it was presented, it is encouraging people to work less for more money and without any positive ideas as to how to use their spare time. It is in
422
that particular point, in the use of one's spare time, that the good or bad way of life can be learned.
In case we are getting a little too depressed about the whole position, I would point out that it appears that this rise in crime is following the same pattern as in periods before the crisis. The same thing happened after the First World War; the same thing happened after the 1930 crisis and depression. If it continues to follow the same pattern, then this particular rise may well nearly have reached its peak, and if the present improvements are implemented, and implemented quickly, there is a hope, I think, that the crime figures will tend to fall. Emphasis in the White Paper is mainly on the rise in crime of youths between 16 and 21, and of course that is by far the most serious part of the whole problem, because if these young men become recidivists the crisis can well remain for many years to come, and if we do not in future segregate first offenders from recidivists then they, in turn, will have their minds poisoned. Therefore I suggest that it is of the utmost importance to bring these young men back into the world of sense and civilisation, and away from crime.
That cannot be done while there are no remand homes, while Borstal boys spend up to three months in local prisons, and while youths with sentences of between three and six months' imprisonment never go to young people's prisons but remain the whole time in gaol. Therefore I would most humbly ask that this matter has top priority in anything that is done. It means a faster building programme than is envisaged, a matter to which I will refer again in a few moments. It is also extremely serious that there is so great a rise in the total of sexual and violent crimes by these young people. I appreciate that the percentage taken over all indictable offences is still very small, but the public abhors these crimes, and through the great publicity given them it always appears that there are far more of them than is actually the case. Nevertheless, although it is a small percentage it is all the time rising.
There has already been a cry from the public for a return to corporal punishment, just as there has been a cry for return to capital punishment. I personally think that a great number of the

423
people who commit violent crimes would, being cowards, be deterred by this kind of punishment; but it must be a retrograde step to go back to the corporal punishment that we used to have. Nevertheless, if nothing is done about the rise in this type of crime the public may well still demand it. Like other modern and unhurtful methods, this sparing of the rod has, I think, gone just a little too far. Feeble parents now run to the law because their poor little boy has been justifiably smacked by his master for a crime. I think that just a little hint that such punishment could come back would do more good than harm, and it might well curb a tendency to crime at a very impressionable age.
It seems to me that in regard to any crime there is no use in sending a person to prison for less than six months. I am not at the moment referring to detention centres—I shall come to that matter in a moment. Apart from them, if a person does not go to prison for six months or more there is little time for rehabilitation and none at all for training. So I should like to see far more lenient treatment for first offenders, again excepting those guilty of crimes of violence, and a minimum sentence of six months for any second offence. Paragraph 48 of the White Paper states that 87 per cent. of first offenders in the year 1953–54—a very high proportion—had not returned to prison by 1957. I do not think it is unduly optimistic to say that they are probably most unlikely to return after that period, and it would seem well worth the experiment of being really charitable and understanding and not sending a considerable number of these people to prison at all. Of course, we can have no definite ruling—it would still have to be left to the judge to decide; otherwise those who think that there would be a great danger in it would be right. But I personally do not think that many would risk committing a second offence if they knew it meant serious punishment, but would think themselves lucky that they have had their first crime "free". If this proposal were accepted—there are great numbers in prison for less than six months—it would bring down the population of the prisons immediately; it would give to the staffs the chance for training those that remain; it would put an end to the appalling number of three
424
prisoners in a cell, and it would give an immediate opportunity of segregating first offenders.
Now just a word on detention centres. I have spoken on these before. I think they are excellent and are doing a wonderful job of work for these young men, giving them what is called a short, sharp shock of three months. I am delighted to see in the White Paper that there is expected to be an expansion of these detention centres. Paragraph 40 says
"it is hoped that all young persons sentenced up to six months will go to detention centres."
Here I must ask one question: does that mean that there are to be two or more types of these centres? A percentage of young prisoners are not fit enough to go to them. Unfortunately, many young criminals are of low physique and mentality. I do not think that they would ever benefit from the detention centre as it now is. What is going to happen to them?
Another important point is that these offenders are all either first offenders or ex-approved school boys. Cannot we keep these detention centres out of the code of imprisonment altogether? Cannot we count sentences in a detention centre as being not imprisonment, and therefore as having no stigma attached to them? I know that in theory there is no stigma and that when you leave prison you are as free as you were before, but that is not the fact in practice. I am not asking for a change in the responsibility of the Prison Commissioners. I just ask that when these detainees leave they should be allowed to say that they have not had a term of imprisonment.
I should like to say just a few words about the police. Modern techniques have so improved, through radio and through fast communications, that tracing a criminal is made easier. Some people have given this as a cause for the rise in crime, in that more people have been caught. But I do not believe that the proportion of non-detected crimes is getting any less, or that a larger proportion are sentenced to imprisonment. I should not claim that it is a cause of the present rise. But one thing still worries me about the police: do they really give a fair chance to an ex-prisoner? If these boys or men return to where they lived before they committed the crime one finds the

425
police over-watching them in their activities, and they become the first suspects if there is any trouble in the neighbourhood. Of course, sometimes they are the culprits; but sometimes they seem to be picked on without any cause. Naturally, this causes resentment among these ex-prisoners. It is against the principle that once you have served your sentence you are free to do what you like, so long as you do not commit a crime.
There will always be "old lags" who one wishes and hopes and prays will pull themselves together, but they are not the majority; they are only a few of the exceptions. The police seem to me to have a principle: "Once a criminal, always a criminal." These things hinder the effects of after-care, be it statutory or voluntary, and I am wondering whether there is sufficient understanding between the police and after-care authorities. How far in fact do the police help? How far can they help? Does the fact that they are always at the prosecuting end of a crime mean that they really cannot help in after-care? I cannot believe that that should be, or is, the case. I realise their difficulties, and I realise, too, that they are bound to be prejudiced; their profession brings them into contact with the worst side of human nature. But their attitude seems to me to be one cause of the insecurity felt by some of these boys who have been to prison or Borstal, or who are on probation and are seriously attempting to live a decent life.
Then in paragraph 8 there is mention of whether the police are used to best advantage. We all know the policeman who walks up and down a row of cars taking their numbers. We wonder whether that is really necessary, and we certainly wonder whether it is necessary to waste a policeman's life on that. I think it must be terribly degrading for a man in uniform who has any ambition to have that as part of his job. Could not that work at least be done by a civilian replacing a policeman? Where has this replacement by civilians taken place? It is to be hoped that it can take place to such an extent that the police can really tackle their own jobs.
Now for a few minutes I should like to speak on after-care. I always feel that this subject should take a whole debate on its own, and perhaps at some
426
time in the future we may have an opportunity of really dealing with this particular and most important subject—for it is, of course, a vast subject, and a field in which there is very great room for improvement. I can touch only briefly upon it, and first I want to touch upon those forms of after-care that are taken while the man is in prison. I believe we all realise and agree now that after-care does not mean just care after the prison time has been served. After-care should start at the earliest possible moment, probably on the date of sentence; for there is far more opportunity, of putting these people straight while they are in prison than there ever will be afterwards. But there again, in practice, it is now quite impossible, with the overcrowding, to take individuals, train them and try to rehabilitate them.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that after-care in prison is improving rapidly. Paragraph 80 of the White Paper shows that some extension is being made of what was called, I think, the Bristol experiment, whereby those serving (I believe) preventive detention were allowed to go out and work in a civilian occupation at civilian rates of pay during their last months in prison. That is now being extended to other cases, apart from preventive detention, and I would recommend that that should go on, I hope sincerely with the great success that it had at the start.
The other type of after-care in prisons is the home life system, by which the prisoner is completely trusted by being sent home to see his family, to fix his job or to get ready for that tremendously difficult time when he leaves prison and starts on a fresh life. That has done infinitely good work with ex-Borstal boys, and I am delighted that it is to be extended. I was going to talk about discharged prisoners' aid societies. I have never been at all happy about the way in which those work. I understand, however, that there has been some change in recent months, and I think it is better to make no further comment to-day; but I hope that an opportunity will be given to bring that matter up again in the future.
In paragraph 82 there is a reference to the extremely difficult problem of material aid. No doubt there was a time when, because a man did not have any

427
money, or perhaps only 10s. or 15s. when he came out of prison, he went back immediately to crime, particularly if he was let out at a weekend. He could not then get work until Monday. and unless he had a particularly good employer he could not get any pay for a week. That problem is now dealt with. I believe, by the Welfare Services. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has shown us some of the things that are wrong there. There is another. That is, that there is still the pride of the ex-prisoner which does not let him go to an assistance board. Somehow or other we have to persuade him that he will not be inferior if he goes there, but that it is for his own benefit, and, indeed, for the benefit of everyone. that he should do so. Nevertheless, until that times comes, I sincerely hope that discharged prisoners' aid societies will be encouraged to help materially, anyhow for the time being.
Finally, my Lords, I come to the building programme. We in this country always say that money is short. That is always a wonderful excuse for everything. Nevertheless, the fact remains that we are far behind every other country in our building since the war; and prisons are no exception. Paragraph 86 is really a disgrace. May I have your Lordships' permission to read it? It says:
"In the first place, as has been shown, the existing buildings do not provide enough room for those who are now being sent for training. Even if there were removed from the local prisons all the untried prisoners and the 2,000 men, now unsuitably housed there, who are serving sentences of over three years, on the present level of committals 1,500 men would still have to sleep three in a cell. This fact illustrates a degree of overcrowding which cannot be tolerated and which makes effective classification and training quite impracticable."
Having read that, we go on to paragraph 94, two lines of which say:
"Even if the programme was complete today there would still he over 1,500 men sleeping three in a cell in local prisons."
We just cannot tolerate that any longer. I cannot believe that anyone can now say. particularly after yesterday's Budget, that we are living in a time of financial stringency. Even if all these things were done immediately they would be infinitesimal compared to a great number of other things that are being done to-day. Every prisoner costs a great deal of money. If the capital were now spent on putting up these buildings, and doing so
428
quickly, I believe that we should find that before long the Government would save very much more money than they would be spending.
Now, in conclusion, I go back to the beginning of the White Paper. It is a shocking thing that we live in a time when, although material benefits have never been higher for the family in this country, crime also has never been higher. We cannot merely hope for a solution, for it will not just come. Her Majesty's Government have at last shown determination that something is going to be done. It is up to us to encourage them in the one way we can, by going on asking questions and having these debates, to see that these first steps to alleviate such a tragic condition are completed at the earliest possible moment.
4.29 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF EXETER: My Lords, I cannot but regard the action of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in putting down this Motion as a deliberate provocation. It is inevitable that it will draw from these Episcopal Benches speeches which, if not technically sermons, will, by the tedium they will cause and by the moral platitudes they will contain, amount to very much the same thing. But, after all, to put down a Motion calling attention to crime in the country at the present time is to dangle before the pursed lips and quivering nostrils of the Bishops an irresistible bait; and I, for my part, have not tried very hard to resist it, though I will try to be brief.
It is, of course, a matter of profound disappointment to all of us that the figures for crime now are so tremendously higher than those which obtained twenty years ago in the years before the war. We had all assumed, and assumed rightly, that there is a close connection between poverty and ignorance, on the one hand, and crime, on the other. How is it, then. that we have this disappointing result? It may be because, along with our assumption, there is also another secret and tacit assumption that man can, after all, live by bread alone; and we are now learning yet once again that he cannot; that there must be higher ideals in life than simply security and a rising standard of living. We are learning also, I think, that our present state of society is dreadfully acquisitive. The worship of Mammon seems to me to be sometimes more blatant

429
than ever. We see evidence of it in the fantastic size of football pools and football pools' business; we see it in the fantastic earnings of television and film stars. We see an almost desperate adoration of great wealth and ostentatious luxury. And I think that underlying this wave of crime, as its main cause, lies sheer, naked greed.
My Lords, the White Paper tells us that sexual offences and violent offences against the person also show a disturbingly large increase. Perhaps I might say a word about those two things. In the matter of sexual offences one has to remember that modern society imposes virtually no restrictions at all upon the meetings of the two sexes together; that there are, in consequence, a far greater number of opportunities for sexual indulgence and sexual violence than there were fifty years ago. To that one must add that persons with naturally strong sexual impulses are submitted almost continuously to sexual stimulation and excitement by the advertisements they read; by the screen; by the stage; by novels, and by television. They are living in an all-pervading atmosphere of emphasis upon sex. It is therefore not surprising that if they have naturally strong sexual impulses they find it very hard to control them.
The young man and the young woman meet together and walk together, are left alone together over long periods; and it is very common that they permit with each other behaviour which is designed to raise to the highest possible pitch their sexual excitements and passions. When that happens it may be that the girl feels that things have gone too far; and as a matter of fact they have gone too far, so far as the man is concerned; and he is now under a practically ungovernable impulse, and an offence of violence occurs. I do not wish to trail a red flag in front of the Judges, but I myself would say they are clearly suffering from diminished responsibility, responsible indeed for having created the situation which exists, but a diminished responsibility because in that situation control is virtually gone.
But, however that may be, society itself must take some share of the blame because we have not understood that the more you give people freedom of social convention governing the relations of the sexes with one another, the more you withdraw all restrictions, the more important
430
it is that you make sure that both the sexes are armed and protected with the virtue of chastity. It is desperately unfair to allow these young people to get into the positions they do with the full approbation of society, and not at the same time do everything that is possible to protect them, by inculcating into them a real love and appreciation of the virtue of chastity.
In this matter I am bound to say that the churches are by no means without blame. But when the churches do talk about chastity they so often talk in purely negative terms, and express the virtue in a series of prohibitions, that it is scarcely surprising that, with the young people, it appears a very dreary and inhibiting thing, instead of the lovely, positive thing of beauty which it actually is—the only right preparation for marriage, and, within marriage, the jewel and protection. In the old days, the virtue of chastity was known to be a romantic thing intimately connected with respect for the beauty of the human body and with a longing for a lifelong, all-consuming, romantic passion. My Lords, I think we cannot really expect a great diminution in the number of these deplorable sexual offences until chastity comes to be held in far higher public esteem. I suppose that at the moment it has never been held in lower public esteem since the reign of Charles II. That is something for which society itself must take the blame.
Then we come to the offences of violence against the person. It is astounding when one reads from time to time how young persons in the very first flush of their manhood can go in groups of twos and threes and batter old ladies to death in their flats or over their shops in order to get their savings. It seems quite astonishing that anything of the kind could conceivably happen; that anything of the kind could possibly be done by any of the younger members of the generation of the people to whom we are proud to belong.
One searches for the cause. I have no solution to put before your Lordships, but I cannot help feeling that perhaps the cause which enables these young people to have resort so easily to such brutal violence is that in their earlier childhood they were never given a strong and firm moral discipline. "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is an ancient saying, and it may be that we are reaping the bitter

431
fruits of a neglect of it—not, of course, that it need necessarily be literally a rod. But young children whose moral sense and education is just beginning do require a certain element of firm discipline; they do require a certain system of rewards and punishments in order to direct them firmly along the right way. And I suspect that it is a lack of these in their earlier years which lies at the bottom of these terrible crimes. Since the figures tell us, apparently, that the younger age groups now show a less criminal tendency, it may be that the younger parents are being wise enough to give to their children a better education, because it is a more disciplined education than they themselves received.
But in our complicated social life even the best of parents cannot, I think, by themselves, give adequate moral education to their children. It requires a very close co-operation between the parents and the schools. I know very well that what I am about to say is a gross slander on many schools, and a gross slander on many admirable school teachers; but in a debate like this one must generalise, and I would make this generalisation: there is a widespread impression, at least, that in the local authority school, and especially the secondary school, the teachers lay far too little emphasis upon the moral education of their children, and are apt to confine their duties to what goes on in the classroom. I know, of course, that teachers are at the moment faced with great difficulties and handicaps: there are not enough of them: there are not enough classrooms; and classes are too large. Nevertheless, I think it may be true that, by and large, they under-estimate their responsibility towards the moral education of the children. Even despite their handicaps, I think that a great deal can be done even now.
A month or two back I was giving away prizes at a secondary modern school where, under a splendid headmaster, supported by a really remarkable body of teachers, great emphasis and effort had been laid during the last three or four years on the moral behaviour of the children, and where, in particular, great efforts had been made to teach the children to have a pride in their own school—though it was the best school in the town by a long way. It was the best school in the town because it was attended by the best children; and it was laid as a duty upon
432
all the children not to do anything to spoil that reputation.
Certainly the children that I saw (though it would be a gross slander on a tough bunch of "devils" to say that they were tidy) were at least clean; and although their behaviour was not quiet, it was decent and considerate and charitable. The headmaster told me that not one of the pupils of that school had been before a children's court during the last three years, and that that was something which no other school in the town could claim. It shows, therefore, that, even now, something can be done—more than is being done—for the moral education of the children, to give them a concern for their lives and behaviour outside school as much as in the classroom. I believe that if we could get a contented body of teachers, paid a salary (as I think at the moment they are not) properly proportionate to their standing and status in society and to the importance of the work which they perform; and that if, balancing that, the teachers themselves were filled with a deep sense of vocation and duty to guide and develop not only the minds but the lives and characters of all the pupils under their charge, then we should see the figures of crimes committed by young people between the ages of 14 and 21 falling very steeply.
My Lords, I will not detain you much longer, but I should like to say just one word about the treatment of offenders. I should like to endorse wholeheartedly the praise which has been lavished upon the Home Office White Paper. It is indeed, I think, a most enlightened document, and it should fill all of us with great hope that at last penal reform in a big way is beginning. In particular, I should like to draw attention to the emphasis laid upon the detention centres, which I regard as important because it will mean that first offenders will no longer go to local prisons. Secondly, I should like to draw attention to the proposals about Borstal training, that there should be an indeterminate sentence of not more than two years, which would be longer or shorter according to the degree of co-operation shown by the offender with authority in the business of his self-rehabilitation and reform. That appears to be based on an absolutely sound principle: to make the punishment fit, not the crime, but the criminal, which seems to me to be absolutely right. Thirdly, I am glad indeed

433
that the White Paper treats so sympathetically the suggestion of the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, that the area of compulsory statutory after-care should be greatly enlarged. I think that those three proposals would in themselves mark a tremendous advance and would bring about a tremendous improvement in our present-day state of affairs.
Before I sit down I should like to draw attention to paragraphs 48 and 49 of the White Paper, which mention the figures of those who, whether first offenders or not, have not returned to prison in the last three or four years. To my mind, the figures are astonishingly high when we consider that nearly all these sentences were served in local prisons, in the worst possible conditions. It seems to me a quite wonderful tribute to the work of the existing prison officers, and they deserve every encouragement and gratitude and congratulation from us on that work. Of course, these figures should give no ground for complacency: they should only increase our determination to get rid of the present local prisons, or at any rate to alter them radically from top to bottom. The only complaint I have about the White Paper—and it is not made in any spirit of criticism of the Home Office, or in any sense of ingratitude—is that, even so, the tempo of this White Paper is not nearly fast enough.
4.48 p.m.
LORD NATHAN: My Lords, for reasons which will become apparent during the short time that I shall delay your Lordships, it is right that I should say that on this occasion I speak not on behalf of my noble friends on these Benches but in my own individual capacity. My noble friend Lord Pakenham, in opening this debate, has given us—to great public advantage, I believe—the results of long and profound reflection upon the whole problem of crime; and the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, though not moving his Motion, has again reminded us of the long and devoted interest which, as Home Secretary, he took in the whole problem of penal reform.
For my part, I propose in my few observations to confine myself to a single, quite limited, but, I believe, crucial purpose; and I am given the lead in that to-day by what has just been said by the
434
right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter. I propose to limit myself to the question of the establishment of an Institute of Criminology. I believe that such an Institute may well have a powerful contribution to make towards the understanding, and thus the solution, of some, at least, of the problems of crime. It is a striking fact that, although institutes of criminology exist in other countries, there is no such institute here; nor is there in this country a separate university qualification in this subject, as there should be. There are Readerships in Oxford and in London. In Cambridge, as my noble friend Lord Pakenham mentioned, there is a Department of Criminal Science in the Faculty of Law.
There is an urgent need for an Institute of Criminology, with a staff recruited from the various disciplines concerned, such as law, education, sociology, medicine, social psychology and psychiatry. Cambridge seems to be the most suitable university for such an Institute, and if money is forthcoming, I believe that Cambridge is ready to accept the responsibility.
The function of such an Institute might be to carry out research, to provide facilities for the teaching of criminology at post-graduate level and to maintain close contact, by the organisation of conferences and short courses, with those concerned in the practical administration of the criminal law, such as magistrates and their clerks, senior officers of the Police Service, the Prison Service, the Probation Service and the Children's Service. Such an Institute would be concerned with such problems as trends in crime, the treatment of offenders, the medical and social aspects of criminal behaviour, the administration and enforcement of criminal law and the reform both of the substantive criminal law and of criminal procedure. The Institute might also keep under review the result of criminological research, as well as developments in penology, both in this country and abroad. It would become a centre of information in criminological matters.
An essential need is to train academic teachers, qualified not only to pursue research at a high level but also to conduct courses in criminology, such as already exist at some universities in the United Kingdom. I understand that the

435
University of Cambridge would contemplate the establishment of a postgraduate course of study leading to a diploma in criminology. Apparently there is at present no adequate criminological library in this country. The establishment of such a library should be a principal concern of such an Institute.
"Crime", stated Mr. Justice Felix Frankfurter, of the Supreme Court of the United States, "must he subjected to that systematic, disciplined, continuous attack of reason, which we call scientific procedure." The armoury for such au attack might well be provided by an Institute of Criminology. The importance and need of such an Institute received powerful reinforcement from Mr. Butler, the Home Secretary, whose long and close interest in all that concerns the cause, treatment, prevention and ultimate eradication of crime, is well known. On July 31 of last year, in another place, he made a statement warmly welcoming the proposal, expressing his confidence that its fulfilment would make an indispensable contribution to the study of the problems of crime and the treatment of offenders.
Now is a conjunction of time and circumstances, which is the reason why I said that on this occasion I speak in an individual capacity. At the beginning of January of this year, Mr. Butler wrote a letter to me, as Chairman of the Isaac Wolfson Foundation, drawing attention to that statement and inviting the interest of the Foundation—set up about four years ago by Mr. Isaac Wolfson—of which I have been Chairman from the outset. Parenthetically, but for propriety's sake, and in compliance with the established practice of your Lordships' House, although I can scarcely think it stretches so far, I think that perhaps I should disclose my interest by informing your Lordships that, in addition to being Chairman, I have been throughout honorary solicitor to the Foundation. Indeed, that is my own personal contribution to the resources of this charitable foundation, of whose material resources no part has come from me.
The Trustees over whom I preside are, in addition to Mr. and Mrs. Isaac Wolfson and their son, Mr. Leonard Wolfson, two Members of your Lordships' House—the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, who I believe
436
is to follow me in this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Evans. The others are Sir Stanford Cade, surgeon to the Westminster Hospital, and Professor Arthur Goodhart, Master of University College, Oxford. On my bringing before my co-Trustees at our meeting in February, this project for an Institute of Criminology, they took a sympathetic and affirmative view and entrusted me with the task of conferring with Mr. Butler and the University authorities at Cambridge on how practical expression might best be given to it.
After a full discussion with Mr. Butler, I arranged to see in Cambridge the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, in his capacity of Vice-Chancellor of the University. In due course, I conferred there with those principally concerned, and afterwards with the noble Lord, Lord Adrian. We reached agreement very easily. It is perhaps convenient to add that on January 27, 1959, the Senate of the University of Cambridge formally approved the establishment of an Institute. Following my discussions in Cambridge, and with the unanimous concurrence of my co-Trustees, I wrote a few days ago to Mr. Butler, and to the noble Lord, Lord Adrian, as Vice-Chancellor, offering, on behalf of the Wolfson Foundation, the sum of £150,000, the amount which had been suggested, in order to found a Chair of Criminology and a Readership or Lectureship. This, it is thought, would absorb an amount of the order of £100,000, leaving a balance of £50,000 for the acquisition of a special building, which I understand to be contemplated, or for other purposes of the Institute, including perhaps the much-needed library to which I have already referred.
I feel sure that your Lordships will share the hope of the Wolfson Trustees that the Institute may by this means be established on a firm, durable and appropriate basis, and may become a centre of teaching and research and a focus for ideas and action which may make a useful and continuing contribution to the solution of the problems of crime in all their varied aspects.
5.0 p.m.
LORD BIRKETT: My Lords, I must ask for the kind indulgence of your Lordships for a short time while I intervene in this most interesting, instructive and important debate. The right reverend

437
Prelate, the Bishop of Exeter, in the speech to which we all listened with such interest, spoke of the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, in tabling this Motion; and I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord not merely for the tabling of the Motion but for the presentation of the subject here this afternoon. He certainly provided so many topics that every subsequent speaker can find something at least to speak about. I, for my part, intended to rise primarily for the purpose of commending to your Lordships the proposal for the foundation of the Institute of Criminology in the University of Cambridge, but I suppose it is not the first time in this House that a maiden speech, so carefully prepared, has been delivered by a previous speaker. I must therefore fall back on such resources as I have, and, as I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, introduced so many topics that one cannot fail, at least for want of material. I have always understood that a maiden speech should have at least two qualities: that it should be non-controversial; and, above all, that it should be brief—and the identification of being brief, I think, might extend to all speeches, maiden or otherwise.
I feel that I ought to declare an interest in the foundation of the Institute of Criminology—that is to say, an interest in the University of Cambridge—and I will not follow the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, into any discussion of the University of Oxford. I think that the more prosaic reason why Cambridge has been selected for the foundation of this Institute is the fact that there was already there the Department of Criminal Science, which for many years has been doing most valuable pioneer work on many of the subjects that we are discussing this afternoon. Any of your Lordships who has had the opportunity of looking at some of the publications which have come from that Department, such as Mental Abnormality and Crime, will be convinced of the immense value not merely of the Department of Criminal Science but of the Institute of Criminology of which that Department will in due course form a part. While I fully and cordially endorse everything that has been said about the quality of the White Paper, I think that the one feature in it above all others worthy of commendation is this
438
wise, far-seeing proposal to found the Institute of Criminology. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Nathan for relieving me of any trouble about speaking of the technical details of the foundation of the Institute, and I can perhaps confine myself to two points: first, the immense value of research; and secondly, and equally important, as I think, the formation of the right, educated public opinion on which penal reform and the administration of the criminal law so much depend.
It is well that it should be said in this House how much we are indebted to the vision of the present occupant of the position of Secretary of State for Home Affairs. The speech which was delivered here by the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, the presence on the Woolsack of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, and the presence in his place (I am so glad to see) of my noble friend Lord Samuel, whose work in this field is beyond all praise, make me feel that this country has every reason to be proud of the long succession of distinguished men who have held the office of Home Secretary. When I had the privilege—and that is no conventional word; it was a privilege—to be the Chairman of the Home Office Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, I was brought into the closest contact with Mr. Morrison and Mr. Chuter Ede, and, as I say, I think the country is indebted to a long line of noble-minded and dedicated men. It was, I think, Clarendon who said in the great Rebellion, when he saw Cromwell exercising the office of Lord Protector with such distinction, that he seemed to have concealed faculties until he had occasion to use them, which I suppose was Clarendon's way of saying that the office brought out the best qualities of the man; and certainly that could be said of the Home Office.
The particular proposal for the foundation of this Institute is a matter, as described by the Home Secretary himself, indispensable to any discussion of the treatment of crime or the treatment of offenders; but I would add that I think it can be quite revolutionary in its purposes and in its effect. I do not know whether it is the presence of my noble friend Lord Samuel in his place that brings it to my mind, but when the Home Secretary

439
of the day instituted the Gladstone Committee, who reported in 1895 and whose findings subsequent Governments followed with such detail, that was indeed a revolution; and I think that the foundation of this Institute may be akin to it. Your Lordships may know that only a few years before the Departmental Committee of 1895, the Chief Justice of this country, a most notable forensic figure, Chief Justice Cockburn, presented a memorandum to a Royal Commission which was then sitting on the question of penal servitude, and in the course of it the highest figure on the King's Bench side at the time scouted the idea of reformation in punishment. He said that it was too precarious; it could not last; and the real foundation of criminal law should be the infliction of suffering as a punishment for the offence and the inculcation of fear in the offender that it would be repeated. It is to the eternal credit of the Gladstone Committee that, within a few years after that, they nobly and boldly stated those facts, one of which, incidentally, was quoted verbatim by the right reverend Prelate: that you should make the crime fit the criminal, and that there was room not merely for social security but for individual reformation in the penal law.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, who spoke so eloquently about prisons and the necessity of prison reform, will remember that it was the Gladstone Committee of 1895 who, for the first time, said that there should be an absolute review of all our prisons; that we should get rid of your solitary confinement that we should make prison a place from which a man should come out better than he went in, and that we should make it a place that might appeal to his moral qualities and to his higher susceptibilities; and in many other ways laid the foundation for many of the matters that we are discussing today. When Mr. Chuter Ede in 1948 introduced the Criminal Justice Bill of that year, it was virtually merely putting the crown upon the work which had been begun so long before; and it may well be that my reference to it, and the work of that Committee so long ago, points the moral of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham: that we have indeed been very much at fault and much in error in leaving prisons in the state in which they are, and that it is the most hopeful thing in the world that in this White Paper
440
there is this new spirit which I think might bring about a change akin to the change of 1895.
I must conform to my principle of brevity, but I should like to say this: for over forty years now I have been associated in one capacity or another with the administration of the criminal law, first of all as a practitioner in the courts, and in my very early days mostly in the magistrates' courts. As your Lordships know, there the bulk of the criminal work of this country is conducted, a fact which ought never to be overlooked. It is the court in which the ordinary member of the public is most likely to come into contact with the law, and the necessity for the right type of magistrate and the right type of education to be given to the magistrate is all important. I am glad to think that in my early days I had a very wide and prolonged acquaintance with the work of the magistrates' courts.
Then I became in due course a Judge of Assize, and have been for many years a Judge of Quarter Sessions. I know—and I want to relate this to the Institute of Criminology—that there is a feeling that Judges are averse to penal reform. I think it is largely a legacy from the past. As your Lordships know, there was a time when William Pitt and the Lord Chancellor, Lord Loughborough, publicly announced that there should be no reform of the criminal law unless it originated from the Judges or, alternatively, the proposal had been considered by the Judges and approved by them. When Sir Samuel Romilly, in the early part of the nineteenth century, began his noble work of reform and introduced his three Bills—one of which was to abolish the death penalty for stealing 40s. in a house, or the death penalty for stealing 5s. worth of goods in a shop it was defeated in this House, although it had passed the other place, by Lord Eldon, the Lord Chancellor, and Lord Ellen-borough, the Lord Chief Justice, rising in their places and saying on behalf of all the Judges that that humane proposal, as we now think it, would simply demoralise the structure of society and forthwith ought to be defeated—as it was, with the assistance of many of the right reverend Prelates.
I wanted to say that for this reason. This Institute of Criminology, if it is to do any good at all, must win the cooperation of every kind of worker in the

441
field of criminal administration or of penal reform. The Judiciary, the Executive, the medical profession, the psychiatrists, the social psychologists, the Prison Commissioners, the probation officers, must all be brought into the great work which the Institute can do. The modern Judges of this country—I am now in a position to speak quite freely, whereas a few years ago I should not have been able to do so—are concerned with the administration of the law in a just and humane way, and I think it is of the utmost importance that they, too, should co-operate in the fullest way with the methods of research to be instituted by the Institute referred to by the noble Lord.
I hope I may be forgiven for saying that, because I think it is important. Judges of the present day at least can say—and I speak here with personal knowledge—that they have brought the administration of our criminal law to such a standard that in all the English-speaking communities of the world, and in many communities which do not speak our tongue, the administration of British justice is the admiration of the world. Therefore, I think the Institute starts off well.
I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will forgive me for saying that I disagree with him, and disagree very strongly, when he says that it will be many years before the fruits of the research of the Institute will be made manifest in practical proposals. I do not think so. There are, of course, many matters which do not need any further research and which ought to be dealt with as urgent matters at once—notably the question of after-care. It is the most lamentable and pathetic thing to sit in the seat of justice and to see reappearing in the clock some wretched man who, on his discharge from prison from a previous sentence, tried hard to do the right thing, but, because of the situation in which he was placed, fell once more into crime, with the result that there he was again. And the sorry tale goes on. Nothing, in my judgment, is more urgent than reconsideration of the whole question of how to deal with the discharged offender. If I had had the time I should have liked to endorse many of the points made by the noble Lord; but there are one or two things which can be carried out by the Institute at once. The White Paper
442
speaks of the possibility of including in the concept of punishment the idea of prisoner reparation. I think that is wholly good, but it needs a little research of the right kind to be done quickly, and then to be put into operation.
Many of your Lordships know that under Section 11 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, if a court makes an order putting a prisoner on probation, or an order for conditional discharge or absolute discharge, it has power, in addition to awarding costs, to award a sum by way of compensation or damages. I have found in practice that it is the most splendid idea. Suppose that a person is charged with stealing—it may be the first offence. You do not want to send the person to prison, but the person from whom the money has been stolen is a poor woman who cannot afford the loss. You say to the prisoner, "You shall be forgiven", and the woman goes away saying, "That cannot be justice, to lose all my money." But if the judge can say "I shall make an order for probation, which means that I keep control, because if you offend again you will be punished for this offence", and, at the same time, tell the man, "You shall pay by way of compensation a sum of money" (the amount is limited to £100) it will be found that public opinion, which is exceedingly important in the conduct of the administration of justice, is met.
I should think that fulfilment of the proposal mentioned in the White Paper (I think the proposal originated with Miss Fry, with whom I was privileged to work for so many years), of making compensation for those who suffer physical injury from assault could be done simply by an amendment of the National Insurance (Personal Injuries) Act. With regard to the larger question of whether a court could order restitution for theft, burglary or robbery, that would be a matter for further research by the Institute of Criminology.
It is a most lamentable thing that at this time crime was never higher, that all the remedial and redemptive agencies were never better, and that the question of punishment was never more reasonable. I will not suggest by a sentence that we should alter that policy, but when it is said that there are in prison people who ought not to be there, I begin to be a little sceptical—for this reason. Out of every four persons under the age

443
of 21 who are convicted on indictment of an indictable offence, one is put upon probation; and out of every 100 people convicted on indictment, from 21 and below that age, one or two only go to prison; sixty-five go to probation; twenty are fined, and the remainder go to remand homes, detention centres or approved schools and the like. I am not suggesting for a single moment that there should be severer sentences, except to say this: that there are occasions—we have had evidence of it in the immediate past—where proper severity, at the proper time, at the appropriate place, can be a most marvellous instrument in dealing with certain forms of crime.
I come to the last thing I want to say on this point. When we find the public mind greatly exercised, with people calling out for severer penalties, some calling for the reinstitution of flogging, it is well to remember that nearly every deterrent element has gone from our system of punishment. I will not discuss capital punishment. The Homicide Act of 1957 was a clear compromise. In my own opinion the day will come when capital punishment will go altogether. flogging, corporal punishment, has entirely gone since the Departmental Committee recommended that it should be so. The only thing left is a severe sentence of imprisonment. The Acts of Parliament give Judges proper power to impose penalties, but out of 10,000 sentences of imprisonment imposed last year on people convicted upon indictment only 800 were sentences of four years or more. It is, therefore, a very lamentable thing that there should be in the public mind this feeling that we must go back to severer methods; and it is on such a matter that the new Institute of Criminology can, I think, render a great public service, by satisfying the public mind; because I am satisfied, quite satisfied, that we can never prevent crime or repress crime by severity alone. The eighteenth century demonstrated it. The death penalty was as common then as a magistrate's imposing a fine of 40s. to-day, and yet people cried out for severer punishment. Women were burned alive at the stake and they still cried out for severer punishment, and crime persisted. I do not think that if you send somebody to prison that, of itself, however severe the sentence, is
444
going to do much in the way of reformation.
My Lords, let me end with this quotation—probably it is a reward to your Lordships for listening to me so kindly and patiently. Fifty years ago a youthful Home Secretary, Mr. Winston Churchill, with that distinction of language which has always characterised him and which, as we well know, proved of vital service to us at the time of our great jeopardy, said this—and though I do not particularly like the title of Institute of Criminology I think this quotation might well be written on the wall:
"The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of any country. A calm, dispassionate recognition of the rights of the accused; a constant heart-searching by all charged with the duty of punishment; a desire and eagerness to rehabilitate in the world of industry those who have paid their due in the hard coinage of punishment; tireless efforts towards the discovery of curative and regenerative processes; unfailing faith that there is a treasure, if you can only find it, in the heart of every man these are the symbols which, in the treatment of crime and criminal, mark and measure the stored-up strength of a nation and are sign and proof of the living virtue in it."
5.25 p.m.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR): My Lords, it is my first, very pleasant, duty to express to the noble Lord, Lord Birkett, on behalf of all your Lordships our congratulations for that admirable speech and our high hopes that we shall hear him often again. It gives me particular pleasure, not only because he is a very old friend of mine but because in the past this House has been singularly fortunate in the acquisition of the great forensic orators of the time. We go back to Erskine, to Russell, to Carson, to Isaacs, and now we have gained among our numbers one of the greatest forensic orators of the twentieth century, and I tell him again we want often to have the advantage of hearing him.
Like everyone, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, for introducing this debate, and I am also most grateful to him and to other noble Lords for being good enough to let me know the line that they would follow in their speeches. I shall try to deal with the points which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has raised, and I ask the forbearance of your Lordships if, as I think

445
you would expect, that is bound to take a certain amount of time.
Before we come to those special points, may I follow my noble friend, Lord Templewood, in saying one or two matters in general approach to the subject, because crime, its prevention and treatment, is essentially and pre-eminently a social problem, and before I speak of the Government's plans for dealing with it I want to set it out in its wider context. There is no doubt virtual unanimity, except among those who live by crime, in the opinion that crime has increased, is increasing and should be diminished. Bat the problem cannot—and I repeat this—the problem cannot simply be handed over to the Government to be solved by administrative or by legislative measures. It is one which affects society as a whole, not merely because society suffers in the persons and the purses of its members from the activities of criminals, but because society has a responsibility, corporate and individual, not merely for dealing with the problem of the treatment of the criminal after he has declared himself, but for dealing with the more difficult problem of preventing him from becoming a criminal in the first place.
I was glad that my noble friend, Lord Templewood, emphasised that side to-day and also emphasised that the provision of housing, education, health services and employment may reduce the adverse circumstances in which weak and inadequate characters readily fall into crime but, as we have seen only too clearly, that these things cannot in themselves overcome crime. They cannot foster either the individual strength of character or the social elements which will be resistant to the growth of crime. In this sphere responsibility rests on the individual as a parent, a householder, a workman or an employer. The responsibility for bringing up children in a stable home with decent standards of conduct, which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter stressed, is one; and another is for maintaining integrity in our dealings with others. Another responsibility which we are apt to forget—as I found when I was in charge of the police, and I am sure noble Lords who have been in that position will have had the same experience as I—the responsibility for refraining from putting opportunities for dishonesty in the way of those who are open
446
to temptation; and the responsibility, perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, emphasised, for giving an ex-prisoner a chance of re-establishing himself in employment and in the society of his fellows; and even—and here again I speak of a real problem that I have had to face—the responsibility for accepting the establishment of an open prison near one's own home.
It was in recognition of the fact that both the causes of crime and, to a considerable extent, the problem of helping a criminal to go straight when he has served his sentence lie outside the sphere which the Government can reach by direct action, that my right honourable friend the Home Secretary called a meeting in February of, first, the leaders of the churches and the various voluntary organisations, and secondly, the trade unions and the employers, to discuss the problem of the causes of crime, with particular reference to the incidence of crime among the young. I understand that the discussion was a fruitful one, and my right honourable friend is considering what more can be done to study these problems and to bring to bear upon them the resources not only of the Government but of the great organisations which mobilise and express the spirit of voluntary service and endeavour in this country. I am glad that another right reverend Prelate is going to follow me and I hope that we shall hear more from him on this particular aspect of the matter.
Now for what the Government itself can do by its own action. It seemed to me, as I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that, uncommonly for him, he did not show his usual generosity in his references to the Government's programme, in spite of his altruistic intention to help the content of my speech. His speech did not reflect, except in the most general way, the fact that the Government has laid down in the White Paper a programme of major importance for the future—a programme which is designed, so far as forethought can take it, to meet the problems with which crime confronts us and to which the noble Lord has given so much attention. After all, this programme covers the whole range of the problem of crime from the stimulation of researches into the causes and the treatment of crime to concrete proposals in terms of bricks and mortar for

447
providing institutions suitable to the carrying out of the new methods which are being developed. It is fair to say that it not merely charts the ends, but plans the means. It is the first time for a generation, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, pointed out, that anything of this sort has been published, and I think that the Government can fairly claim credit—I do not want to put it an iota too high—for applying vision and initiative in a field which has too often been ignored.
The White Paper indicates what has already been done and shows the fruits of some of the creative thinking which has taken place over the last two or three years. It contains proposals which would involve legislation for adjusting the treatment of young offenders in the light of the growing volume of crime committed by young people, and for increasing the scope of statutory after-care for adults. It indicates that inquiry is going on into such important features of the new measures introduced in 1948 as preventive detention. It indicates the importance which the Government attaches to the working out of improved methods of classification and of training; and through that it goes to the provision of better buildings and of a staff sufficient both in numbers and in quality for the forward-looking reformative type of work which they are increasingly being required to perform.
My noble and learned friend Lord Birkett referred to the Gladstone Report of 1895. That was issued just over sixty years ago. One aspect of that is that it is only just over sixty years ago—it is in the very year, if my memory is correct. when my noble friend Lord Samuel first stood for Parliament—that this country awoke to that change of mind and moved from deterrence as the accepted principle to the introduction of the principle of reformation. Sixty years is, shall we say, a long or a short time, but it has left us —and that is part of the problem that iny right honourable friend is dealing with to-day with these prisons, stated with complete candour in the White Paper to have been built in the deterrent period for the purposes of deterrence which are set out there. That is, I think, not an unremarkable aspect of our problem. It is no excuse, but it is an aspect of the
448
problem which I think fair-minded people would keep in mind.
It is when we come to the particular features of the problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred, that we find ourselves overwhelmed by the effects of the present flood of crime. I shall indicate in a moment how we are dealing with this, but first I want to say a few words about the amount and character of the crime with which we are faced. As the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, indicated, the picture which the figures present is of an increase in the amount of indictable crime by about one half between the beginning and the end of the war, followed in the subsequent fourteen years by large and unexplained fluctuations, which brought the amount of indictable crime by the end of 1957 to a level about one-seventh above that of 1945. It is fair to say that the disturbing fact is not so much the periodic steep increases in crime, which have been followed by equally steep, though less publicised, decreases, as the fact that the ground lost during the war has never been recovered.
We have also been disquieted, as the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter showed in his speech to-day, by the persistent increase in crimes of violence against the person, and sexual offences, though I am glad to say that the figures for the first three-quarters of 1958 show, almost for the first time since the war, a decrease in the number of sexual offences known to the police. But I should like just to say a word or two about crimes of violence, because I do not think that even the right reverend Prelate had the figures fully or completely in his mind. Offences of violence and sexual offences account, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, reminded us, for only 30,000 out of well over half-a-million crimes known to the police. Comparative smallness does not deal with a positive large figure, but the recent studies have shown that the crimes of violence consist largely of offences arising out of brawls or family disputes, resulting in relatively minor injury, very often inflicted with the fists. Perhaps your Lordships will bear with just three figures: first, 85 per cent. of the crimes of violence are woundings; and of these, in turn, 90 per cent., composing (if my arithmetic is right) 76 per cent. of the total crimes of violence, are of the non-serious kind, while only 9 per

449
cent. of the crimes of violence are those associated with robbery and serious incidents of that kind—which was clearly what the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter had in mind when he was making his speech. I feel that it is right in a sombre picture at any rate not to ignore the lighter aspects.
What we have to face—and here again we come to the approach of my noble friend Lord Templewood—is the fact that the great bulk of crimes consist of the offences of dishonesty, and here again I would stress what at first sight may seem to your Lordships a small point, which I have mentioned before. I believe that the ordinary household can help by reducing the opportunities, because that is not only a matter of self-interest but also, I believe, a matter of social responsibility. As the White Paper indicates, Her Majesty's Government recognise that the small minority of offences against the person which result in serious injury may cause most grievous suffering, and my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has appointed a Working Panty of officials to study the problems which would be involved in compensating victims of these offences, on the analogy of payments made to victims of industrial injury. I shall convey to my right honourable friend the slightly different approach to that matter made in his speech by my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett.
My noble friend Lord Templewood has drawn attention to the problem of the young offender, and the increase in crime among juveniles and young adults is a feature of the post-war trends in crime which must give rise to great anxiety. I should like to tell him at once that that is a problem about which my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has been particularly concerned, and I hope that my noble friend Lord Templewood will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not at the moment go into the juvenile problem. I am most anxious to deal with the problems of treatment which have been raised, but I assure him that my noble friend Lord Chesham will deal with that point.
There is just one other point which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, mentioned—the question of offensive weapons. If he will do a little research into my legislative record, he will find that, either in 1952 or 1953, I introduced a Bill, which
450
passed through both Houses, making it a criminal offence to carry an offensive weapon. I shall certainly convey to my right honourable friend the views which the noble Lord expressed with regard to Mr. Janner's Bill, and I shall also convey, with my own sympathy, his suggestion as to the encouragement of voluntary societies, which he mentioned on that point.
LORD PAKENHAM: I thank the noble and learned Viscount very much.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, may I now come to research? I want to come to that as the first of the particular features of the problem with which Her Majesty's Government have come to grips. Obviously, as the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Birkett, have pointed out so clearly, we want to make progress in understanding the nature of our problem and also studying the effects of the measures we take to deal with it. Hence the great importance which we attach to research. Again, with all respect, and with no ill-feeling. I assure him, the noble Lord. Lord Pakenham, seemed to me to be underrating what has been done and is being done. Progress cannot be measured simply in terms of the amount of Government money which is being spent. though even that has increased five-fold over the amounts being spent two years ago.
Noble Lords who have studied the Appendix to the White Paper will have seen what a wide-ranging programme of research is being undertaken, first by the Research Unit set up by my right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland; secondly, by a number of universities and other bodies, with financial assistance from Her Majesty's Government; and thirdly, by others without financial assists ante but often in association with the Home Office or the Prison Commission. My right honourable friend has been particularly concerned in the plans which have been made, and which are nova happily coming to fruition, for the creation of an Institute of Criminology at Cambridge, of which we have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Nathan and Lord Birkett.
I should like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Nathan. that we welcome the munificent grant which has been made

451
by the Wolfson Trustees for the creation of a Chair and Readership in Criminology and I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him as Chairman of the Trustees, and (perhaps he will not think it improper), through him, of thanking Mr. Isaac Wolfson himself. There are two very good reasons for that. One is that I have honour to number Mr. Isaac Wolfson among my friends; and secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, knows so well, I have the honour to represent your Lordships as Vice-Patron of the Westminster Hospital; and that hospital, also, is deeply grateful for Mr. Isaac Wolfson's munificent help. For those reasons, therefore, apart from the subject with which I am dealing, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Nathan, will convey not only the thanks of Her Majesty's Government but my personal gratitude for what has been done.
I am glad to be able to say that Her Majesty's Government have decided, on the advice of the University Grants Committee, to support the development of criminological studies in the University of Cambridge by making a grant over the next three years. We are also grateful to the University itself which has provided the opportunity for this important development. I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, thinks over what was said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and what I am now about to say on this point, he need not be so pessimistic about the results from the Institute, because not only will the Institute create valuable research work itself by its teaching of criminology; it will also stimulate activities in this field by other universities. That is sure. It will also provide a much-needed source of able young research workers and will help those who are already working in various capacities in the field to a greater understanding of their problems and the problems of their fellow workers. My Lords, these various developments which have been initiated in the last two years have (I do not think it is too much to say this) brought about a revolution in our outlook in research and in the prospects of future development in this field. It is a stride forward of great importance to the future.
I now want to turn to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, described as the prison situation. Here the noble Lord referred in particular to the problems of
452
overcrowding, understaffing and shortage of work; and again did so, as he told us, and as he was perfectly entitled to do—I make no complaint—in terms which paid little attention to what has been done and laid much more emphasis on what has not. He certainly referred to the fact that since our last debate the prison population had increased by over 2,000; but in the way he put it (and I assure him I make no complaint) he did not, I think, make sufficiently clear that this extraordinary increase had overtaken the progress that was being made in all these matters. We have, indeed, my Lords, been in the position of having to run very fast indeed to stay where we are. Noble Lords will, I hope, be under no misapprehension as to the view taken by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary as to the urgency and importance of these problems; and I hope to satisfy the noble Lord that our action, within the limits of the practicable, has not fallen, and is not falling, below the level of the needs. I shall also deal, I assure the noble Lord, with his most sympathetic approach to the problems of after-care.
My Lords, to consider overcrowding, it is, unhappily, true that in 1952 there were 6,000 men sleeping three in a cell, and that there are almost as many to-day. But to-day we have 2,000 more prisoners, so that without considerable activity (I do not think this is an unfair point) there would have been 8,000 men sleeping three in a cell. To deal with this problem we have planned a forward building programme which is set out in Part IV of the White Paper. This is the first time that such a programme has been published, and it is an indication of the Government's determination to grapple with this problem realistically. I would emphasise—and I hope that this will be some comfort; I do not mean it merely as a debating answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham—that this is not merely a paper programme. We have been dealing with the immediate situation.
Since our last debate four additional open establishments—two prisons and two Borstals—have been acquired and brought into use, and sites have been found for the first remand and observation centre, and for another new security prison. Incidentally, the designs of these establishments will incorporate several new developments in prison architecture, and they are already in hand.

453
Apart from that, the planning of a number of other—I repeat, other—establishments is even further advanced, and work will begin during this year at seven sites. Perhaps your Lordships will allow me to name them: first, the security prison at Hindley; second, the psychiatric centre at Grendon Underwood; third, a security Borstal for boys at Swinfen fourth, a security Borstal for girls at Bulwood; fifth, the large new Borstal reception centre at Ashford, Middlesex; and, sixth and seventh, two new detention centres in Durham and Yorkshire, which I hope will please the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan. In addition, a large number of other sites and properties suitable for development have been and are being investigated, but the rate at which the very large programme announced in the White Paper can be undertaken is limited by other factors besides the availability of funds.
One of the most important of these, as I have already indicated, is the necessity to give an adequate opportunity for the consideration of local objections to proposals for new penal establishments. It is rather sad (I am sure that my noble friend Lord Templewood will agree) that, despite the successful development in the years since the last war of a very extensive system of open prisons and Borstals, most people still think that, however desirable it may be that new prisons, Borstals and detention centres should be built, there are always the most cogent reasons why they should not be built anywhere near their houses. That is one of the real problems which we have to face. I hope that as the building programme develops public opinion will come more and more to accept that the job cannot be done without the tools.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, welcomed, in somewhat qualified terms—but he did welcome—the inclusion of the figure of £3 million in the Prison Estimates for 1959–60 under the head of new buildings; and both he and my noble friend Lord Templewood spoke of the level of expenditure in future years. I cannot, for reasons which are only too well known to two ex-Ministers, be very precise about this matter, but, so far as the present Government are concerned, we are anxious to see this programme got under way as fast as is reasonably possible, as is indicated by the fact that the expenditure proposed for 1959–60 is some
454
three times that for the past year. And I would add this: that subject to the vicissitudes of the future, I see no reason why very substantial progress should not be made within the period of five years which my noble friend Lord Templewood mentioned. I could not guarantee that the programme will be completed in that period; I think that would be too much, even assuming the mantle of Elijah; but I can guarantee very substantial progress, and I am sure that that will be achieved. I shall mention to my right honourable friend the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Templewood about a "progress report."
I come now to under-staffing, and there we have met the same kind of difficulties as with accommodation. I think that I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, however, about the Wynn-Parry Report. Recruiting for the Prison Service has been good, and over the past year the grade of the men prison officers increased in numbers by 270 to a total of over 4,200. But this additional staff, as I have indicated, has all been absorbed by the increased prison population and the need to man four new establishments. I am afraid I cannot, though I wish I could, foretell the time when staff will be available in sufficient numbers for the shift system to be extended to the local prisons. But I can assure noble Lords that no restriction is placed on recruitment, and that the facilities for training recruits have been greatly expanded to deal with a larger intake.
As I have said, I cannot leave this question without saying something with reference to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, had to say about the Wynn-Parry Report. My right honourable friend the Home Secretary set up this Committee in 1957 with the desire to see the position of the Prison Service properly recognised by a thorough and independent review of its pay and conditions of service. I cannot accept that the attitude of the Government to the recommendations of the Committee is fairly, or even accurately, described in the publication from which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, quoted. The Committee was appointed in 1957—and I am glad that another old friend and judicial colleague of mine, Mr. Justice Wynn-Parry, did this admirable and useful piece of work. The Committee had

455
reported within eighteen months, and the new pay scales recommended had been implemented as from January 1, 1958.
There were many other recommendations affecting other forms of remuneration, such as allowances and overtime, and these have been accepted with only two exceptions. These are still in negotiation with the Prison Officers' Association. One of them relates to the amount of the allowance to be paid to prison officers who pass the examination to qualify for promotion to principal officer; the other is a minor question concerned with the subsistence allowance of new entrants. These matters, my Lords, are being discussed. The Committee also made recommendations as to the future movements of pay in the Prison Service, the interpretation and application of which are still under consideration with the Prison Officers' Association and the other staff associations concerned. It certainly cannot be said that the Government have rejected them.
My Lords, I now turn to the difficult problem concerning work for prisoners. I do not think that those who have followed the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and have studied the relevant pages of the White Paper, will accuse the Government of complacency. What it says there is that in the local prisons—and I would emphasise that this applies only to the local prisons —there are not enough workshops; the working hours are too short; there is not enough work to fill these hours; and too much of the work is of a low industrial quality. The short working hours are, of course, a result of the shortage of staff to which I have referred. The shortage of workshops can be remedied. and is, in fact, being remedied. Sixteen additional shops are being provided this year, and eight of them will be two-storeyed so that they can take two industries. The situation about shortage of working space would become easier if more outside work could be found. As is mentioned in the White Paper, at one time some 1,000 men were employed outside the prisons on various useful projects—for example, agriculture, land drainage, highway work and forestry. Unhappily, in recent years, despite strenuous efforts, this form of work has, for the reasons stated in the White Paper, dwindled to small proportions. Now the
456
Prison Commissioners, while not diminishing their efforts to find work in this field, hope to increase the numbers employed outside by purchasing or renting four more farms during the next financial year; and I think the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, will agree that that is an interesting and enterprising development which has already been successful at two prisons.
My Lords, the great need is for more work, preferably of a simple kind which does not require much workshop space per man. It is necessary for such work to be simple, since approximately two-fifths of the population of local prisons are serving sentences of six months or less, and because there is no time to train these men to do any but the simplest work—indeed, many of them are mentally or physically incapable of performing skilled work. I accept the view of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, that this problem will never he solved without the co-operation of those concerned outside the prisons—employers and trade unions alike. I feel, however, that he takes too pessimistic a view of what has already been done and is being done in this way.
I regretted his grudging reference to the appointment of an Industrial Adviser, because in fact this gentleman has been most active in the very field where the noble Lord asks for activity. Thanks to his efforts, in three large cities which contain local prisons committees of influential industrialists, and other interested local bodies, together with officials of the Department, have been set up to help in the problem of finding work for the prisoners. Representatives of industrial concerns have visited the prisons, and as a result some orders have already been received. This procedure will be extended, and already work from private employers on a sub-contracting basis has been found for upwards of 1,300 men. Nevertheless, the Government do not exclude the possibility, if the situation warrants it, of considering some more formalised method of seeking the help and advice of industrialists and trade unionists on the lines suggested by the noble Lord.
LORD PAKENHAM: May I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for one moment? Of course, I did not wish to say anything discourteous to this excellent gentleman,

457
whose labours, I know, are very valuable. But my point can be put shortly in this way: either he is employed full-time, in which case he should be remunerated properly as a Government servant, or, if he is not employed full-time, he ought to be. That was my point, put shortly.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I will certainly convey that to my right honourable friend. The noble Lord knows that full-time or part-time work in that sort of sphere is one of the great administrative problems of our time; but I will certainly mention it to Mr. Butler and will discuss it with him. But what I thought the noble Lord would be pleased to know about was of the formation of these committees and the resultant work.
As is made clear in the White Paper, the effective development of after-care is regarded by the Government as of primary importance; and, as I said, I heard with sympathy the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. By a long and. I believe (despite some words which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan), valuable tradition, this work has been based on a partnership between the State and voluntary social service. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred in particular to the recommendations of the Maxwell Committee, which sought to bring effective after-care, as distinct from aid on discharge, within the sphere of the voluntary aid societies which deal with men and women discharged from the local prisons. I should not wish the impression to be gained that little has teen done to implement these recommendations, or that they are unlikely to achieve their end. A most important change is the appointment at local prisons of well-qualified social case workers, known as prison welfare officers, to whom the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, referred.
These officers serve two purposes. First, they help the prisoners during their sentence with their many social and domestic problems, and are thus able to establish a relation of confidence as non-authoritarian figures. I think that it is work on these lines which the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, desired to see continuing. Then, secondly, they select those prisoners who are most likely to benefit from friendship and after-care after discharge and prepare case histories and constructive plans for their after-care. As the
458
noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said, there are now fifteen; and more will be appointed. Here again he can take consolation from the fact that the figures he had to use are different from those in the White Paper, which show some improvement.
In the largest prisons it has been found necessary to employ three officers, and in view of the importance of this service senior welfare officers are being appointed at the largest prisons. There is also a welfare organiser at the head office of the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies in London. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham will approve, and that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, will not disapprove, if I interject to say that long before I was Home Secretary, at the height of the crime wave of ten years ago, I had to broadcast the weekly "Good Cause" appeal for the National Association of Discharged Prisoners' Aid Societies, and during most of my adult life I have always been interested in their work. It is hoped that this service will offer a career value which is attractive to well qualified candidates.
We can believe, therefore, that the work of preparation for after-care will be well done, but this will evidently be of little avail unless suitable arrangements can be made by the aid societies concerned to provide voluntary after-care. Here I must emphasise that in this sphere the aftercare must be voluntary. Prisoners are under no obligation to accept it. The extension of the sphere of compulsory after-care was the subject, as is stated in the White Paper, of a recent report to which the Government are giving careful consideration. In the practical application of voluntary after-care much remains to be done, but this does not mean that much is not already being done. The aid societies are finding many new methods of organisation and activity to meet their new responsibilities, and their National Association is taking an increasingly vigorous interest in promoting these developments.
I do not think there is any difference between any noble Lords who have spoken that, for most discharged prisoners, there are two primary needs: a home and work. The problems of the homeless are particularly grievous. All too often the

459
first reason for recidivism is simply loneliness. Here well organised after-care services should always be able to help, and in co-operation with those services the National Assistance Board are ready to put a man in a position to pay in advance for reasonably-priced accommodation, whether in a hostel, a lodging-house or private lodgings. Therefore there is no foundation for my noble friend's fear that released prisoners who do not want to go to a hostel cannot get grants from the Board unless they can give an address. There are only the normal precautions to ensure against abuse.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble and learned Viscount to ask one question? I know how courteous he is in giving way. The noble and learned Viscount informs me that I need have no fear about this. At the present time I know the situation too well and often it does operate in the way I described. But do I take it that in future this will be avoided?
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords that is certainly the impression that was given to me. If the noble Lord will keep in touch with the Home Office on that matter he can clear up any detailed point, but it was said most emphatically to me that a released prisoner who did not want to go to a hostel could get a grant from the Board. If the noble Lord wants to follow up the details I shall be pleased to arrange for them to be given to him. I entirely share his view that there would be a great advantage in a network of hostels such as Norman House, to provide a transitional home for those who have no other. I think he would agree with me that it is quite a problem to find the right people to man such homes.
My noble friend Lord Moynihan mentioned the question of the police. For six years I was recorder of Oldham, which is an industrial town of 175,000 people in Lancashire, and I did an immense amount of placing on probation and similar treatment. I found that the Oldham police, and especially the inspector detailed for that job, could not have been better or kinder or more thoughtful in trying to help me to find work for these men. In those six years only one man whom I treated in this way let me down
460
—and I think that that is a practical tribute to the police. Certainly I should be surprised if I found that they did not help and were inclined to have a "down" on a man, if I may put it that way.
In finding employment we rely not only on the after-care service but also, and indeed primarily, on the Ministry of Labour. Every prisoner who is serving a sentence of three months or over is interviewed by an officer of the Ministry of Labour some time before his discharge. Particulars of his experience and qualifications, including any training he has received in prison, are sent to the exchange in the arca in which he intends to settle, so that efforts can be made to find him employment in advance of his discharge. On his discharge, a prisoner is given a special form of introduction to the local exchange so that embarrassing explanations can be avoided. Interviews can be conducted in advance of his discharge in conditions of privacy and everything is done to win the confidence of the individual. Speaking on behalf of my old Department, I say that we are most grateful to the Ministry of Labour and the National Assistance Board for their willing and sympathetic co-operation. The other point on which I should like to assure the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, is that in finding work our nationalised industries do set an example and our after-care people are getting every cooperation from them.
I have endeavoured to deal with the points that the noble Lord has raised. I have tried hard to follow him and I hope I have not taken too long. As I am going to be followed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans I want to come back to the more general view of this matter which was set out by my noble friend Lord Templewood. I have listened with the greatest care to all the speeches that have been made. They have been made by noble Lords who are masters of the subject. They have stated the problems with the greatest cogency and power. Their criticism is restrained and constructive, and they have given the Executive wise advice.
Yet I must confess to some disappointment, because they appear to me to be doing—if I may put it in this way to the-right reverend Prelate—a Gallio in

461
reverse. Your Lordships will remember Gallio's song:
"One thing only I see most clear, and
I pray you also see.
Claudius Cesar has set me here Rome's deputy to be.
It is her peace that ye go to break—
Not mine, nor any king's.
But, touching your clamour of 'conscience's sake',
I care for none of these things."
I was not Home Secretary six months before I discovered that this was not a problem which the State could solve. I took a very different view of care from that of the Proconsul. I took the view that it was largely a matter of conscience's sake and recreating the conscience. With the greatest respect—and I think the right reverend Prelate knows my personal respect for him, apart from his colleagues —I wonder whether we are not apt to affect too great a timidity in our approach to the young.
I have in mind particularly two things. In his recent book, the noble and gallant Field Marshal, Lord Montgomery of Alamein, wrote in a hundred pages of forthright and nervous prose the severest condemnation of over-refinement in the age-long adventure of the leadership of men. When I was Home Secretary, the then Lord Bishop of Peterborough asked me to make the closing speech at a moral welfare conference in his diocese. I admit I was rather surprised when I arrived at the doorway of the largest enema in Peterborough to find a bold placard saying: "Sunday evening. Sir David Maxwell Fife on sex and the family", with the Bishop in the chair. But there were 1,500 people in the cinema; I had a most reverent and interested audience, and The Times and several other newspapers had leading articles on the meeting and on what I said.
I have often said that lawyers, in contradistinction from the rule of law, are only part of the cement of society; they do not claim to be the keystone of the arch. But the cement shows where the strain is, and surely the answer can come only from a general crusade in order to tackle this weakness in our life. I put this point with the greatest diffidence, I assure the right reverend Prelate: that I sometimes wonder if, out of deference to the "angry young men" and the like, we overplay the moral forthrightness of the nineteenth century with an almost
462
eighteenth century sophistication. In our anxiety to avoid putting clichés to the young, we sometimes forget that cliches are often truisms whose cardinal constituent is eternal truth.
Therefore I should like to see—and I think here my personal desire is on the same lines as that of my noble friend Lord Templewood—this movement universal. I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter that it should contain parents and teachers. But I say, with great respect to him, that it should first contain great figures from the Church, teachers, ourselves as parents, magistrates, and, above all, ourselves as those who affect to be the political leaders of the people of this country. If we can get that general endeavour, then we shall be dealing with the second part of the problem. which is so great and necessary —namely, the problem of preventing people from falling into crime, because we shall have done something to improve their moral standards and done our part in endeavouring to secure that in this new world the mind and spirit of man will be at least reasonably commensurate with his scientific and material advance. I hope your Lordships will not mind my stating my view of the problem; it is one that I have carried for many years, and I ask your Lordships to consider it with the other factors in this debate.
6.27 p.m.
LORD SILKIN: My Lords, I should like to begin by associating myself with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack in the tribute he has paid to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, on his maiden speech. To most of us the making of a maiden speech is a tremendous effort; indeed, the making of any speech at any time in this House is an effort, and I hope it always will be so. But, listening to the noble and learned Lord, it was difficult to realise that he had not spoken to us in this House before —in fact, I almost refuse to believe it now—because he spoke with such complete ease and mastery that it was as if he had addressed us on many occasions. I hope he will make that true in the future, and we shall always listen to him with great pleasure and to our enlightenment.
I should like to say to the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack that we gladly associate ourselves with him in his concluding remarks. If there is to be a crusade for the purpose of dealing with

463
this social evil of crime, certainly we will associate ourselves with it. But I would say that this debate is not a political debate. My noble friend Lord Nathan began by saying that he was speaking for himself. Of course, in a debate of this kind we all speak for ourselves, and if, in a moment, I come to the assistance of my noble friend Lord Pakenham, it will not be because he is a political associate but because he happens to be a personal friend and possibly in need of a little help at this time. I thought that the Lord Chancellor was less than his usual fair self in his criticism of my noble friend. I do not think my noble friend really intended to say that the Government had done nothing in this matter, and if he was thought to have said it I gather that he was misunderstood; indeed that he merely refrained from saying what the Government had done because he thought the noble Viscount would wish to say it himself.
But I think he was right to point out that the great promise contained in the White Paper is something for the future. Even the noble and learned Viscount would not pretend that, brilliant as the future may be, the Government or anybody in the position of Home Secretary is entitled to medals for what he promises to do. We accept—certainly I accept—the statement in the White Paper in the greatest of good faith. I believe that both the noble and learned Viscount and the present Home Secretary are equally conscientious and equally desirous of carrying out the improvements which are forecast in the White Paper. But the fact remains that they have not yet been carried out. In the meantime the position is serious, and the White Paper itself does not blink the fact.
I want to come on to the question of research, on which my noble friend Lord Nathan spoke, with such great assistance to us. I am afraid I cannot come to the House with the same generous contribution as he made. Perhaps what I can do is to state at once why I am speaking in this debate. I am not a former Home Secretary, nor have I taken a special interest in crime, nor am I in a position to make any special contribution. But I was for a great many years a member of the committee, and subsequently chairman, of an approved school, and as such I had a good deal of contact with the raw
464
material which we are discussing at the present time. I will say a word about that in a moment. I really come to your Lordships as somewhat of an amateur in this question. I feel that any consideration of crime and the official publications about crime reveal the astonishing fact that so little is known about much of the relevant data required to come to definite conclusions. For instance, it is generally accepted that the amount of crime has increased, and is increasing, and that this is particularly the case in the age group which is now between 16 and 21. It is also a fact that there has been a startling increase in the number of offences, particularly offences of violence. But the causes of all this are at the best only conjecture at present, and I think that every speaker has accepted that. At any rate, the facts as we see them from the criminal statistics published for 1957 tend to throw considerable doubt on all our previous ideas as to the causes of crime.
I was saying that I was chairman of an approved school, and for a number of years I made it my practice to see every boy who was admitted to the school and to examine the case papers. I endeavoured to form some general conclusion as to what had brought these boys to the school, as to the condition of their homes, and as to what sort of boys they were generally, and to get as much broad information as one could. I handled some hundreds of cases, and I also kept in touch with the boys while they were at the school. The first point I should like to mention is that not all the boys who went to the approved school were offenders; there were a substantial number who were recommended by the magistrates as being in need of care and attention. I should have thought that the last place you would send a boy in need of care and attention would be to an approved school, where he would mix with fairly hardened offenders—at any rate, boys who had committed more than one offence, and who had been sent to an approved school because they were beyond redemption at home. A substantial number of boys who were in need of care and attention did go to the approved school, and I should like to ask the noble Earl who is to speak later whether that is still the practice, whether he thinks that it is desirable, and whether something cannot be done to stop it.

465
My general impression of the boys was that they were very much like other boys; there was little to distinguish them either in the way of intelligence, character, upbringing, home life or anything else. Indeed, in the ordinary day-to-day contacts these boys were as straight as other boys. They were as truthful, and one wondered why they were ever there at all. Of course, one knew that they had committed offences. The striking thing was that a good many offences related to the stealing of bicycles. That was a common offence. Apparently they liad stolen more than one bicycle, but only one at a time, and the purpose was to use it and not for resale. That might give some clue to the kind of offenders these boys were.
Even before the war it was difficult to get a pattern of the causes of crime, and still more is it to-day. Indeed, it is somewhat of a puzzle which I think only an Institute of Criminology, such as through the generosity of the Wolfson Trustees we hope to have created, can help us to solve. On the one hand, you get these increases of crime taking place during a period of improved standards of living—as has been said by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and others: better housing, higher earnings, less unemployment, better educational opportunities and far larger public expenditure on education. On the other hand, you have to realise that a large number of the crimes are committed by boys between the ages of 17 and 21. These boys were born between the years 1938 and 1943. Is that not of some significance? Was this not during a period of broken homes, of fathers going off to the war, evacuation, bombing. schools closing down and all sorts of disturbances which would naturally have an effect on these young people? How far is the war responsible? If it is largely responsible, are we not taking a too gloomy view of the present position? The increase of crime, if it is largely confined to young people, is still taking in people who were children during the war years. Is it not possible that there is what one might call a "crime bulge" which will go on for a number of years and then gradually decline? I should not like to be dogmatic about it, but it is one of the matters which I think an Institute of Criminology might well consider and possibly report upon at not too distant a date.
466
There is one other factor: this is not unique to this country; we have similar phenomena in most other countries, and not only in countries this side of the Iron Curtain but also in the Soviet Union and Poland, Hungary and Rumania, where they also have their crime waves which they have readily admitted. Is it not possible also that even to-day we are living in an age in which we talk of violence? Not only are there these implements which I am glad my noble friend Lord Pakenham brought out so graphically, but the language of statesmen and of generals is one of violence—everybody is talking in violent terms. We do not talk of "negotiation" to-day; we talk of "negotiating through strength". and all these things. it seems to me, are bound to have some influence on young people, at any rate. The young person's toy is a Run, quite naturally, and if he were prohibited from using these things he presumably would still be allowed to have a gun.
Having said all that, I feel we ought to preserve a sense of proportion. We are concerned about the increase in crime, but in relation to the total population of this country the number of offenders really is small; we are speaking of a relatively small group of people, one in 500, I think it is, according to the figures. The hulk of our people are honest and law-abiding. One of the things that strikes me every time I walk down Whitehall or Victoria Street or a great many other places is to see the newspaper stalls with the proprietor absent, a pile of papers and a notice "Leave 2½d."; everybody leaves 2½d. and takes a paper; nobody thinks of taking a paper without payment. This is not only the fact but the newsvendor knows it is a fact; he knows he can go away quite safely and his papers will be duly paid for. Or you get the boxes On the buses where people are invited to put in their fare which has not been collected. The money is collected and very few people, if any, try to evade the fare.
Those things have to be looked at as well, and it would be a great misfortune if we, even by implication, gave the impression that we were becoming a lawless nation, a nation of criminals. that crime is increasing, and so on, when in fact all that is happening is the same kind of thing as my noble friend talked about

467
when he spoke of the amount spent on research by the Government. The Government had spent £3,000, and the noble and learned Viscount was saying they were now going to spend five times as much, £15,000; but, when all is said and done, the amount is insignificant and trifling. I do not say that the amount of crime is insignificant and trifling but it is a very small amount as compared with the total population. It would be a great misfortune if we gave the impression that we were by and large dishonest, or a nation not law abiding.
The White Paper sets out a number of principles which are enlightened and upon which I congratulate the Home Secretary, for dealing with crime. I think it is somewhat belated, but I am not making a political point of that. I think we might have had it some time earlier. But the White Paper itself disclaims any idea of dealing with the deep-seated causes of crime, and it is for this reason that I welcome the setting up of an institution which is going to try to form some judgment as to what are the causes of crime and to investigate a great many other matters in connection with crime. Until we do so, until we have the fullest possible knowledge, we are dealing only with the symptoms and not the disease itself, and noble Lords must know that dealing with symptoms without knowing the causes can be a very dangerous thing; we are committing ourselves to remedies before we have found out what the real problem is. So I am glad that there is going to be the possibility, as the White Paper says, of a fundamental re-examination of penal philosophy on the basis of knowledge to be gained as a result of the establishment of this institute.
But, in spite of the noble and learned Viscount's opinion that much can be done at once, this is, by and large, going to be a long-term thing. I do not believe you can carry out a lot of this research and investigation and get results quickly. I should like to say a word or two upon what I think can be done immediately. First, I think that the statistics that are provided for us can be made more reliable and can be provided a little earlier. We have not yet got the figures for 1958, except unofficially, and the figures for 1957 were not supplied until, I think. September, 1958. That is rather late to be of great value. But, apart from that, the figures themselves are not entirely reliable.
468
They are based upon returns which are made by the different police districts and are not necessarily on exactly an identical basis.
For instance—and the noble and learned Viscount himself gave an example of this—under the heading "assault" you can have a technical assault (although that would not be an indictable offence, of course), or an assault which amounts to a serious wound. They are both assaults and there is no attempt to discriminate between the two. On the other hand, it can be left to the interpretation of the police district as to the heading under which the offence comes. These figures have not been produced with any uniformity and it is difficult to compare one year with another and to get any idea as to what is the respective seriousness of the crimes that come within any particular category. Secondly, these returns give no information at all about recidivism. I am not sure whether the exact figures are known, but certainly the annual return does not give any information as to how many of the people who are convicted on indictment have been previously convicted of similar or other offences. It would be most useful to know this in order to see how effective our treatment is.
Then, I think that the question of the use of our police requires further examination. If we are to exercise the greatest deterrent we must ensure that the police force is used to the best advantage. The percentage of police to population to-day is higher than it was before the war, although I understand that there is still a shortage of police; yet the number of indictable offences has increased enormously. My noble friend gave figures; I am not going to repeat them, but in some cases they run into 400 or even 500 per cent. The fact is that although the proportion of police to population has increased, the number of offences undetected—that is, in respect of which no arrest has been made—amounts to over 50 per cent. That is a very serious matter. In my view, one of the greatest deterrents to the commission of an offence is the fact of the almost certainty of being discovered and convicted. If a potential offender starts off with the knowledge that he has a fifty-fifty chance of not being discovered at all, that seems to me to be putting a premium on the commission of offences.

469
I wonder whether we could not use the police to better advantage. I see that in the last year half a million people were found guilty of traffic offences—570,000 I think is the actual figure, which represents 57½ per cent. of the total of all offences. I am not suggesting that traffic offences are not serious, but they must have involved a great number of police and taken up a tremendous amount of their time in dealing with the offences. because the police have not only to keep watch but they have to attend court and take time off to prepare their case and so on. While they are doing that they are not dealing with other questions of crime. If so many police are occupied in that way it is not surprising that a high proportion of offences remain undetected, and I would suggest that the question of the use of our police force might he looked at again.
Then there is the question of the treatment of offenders. In order to decide what is the most effective way of treating an offender, obviously the court ought to be possessed of the fullest information—the history of the person, and of his home and other circumstances. In many cases this information is not available to the court, at any rate not in a complete form. There is a shortage of probation officers, and of course the collecting of this information takes up a great deal of time. With that shortage, obviously it is not possible to give the court all the help that should be given. There is one other difficulty. A great many convictions take place in courts of assize, at sittings of the court which are for short periods only and at long intervals. Everyone wants to get through the business in the shortest possible time; it is not practicable to have a short remand, and a long remand until the next sitting of the court would be unfair to the person convicted and quite unsatisfactory generally; and so, again, the court has to decide on inadequate information. I feel that that is a matter that ought to be looked into, to see that at any rate the court gets the fullest possible assistance.
One matter on which I hope that the Institute of Criminology will be able to help us is to give us a really accurate and reliable measure of the success or failure of various forms of treatment. The Judges, who I am sure, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett said, are doing their best, have their own views as to
470
what is the correct form of treatment; but what information do they ever get thereafter as to the effect of that treatment, not only on the individual, but generally? We all tend to think that the time for severity has gone and that other forms of treatment are right. But on what information do we say this? On the face of it, a great many people, I believe almost the majority, would think, even to-day, that we are not sufficiently severe. I believe that they are wrong. I believe that not because of any evidence I have got, or because I have investigated the matter in any way, but because it seems inhuman; and we are all more humane to-day than we were.
I feel that we ought to know much more about the effects of any course of treatment that we give to people who are convicted. I believe that a Committee has been set up to look into this matter under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Streatfeild. I should he most grateful to the noble Earl if, when he comes to speak, he would tell us something about the progress that that Committee is making. I gather that the noble Earl cannot; that he does not know. But it would be interesting to know—it is important, and I should have liked to know—whether in fact they really are investigating this particular question seriously, because while their terms of reference may cover it, they do not seem to cover it in terms.
I should like to know whether any other methods than those that are at present employed for dealing with prisoners are being considered. I hope that we have not said the last word on the treatment of offenders. My noble friend thought that perhaps in some cases, even in serious cases of crime, prison was the wrong treatment. It may well be so. But is any alternative being considered hope it is, and I hope that we may be able to give much more thought to questions of the treatment of prisoners. This, of course, is a matter which we ought to consider urgently because we are committing ourselves to particular forms of treatment. The noble and learned Viscount himself told us of the large expenditure that is about to take place in the building of more prisons and other institutions. But until we really know that they are the right methods, that we are on the right lines, we seem to be in danger of possibly wasting a lot

471
of money. The last thing I would wish to do would be to minimise the urgency of dealing with prisons, especially those that are overcrowded and where prisoners are sleeping three in a cell. That, I think, is one of the most monstrous things that exists in our civilisation to-day.
I was particularly glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, dealt with the question of restitution to victims. I take the view that if the person who commits an offence is in a position to make restitution, he should be required to do so; but in many cases he cannot. I do not think, however, that the victim should suffer on that account. We have regarded crime as an offence against the community, as of course it is. But we tend to overlook the fact that it is also an offence against an individual; and individuals can suffer very seriously. The old lady whose lifelong savings have been stolen has no remedy and she just has to face up to it. I believe that this is a burden which should be placed fairly and squarely on the community as a whole. If crime is an offence against the community, the community ought to make good the effects of the crime; and, after all, there is a school of thought which takes the view that, but for the lack of adequate vigilance by the community, many of these crimes would not be committed. I am very glad, therefore, to hear that that is a matter which is being seriously considered. I hope that it is being considered not merely from the point of view of requiring the offender to make restitution but also of the State itself making restitution.
Finally, I should like to emphasise once more the vital importance of finding out what is responsible for the extraordinary growth in crime—whether it is a passing phase; whether it is due largely to causes arising out of the war, or whether we are to regard it as a permanent phenomena in our existence. I imagine that the Institute of Criminology will be in a position to make certain recommendations. I was going to suggest a Royal Commission, and I am not at all sure, even now, that a Royal Commission would not be the most satisfactory way of investigating this particular question of the causes of crime and the causes of the increase in crime; and I should be grateful if that idea could be seriously considered. That is not put forward
472
officially as a Party matter. I put it forward myself, on my own responsibility, but I believe that it might be of considerable value.
We might, at the same time, ask a Royal Commission to find the most effective way of dealing with crime and ways of preventing crime. I believe that one of the first ways is education. I am not at all sure, despite the vast amount we are now spending on primary education, that we are using that in the most effective way to build up the character of the children. I think it was the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, who remarked that our schools are more concerned with passing examinations and instilling learning into the children than in building character. Certainly I feel that the schools can play a very great part. One of the things that the schools can do is to create in the child an interest in things. I believe that one of the causes of crime is that children are so lacking in interest in things, and have to look formeans of passing their time, associate with other children and get into games. If children could learn to look subjectively and to find ways in which they can use their leisure time, I am sure that that would be an important factor.
I would conclude by saying that one of the things which I am sure we have to do is to find an outlet for the spirit of adventure in young people. They have that spirit and they can find either an outlet in the way that an outlet is found by those who are committing offences or an outlet in other directions. Perhaps we are lacking in opportunities, both in town and country, for children to find an outlet for the adventurous spirit that all healthy children have. Perhaps if we could find that outlet, and be prepared to spend money on it, it might be money well spent. I would end by thanking my noble friend Lord Pakenham for having once more raised this vitally important question. I am sure that he has rendered a very great service, not only from the most notable speech that he himself made but through the many other speeches that have been made in the debate as a result of his initiative.
7.6 p.m.
THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS: My Lords, I wish these particular Benches were more adequately filled, and that

473
there were other right reverend Prelates here able to listen, as I did, to the appeal in the concluding remarks of the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. But it happens to be ten days after Easter, and it is at this time of the year that a number of right reverend Prelates are otherwise engaged. But I will take the opportunity of passing on to the most reverend Primate, and to other right reverend Prelates, to the best of my ability, the substance of what was said by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor in his concluding remarks, and I will try to convey to them the sincerity and conviction and the deep concern that gave such power to his words.
I welcome the chance of making a comment or two on what was said by the noble and learned Viscount—but it will be only a comment or two. Just recently I was at a selection conference where a number of men from different walks of life were present, offering themselves for Ordination and stating their reasons before a panel of selectors. I was interested to note that two of those who were present were policemen. It is possible that, in their own way, they were showing the view expressed by the noble and learned Viscount, believing that the time had come for them to take some part in a crusade, and doing all in their power to rouse the nation to the urgent needs of the moment.
Just two other comments in this connection. The White Paper contains a considerable number of statistics, and quite recently the Church of England has produced its own statistics for 1957. They show an appreciable increase in the number of young people coming forward for Confirmation. That, I feel, is significant. Thirdly, I was in church on Easter Monday afternoon, and there were present some 2,000 young people, mostly of the 17 to 21 age group, with which we are particularly concerned, a majority of them lively and intelligent, some of them tough-looking, many of them wearing the most brightly coloured jeans I have seen for some time. They were the kind of people one wanted to see in church, because one believed that they would go out from that church with a fresh sense of the responsibility laid on them to work fur the coming of the Kingdom of God. However, I must bear in mind the warn-
474
ing of the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter about preaching to your Lordships, and I would come to the substance of what I would put before you.
I welcome greatly the opportunity of taking part in this debate. Fundamentally, as so many people have pointed out, it is a matter of how much individuals care and have a sense of responsibility to God, the community and their neighbour. I will not repeat statistics that have already been put before your Lordships, but I would refer to a comment or two made by the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire (and we are fortunate in our Chief Constable in Hertfordshire) in his annual report for 1958. He has drawn attention to the disturbances caused by gangs of youths carrying knives, chains and studded belts; the lighter crimes of violence, certainly, but crimes that cause considerable disturbance in the minds of many citizens of our new towns and elsewhere. It is with that sort of situation in mind that one turns to consider the causes of the increase in crime.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, has mentioned the position in schools, and other noble Lords have referred to the situation there; to the large classes, out of hand in some cases because they are too large; to the difficulties teachers meet when they cannot rely on co-operation from parents; to the need there is for a closer working partnership with youth leaders and clergy and ministers. There is this point which I would put before your Lordships. Very early in school days teachers can "spot" some of the troublesome children and can be informed of some of the problem homes; but unless there is a liaison between teachers and social workers some of these children just go up through the school and their problems are not really faced. I believe we need closer liaison.
The last two years at a secondary modern school are critical. So is the whole 11-plus period; but so are the years before that age. I submit that fine numbers of boys at age eight, nine and ten, are prepared to join Wolf Cub packs, and if there were more leaders we should have a chance of tackling delinquency nearer its roots. Looking ahead and thinking of the position in development areas where the proportion of children

475
to adults is above average, one can foresee a worsening of the employment situation as the bulge in the school population moves into the adolescent years. Consultation with industry is necessary if young persons are to be suitably employed and their training maintained should there be an economic recession.
My Lords, many causes have been given us during this debate to explain the increase of juvenile delinquency. I believe that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goddard, has said recently that the causes of crime to-day are the same as they were in Old Testament times: greed, love of easy money, lust and cruelty. In short, we are faced with original sin. I would stress two reasons for delinquency. First, a boy does not feel loved or wanted; he does not belong to anyone or anywhere. This point should be sufficiently recoenised: a boy needs to love. Secondly, young people suffer if they are not loved; they are deprived if they have not somebody or something to care for. Ought, then, town children to be given more chances of looking after pets and animals? I could express this differently and say that when a boy is not taught the Christian faith and when he does not see it practised at home he is more likely to get into trouble; and it is the teaching in schools that underlies so much of the present position.
Coming to the development of penal methods I am thankful to note (and I join with other noble Lords in saying this) that the Government have decided to set up an official Working Party to examine the late Miss Margery Fry's proposal that a scheme should be devised for the payment of compensation to those who suffer personal violence. I mention this because I am proud to claim Margery Fry as a kinswoman, and I know from correspondence and talk how seriously her mind was dwelling on this reform in her last long illness.
I should like to add to what has been said about detention centres. The White Paper describes a detention centre as a:
"constructive reformation system in which the staff would make a real effort to find out what was wrong with a boy and put it right."
I have received within the last few days a memorandum from a senior probation officer emphasising that the grave weakness of a sentence to a detention centre
476
is that it now carries no period of compulsory after-care; only a very small number of boys accept voluntary aftercare. He quotes the case of a youth of seventeen, unemployed, on return from the detention centre, who proved a problem to his family and associated with doubtful characters. He writes of another lad of seventeen who, after release, committed two offences, for which he was put on probation; and of another who had the good sense to contact the probation officer when he was out of work. A "constructive reformation system" surely requires that a boy when he returns from a detention centre, probably fighting fit, should still be under some supervision to ensure that he takes to work rather than to fighting.
I understand that remand centres are most urgently needed. The establishment of more remand centres, particularly for those in the 17 to 21 age group, should have a much higher priority. They were sanctioned under Section 17 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, but in eleven years not one has been provided, and in the absence of such remand centres youths are sent to overcrowded prisons. One boy arrived at a local prison early in November and did not appear at the Assizes until early in March. He was in the local prison for five months learning the jargon and crooked ways, getting to know other delinquents from his home town, making no decisions, taking no responsibility, growing acclimatised to prison—prison which should surely be the ultimate sanction for the adult offender.
I read the paragraphs on the Borstal system contained in the White Paper with special interest, for twice I have taken temporary duty as a Borstal chaplain. It was meeting Alexander Paterson and Wemyss Grant Wilson that made me volunteer for that duty. I met in the service men who were Christians, unmistakable leaders whom Borstal boys trusted. That was nearly thirty years ago, and then housemasters had too many boys in their houses. The numbers in houses, which went down to 40, are rising in closed Borstals to something more like 60 or 70. This increase is, of course, related to the number of committals. There were about 1,300 inmates in Borstal in 1940; to-day there are some 4,200. Housemasters then spoke to me of the strain of always hoping that a boy would behave decently; of always encouraging

477
him lo that end, and of always bearing in mind the record that brought him to Borstal. I quote the White Paper, my Lords:
"Borstal is essentially a remedial and educational system based on personal training by carefully selected staff."
When a housemaster has to deal with 70 Borstal boys his training of them, as he knows, is all too superficial. A principal probation officer has told me of this experiment—and I hope that it has often been repeated. Some half-dozen employers visited a Borstal institution and were sufficiently impressed by the type of youth and the equipment and instruction they saw to consider employing suitable youths from there who were recommended to them by the after-care officer.
My Lords, I must say that I regret to see in the section of the White Paper dealing with staffs so brief a reference to chaplains and ministers of religion. Experience teaches the great opportunities there are to help prisoners in trouble; and I think of the hours given to this work by the chaplains, not least in local prisons. The place of psychiatric and psychological services is rightly emphasised, and I am thankful that the present programme includes a psychiatric prison hospital. However, I think many people would have been glad to see in the White Paper an appreciation of the chaplains' place in the prison service, and a recognition of the need to help them by offering them suitable refresher courses.
I have referred to local prisons, and some of them are disgracefully overcrowded. Here there are herded together young men, cut off from their families and the opposite sex, kept in conditions which, as the White Paper says, make it impossible to organise training that is constructive. It was reassuring to hear the Lord Chancellor say that steps are now being taken to improve this state of affairs, and to hear him speak of the farms and of the new workshops. But it must be faced, my Lords, that many prisoners are work-shy, and that others have a poor employment record. If they are to receive effective training, then hard, arduous, interesting employment is needed —and here the Churches should do much more to rouse public opinion to think on
478
these lines. The goal is clear: so are the obstacles. But the Home Secretary has already proved that he has the imagination and drive to advance on this goal.
I will say a brief word about aftercare. I know the demands of this work, for I was a Borstal Associate for a time. The good work done in prisons, Borstals, detention centres and approved schools, will be undone unless there is adequate after-care—and this means some integration between the Probation Service and the Borstal and Prison Services. Adequate after-care requires more probation officers, for only when the Probation Service is better staffed will the contacts between officer and young man be frequent enough to develop into friendship. As a parish priest I learnt to accept probation officers as valuable allies to whom I could turn for counsel. The officers I knew best were Christians, and our debt to these men is heavy. We need more of them. But are the present entry conditions too rigid? Is the pay adequate?
We should be sensitive to the problems of teenagers—and I mention this because I would particularly emphasise this point towards the end of my speech. The Curtis Committee discovered how few of the young people from the poorer and rougher social groups would ever go near an ordinary club, or think of joining one. Yet the barrow boys of Camden Town and the Elephant might be drawn into a different sort of club—a club with a coffee bar, a dance hall, a good, tough, whole-time leader, and a few part-time voluntary helpers, and with no attempt to improve the occasion. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor emphasised the responsibility society must face, and he appealed to the Church to do its utmost to remind society of its responsibilities and to teach individuals to care; to stir their imaginations, so that they recognise that their influence is never neutral—for instance, that each person's attitude towards wilful damage matters.
Finally, my Lords, come back to this matter of manpower. A Christian staff is desperately needed for detention centres, prisons, Borstals and the Probation Service. Here parishes, schools, and universities, officers in the Forces and others, can all help by keeping before their boys and men the adventurous and

479
intensely personal service which is to be found in these under-staffed professions.
7.26 p.m.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER: My Lords, it would be an impertinence on my part to offer my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, on his maiden speech but I hope he will allow me to express just a word of admiration for the ease and mastery with which he addressed this Assembly on his first occasion.
I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor for the analysis which he made of some of the criminal statistics, thus enabling us to get the true picture in a rather better perspective. These statistics are notoriously treacherous: and the reasons for that are partly inherent. One cannot analyse crime which is undetected, or record a criminal who is not apprehended. Further, they are treacherous partly due to reasons of policy and administrative practice, and partly because of historical considerations. As to policy, let me quote only one incident to show how to manipulate the figures. A few years ago the Chief Constable of Berwick had to soothe the alarm created in his neighbourhood by explaining that a 48 per cent. increase in crime, as recorded in his annual report, was solely due to a new method of recording. Then, of course, it is always possible to keep down the figures of juvenile delinquency by adopting the practice which prevails in Liverpool, where juveniles are commonly officially cautioned by specially selected police officers rather than brought to court. Consequently, a high proportion of their offences do not figure in the criminal statistics.
For historical reasons, too, it is difficult to get a clear picture. The common practice, as has been illustrated to-day, is to quote the figures of indictable offences. That selection, my Lords, is an arbitrary one, and is dictated not by modern conceptions of the severity of the crimes so much as by purely historical accident. By taking our picture of crime from the statistics of indictable offences we include even the most trivial offences—the schoolboy who steals a bicycle pump from his school fellow's bicycle, and neither intends to return it nor actually does so: but we omit all assaults which are not
480
so serious as to lead to actual or grievous bodily harm; we omit a large proportion of cases of cruelty to children; we omit cruelty to animals; and we omit practically all the offences concerned with prostitution, including the offence of living on the earnings of prostitutes and the offence, also, of brothel-keeping. Then we omit something about which I want to speak a little later—namely, the great volume of motoring crimes. I therefore hope very much (and this is why I mention these perhaps inevitable weaknesses in the figures) that the new research organisations which are to be established will undertake one or two tasks. First, I hope that they will proceed with some analysis of the trends of crime in terms of seriousness which are rather more in keeping with our contemporary ideas than merely the division into the indictable and the non-indictable offence.
Secondly, I hope very much and I see from the White Paper that some such project is contemplated—that they will be in a position to supply us with, and analyse, an absolutely vital piece of information which at present we lack. We are all impressed by the increase in the statistics of recorded offences, but we have no idea what proportion of that increase is due to greater activities on the part of the body of, so to speak, established criminals and what proportion to the wider spread of criminal habits. It is not possible to extract this information from the criminal statistics as they stand, and to arrive at conclusions which would be to any degree comprehensive would be a difficult undertaking. All the data exist, however, and I am delighted to see that a project of this nature is to be carried out by the Home Office Research Unit.
Having said that, I wonder if I may comment on one or two aspects of the figures which are so glaring and so seldom noted that, even at this late hour, I think perhaps they deserve a little attention. I must apologise for mentioning the first, which is the extraordinary discrepancy between the crime ratio of the male sex and of the female. This is virtually a world-wide phenomenon, and it is a permanent feature of our criminal experience. At the peak ages, about eleven times more offences in relation to the population are

481
committed by boys than by girls, and at all ages the ratio is between eight and nine times higher for males. I mention this not to give a bouquet to my own sex, though it is true that if boys behaved like girls and men behaved like women, the courts would be idle and the prisons would be empty. But it is not on that account that I want to make this point: I mention it because I think that it raises some fundamental doubts about many of the rather easy explanations which are current coin in criminal discussions to-day. I do not under-estimate the effects of broken homes, of indifferent and neglectful parents and of sordid environments; but I must point out that girls have the same parents as boys, that the risks of broken homes to which they are exposed are not noticeably different. This striking and, as I say, almost universal fact surely brings us up short to ask what are the constitutional differences, or differences of training and upbringing, between the two sexes which account for this astonishing and lasting divergence.
The second aspect on which I should like to comment is the extraordinary revolution which has been brought about in our criminal courts by the invention of the internal combustion engine. I am sure that the noble and learned Viscount will forgive me if I take issue with him when he said that the bulk of crimes are crimes of dishonesty. As a matter of literal numerical fact, that is no longer so. As my noble friend Lord Silkin pointed out, more than half of the offences of all kinds that are now dealt with in the courts are traffic offences; and more than half are offences in which the defendants are actually motorists. As against the 50 per cent. supplied by motorists to the figures, the 9·3 per cent. supplied by the thieves, the 2·7 per cent. supplied by those who break and enter and the 0·8 per cent. supplied by those who are guilty of violence against the person, look very insignificant. Without doubt many of these motoring offences may be regarded as trivial, but I would ask your Lordships to consider this situation seriously and I would plead for a rather different attitude towards this very large category of crimes.
Not all of these offences are trivial. The offence of causing death by dangerous driving is not trivial, and 133 persons were convicted of that offence in 1957—that is to say, some 20 per cent. more
482
than the number of persons convicted of either murder or manslaughter. That, in itself, should make us pause. And these convictions are not lightly or easily acquired. A very high proportion of those charged with the offence of causing death by dangerous driving are acquitted. The proportion runs to well over 40 per cent., for reasons which I think to anyone who has tried motoring offences may appear good reasons.
If we widen the view a little, we have to recognise that in 1957 there were something approaching 46,000 motorists who were convicted, not of parking offences or of trivial offences of motoring, but of offences in the group classified in the criminal statistics as "Dangerous driving, et cetera". The vast majority of the defendants were, in the nature of the case, over the age of 17. Only a tiny minority consisted of motor-bicyclists or illegal motorists under age. If we compare these offences with the number of persons convicted of larceny over the age of 17, we find that they are running nearly neck to neck. There are about fifteen motorists over 17 convicted of dangerous driving et cetera, for every sixteen persons over that age convicted of larceny. There are about four times as many motorists in that age group convicted of this offence as there are persons found guilty of breaking and entering. And if we find, as we shall, that the "et cetera" in "dangerous driving, et cetera" covers a multitude of rather small sins, let us look for a moment only at those crimes which may be regarded as really serious—causing death by dangerous driving; dangerous or reckless (as distinct from careless) driving; driving whilst drunk or drugged, and not stopping after an accident. The number of convictions (I refer now to convictions, not to persons convicted) recorded for these very serious offences runs to something of the order of 15,600, as against the 16,800 convictions recorded for offences against the person, including both those that do involve serious violence and those that do not.
I mention these facts because I think that we need a new attitude towards this kind of offence. I see with pleasure that we are soon to debate the appalling volume of casualties that occurs on the roads, the death and mutilation of many thousands of our fellow citizens that goes on, so that, as a former Lord Chief

483
Justice has said, the roads are littered with the dead and dying. I mention it for two reasons: first, because as my noble friend Lord Silkin has said, motoring offences involve a heavy proportion of the time of the police; and from that point of view alone, at the very least, this disregard of laws which, after all, Parliament has made, has very serious consequences.
I mention this matter, secondly, because it seems to me most unfortunate that the attitude of mind has come to be spread abroad that motoring offences are not real offences and that one can find even Her Majesty's learned Judges describing speeding as being an offence of an administrative nature, though speeding can be shown statistically to be a not unimportant contributory factor in a number of deaths. We do not carry weapons of the kind that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has so threateningly displayed, but a high proportion of the Members of this House and of others of our friends and colleagues do in fact use lethal weapons: we park them in Old Palace Yard instead of bringing them in with us. I venture to call your Lordships' attention to this aspect of the crime feature lest we in this House may be accused of hypocrisy, of spending many hours discussing the crimes that are committed by young persons who are not and perhaps are not likely to become Members of this House, and lest we should fail to see the mote, if not the beam, in our own eye.
All of us who have to sentence an offender, whether for an offence that is trivial or one that is grave, are to-day conscious that we carry a heavy responsibility. All of us, the highestof Her Majesty's learned Judges and the lowest of humble magistrates, like myself, are very conscious of that responsibility. All of us should have, I suggest, a considerable sense of failure. The criminal statistics are in fact a record of our failure. Whatever we are doing we are bound to admit that we are not succeeding. If we sometimes pass into a mood of greater optimism it is, I suggest, largely, alas! because we set our sights so low. In the White Paper your Lordships will find references to Doctor Max Grunhut's follow-up study of the after careers of youths sentenced to detention
484
centres and a reference to his "encouraging" conclusions. Our standard of encouragement is measured by the fact that what Doctor Grunhut found was that almost 45 per cent. of the first set of boys who went to the junior centre were in trouble again within two years, and that even of those who had not been guilty of any previous offence, nearly one-third were in trouble in two years, while for those who had a record of offences the proportion rose as high as nearly two-thirds. That is the measure of our expectations.
We have all welcomed detention centres, if only because they are new; and I suppose anyone who has to sentence an offender desperately longs for some new and brilliant idea that we have not yet got. Certainly one of their chief merits is that they, as has been said, avoid the use of local prisons. But I sometimes wonder whether we should not temper the enthusiasm with which we welcome this new weapon in our penal armoury. The detention centre implied a short sentence, inevitably, and, in my experience, for that very reason its deterrent effect is highly restricted. More than once I have been asked: "Please send me to the detention centre and not to Borstal or to prison, because I shall be out so much sooner." While the short sentence diminishes the deterrent effect, the opportunities for constructive treatment in the detention centre are inevitably limited. The intention, I think, is not primarly constructive so much as deterrent, at least to those who get there. There is nothing in violent physical exercise or long hours at the double which in itself teaches people not to steal—the logical link is not immediately apparent—and it is, I suppose, in the longer-term institutions that one has more hope of creating a fundamental change of attitude. I have sometimes wondered whether in our passionate desire for something new we were not slipping back in the detention centres into something like the old-fashioned short sentence which of recent years has been so much deprecated for prisoners.
Well, my Lords, we have, or should have, a sense of failure, but this perhaps we can say in our own defence: that much of our failure has been due to ignorance. Of recent years I am sure there has been a profound change in the

485
approach to sentences, and one which is expressed in a determination not so much to exact revenge as to create a future result; to deter others and to reform the offender. In that task, at all levels of the courts, we now have fuller and better information than we ever had before. Reference has been made tonight to the Committee which has been set up, of which I have the honour to be a member, and which is to examine whether that information could be more adequate still; and I am glad to be able to assure the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, that that Committee is in fact considering the very issues which he mentioned.
But it is still true, as has been said this evening, that judges and magistrates labour under a special handicap. They have no information as to the consequences of their actions, unless by accident. By and large, doctors find out whether their patients die or get better; by and large, teachers—and I speak from bitter experience—find out whether their pupils pass their examinations or fail; and those who have the task of selecting candidates for appointments frequently live to suffer the consequences of their own mistakes. But judges and magistrates have no organised follow-up, and unless they take particular pains to get it they have no information as to the trend of different types of crime in the areas in which they operate. I know that there are those who take particular pains to get this information, and one can only hope that the practice will become more widespread. It has indeed been said that judges and magistrates are like children who are earnestly doing sums with a great deal of thought and care—day in and day out, sum after sum—and they grow wise and experienced in the doing of sums. But nobody ever checks whether the sums are right.
The last word I want to say is in regard to what I find so tremendously encouraging in the work of the Home Office Research Unit and the proposed Institute of Criminology. Here let me say that, unlike so many previous speakers, I have no interest to declare. I have been engaged in researches in this field for something like five years past on one of the projects mentioned on the back of the White Paper, but I am in the happy position that the result of this work has passed from my hands into those of printers and is now beyond my
486
control. My interest, therefore, in a technical sense, though not in the intellectual sense, is finished. But we welcome the fact that steps are at least being taken to dissipate our ignorance, and I am sure that I speak for everybody who has had to wrestle with even the smallest sentence for the smallest offence, or, at the opposite end of the scale, with grave and troubling crimes, when I say how cordially we welcome the first signs on the horizon that somebody is now going to check whether the answers to our sums are right.
7.50 p.m.
LORD DENNING: My Lords, may I add my tribute to my noble and learned friend Lord Birkett? I have listened to him as a persuasive advocate, as a wise Judge, and as a great orator: and to-day all through shines the finest quality of all—"one that loves his fellow men."
This White Paper deals largely with the duty of society in treating the criminal after he is sentenced; in establishing in him the will to lead a good and useful life. But the great task of the judge, representing the community, still remains: what the sentence shall be. Perhaps, as one who, as a Judge of Assize and more lately the Chairman of Quarter Sessions, has done a good deal of sentencing, I may deal with one feature in this White Paper which is described as novel and far-reaching. It is the feature that the judge should award a single sentence which is to be a sentence of custodial training whereby the young man under twenty-one is to be kept in custody for an indeterminate period, which may be anything from six months to two years at the discretion of the prison authorities. So the responsibility for the sentence for this important group is transferred from the hands of the judge into the hands of the prison authorities. It is novel, and it is far-reaching. It may be justified in this particular case, but on principle a single, indeterminate sentence needs carefully considering before it is introduced, because when one comes to sentence each judge has always in mind the desirability of reforming the criminal and also the need for deterring him, and others like him, from committing such an offence.
But there is one thing more than reform and more than deterrents that the judge has to consider, and that is the impact of the sentence on the community

487
as a whole, because there is the victim, the injured person, there are the people present in court, there are the villagers or townsfolk who know of it, and there is the country at large who read about it. Punishment is the way in which society expresses its denunciation of wrongdoing, and if there is to be respect for the law punishment for grave crimes must adequately reflect the revulsion of right-minded citizens.
Let me give an illustration. Your Lordships will have known of a case of nine youths, ages 20, 19 and 18 and the other six only 17 years of age. If it had been a question of reform only, if it had been a question of deterrents only, one would have thought of Borstal training for the older ones and maybe a detention centre for the six 17-year-olds. They were all from very good homes, all of good character; none of them would have done anything singly, but they were carried away because one of their comrades had previously been cut with a knife. But the sentence of the judge was on each and all of them four years' imprisonment, at the age of 17. And the country approved. The conscience of the community was roused by white youths attacking black. There was the indignation of the people that we should be so disgraced. The judge in his sentence expressed in words the horror, indignation and disgust of the people. The Court of Criminal Appeal said that the time had come when the community must set it down with a stern hand. That is one of the elements to be regarded in sentences. The impact of that sentence was that this country cleared its name throughout the world, and there has been a transformation in that particular question and the attitude of society to it. That is one illustration. Occasionally there should be severity—one might almost say extreme severity—for the good of all.
But then we may go to the reverse. The noble Lady referred to motoring offences. We may on occasions be too severe to carry the community with us. Our calendars at Quarter Sessions are filled with cases of men charged with driving cars under the influence of drink. The word went out a little while ago that these cases should be sentenced with imprisonment, and with what result? The
488
juries did not convict. If the man had been to a party and perhaps wobbled across the road a bit, but there was no accident, the juries thought: "There, but for the grace of God, go I", and they found him not guilty when they thought there was going to be a sentence of imprisonment.
When I now come to sum up to the jury in such a case I take them into my confidence, which I never do in the ordinary way. I tell the jury, "Mark you, this does not necessarily mean imprisonment. A fine or disqualification is what may ordinarily be meted out for this offence". I find that once juries have realised that there is not to be a sentence of imprisonment they will convict. Of course, if the information comes out afterwards that he has been previously convicted a sentence of imprisonment may follow, but I honour my word to the jury when it is a simple first case. Sentences must not go to a degree of severity beyond that which the ordinary people approve. All my experience shows me that the ultimate justification of any punishment is not merely that it is to reform the criminal, not merely that it is to deter, but that it is the emphatic denunciation by the community of a crime; and it is for the judge, in his responsible task as representing the community, to assess that sentence. It is not for the prison authorities; it is for the judge and not the Executive. So much on principle.
But would this indeterminate sentence reform? I spoke to a prison governor the other day and he thought it would mean that the cleverest and most plausible youngsters would put on a façade of goodness so as to get out of the six or nine months as quickly as may be, and back to their wrongdoing. It is not certain that this indeterminate sentence will necessarily reform. And what are the possibilities of abusing it? 1 do not suggest there would be prejudice or favouritism by the prison authorities, but let me tell your Lordships that in some European countries they have this indeterminate sentence. Take Denmark, where there is the indeterminate sentence, and were, in the case of sexual assaults, the offer is made to the accused that if he will submit to an operation, or to treatment with hormones to take away his sexual impulse, the indeterminate

489
sentence will come to an end and he will be released. If indeterminate sentences were to be used to bring pressure on the accused in any such way to take away his free will, that, I should have thought, on our principles, would be wrong. Indeed, if there is to be sterilisation of the unfit, let it be done by direct sentence, if it is right; not in such an indirect way as that.
That brings me to this question of justice to the accused, the prisoners; for they, too, are entitled to justice. I have spoken to a number of children in approved schools and youngsters at Borstal. They are under indeterminate sentences, and the thing they resent and complain about is that they do not know how long they are there: they do not know when they will get out. The sentence, they feel, ought to be fixed by the Judge, and not by the prison authorities. I do not suggest that favouritism or prejudice would come into it, but one can see how difficult it is for the prison authorities to avoid giving the impression that if there is an early release one may be favoured at the expense of the other. So before we go further, before we introduce further into this country the single indeterminate sentence, it requires, I suggest, careful consideration.
Apart from the question of sentencing, may I just say a word on the question of this work for criminals, and compare what we do here, in our country, with what I saw in Warsaw last summer. I was one of the first people from the West to visit a prison in Warsaw, and in that prison there was a complete printing works, with the prisoners being taught the printing trade. The printing works was producing books and periodicals for outside firms, who paid the full rates, and those prisoners were paid full wages, out of which there could be deducted an amount for the families and an amount for themselves. Then I come to this country. I visit a prison here, and what do I find? Work, perhaps, on mail bags, or on mats, compulsory work at the rate of 4s. a week—the price of a packet of cigarettes.
But worse than that—for those are prisoners who have been tried and sentenced—a great number of those in prison are awaiting trial. They may be there three, four or five months, awaiting trial, and they cannot be compelled to work
490
because they have not been sentenced; and in any case there is no work for them. So there they are, waiting in what this White Paper calls the most demoralising situation of all, enforced idleness in overcrowded prisons. If there were work for these men at proper wages, what an improvement there would be, and how many problems it would solve with it! Could there not be in these circumstances, if proper wages were paid, a 10 per cent. allowance to go to a fund to make restitution, which might be a better way of doing it than taxing the community at large? Could not a sum be put by to help the man on his discharge?
May I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said about after-care? A little while ago I tried a case of some Hungarians who had just come out—it was not a very serious offence. They were found work at a gypsum mine. They were in a hostel, but they had no money until they earned the first week's wages. They stooped to stealing a little fruit from a fruit stall, and were brought up before the court again for sentence. Of course they were bound over, but what a pity that they were not provided with something for the first week! There is a lot yet to be done. But this is, as has been said, treating the symptom of a disease. The disease is in the body politic itself. It is a loosening of moral standards, a decay of religion. It is up to us, each of us, to do our part in leading our country to a strong and healthy opinion, condemning wrongdoing and upholding the right.
8.8 p.m.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, for two reasons I should like to add a word to the congratulations which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, has already received. First of all, he is an Ulverston man, and Ulverston was my holiday home as a boy. Secondly, I am now trying to carry on, as President of the Friends of the Lake District, the work which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, laid down on such admirable lines and to which he devoted such care and attention.
To come to the subject of this debate, as I have listened to the speeches I have inevitably been reminded of the reply made by President Coolidge when he was asked what the preacher had said about sin, which he had chosen as the subject

491
for his sermon. The President replied that he was "agin it". Every speaker in this debate is certainly "agin" crime, but when it comes to what we are to do about it that is quite another matter. I should like to tell my noble friend Lord Pakenham, who introduced this Motion, that I think, as always on these subjects, his speech did equal credit to his head and to his heart. The office of Home Secretary is, I think, reserved for a Member of another place; otherwise, I should look forward to seeing my noble friend in that office, for which he seems to me to be exactly made to measure. But, if he cannot occupy the chair when the reforms which he advocates come into being, as come they most certainly will, his name will be a prominent one amongst the pioneers.
He must, however, allow me to say that I cannot join with him in what he says about community callousness—I think those were his words. I do not think we can charge the ordinary man and woman with callousness about what is essentially a Government business. To my mind, the charge would be supportable only if the Government were to propose a series of reforms and found that public opinion was so opposed to them that they had to withdraw them. Then the community could fairly be accused of callousness. But I think that is most unlikely to happen. I do not foresee in the future a Government of any complexion losing a General Election on the issue of penal reform. We cannot allow the Government to make the excuse that in these matters they are held back by the force of public opinion. The second point is a very small one indeed. Lord Pakenham spoke about the difficult question of giving a testimonial to an ex-prisoner. It is a difficult matter to decide about, but in my opinion we must tell; otherwise the whole question of after-care may fall into disrepute. Therefore, I think, grievous though it sometimes may be to him, we have to tell.
I propose in my remarks to deal almost entirely with the question of the possibility of drawing a line between crime and sin. But there are two or three general remarks that I should like to make out of my experience as a magistrate. To me, almost the most, if not
492
the most, disturbing feature of crime today is the ganging up of young people for irresponsible, insolent behaviour, every part of the behaviour being disturbing. There is this dreadful idea of the gang, the carrying of weapons, the desire to intimidate, the use of any violence thought necessary, the hope of avoiding the consequences by frightening others or by the support of the gang. Case after case I read about coming up at the Old Bailey displays all these features. Getting "tooled up for the evening" is an expression used to describe arming themselves with the most lethal weapons.
May I add to what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham has said about the Daily Mirror, which I think has performed a public service in getting together this collection of weapons which, as one could see, quite horrified your Lordships? But what has frightened me is that so many of these weapons are home-made—they are part of the modern campaign of "Do it yourself." It was clear that many of them had been made with loving care and with great skill. Of course we now lay such stress upon technical training for youth: here are some fruits of it! We see that the technical training is not thrown away; they become very good workmen indeed.
What is the cure for all this? I really cannot say: it is quite beyond me, as it is beyond so many people who are deeply concerned about these matters. The question of cure ran through the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, with a humanity in which I think we can take pride—the humanity of a judge. But in regard to cure there must be respect not only for the law but for the punishments of the law. I fear that, as we have been told to-day, imprisonment in present conditions is not the answer; nor do I think that detention centres are adequate for all cases of serious violence. I have heard it suggested that an expansion of Borstal on strict lines might be most helpful, but I should like to hear the opinions of experts upon that.
There is one point, however, which I should be grateful if the nobleLord, Lord Chesham, would bring to the notice of his right honourable friend—it is quite a short point, but I feel I must mention it. It concerns the sanitary arrangements in our prisons. At most prisons they

493
are simply appalling—there is no other word which can properly be used. How can one inculcate a clean mind and a healthy outlook unless the body can function normally in clean and healthy places? But, as things are, the morning lavatory parades are revolting, and they do not help anyone to feel self-respect. Instead they are likely to coarsen and toughen the man who is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment. While I know that the Home Secretary is pressed to do very much—he has been pressed to do a great deal to-day—I think that this question of sanitation in our prisons is one which we owe it to our good name as a country to take in hand without delay, and riot to rest until it has been put on a proper footing.
On this question of the distinction between crime and sin, I would say that the Wolfenden Report has of course triggered off a lively argument, and the arguments were well brought out in the debate in December, 1957. I feel that I should declare at once that I am totally opposed to those who, like such prominent leaders as the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, support the proposal in the Wolfenden Report that homosexualitypractised in private between consenting adults should be treated as a sin and not be subject to the law. The most reverend Primate wouldhave us draw a line between sin as an offence against God and crime as an offence against man-made law. But I really do not think that this can be done. Breaches of the Ten Commandments must certainly be regarded as offences against God, but several of them also are most certainly offences against society and, to my mind, offences against society are very often offences against God. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, defined exceeding the speed limit as a non-sinful activity. I am afraid he chose an example with which I cannot possibly agree. In view of the number of deaths on the road, I regard it as highly sinful.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, since the noble Lord is obviously quoting me, I can only say that I have changed my mind. I had forgotten I ever said that. I am sorry I ever said it.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, we will leave it at that. I read it as the noble
494
Lord's view and, as I say, I could not possibly agree that excessive speed is not a sin.
LORD PAKENHAM: It must have been an off-day.
LORD WINSTER: We will leave it there. I rejoice that the noble Lord has altered his view, especially as so many of the victims of over-speeding are children whom we are taught particularly to consider with care and love. But I believe that a line between crime and sin can be only a most unsatisfactory compromise, with no solid basis of truth.
I do not want to get into metaphysical arguments, but I cannot accept the view expressed in the debate to which I have already referred that it is possible for A and B to sin together without, at the same time, doing harm to C—even though they may never meet C. I think John Stuart Mill has laid down the right belief. He said:
"There is nothing one does in private but has its public effect for good or evil."
Those words seem to me to make nonsense of the view that the law should not interfere with private habits. We are all members one of another, and I do not believe that a sin can be thrown into the great pool of sin without setting into motion widening circles and ripples whose effect is incalculable. That, I admit, is an opinion but it is my opinion. I cannot accept the argument of the taxi-driver which was quoted in a previous debate (noble Lords will see how assiduous I have been) that "two chaps can carry on and do no harm to anyone." On the contrary, I entirely agree with Mr. Adair of the Committee that homosexuality cannot be kept the private affair of consenting adults. They will not be able to keep their affair secret. It will, quite inevitably, get out and the faot of its being known will affect and offend the community.
I must say I was shocked the other day when I read that a Motion in favour of the Wolfenden Report had been carried at the Oxford Union. The Oxford Union, of course, carry some very queer motions —they carried that celebrated motion about "not fighting for King or country"—but I thought that this was serious, especially when the most reverend Primate the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury once applied the words

495
"glamour" and "romance" to homosexuality, because, as we know, the young are very susceptible indeed to glamour and romance. I do not believe that the suggested alteration in the law proposed by the Wolfenden Committee will be carried and I do not know whether, if it were carried, it would enlarge or restrict the practice of homosexuality. The Report says that that practice is on the increase. All I would say is that regularising it is certainly not likely to decrease it. I believe that the danger of enlargement exists, and we should not take the risk of reducing what has always been regarded, with horror, as a crime, from a crime to a sin. The next step will be to reduce it from a sin to a peccadillo. Once we open the door the thing will go on.
I believe that there is a limit to the extent to which the law can be merciful and also do its duty to society. I do not know whether public opinion calls for demoting this practice from a crime to a sin. The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, asserts in a letter to The Times which, with several others, he signed, that it does. Her Majesty's Government do not agree with that view, and the question I should like to ask is this: how on earth do the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, and the other signatories to that letter know that that is the state of public opinion? Have they any certain figures upon which they can base such an assertion? I do not think it would be possible to get such figures, yet the letter which the noble Earl signed says:
"The present law is clearly"—
and I call attention to the word "clearly"—
"no longer representative of Christian or liberal opinion. Its continued enforcement will do more harm than good to the health of the community."
Well, those may be the very honest views of the signatories to that letter. All I demur to is that they are claiming that those views represent public and Christian opinion in this country. I do not think they can have any evidence on which to base that assertion. As regards Christian opinion, at any rate, I notice that in your Lordships' House the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Carlisle and Rochester have both opposed that view and one right reverend Prelate said that the Churches were evenly and
496
strongly divided on whether or not homosexuality is a sin or a crime. In view of that, I do not see how that letter can possibly represent a sound and worthwhile opinion.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, believes that a considerable number of people would prefer to leave things as they are and that the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, hailed what he called a "vigorous public reaction" against the proposal as evidence of the sense of right values. My noble friends Lord Lawson and Lord Mathers have both expressed their opinion that public feeling would be against such a change in the law.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord. I do not want to resume that debate in which I played rather a prolonged part, but unless I am much mistaken the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, agreed with the Wolfenden Committee, of which, of course, he was a member and therefore I am not quite clear whether the noble Lord, Lord Winster, can be quoting him correctly. I interrupt simply for the sake of the Record.
LORD WINSTER: My Lords, I will check that, but I see that I have that in my notes in inverted commas, and I have been reading that debate very carefully so I believe the probability is that I have quoted correctly. Noble Lords whom I have quoted, and others who are of the same opinion, probably feel, and I think quite rightly, that the fact of an act being against the law, being not sinful alone but also criminal, has an impressive effect, a more impressive effect than if it were regarded as a sin only. We are all miserable sinners, but few of us feel very unhappy about it, and I think that it is almost impossible to make people feel that what is legal can nevertheless be a sin.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack certainly does not think that the community support the Committee in their recommendation to make this change from crime to sin, and I believe we can rest assured that the noble and learned Viscount has very good advice and information on the subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has laid down the essentials of a criminal offence. It must be wrongful, morally

497
reprehensible and disapproved by rightthinking people and it must be harmful to society at large. If those words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, ate accepted—as I think accepted they must be—it illustrates the difficulty of trying to separate sin from crime. The law largely sets our moral standards, and if the law does not punish it must condone: there is no alternative course. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has been supported by Mr. Justice Devlin, who thinks it would be disastrous (that is the word he used) for the criminal law to separate crime from sin in this way. That is the important point to my mind: that it would be disastrous for the criminal law.
In a very weighty editorial The Times has come down most emphatically on the side of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning. and of Mr. Justice Devlin. That is a great weight ofargument to bring against that letter in The Times which I have quoted, and to my mindit puts that letter completely out of court. For the reasons I have endeavoured to give your Lordships I do not see how the signatories can possibly support or verify the statements which they made in that letter.
My Lords, I repeat, in conclusion. that if a law is abolished it will at once be thought that what was once an offence is an offence no longer, and gradually even the idea of its being a sin will fade from the human consciousness. I think it is more important for the law in defence of society to punish evildoers and the defence of society is, to my way of thinking, the primary duty of the law. Those are my reasons for believing that crime cannot be separated from sin, as some people would have it done.
I have been speaking, I know, in the area of morals, religion, opinions, conscience, and I hope that I have spoken without giving offence to those who think differently from me. 1 have endeavoured to do so. But if I have offended anyone then 1most sincerely apologise. But I have spoken as I was brought up to believe, and I can do no other. This of all times, especially, after what we have heard about crime to-day, is not the time to be blurring the outlines of what is crime. This is the last time we should he thinking of doing any such thing. For me, sin
498
and crime are almost entirely interlocked for me, this is unalterable, and I can only say that I could never accept spiritual or political guidance from those who think otherwise on this very vexed subject.
8.33 p.m.
THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORT FOLIO (THE EARL OF DUNDEE): My Lords, my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor considered that the questions which your Lordships might wish to discuss in this debate might prove wide enough to make it desirable that a third Government speaker should be put in at about the middle of the debate and I hope that perhaps the second half of the debate may be the shorter one. A full reply to the debate on behalf of the Government will, of course, be made in due course by my noble friend, Lord Chesham, whose regular duty it is to answer on questions which concern the Home Office in your Lordships' House. I shall not trespass on his ground, but I shall try to comment on one or two of the matters which have been raised by the noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Silkin, and others of your Lordships who have spoken and at the same time my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has asked me to supplement the statement of Government policy which he has made and which applied only to England by giving your Lordships a little parallel information on the position in Scotland, where crime is dealt with by a different authority and a slightly different system of administration.
It seemed to me, my Lords, that the most interesting points which have so far been raised and discussed by your Lordships are of such a nature that they do not really admit of an authoritative reply and ought, rather, to be approached by all of us in a spirit of inquiry. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, was probably wise and certainly modest when he refrained from dilating on the causes of crime, although if he had felt inclined to do so he would have had a better excuse than most of us would have for throwing his weight about, since he has been engaged for six years in research on this subject, with the help of the Nuffield Foundation and of the Home Office and 1 cannot wait for the reprinting of the book which he mentioned. I am sure that it will be a most valuable contribution to this branch of criminology.

499
But I am equally sure that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, would agree that although this kind of research may give us useful information about average tendencies of human behaviour in certain given sets of circumstances, which unfortunately cannot always be foreseen, no amount of research can ever really resolve or explain the mystery of human will in which the origin of crime resides. A man is not a machine, neither is he the creature of his environment. We most certainly should always be ready to welcome back the prodigal son, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, so finely said at the end of his speech and, indeed, we ought probably to hope that we may be welcomed back ourselves. But we cannot tabulate, I think, a set of rules which can be said to govern and to explain the previous misbehaviour of the prodigal.
So far as I remember, all that this particular prodigal had done was, first, to be in rather a hurry to set out in search of adventure next, to waste his substance in riotous living, and, finally, to eat a few husks and none of these things is a criminal offence. It was, I think, on a rather different occasion that our Lord in the course of an argument with the Jews said to them:
"Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."
My Lords, human nature, for reasons about which we may perhaps not agree with each other, but certainly in fact, is always in any circumstances eternally prone to do wrong, and the human will, which decides whether it shall do wrong or not and what kind of wrong it shall do, is free and sovereign. We cannot predict what popular fashion in the next generation or in this generation may catch the evil fancies of men collectively: neither can we ever tell what evil intentions will enter the mind of any human being.
One very common occasion of crime is poverty yet, as we have been rightly reminded by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, and by other noble Lords, as poverty has nearly disappeared in Great Britain—or, at least, has very greatly diminished—crime has proportionately increased. That does not mean that poverty cannot be a cause of crime —of course it can: and it often is. All it means is that the criminologists who
500
used to think that if you abolished poverty you would abolish crime at the same time were wrong. I think we should be equally wrong if we were to assume that the present increase in crime is due to increased prosperity, to increased wages, or to our system of social services. Of course, there are a number of individual cases of children leaving school who immediately get a job at £8 or £10 a week, or perhaps even at more than their parents are earning, without really knowing what to do with it and they may find it easier to get into trouble than they would do if they were earning less, or nothing. But that is not enough to explain even the juvenile crime statistics, let alone the other figures. I have no doubt at all that there are a great many different causes operating to produce this alarming and disconcerting increase in the crime figures.
I think that there is little doubt that the major cause is that which was given by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, in his speech—that is, the decline in moral standards in so many parts of the world particularly, I should say, the decline in those beliefs on which the civic morality of Western Europe has always been founded. The decline in religious belief, here and in other Western countries, has been going on for about 100 years, and I think that over all this period we have, so to speak, been living on our religious capital, which must be expected to run short sooner or later. The Victorian materialists who had such an influence on all subsequent generations were usually good and moral people, but they were very optimistic: they thought it was inevitable that humanity would go on progressing, getting better and better, from one generation to another, especially if it was freed from its outworn superstitions, and they did not calculate that the flower of morality might not go on blossoming for ever if the roots were pulled up.
My Lords, of course the Government cannot do anything directly to create positive belief: that is the business and the purpose of the Churches. The Government can and ought, without compulsion, to encourage and facilitate religion in the country which it rules, and it should also do its best to protect decent family life both of which things, in our view, have a very great bearing on the crime position. We can and ought to

501
make it as easy as possible for religion to be taught in the schools, although we cannot, of course, compel religion to be taught to the children of parents who do not want it. We ought, as Lord Temple-wood suggested, to do more to link up, as he put it, the Government with the voluntary services: and in regard to our youth services, about which your Lordships had a debate a month or two ago (a debate which was also initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, and in which the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, made such an excellent maiden speech), we ought to assist our principal youth services, which are doing so much good work, to promote good morals and religious belief. As your Lordships were told in that debate, the Government have appointed a very strong Committee on the subject under Lady Albemarle, which we hope will give us valuable advice before long.
There is another possible explanation of this increase in crime—an explanation which the Government do not accept and which I do not think any of your Lordships who have spoken in this debate would accept. However, it is a view which is quite widely held in the country, and it is reinforced sometimes by cases such as the Notting Hill case, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, referred: namely, that the increase of crime is being caused by our change of attitude towards the criminal by our increasing emphasis on his welfare rather than on his punishment. and on his rehabilitation rather than on retribution. It is believed that people who want to commit a crime but who would be deterred from doing so by a severe and unpleasant punishment may think: "If I do commit this crime which I should like to commit, the worst that can happen is painless detention, with reasonably good food at the expense of the country for a period of time, with perhaps some useful industrial training, and a lot of attention paid to my welfare. Therefore, why shouldn't I commit the crime?"
My Lords, the Government do not hold that view neither, I think, do your Lordships. But, of course, as our policy of making prison conditions more enlightened, more humane, and better in every way for the prisoner, progresses, if crime statistics should at the same time continue to increase it is possible that we
502
may look a little foolish. We do not believe that that will happen. I hope very much that the theory of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, as to the crime bulge is right. He said he would not like to be dogmatic about it, and I am bound to say the same. No-one can be dogmatic about it. But, whether there is a crime bulge or not, the Government do not believe that the increase in crime is due to our new outlook, our new attitude, towards the prisoner, and the policy of the Government is based on that belief—that our present attitude to crime is the right one.
Although some of your Lordships may think that the White Paper which is before us does not go quite far enough, I think most of your Lordships will agree that it is probably the greatest advance in humane and enlightened prison administration which has taken place in the history of this country.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, if the noble Earl would forgive me, I should like to repeat what my noble friend Lord Silkin said. We are in no way niggardly of our appreciation of the White Paper as a programme of action, but as a record of results.
THE EARL OF DUNDEE: My Lords, I entirely understand that. I do not think that we can complain at all either of the tone or of the substance of the criticism of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, or that of the noble Lord, Lord Silkin, who spoke in the same sense, except that he did not reinforce his arguments by the display of a number of lethal weapons. The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, and I were both members of another place and I think that if we had used such weapons for the purpose of oratorical illustration there, Mr. Speaker might have had something to say on the subject. We certainly do not complain because the main criticism of the White Paper is directed to the fact that it is only a White Paper and had not been put into action several years ago. I would ask your Lordships to remember that it was only a few years ago that building controls were abolished and that even now we have only a limited force of building labour and a limited amount of material at our disposal. There are many other demands on our building resources, such as slum clearance and new factories, and we cannot do everything at

503
once. Building, I think, is the most important priority in this problem, because all our plans for voluntary treatment in prison and welfare are not much good if there is not proper accommodation, if we have all these 6,000 people sleeping three in a cell.
If I may revert to the bulge, I would point out that the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, said that we ought to have foreseen this, as we foresaw the school bulge, and made our plans accordingly. I do not think it is quite so simple as that. We could foresee the school bulge because we knew how many children were born in a given year, but—and the noble Lord gave the figures—there was an actual decline in the number of crimes in the three years before 1954 and I do not think that it would have been reasonably possible to foresee the unfortunate increase which has taken place from 1954 onwards.
Now building is a first priority. As my noble and learned friend pointed out, in England the building programme is being put up this year from £1 million to £3 million and in Scotland from £132,000 to £435,000 that is, more than three times. The programme in Scotland includes two types of institution which will be new to Scotland. This is a point on which England is ahead of us we have been rather canny and watched whether they were going to be a success in England before we adopted them--the detention centre and the reception centre. In England, we have had detention centres for six years and study has confirmed that they have a constructive part to play in dealing with young offenders. The Secretary of State hopes to have one centre for the older age group in use before the end of the year and another for the younger group next year. It is also his intention to provide in Scotland within the next three years a remand centre for the reception and observation before sentence of young men committed by the courts.
The actual crime figures in Scotland show on the whole the same increases proportionately as in England in all age groups, with one curious exception. While, as the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, pointed out, crimes of violence in England have increased four to five times,
504
in Scotland they are still no more frequent than before the war. Why that should be so I do not know. Of course, crimes of violence are a fairly small proportion of the total number of crimes. I mention that just as an illustration of how complicated these crime statistics are and how difficult it is to come to any satisfactory conclusion from them.
My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has already mentioned the greatly expanded research programme which has been planned. In Scotland, the agencies for carrying out this important work are of two kinds—one unit, which serves both the Home Office and the Scottish Home Department. is at present working on a project based on the records kept at police headquarters in Glasgow, which are very full and elaborate and from which useful material can be extracted for analysis and work as this proceeds. All particulars of first offenders in 1947 are being examined, and their progress during the next ten years will be investigated so that some indication may be obtained of the effectiveness of the methods which the courts use in disposing of first offenders. The Secretary of State has lately set up a Scottish council of experienced men and women to advise him on first offenders. The chairman of the council is Sheriff Leslie and is members include people of wide and varied experience in Parliament, the courts, the detection of crime, social work and the academic study of criminology.
Another feature of the penal system which they are going to inquire into is the probation system and service. A wide range of investigation is about to be started as to the Scottish service as well as the English, and the Government hope that it will effect further improvement in this well-tried method of treatment. While the inquiry is proceeding, of course the service is not standing still. This coming week-end a conference week has been convened by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State, at which representatives of the Scottish courts, the probation committees, the police and the universities, will be pooling their experience of probation with a view to improving the method and extent of its use. Continued efforts are also being made in Scotland to improve and develop the existing arrangements for custodial treatment of both young and adult offenders.

505
In spite of the difficulties which have resulted from the increase in the number of inmates of prisons in recent years, a number of advances have been made. Trade training, employment both inside and outside institutions, educational and recreational facilities are being developed. "Training for freedom" schemes, under which men in institutions go out daily towards the end of their sentences to work unsupervised with private employers, are being extended. The psychiatric services in I3orstals and prisons are growing in extent and in value, and all these improvements are gradually transforming the prisons and Borstals and bringing them nearer to our goal of fitting the offender to lead a useful life on his discharge and establishing in him his will to do so.
The noble Lord, Lord Silkin, asked me particularly to tell him how the Streatfeild Committee were getting on. I indicated dissent, not because I did not care about it, but because there is nothing more to tell him. There is no fresh information. As the noble Lord no doubt knows, the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, is a member of this Committee, which was set up last year. It is still examining evidence and it is impossible to say when it will produce its Report. I think that its purpose and the value which we expect the courts to obtain from its advice is fully described in paragraphs 12 to 14 of the White Paper which your Lordships have before you.
The noble Lord also wanted me to tell him about whether we were still combining children who had committed offences with children who were merely in need of care and attention in approved schools. The answer is that we are. The law provides that boys who require care and attention are sent to approved schools. Although these boys and girls have not committed any offence they often need exactly the same special form of training and education that approved schools provide. I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, and any of your Lordships who may have experience of the work of juvenile courts, will confirm that it is often a matter of accident whether a boy or girl who comes before the court is charged with an offence or just as being in need of care and protection—on the ground, for example, that his or her parents are not
506
exercising proper guardianship and often parental neglect and delinquency go together.
I am sure your Lordships were impressed by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, and of course what he said, with his great authority, will be carefully considered by the Home Secretary. The only point I would make to the noble and learned Lord about the indeterminate sentence is this. I think I am right in saying that the Borstal sentences are at present indeterminate—they are from nine months to three years; and I do not think there would be any difference in principle between that and the proposal made by the Prison Commissioners which caused the noble and learned Lord some concern.
In the last twenty years this country has had two Home Secretaries who had hereditary connections with criminal reformers of the past: first, the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, who has spoken in this debate and who is descended collaterally from Elizabeth Fry and secondly, the present HomeSecretary, who is connected by descent with Josephine Butler. Both of them, in their period of office, have sought to introduce widespread changes in principle in regard to prison administration in producing a more liberal attitude towards the care and welfare of prisoners.
The progress of the reforms contemplated by the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, was stopped by the outbreak of war, but we very much hope that the progress of these reforms envisaged by the present Home Secretary, Mr. Butler, will not be frustrated by continued increase in the crime statistics, because it is that increase which, more than anything else, makes it so difficult and upsets all the calculations on which our building plans et cetera are made. There is no one in this country who can help the Home Secretary's programme more than the criminals themselves, if only they would agree to commit a few less crimes. What any Government or Parliament would have to do if the present crime wave went on increasing is a matter which need not be anticipated now. I was glad to hear the tribute paid by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, to the Home Secretary, and I suggest to your Lordships that there is no one whose purpose in penal reform is more firmly set, or who will pursue that

507
purpose with greater perseverance, than the present Home Secretary.
9.5 p.m.
LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, it is difficult for a mere Sassenach to follow the earlier part of the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, in which he dealt with some of those metaphysical problems which are so popular on the other side of the Border. But when the noble Earl came down to the practical realities of the situation, and when, in particular, he emphasised the fact that this problem of crime has to be seen in a wide perspective, and that other ameliorative measures, such as the fostering of boys' clubs and matters of that kind, must be taken into account and pursued, then my mere Anglo-Saxon brain can follow his argument and agree with it. It is very late, and one's natural inclination is to sit down quite soon, but other noble Lords have resisted this impulse with such success during the last few hours that I feel I must crave your Lordships' indulgence for a few minutes to comment on some of the interesting and important speeches which have been made.
I have taken part, I think, in all the discussions on penal reform which have taken place in your Lordships' House during the last ten years or so, and it is rather difficult not to repeat some, at any rate, of the arguments which one has advanced on previous occasions. I feel that one ought to read one's earlier speeches through before taking part in a discussion of this kind, otherwise one tends to say exactly the same things over and over again. But I should, in any case, like to add my own small tribute to that so eloquently paid by the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, and which indeed has been echoed by almost every subsequent speaker, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, on his exceptionally eloquent maiden speech. The noble and learned Lord is a fellow-countryman of mine, and therefore I can take pride in the outstanding success of his speech in a way which perhaps other noble Lords are hardly able to do. I feel that to the distinguished list of forensic orators which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack gave to us he could have added another equally brilliant forensic orator, who also comes from that part of England lying to the
508
north of the Sands, equally a great Liberal and a great reformer, Lord Chancellor Brougham.
I feel tempted to cross swords with my noble friend Lord Winster, because I disagree with almost everything he said. It seemed to me that the speech which he delivered this evening he had prepared for some other debate, because what he said had so little relevance to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, which was concerned with reform, punishment in prisons and matters of that kind, and not really with the Wolfenden Report. However I resist that temptation to cross swords with my noble friend.
The noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack gave us an exceedingly interesting and detailed account of the Government's programme and work in these matters, and if one were to discuss all that he said it would take a long time. I could not help feeling a good deal of sympathy with his rather emotional peroration, in which he called for a crusade in regard to this matter. Yet I have a great deal of suspicion of crusades. As one who studied history at the university a long time ago, I seem to remember that the Crusades in the Middle Ages led to more evil and wickedness than any good that they did, and that one of them, in particular, succeeded in destroying the only bulwark against the Mohammedan Turks that was left in the East of Europe.
I feel that we are more likely to make progress in the detailed slogging way that has been recently followed by Sir Lionel Fox and his fellow Prison Commissioners. In actual fact social problems are better handled on the basis of empirical knowledge and close research and study of what actually happens in society than by means of emotional appeals such as take place during crusades. These often generate a good deal of enthusiasm which tends to dissipate itself rather quickly.
The main point in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has been answered by the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat—I refer to the question of indeterminate sentences. Of course, the principle has been introduced into this country, as the noble and learned Lord himself indicated in his speech, in the Borstal treatment. It has, in fact, been found better, after a long experience of sentencing boys to specific periods of Borstal training, to leave the period indefinite. This matter of the indeterminate

509
sentence is undoubtedly one which is disliked by large numbers of people in this country. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has indicated that it is quite common abroad. He might have gone on to say that in some of the most important Commonwealth countries indeterminate sentences have been used for quite a time, and with considerable success. I cannot say that I personally have made up my mind about it. I think it is a pity to approach it in the rather emotional way in which it seemed to me the noble and learned Lord was approaching it. It is one of the matters which might well be entrusted to the new Institute, for careful research into the results in other parts of the world, because we must not in this country think we have a monopoly of ability in regard to handling problems of this kind.
One of the interesting things about today's debate is that there have been so many entries into what the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, I think, once called the "Criminal Club" which in past debates has consisted of a small number of people who have spoken every time. I am sure your Lordships will agree that we have missed the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, whose contributions on past occasions were of such outstanding interest and so brilliantly delivered. I think the number of speakers who have taken part in the discussions to-day is tangible evidence of the growing interest and concern of the community as a whole in this problem.
One of the difficulties of those of us who have been interested in these matters over the years has been to get the community itself to appreciate the importance of this problem and to become really alive to it. But I feel that that situation has changed, and the fact that the admirable report of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenhain, has already sold out is further evidence to this effect. As all of those of us who have been mixed up with the Howard League, the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency, and other organisations, know, it has been extremely difficult to scrape together the small amount of finance which is required to keep even cheaply run organisations of that kind going. The magnificent donation which we hear has been made by Lord Nathan's Committee for the new Institute at Cambridge positively makes one's mouth water, when one has
510
been thinking in sums of tens, or hundreds, of pounds, at the outside, over so many years.
Exactly the same sort of impression is gained from the work of the magistracy, which was so interestingly spoken of by the noble Baroness in her excellent speech. I am sure that since I first practised in magistrates' courts (now something like forty years ago) the understanding and sympathy among the magistracy in regard to the sentencing and the treatment of the criminals who come before them has been revolutionised. That is one of the most encouraging aspects of this problem. Many benches now, I am quite sure, are as good as Her Majesty's Judges themselves in dealing with these questions of sentencing, and some of them, I think, are perhaps even better than some of the Judges, because not all the Judges have had much experience of criminal work before they go on circuit. As the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, pointed out on the last occasion, there is a good deal to be said for giving even the Judges, or some of them, some sort of training in their work. I am sorry that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is not here to-day. He was, in effect, a part-time member of the "Criminal Club." I hope the fact that he is not addressing us to-day does not mean that he is resigning from it.
On the last occasion I suggested that it would be a useful innovation if the Judges who do this work on Assize could sit with a small panel of magistrates at the point when they come to consider the sentence. As I then said, it must be difficult for a sensitive Judge, sensitive to the difficulty of these problems—and most of Her Majesty's Judges, I am sure, fall into that category—to have to decide these difficult cases completely on his own responsibility, and without the opportunity of discussing the problem with experienced and knowledgeable men and women of the world. While the Judges who go frequently on circuit quickly gain a great deal of valuable experience, there are other Judges in criminal courts, and particularly Recorders, many of whom do not get enough criminal work to get the experience which is necessary in order to do this work properly. I think it would be helpful to them, or many of them, if they, too, could have the advantage of a panel

511
such as I have suggested—not necessarily doing more than taking part in discussions and advising, and not necessarily having the burden of actually giving the decision, but people with whom the Judge or the Recorder could discuss the problem before he made up his mind.
I should like to say that I welcome the White Paper just as enthusiastically as anybody who has spoken about it this afternoon. Indeed, I took it upon myself as President of the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency to write to the Home Secretary, when the White Paper first appeared, congratulating him upon it. There are parts of it which, like the curate's famous egg, are not quite so good as others, and I entirely agree with the remark made earlier this afternoon by the right reverend Prelate, the Lord Bishop of Exeter, that the tempo is too slow. But one quite understands, as the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, pointed out, that it is exceptionally difficult for a Home Secretary to persuade his colleagues in the Cabinet—all of whom have their own pet schemes for which finance is required—to agree to let him have all the money which he requires in order to push through his own particular schemes.
There is one important point, however, to which I should like to refer—it was mentioned by the noble Earl who resumed his seat a moment ago: that is, the remand centres. They receive very cursory treatment in the White Paper. I do not want to go into this matter at any length, because I devoted a good deal of time to it in my last speech. This is a matter which has been investigated by a Committee and which has a long history in other countries: Belgium, particularly, has been a pioneer in this respect. In Sir Lionel Fox's classic work on our prison system there is an outstanding section in regard to the importance of these remand centres, and it does not seem to me that four or five lines in the White Paper is adequate to deal with a matter of such importance. I myself regard the remand centre as a good deal more important than the detention centre, which receives a good deal longer treatment and which has been referred to a great deal this afternoon.
I could not let this matter of the White Paper go by without adding my own congratulations to the Home Secretary upon
512
his having at last brought into existence, or almost brought into existence (because I do not think the birth has yet actually taken place), the new Institute for Criminological Research. But I would emphasise that we must not think that, now that we are getting the Institute, everything in the garden is rosy. This is only the beginning. In particular, I think it is essential that we should not put all our eggs into one basket. It is rather the habit of research institutes to follow a particular line, sometimes to the exclusion of other lines. I think it would be altogether wrong if it were now to be thought that all the research ought to be done at Cambridge. It is already rather disquieting that Oxford has decided not to appoint a new Reader in Criminology on the termination of Dr. Grünhut's Readership, which will take place very soon. It would be a great pity if Oxford were to close down the excellent work which Dr. Grünhut has led in that University during the last fifteen years or so.
One must remember, too, that as appears from the Appendix in the White Paper, a good deal of work is going on in different university schools of sociology at the present time. The difficulty has been to find the finance. The result of this is that it is, in fact, going to be exceedingly difficult to get adequately good work done at Cambridge during the next few years. I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Pakenham about this and disagree both with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, and with the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack. If I may say so, while both of them have had a good deal more experience of administration of the criminal law than the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham. I think that he probably knows more about research work, because he has given a good deal of his life to problems of research—as indeed I myself have—and anybody who has worked in research departments must know that you cannot just suddenly decide you are going to do research.
LORD BIRKETT: Would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? I ought to have said, when I was speaking about that matter, that the reason why I thought that the fruits of research would be quickly available was because for many years the Department of Criminal Science in Cambridge has been working on these problems.
LORD CHORLEY: I could go into that matter at considerable length with the noble and learned Lord. What the Department at Cambridge has been largely doing is historical work, and work into the substantive law. As to criminological work, it has not so far done a great deal. It has recently published the volume mentioned by the noble Lord, which is very good from certain points of view, but it has been severely criticised in other aspects. That indicates the great difficulty there is in getting together the effectively trained staff to do this sort of work. In the Institute with which I have been connected for some years we find it exceedingly difficult to keep our research workers because of the question of finance; and if your Lordships look at this particular Appendix to the White Paper you will not find the Institute for the Study of Delinquency mentioned, because it so happens that when this came out one particular research had come to an end, and the finance required to embark on the new one, which is now to be subsidised by the Home Office, had not been obtained. That shows how tenuous this matter has been over the last years. That makes me agree with what has been said by the noble Lords, Lord Pakenham and Lord Silkin, in regard to this matter.
I should like to close by saying something about the Probation Service, which has been referred to by a number of speakers this afternoon. In my own experience as a Chairman of Quarter Sessions have become more and more impressed by the value of the Probation Service, particularly in the last year or two, in cases where we have decided to give a number of men who have broken their recognisances, or have been in trouble on previous occasions, another chance by putting them on probation. And how often this has come off! It is most encouraging, and even if it does fail from time to time I think in the end it pays because, as has been emphasised by more than one speaker to-day, it is of the greatest value to keep a man out of prison if that can be done fairly to society. If he is out of prison, he is earning his keep and contributing to the work of the community, whereas in prison the problem of finding him any sort of useful work, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, is exceptionally difficult; and, of course, it costs the community something
514
like £300 or more per annum to keep him in prison. The probation officer provides what seems to me to be one of the essential lacks at the present time, what we might call "Big Brother" discipline.
I listened with sympathy to what the `right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Exeter said about the value of enlisting the help of teachers in the schools in this work of trying to improve the morale of the children. It seems to me, however, that the problem goes back beyond that, into the family itself, and that one of the main weaknesses which is causing the crime wave, or so-called crime wave, is the fact that discipline in the family nowadays is a good deal slacker than it used to be some years ago. I think one of the great values of the good probation officer is that he can provide quite a lot of discipline, and that he can, and does, do so in a sympathetic and brotherly manner; and that seems to me to be one of the reasons why, on the whole, the Probation Service is proving so successful.
I am particularly glad that the Advisory Committee at the Home Office is looking to a much fuller use of the Probation Service in connection with after-care. It seems to me that we should do much better in connection with aftercare arrangements to expand the Probation Service and have a larger number of probation officers to do this work, rather than set up some new sort of service. In my experience, the probation officer gets an extraordinarily good knowledge of the employment situation in his own particular district. Our own probation officer in Westmorland has an almost uncanny capacity for getting jobs for his "customers." Settling a man in a job is one of the best ways of keeping him straight.
Therefore, my Lords, it seems to me that if, after these men are discharged from prison, the probation officer takes charge of the case there is an exceptionally good chance of the man being put into a job; and if he is put into a job there is a much better chance that he will keep straight. It seems to me that here we have a most valuable line of approach in dealing with the problem of after-care which has most properly figured so largely in the speech of my noble friend, Lord Pakenham, and which I know, from

515
discussions which I had with the late Miss Margery Fry (whose name has been mentioned so often in the debate), she regarded as perhaps the most important of all the problems in connection with penal reform at the present time. I congratulate the Home Secretary upon his admirable White Paper, and I hope that we shall all see it implemented during the next few years.
9.31 p.m.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, there is no concealing from myself that what I have stood up to say to-night may be taken as not entirely in the best of taste. I should like to say at the outset that I have every sympathy with those who might be inclined to look upon it in that way. All I can hope is that by the time I have finished speaking noble Lords will have realised and recognised at least the sense of compulsion under which I speak and the true reason for speaking as I do. At a time like this, when a policeman's lot appears to be not only unhappier but more hazardous and more exhausting than it has ever been before, anyone must feel reluctant to imply criticism in any form of policemen or of police methods. It is all too easy to be an armchair strategist, and I am very sensible indeed of my own situation in defending the rule of law vocally from well behind the line while those who defend in the front are frequently killed or wounded in the performance of their duty. But just as we know that not all soldiers are brave and patriotic, we also know that not all policemen are kindly, patient and incorruptible.
We take pride in the fact that the great majority of them in this country possess these qualities, but I should not think that it was to the benefit of that majority or to the reputation of the force as a whole, to pretend that these qualities were universal to it. The only policeman with whom I can claim any close acquaintance possesses those qualities to an inspiring degree, but I do not think that he would promote, nor do I think that he would respect me for promoting, the legend that all British policemen live up to the high level of behaviour set by the best of them and required by any police force. One former high officer at Scotland Yard to whom I have spoken lately has told
516
me that the bane of his existence in the undermining of police authority while he was in his high office at Scotland Yard was crooked policemen.
The reluctance that I have mentioned, to impede the police in any way, is overshadowed, to my mind, by the evident and alarming fact that a large and increasing element of our own population, particularly perhaps our own younger population, is coming to look upon the police as their enemy rather than as their friends and protectors. I was told only this afternoon, not giving me time to inquire and corroborate it, that there was recently a semi-public inquiry, held I believe by a newspaper, in which the public were questioned as to what they would do if they found a policeman struggling with an assailant. It became clear that few of them realised that it was their legal duty to go to the assistance of the policeman. But what was more alarming was that a large proportion of them said that they would go to help the assailant of the policeman. However we may think or believe, or even hope, that at least a certain proportion of those who answered in that way were making a facetious answer, I think that that attitude is in itself very disturbing.
This dangerous and tragic illusion about the police can do more, I claim, to impede the police and to assist the professional criminal than anything else. In seeking its possible causes, or one of its possible causes, I have come across what seems to me a most disturbing factor—namely, the methods sometimes employed by police questioning to extract statements from people under question which may amount to confessions. Many of the lawyers with whom I have spoken in the past few days have not hesitated to refer to the state of mind of people under police questioning as being "frightened", "confused" or even "terrified". It is obvious that although a valid statement in such conditions is not excluded, nor is it ensured, the approach in any case is odious.
I should have thought we should not normally question suspects under the influence of drink or drugs. To my mind another worry arises because there are used in other countries things called truth drugs, which are obviously never used on purpose by the police here. On the other hand, if a suspect should be questioned

517
under the influence of drink or a drug it is not important, as far as the result is concerned, whether that truth drug or potion was applied by the police or not. The fact is that if the suspect is under the influence the evidence he gives while under that influence should be regarded as completely invalid. I seriously wonder, from what I have heard in recent weeks, whether it is really always regarded as invalid.
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to ask whether he is making an accusation that witnesses have been interrogated under the influence of drugs with the knowledge of the police?
LORD ST. OSWALD:No. In point of fact, I was saying that they would not be interrogated under the influence of drugs. In fact, I was just at that moment about to quote from the book by Mr. William Sargant from which I have already on several occasions quoted, where the author condemns Russian police methods. It is a book in which the author also includes a passage in which he says:
"Even in Great Britain to-day false confessions arc sometimes elicited quite unknowingly despite the acknowledged integrity of the British police, especially when evidence is being collected by them which may result in a suspect's prosecution, trial for murder and his subsequent hanging."
From that point forward he goes on to cite the particularly obvious case of Timothy Evans, which I should not like to cite at any great length because it has been mentioned so frequently in this sort of context before. But he does describe —this, think, is tremendously important to the point that I am trying to make—the mental state of Evans from the time of his arrest through the various stages: his flight to Wales, his meeting with the new police inspector, the various discoveries that were brought home to him, the news of the death of his daughter whom lie loved, and finally the state of mind in which he found himself when he made a later detailed confession to both murders—a confession which has been strongly questioned by many thoughtful people since.
That, of course, was an altogether out-of-the-ordinary case, but my inquiries of recent days have led me to believe that to a lesser extent the same sort of thing is happening every week or nearly every
518
week. There is a vivid fear—I say this to the noble Lord who may challenge me if he likes—not chiefly among habitual criminals, of what is known as "the verbals". The "verbals" are oral statements taken by a police officer before any charge is made, or before the suspect is taken into custody. Such a statement, when read out in court, may depend for its accuracy at best on the policeman's memory when he writes up his notes, perhaps two or three hours after the interview at worst, it can be a near fabrication or a lavish embroidery of what was said if the policeman is dishonest and determined upon a conviction. I am told that, without any strong awareness that it constitutes unfair coercion or persuasion, some policemen will say, "If you make this statement, pleading guilty, we can make it easier for you", or "We can keep it quieter", or "We can see to it that the others 'cop it' worse than you do."
It is the oral statement which is most feared and resented. But even the written statement is seldom, if ever, in the words of the detained person himself or herself. It is not even in a true sense a voluntary statement, for although it may read as a spontaneous statement it is the result of question and answer, in which there can be put into the mouth of the person concerned words or affirmations to suit the police case. I have been told that one psychiatrist attached to a large prison has claimed that he could tell from the language and phrasing of a prisoner's statement in which police station it was taken. it may be of some encouragement to learn that individual police officers have identifiable literary styles, but the means of discovery cannot, I feel, be any encouragement whatever. Plainly, I should have thought, those most liable to succumb to this method are not the "old lags", who know their rights, or the rich men who can call on a lawyer and know their way about, but the inexperienced, nervous and even, conceivably, innocent persons involved in a criminal action, who may thus be driven a long step towards habitual crime as a profession.
What I find of very great interest is that this cannot happen, for instance, in India, under the Evidence Act, 1872, which has remained unchanged since British rule. In Sections 24 to 26 of that Act it is laid down, first, that,

519
"A confession caused by inducement, threat or promise is inadmissible"—
which, of course, exists in England but subsequently safeguards are provided which, to the best of my knowledge, are absent from English law. Section 25 of the Act states:
"No confession made to a police officer shall be proved against a person accused of any offence."
Section 26 states:
"No confession made by any person whilst he is in the custody of a police officer, unless it be made in the immediate presence of a magistrate, shall be proved as against that person."
This is corroborated in the Indian Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, so that we have the rather remarkable situation that in fact a citizen of India, as a result of having once been under British rule, enjoys greater protection than some British citizens themselves.
I say "some British citizens", because in Scotland they are better protected than the citizens of England, to the extent that in one famous case in Scotland, which I have been studying to-day, John Chalmers v. H.M. Advocate, the case was decided against the prosecution, and in favour of the accused, by Lord Justice-General Cooper, on the ground that the incriminating statement had been made only in the presence of a police officer and was therefore not valid in court. I believe I am right in saying that that would never have happened in England, for the same protection does not in fact exist. Obviously, in the presence of great lawyers I hesitate to say anything dogmatic, but it is my impression that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the same protection would not have been extended. There have, indeed, been instances of frankly unsavoury procedure in obtaining convictions in recent years. I am thinking of the case of the kennel girls some weeks ago, and the Curran case, in Northern Ireland, in 1953.
I do not want to draw attention to dramatic, highly publicised or out-of-the-way cases. It is the everyday case and everyday practice that has been my theme. There is the practice of saying to a man or a woman under questioning, "We know everything—better come clean."Or," Your pal has split'. It is no good covering up for him." In that context I was sent to-day some papers which, again, are to me of a very dis-
520
turbing nature. They are under a covering letter from a solicitor in which he says:
"I enclose statements recently taken by me in connection with a case, which I have my client's permission to send you, but only on the basis that no names are to be disclosed nor anything which might identify the place, since he feels that the police will victimise him."
Let us hope that that is a completely unjustified fear, but to my mind it is a pretty terrible thing that in this country such fear can exist, and I am bound to say that on reading the statement I can see how that fear came to exist.
This is a small man being interviewed by his lawyer and describing what he has said to the police. He says:
"The police began by saying to me that this business had been going on for a long time. I said it hadn't and he said, Well. look, I've got it here from your employer', and he pointed at a document. In the end he more or less copied down the statement for me. And although I said it wasn't true, he made me sign it. His method was to say, The wording is this, as put by your employer', and then he would read out what my employer had apparently said to them, and as he spoke he wrote it down and really gave me no chance to argue about it.
"From the first I had said, 'I don't know anything about this because I've been away ill'. But he had replied, I don't care about that, but I've got to get a statement and I've got it from your employer here, and you've got to say the same thing or else it'll be the worse for you. Tell no lies. It's all down here. I've got it, the truth, and you've got to say the same thing '. Having written it all down he read it over to me and then he passed it over to me and told me to sign it and so I did what I was told. I have never had the pleasure of dealing with the police before nor have I had occasion to consult any solicitor about my rights in this matter. I was thoroughly frightened by what they said and I thought it was the best thing to do to do as they told me. I now know better."
It is difficult for an armchair strategist in this field to express more than dismay or to make positive proposals, especially when in theory full protection already exists. I am sorry to say that I have not read the Judges' Rules but I understand that it is specified that the duty of the police is to question a suspect or witness with a view to obtaining facts, not with a view to obtaining a conviction. If, in the course of questioning, an officer begins to suspect that the person is the perpetrator of the offence in question, he must stop and leave the rest to the court. I feel that if this were made the criterion of all criminal prosecutions, and if police officers questioning suspects were obliged

521
to emphasise their right to keep silence until their trial, instead of coercing them, by whatever means, to make a statement, the prestige of the police in this country would be enhanced. They would work in harmony in a more co-operative atmosphere.
I believe that this popular impression that the police are keener on getting a conviction than preventing crime could be completely dispelled, and once it was dispelled they would work henceforward and proceed more effectively with their dedicated and courageous task, supported by the full confidence of their countrymen. They would in fact be—which they are only in part to-day—the proper instrurnent of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, in his very moving speech to-day, described as the "denunciation of crime by the community at large".
LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, might I ask him whether he is aware that he has made some very serious accusations against the police force of this country and that if he has any evidence to support the accusations which he has made this evening he is duty bound to lay that evidence before either the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary? His remarks, if they are not substantiated, will have a very adverse effect on the morale of the police force of this country.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, my impression is that I have gone out of my way, as far as I can, to make perfectly plain that I am not making an attack on the police force of this country. I have mentioned one or two cases which I can substantiate, and will do if necessary, but I have avoided doing what is suggested and I believe noble Lords will agree that I have gone absolutely as far as I could in making it perfectly plain that I do not believe that those cases are characteristic of the police forces of this country and that they let down the very excellent standard of the great majority of our police officers.
9.50 p.m.
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I normally enjoy the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, but I did not enjoy the speech he has just made. I think he proceeded by quite a wrong method. His
522
arguments were based on a fallacious procedure. He made a series of very damaging generalised statements and produced little evidence to support them. If he has found evidence of corruption in individual cases or in methods of handling individual cases, then I think it is his duty, as my noble friend, Lord Shepherd, has said, to have these individual cases properly and fully investigated and only when they have been properly and fully investigated is he entitled to make any generalised sort of criticism, for this reason: that the work of the police in interrogating criminals, and non-criminals, is perhaps the most difficult kind of work that anybody in this country undertakes. These people are often very wicked people they are people who are very much given to lying as a part of their nature, and they often give false accounts of their interviews with the police, for obvious reasons. Therefore, it is vital to check up any such allegations made by prisoners of maltreatment by the police. I am convinced myself that it is a very rare occurrence indeed. I am convinced that if any such cases are brought to the notice of the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor they will be thoroughly investigated.
My Lords, twice recently I have had to begin a speech by making a declaration of interest. Today I have to do so again for the rather unusual reason that I live in what the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, described as "that ridiculous sham Windsor Castle in Holloway Road." As a matter of fact, he was not quite accurate, because it is in fact a sham Warwick Castle and it is situated in Parkhurst Road, even though it is called Holloway Prison. I have lived there for some fourteen years because my wife is Governor. I am, then, a penologist by marriage in one sense. But I must make it absolutely clear that I am in no way echoing or acting as a mirror or channel for my wife's views. Her interests are in the practical treatment of criminals, whereas I am entirely concerned with the social and psychological causes of crime. I trained in general medicine first, and then went to psychiatry, and then to sociology but my special interest has always been in preventive medicine, whether of the individual or the community.
At the end of this month Canon Raven, former Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge

523
University, is publishing a book on science, medicine and morals, in which I understand he suggests that the methods which have been so successful in medicine should now be applied to the illnesses of society and with this hypothesis I personally am in full agreement. There have been over the last two decades very dramatic advances in medical science, but these are the culmination of two and a half centuries of patient clinical practice. In the social sciences and in penology we are still in the early stages. We are still very often proving the obvious or demonstrating simple truths which appear obvious once they have been proved. The first step in medicine is to describe the natural history of each disease so that we can diagnose it correctly and then predict the course it is going to follow—make a good prognosis. This job of working out correct diagnoses and accurate prognoses has taken many hundreds of years to complete. Only when we can do that are we in a position to assess the effect of treatment.
Nowhere is the study of the natural history of disease more important than in mental and nervous conditions. Fortunately, most of these conditions have a tendency to recover spontaneously. Some of the more fanciful forms of psychological treatment have failed to take account of this simple fact. Indeed, the number of recoveries which they produce are no greater than would have occurred had there been no treatment at all. Fanciful speculation about the mind is of value if it stimulates honest research and experiment but if it masquerades as truth when it is only 'hypothesis, then it delays real progress in the search for truth.
Fortunately, there is growing up in this country a school of intellectually tough psychiatry which applies the same criteria to the problems of the mind as those which have proved so successful in general medicine. I had the good fortune to be trained in that school, centred at the Maudsley Hospital, though its influence is now widely diffused. What I shall have to say about psychiatry and crime I shall draw largely from the researches made by the younger members of that school, in particular Doctor Trevor Gibbens and Doctor Maurice Carstairs. Here may I say how grateful I was that
524
I had the privilege of working in the room next to my noble friend Lord Pakenham when he and I were both working for the Nuffield Foundation and how stimulating I found it to see the research work which he was doing. He i; a most vigorous research worker and one of the quickest research workers I have ever come across, and how he gets through it all I do not know.
I should like first to ask the question: what can psychiatry contribute to a study of crime? The psychiatrist is an expert in mental illness, in its diagnosis and treatment, and not in normal mentality. He may, or may not, be a good judge of character. He is neither better nor worse than The rest of us outside his own special sphere. Secondly, the relation of conventional mental illness as such to crime is a very limited one. The classical study was made in New York some years ago by Doctor Walter Bromberg, who made a psychiatric study of nearly 10,000 consecutive, convicted felons. He found of these felons that 1·5 per cent. were mad, suffering from psychosis 7 per cent. were suffering from neurosis and 2·5 per cent. were mentally defective. These figures are not significantly different from those for the rest of the community, except that the mental-defective figure is slightly higher. This is, in fact, what one might expect from a study of another group of figures.
The prisons and Borstals of this country contain roughly 26,000 people, and the approved schools another 7,000. Of these I think that about one-twentieth are women. My noble friend Lady Wootton of Abinger was puzzled over the difference in criminological behaviour between boys and girls. I think that perhaps part of the answer is to be found when we compare the population of our prisons with the population of our mental hospitals. The total figure in mental hospitals is over eight times the total figure for the prisons and approved schools. There are upwards of 150,000 patients in our mental hospitals, of whom substantially more than 50 per cent. are women. If we took, then, the excess number of women in our mental hospitals and equated them with the criminal figures, we might find the two getting somewhat similar. It is as though (and I hope I shall show it in a minute) when ladies go wrong they go wrong mentally rather than criminologically, but it may

525
be that they are showing similar behaviour patterns.
BARONESS WOOTTON OF ABINGER:My Lords, has the noble Lord taken account of the fact that in mental hospitals the female excess are largely those in much older age groups, and their presence there is due to the longer survival period of women?
LORD TAYLOR: My Lords, I have not taken account of that fact and I think maybe it is very valid. It is precisely the sort of fact which I think should he, and I hope will be, thoroughly studied by the new research units. The main point which I was setting out to make, however, was that conventional mental illness is not an important fact in the cause on crime and I hope that the noble Baroness will agree with me at least in that, even if she does not agree about the other point.
Returning to Dr. Bromberg's 10,000 felons, 40 per cent. were mentally completely within the range of normality they were completely normal people. That leaves 50 per cent., who were mentally out of the normal run, but not conventionally mentally ill. This group presented a consistent pattern. At one extreme there were 10 per cent. of psychopaths, of whom I will say more in a moment. The remaining 40 per cent. showed some degree of persistent character abnormality: there were emotionally unstable, 10 per cent. shiftless, 9 per cent. aggressive, 7 per cent. egocentric, 6 per cent. passive and weak, 5 per cent.. and so on. These people shaded gradually into the true psychopathic personality. It was not a sharp transition, but a matter of degree. It follows, I think, /hat criminality, in so far as it is a problem of psychiatry, is largely a problem of what is called the psychopaths. The psychopaths are a group for whom psychiatrists can do least, in our present state of knowledge. Indeed, in an ordinary mental hospital they are often expelled because no-one can help them and because they do so much harm upsetting the other patients. In consequence, they are the group about whose ordinary natural history we are still most ignorant. We do not know the way psychopathy develops over the years, let alone its causes or its proper treatment.
The definition of a psychopath is not easy. Indeed, when we start to describe
526
a psychopath the layman is apt to say, "But that is me that is exactly like I am myself." The fact is that we all have in our own personalities a tincture of psychopathy. Psychopathy appears to be no more or less than the bad features of normal personality written in capital letters and deprived of the compensating good features. Moreover, in childhood and in growing up these bad features are more marked at times, but we grow out of them. Normal people, assuming they are not psychopathic, grow out of these bad features or have them driven out of them at school. For some reason at present unknown, the psychopath does not grow out of them or, having done so, relapses. A simple example is fighting: it is perfectly normal among little boys, but some boys fail to grow out of fighting. It turns later on into bullying, then into aggressive behaviour and finally into criminal assault. Now fighting is very much rarer among little girls— so indeed is bullying and criminal assault.
Another example is lying. Lying is perfectly normal in all young children. Every child tells lies at times, but most of us learn that lying is wrong—or at least that it does not pay. However, there is a small group of people who never learn these lessons and who remain persistent liars. In men these people become psychopathic confidence tricksters: the woman psychopathic liar is mainly concerned with the exploitation of emotions of others and less with direct material benefit. She is much more frequently seen in the mental hospital than in prison. In the most extreme form this condition is known as pseudologia fantastica. It is a condition in which she invents elaborate stories, very often sexual stories, about assaults which have been committed on her, and occasionally she appears in court or causes some other unfortunate person to appear in court. These people are very attractive to novelists. The classic picture is Madame Bovary. Indeed the French refer to the condition as "Bovarism". These women cause just as much misery as the male lying psychopath, but they do not end up in prison. If one is interested in the novelists' picture of the psychopath in the male, the classic one is Stavrogin, the hero of Dostoievsky's The Possessed. He is an unfeeling psychopath who produces the most appalling disasters and himself ends in tragedy.

527
The final example which I take of characteristics which are normal in young children, but which we normally grow out of, but which persist in the psychopath, is laziness. Perhaps the hardest lesson we have to learn is to work. The psychopath refuses to learn this lesson and I think it is general experience that the highest common factor of psychopathy inside or outside prison is laziness. The thief, the prostitute, the trickster or the swindler are all out to get things without the bother of working for them—and what is more, they do not see why they should. If one examines such people one often finds that this laziness has a physical basis as well. They are weak creatures, and it may be that the whole condition has, in fact, a biochemical basis. Your Lordships may say that I have been describing merely bad people—and that, indeed, is what I have been doing. That is what psychopaths are. They are, however, persistently bad people who lack the capacity to learn from experience or from any kind of teaching device which society is normally able to devise.
I believe that the first and greatest problem which we face in research in this field is to obtain a proper natural history of psychopathy. We need to know the full life stories of these people. We know that some factors appear to be important. A home in which there is continuous emotional strain and disharmony is probably worse than one in which there is a straight break and a home in which there is erratic training and discipline is probably worse than one in which there is continuous over-indulgence or stern discipline. But we also know that there are many thousands of young people who grow up into decent folk in spite of these things. We know that breeding is very important indeed in the production of psychopathy and severe criminality. In the case of identical twins, if one twin is a criminal in 70 per cent. of cases the other will also be a criminal. They are, of course, in the same environment. In the case of non-identical twins —also in the same environment—if one is criminal only 30 per cent. of the twins will be criminal. That is the measure of the importance of what the child starts with in the shape of innate endowment.
A start has been made in this difficult problem of studying the natural history
528
of the psychopath. Gibbons, Pond and Stafford-Clark have followed up 72 severely psychopathic criminals and 59 control prisoners for a period of eight years. As expected, the psychopaths had a significantly higher rate of reconviction than the controls, but a surprising feature was that no less than 24 per cent. of the psychopaths had only one or no reconvictions. Those who were not reconvicted were mainly inadequate psychopaths. The aggressive psychopaths almost always offended again, but aggressive psychopaths were far more often convicted of acquisitive than of aggressive crimes. It looks from this as though there are two types of criminal psychopath—the leaders and the led. The led appear to be cured by imprisonment the leaders not. This is borne out by epidemiological studies. The police are very familiar with the fact that certain places are crime spots, as it were. A colleague of mine, Mr. Sidney Chave, has made a detailed study of the way in which crime has developed in an entirely new community. All the houses are exactly the same, and there is no selection of population. Yet, out of the hundreds of streets in this town, it was found that 70 per cent. of all crimes were committed by people living in half a dozen streets. What happened was that there was one particular offender then a little group appeared and spread round him, exactly like the spread of an epidemic of measles. It appears that one bad character leads other weak characters into crime. If only first convicted cases could have been, as it were, isolated, the others might well not have gone wrong.
The other great problem about which a great deal has been said during this debate is the question of the effectiveness of the methods of treatment, and here I want to say something to which I do not think attention has been drawn—that is, the remarkable figures in paragraph 48 of the White Paper which quote from the Annual Report of the Prison Commissioners for 1947. They show that 80 per cent. of men and 89 per cent. of women who were discharged from our prisons in 1953-54 had not returned or come under sentence at the end of 1957 that is, after three years period of exposure to risk. Taking this recovery rate, if one imagined a prison as a hospital for prisoners, this rate of 85 per cent. would be staggering.

529
If we take the results of ordinary hospital care in unselected admissions, they are nothing like so good as this. It is, of course, possible that many people are being sent to prison who ought not to be sent to prison, but I think the noble and learned Lord, Lord Birkett, was more correct when he said that probably this is a rare occurrence.
However, as I say, I think that this is a remarkable therapeutic achievement by the prisons. Perhaps I should not say this. because clearly I have a bias in this matter but from what I have seen, and from what my noble friend Lord Pakenham has said of the staff of the Prison Service, I think this does deserve to be said. I think that their achievement, and that of Her Majesty's Prison Commissioners, as a therapeutic agent, though not as a preventive agent, is very remarkable indeed, in spite of the most difficult conditions and the most difficult buildings.
LORD PAKENHAM:My Lords, I feel sure that my noble friend is aware also of the very high figures of sucess for those who are not sent to prison.
LORD TAYLOR: Yes, certainly but at least we may assume that those who go to prison are perhaps the more severe cases, rather than those not so sentenced, unless the whole sentencing machinery is completely at fault.
Again, in the White Paper it is shown that there is a hard core of persistent recidivists, the leaders of crime who are the aggressive psychopaths—the "toughest nuts" to crack. In 1948 I had the privilege of visiting the Danish prison for criminal psychopaths at Hevstedvester at which Dr. Sturup, a great criminal psychiatrist, is getting some remarkable results. This is a very nice prison indeed physically. It is a beautiful place, but in one respect it is perhaps the toughest prison in the world, since the prisoners are all there for good, unless and until they prove themselves, by persistent good behaviour, fit to return to society. In other words, they have a permanent indeterminate sentence, for these gross criminal psychopaths are the most difficult and, if one may use the word, the wickedest part of the prison population of Denmark. The picture there is sometimes confused, because they collect in this prison, besides the general run of criminal psychopaths, a proportion of sexual offenders who, under Danish law,
530
are liable to be castrated. I asked Dr. Sturup to separate off the figures for sexual offenders from the general figures. When this is done, it is found that the recovery rate apparently as a result of this severe indeterminate sentence is some 50 per cent.
I think it should be said also that the decision about release is not made by the prison authorities, but by a judge who receives the evidence from the prison authorities. I think that that is very important. I feel that it is a responsibility which should not be placed on the prison authorities. I would have reminded the noble and learned Lord. Lord Denning, had he been here, that we already detain under an indeterminate sentence a group of offenders—that is, the criminal lunatics, so-called. They may be detained for life. They may be released at any time, on the advice which the superintendent of Broadmoor or Rampton gives to the Home Secretary. I may say that I do not particularly like an indeterminate sentence. I quote it here as the only known method by which criminal psychopaths can be given the incentive to work towards their own cure. It appears to work in Denmark: more than that, one would not say.
It is proposed to build in this country a psychiatric prison at Grendon Underwood, in Buckinghamshire. If that hospital is used to take neurotics and psychotics who happen to have committed crimes, it will do no more than can be done in any other mental hospital in the country. If, in fact, it is to be run as a research and treatment centre for criminal psychopaths, then it will be the most important step forward in penal work in this country, I believe. for a century.
Finally, one word about the research programme outlined at the end of the White Paper. During the war I had to look after and build up for the Government a social research unit with a budget of £100,000 a year. That unit still exists as part of the machinery of Government under the name of the Social Survey, and the present budget is, I think, about £70,000 a year. There were no inhibitions about spending that money, and social research is expensive. I think this is the sort of budget which is absolutely essential for doing this kind of research work quickly.

531
My noble friend Lord Pakenham said that this work would be undertaken very slowly, too slowly perhaps to give practical results for quick decisions. He is quite right, unless large teams of workers are concentrated on these elaborate statistical projects. We had to have a team of thirty to forty people to analyse the figures, with counting and tabulating machines, on the Social Survey. I do not know how much is spent on the Home Office Research Unit, but I do know that if I were faced with seventeen major research projects, one of which is divided into nine parts, making twenty-five research projects in all, I could not tackle it on under £100,000 a year and get quick results. That is the order of size of budget, and in relation to the importance of the project it is good value that such a unit gives to the Government.
We were able to justify the Social Survey because it saved the Government money. It also enabled planning to take place in any Department of Government where a social survey could give the answer in advance of planning. This is precisely the type of work that the Research Unit of the Home Office should undertake, and I am sure is undertaking but to get the full benefit of social research money must be spent. I think that in relation to the total cost of the Prison Service, these expenditures are very small. I hope that the Government will spend really generously. I heartily support everything in the White Paper and what my noble friend Lord Pakenham has said to-day.
10.20 p.m.
LORD AUCKLAND: My Lords, at this late hour it is not my intention to delay your Lordships for more than a few moments, but speaking as one of the younger Members of your Lordships' House for one, shall remember this debate for many years to come because of the many speeches we have heard coming from wide practical experience. If I single out one for personal praise, it is the speech by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of St. Albans, whose remarks on juvenile delinquency were so sound. It is about juvenile crime that I intend to speak, but first I should like to say that the maximum, "The British police are wonderful ", is as true now as it has ever been. The Police Ser-
532
vice is greatly under strength, but the work the police carry out, not only in the prevention of crime but in the many administrative duties they perform, such as often comforting the bereaved, and in many other ways, is done in the best traditions. I thing it is fitting that this message should go out from your Lordships' House.
The causes of juvenile crime can, I think, be narrowed down to three things: boredom, lack of parental discipline and lack of parental love. It is most important that the relationship between juveniles and the police should he cordial. The young person should be taught, and it should be impressed on him or her time and time again that the policeman and the policewoman are his or her friends. In a great many places, and particularly in Liverpool, the police do valuable work in boys' clubs by talking to the boys and demonstrating various arts to them.
I should like to say a word or two about the county which I know well—namely, Hertfordshire. Listening to a large part of this debate is the Chief Constable of Hertfordshire, with whom I have had a long talk. It is disturbing to read that in Hertfordshire in 1949 the number of indictable offences was 3,753, whereas in 1958 it was 7,516 and crime in that year rose by 21 per cent. Yet in the New Town of Stevenage, near where I lived for several years, only four cases of drunkenness were brought before the courts last year. Bearing in mind the large population of Stevenage now, that is a remarkable achievement.
I had a talk the other Saturday with the chairman of the Stevenage bench, and he told me an interesting story of a lad who came up to him in the High Street, Stevenage, and said: "I want to shake you by the hand, sir." The chairman looked a little startled and said: "I do not know you, but it is very kind of you." The lad then gave the chairman his name and said: "I want to thank you, sir. You sent me down for three months to a detention centre and it has done me more good than anything else. I have now got a good job I am going straight, and I intend to keep going straight." The detention centres do a wonderful job. A few weeks ago I saw a programme on television (possibly some of your Lordships saw it, too) about the work of the detention centre and the way these young people are kept occupied the whole time,

533
with no let-up. They live in spartan comfort they are adequately fed, but they are made to keep at it and there is no question of enforced idleness.
There is one point I should like to mention about the detection particularly of juvenile crime—and possibly the noble Lord who is to wind up this debate may have a few words to say on it—and that is in regard to the use of police dogs. Here again, in Liverpool and in Glasgow this practice has been carried on with considerable success, and gangs of Teddy-boys have been greatly minimised. I served in a unit in the Army which had police dogs their training is far from easy, but the work they do, with their handlers, is most effective, because where a hooligan might mock a policeman, he will think twice about mocking a large police dog. I believe that in the detection and prevention of crime wider use could be made of police dogs.
The cautioning of children by the police is an admirable thing, and often a good stout talk by the local police superintendent will do far more good than dragging the child before a juvenile court. Here again, publicity in revealing the names of juvenile delinquents who are constantly appearing before a court, or who are convicted of a serious offence, can go a long way towards making them reappear.
The Church has done most valuable work in keeping young people out of trouble. In the recent debate on the Youth Services I said a few words about our local church at Ashtead, where I live, and I make no apology for raising the matter again. The young people flock to the church and to the activities run in connection with it, such as dances, socials and outings, with the result that juvenile crime in the area is very small indeed. Finally I feel that we can pay tribute to the work that National Service has done particularly for the Teddy-boy type of person. Not all Teddy-boys are bad. When they get in a gang they are, but on their own, although they may be dressed in what some people regard as a particularly revolting type of clothing, in active service many of them have served their country well. Whatever defects there may be in National Service, it has, I am sure, saved many a lad from prison, or worse.
10.30 p.m.
LORD STONHAM: My Lords, when I saw much earlier today that I was number 19 on the batting list, I realised that it was an unenviable position. Now, seven and a half hours later, I regard it as 'an impossible one not because of what some noble Lords have called "the lateness of the hour"—it ill befalls me, who has not yet said a word, to apologise for the time—but because of the extraordinarily high level of the debate. I doubt whether the quality and experience of the speakers could be paralleled anywhere. No fewer than four former Home Secretaries, either as speakers or as auditors, have taken part two right reverend Prelates two noble and learned Judges a number of sociologists: noble Lords who have spent almost a lifetime in research into crime, and even one noble penologist by marriage. who proved himself to be an experienced and learned psychiatrist in crime in his own right.
I myself have only one claim to speak on this subject, and that is that I am keenly interested in it. But I feel as if my remarks would be those of almost the only layman who has taken part. the only non-member of the "Criminal Club." I hope your Lordships will not regard it as presumption, therefore, if I make one or two comments ion other speeches to which we have listened, because I find myself in the position of winding up for this side of the House.
Several noble Lords, and in particular the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, reterred to the belief that the increase in crime is due in large measure to the decline in moral standards throughout the world. That may well be true, but I doubt whether our generation is in a position to judge on the basic morals and religious standards of the generation of today, any more than our parents were in a position to judge accurately on us. I do not believe that it is a question of decline 'of basic moral standards throughout the world, and I was singularly unimpressed by the one example given by the noble Viscount, Lord Temple-wood, that of events in Tibet as an example of the decline in moral standards. What is happening in Tibet has never struck me as an example of Chinese juvenile delinquency: it seemed to me something very much more important.

535
I think the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, was much more to the point when she laid such stress on the fact that far more than half the total number of offences recorded are motoring offences, which is one result of the higher standards of living, because more people are in possession of means of locomotion by the internal combustion engine. Therefore it is not that there are more irresponsible or criminally minded people, but that more people have in their hands something which can become a lethal weapon. The noble Baroness also said something which I thought was quite unanswerable, or at least unexceptionable that if the boys behaved like girls and the men like women, there would be little need for police courts and prisons. The only difficulty is that she would not like it and neither should I. There would be no need for any world at all, and therefore that is scarcely a cure for the problems which confront us.
For the third time since I came to your Lordships' House I find myself impelled to speak in a debate on a Motion moved by my noble friend Lord Pakenham. Once again I find myself voicing warm approval of the sentiments he has expressed and the proposals he has put forward. It is therefore almost a relief to he able to disagree with one of his suggestions. My noble friend, in rightly stressing the vital importance of providing work for prisoners, urged the Government to set up an Advisory Council representing employers and trade unions. I hope they will do no such thing, because I cannot see it serving any useful purpose, and in my view it would be a waste of time.
To some extent the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Kilmuir, supported my noble friend when he drew attention to the fact that in some areas committees have been set up with employers and trade unionists. I feel, from at least twenty years' experience in trying to persuade employers and trade unions to provide work for prisoners, that it is doomed to failure, because the Government have been consulting the employers and trade unions at top level for the last fifteen months, and they have got precisely nowhere because, almost by definition, both bodies find it impossible at ground level to justify to their members competition from prison labour. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor
536
mentioned the decline in agricultural employment outside prisons. That is for the very reasons I have given. I am glad to see that the Government are taking concrete steps. Fortunately, compared with the national economy the problem is a very small one and in my view can be solved simply, but only if it is taken out of the field of normal competition. My noble friend has indicated that I hope in a few weeks' time to discuss this matter in detail if I am fortunate enough to bring to debate the Motion which stands in my name, so I will not pursue it further today.
Much as I concede what has been said about the factors responsible for the increase in crime by young persons, I wish to support my noble friend in what he has said about the major reasons, or what I regard as the major reason, for the high incidence of crime in Britain today: that is, the gross overcrowding in most prisons and the consequent impossibility of any real attempt at rehabilitation. I was very glad to hear the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, say that the Government do not for one moment agree that the increase in crime is due to emphasis on rehabilitation. But, warmly as we all welcome the proposals in Command Paper 645, I feel (and I do not think that this has been stressed at all in the debate) that before we commit ourselves to the building of more security prisons—I stress the word "security" prisons—we should first consider whether enough is being done to keep people out of prison, and, secondly, once they are inside, whether the treatment is designed to ensure that they do not go back.
My noble friend Lord Taylor mentioned mental hospitals. For some years, as chairman of the mental health committee of a Regional Board, I was responsible for some 17,000 mental and mentally-deficient patients in about 100 hospitals. All the hospitals were grossly overcrowded in the best the conditions were sub-standard in the worst they were deplorable. I found that some 25 per cent. of the elderly patients should never have been sent there in the first place. We bought some country houses and converted them, and provided 500 beds and filled them by de-certifying 500 mental hospital patients whose only disability was age. Mention was made of the fact that more elderly women than men were in mental hospitals. One reason is because there are more helpless old women whose only crime is being old

537
and who should not have been in the hospitals.
In my view, the position is exactly the same in Her Majesty's prisons: wrong classification of inmates, resulting in wrong treatment, overcrowding and, of course, unsuitable buildings. This results not merely in waste of public money but in meagre results in the rehabilitation of offenders. If by more prisons we mean more of what someone called "crenellated Bastilles", with jangling keys and iron bars and rows of cage-like cells, or even something of the same principle or character, then I say that we want not more but fewer prisons. In their place we want houses of treatment, suited to the offence and the offender, where the programme is always diagnosis, treatment and rehabilitation. There is no reason why existing buildings should not be acquired much more cheaply for certain types of prison. If we were threatened with a 20th century plague we should not put people in a pest-house. Why should we continue to put people who should not be there in the modern pest-houses, the conventional prisons?
At the same time we should inquire whether our Judges and magistrates are making full use of the laws which have been designed to avoid the necessity of sending certain offenders to prison. In that connection, I was most interested in what the noble and learned Lord. Lord Birkett, said, and I was very pleased indeed that he jettisoned his carefully prepared speech, because I think that nothing could possibly have been better than the half-hour that we had "off the cuff" from his wonderfully stocked mind of forty years' experience. He indicated what was generally the judicial attitude not so long ago to penal reform.
I am wondering, from what I know of the subject myself, why it is that certain offenders are still sent to prison when laws have been provided that that should not be. For example, how is the Act working which gives powers to attach the payment of court orders to wages and salaries, instead of sending defaulters to prison? Use of that Act should relieve our prisons of hundreds of guests annually, and also compel these undesirable people to meet their financial obligations to society. Then there is the First Offenders Act, of which I had the honour
538
to move the Third Reading in another place. We had high hopes of this Act, but I have had cases come to my notice recently which have left me in doubt.
Only last week a young Post Office clerk suddenly yielded to temptation and extracted £100 from his takings. He took the money home his wife was horrified and shocked, and persuaded him to take it back. This he did the next morning. The theft and the replacement were, of course, discovered the man was, quite properly, charged and convicted and on March 2 he was sentenced to six weeks' imprisonment. It was quite an ordinary, pathetic, sordid little story, except for the fact that for eight years this young couple had been saving up to emigrate to Australia. At long last their turn had come. They were due to sail on March 17. They had sold their home, and they were all ready to leave. Now they have lost their chance and, unless I can get them another, they may have lost it altogether. It is easy to say that he brought it all on himself. Of course he did. But the consequences are far greater than the six weeks imprisonment, the punishment for his crime for which full restitution was made even before he was charged. All those facts were known to the magistrate when he passed sentence. Surely that is the type of case for which the First Offenders Act was expressly designed. It is an essential part of our British system of government that the Judiciary should be kept completely separate from the Executive, but I respectfully ask the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor to do what he can to see that these Acts are brought fully to the notice of those who should administer them and that, so far as is possible, they are universally administered.
Another category that we should remove from our ordinary prisons are the various types of human derelicts who represent a sizeable proportion of the population of our prisons. On Monday, when I visited Pentonville, I found 1,203 prisoners crowded into accommodation which at the minimum of human decency is sufficient only for 900 men. There had been eleven new admissions on Saturday morning. All but one of them were serving from seven days to three months. Of what earthly use for such people is such a seven-days' sentence, as a deterrent, a punishment or for the purpose of reformation? In that prison hundreds are

539
living and sleeping three to a cell and accommodation, for recreation, work and training, is strained absolutely to the point of uselessness. It may well be because other facilities which should be there are not there, and that magistrates do not know what to do with these people, but I believe that decisions on those points are of far greater importance even than a programme for building four new security prisons.
Those 1,203 prisoners include every conceivable type of criminal, from reprieved murderers to habitual drunkards. All are held under maximum security conditions by only 90 overworked prison officers. We must ask ourselves: which of those 1,203 should not be there? Take the drunkards. They usually arrive in a deplorable condition. They are cleaned, and a week or two afterwards they go out of prison with a new rig-out and a little money. It is not long before they pawn their clothes and come back. And so the process goes on. There are many other types of nuisance offenders who are enemies not of society but of themselves. They clutter up the prisons and impede officers in the task of dealing with the rehabilitation of those who have committed serious crimes.
Then consider some of those men who, as habitual criminals, are sentenced from seven to ten years' preventive detention. I know men now serving such sentences whose last crime was stealing an article worth less than 20s. and whose whole criminal career has been a succession of such petty offences. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, speaking of other cases, said that a sentence must be one such as can be approved by the ordinary public. I say that sentences of from seven to ten years on these human derelicts who have never done more (even if they have done it often) than steal something worth £1 cannot be approved by public opinion.
LORD PAKENHAM: Hear, hear!
LORD STONHAM: I say that to immure a man for one fifth of his adult life for such offences is worse than transportation. On a recent visit to Parkhurst, in the Isle of Wight, I found only 500 prisoners in residence, and an excellently appointed. 90-bed hospital, with three full-time doctors in attendance. When I commented on the size of the hospital—
540
90 beds in relation to 500 prisoners—and the fact that half the beds were devoted to mental cases, I was told that everyone who comes to Parkhurst is either physically or mentally sick. Then I was shown, with great pride, the crowning glory of the prison, the geriatric ward. The doctor actually said, "Come and see our geriatric ward." It was just an ordinary hospital ward, with the windows open and the sunshine streaming in, but there were no occupants. for the "old boys" were all out pottering about on their various occasions.
Why give such senile derelicts ten years in a maximum security prison where control is of such superlative character that no man has escaped from that prison in the last eight years? In that same prison one could talk to quiet, middle-aged prisoners, who may be in charge of libraries or mess halls. They speak yearningly of their impending return, a year or two hence, to their old homes but as they talk on one learns that they have not been home for twenty-five years. They have no kin, and they have been forgotten by any friends they ever had. Then one knows that they are dreaming of something which has never existed, and that they will soon be back again in prison because that is the only place in which they have known an orderly sheltered existence the only place where they are somebody, and where they have known something approaching happiness. But they should not be put there at our expense, in a place of clanging bars, snappy salutes and "Working party of five all correct, Sir!"
That is not the place for such people. When such men and other types I have mentioned are convicted they should be classified by doctors and probation officers, and if detention is considered necessary in the public interest it should be in a colony where they can be under ordinary discipline and (I think this is most important) where, so far as possible, they will be obliged to earn their keep. For this type of offender, and indeed, in my view, for any offender, the present system of preventive detention is hopelessly wrong, a gross waste of public money, and it helps strain the prison system to breaking point. By not giving prison sentences to many first offenders, by ending this madness of maximum security prisons for derelicts, geriatrics

541
and misfits, I believe that we could considerably reduce our prison population, probably by one-third or more, and this would provide room to breathe and enable us really to get down to the task of reforming those who comprise the hard criminal core.
I do not share the view that the reform of hardened criminals is a hopeless task. First, we can state the fact that over the age of forty-five there is, in any case, a sharp drop in reconvictions. Then there is the fact that more than 50 per cent. of habitual criminals who have been given their third stage under the Bristol system have not been reconvicted; and thirdly, there is my own experience. During the last three or four years I have been in touch with seven detainees while they were in prison, all serving a sentence from seven to ten years. Their ages varied from thirty-seven to fifty-five. They were all habitual criminals, all frustrated and bitter, and making the type of allegation against prison officers and against society Which men in such circumstances do make.
They were sufficiently troublesome to be kept on the "A" list, the escape list. They were a selection of real "bad hats". I never minced words with them in my visits to the prison; but once their confidence was restored, perhaps by the adjustment of a grievance when they were right, or an explanation when they were wrong, it proved possible to give them hope and a determination to make good when they were released. Not one of these men was given the third stage. They have all been out for more than a year. They are all working in steady jobs and I do not think they are going back. I have another crowd coming along. It is a small sample and proves nothing but that it can be done; and perhaps also that the worst have some honour and will keep their word to an individual who shows some faith in them.
Perhaps there could be, if preventive detention is to continue (and I hope it is not), a shortening of the period of first stage spent in local prisons, and then the stepping-up of training facilities in the second stage, and finally a great increase in facilities in the third stage. This one-third, instead of one-quarter, remission is tremendously prized by the men, and the real hope of it is sufficient in most cases to make a man do well in training and go straight afterwards. Indeed, the third
542
stage is an integral part of the preventive detention system, but in effect the men are not getting it: they are getting the ten years, but not the rehabilitation. I think, therefore, that they are not merely getting the worst of the bargain; they are not getting the bargain which Parliament intended they should have. At present so few men achieve the prize of the third stage that there is created a feeling of injustice and resentment which often has disastrous consequences.
Finally, my Lords, I should like to add to what my noble friend Lord Pakenham and others, particularly Lord Denning, said about the treatment of medium- and long-sentence prisoners on release. Aftercare is grossly inadequate, and will remain so despite the increases mentioned in the White Paper; so inadequate that it is, in fact, a miracle if these men go straight. After seven or eight years of regimented existence they go into a world which is strange. While in prison their homes may have broken up; their marriages may have broken up; and such friends as they still possess are people of doubtful character. It is imperative that they should be helped into a job and into suitable lodgings. Spiritually, they are like men immured in darkness who come out blinking in a strong light. They need positive help for the first few weeks; yet we treat them as if we wanted them to go back to prison.
All that happens when a man is released from prison is that he is given a new suit—which can be recognised a long way off—a ticket or railway warrant to his home, and 10s., sometimes 20s. I have had men released from Parkhurst at about eight o'clock in the morning, perhaps going to Manchester or the North of England, who have come to see me here and have arrived at about 4 o'clock. They come not to borrow anything but merely to renew verbally a pledge that they have given in writing; or perhaps to plead on behalf of somebody still left behind; or to make a complaint about conditions which no longer affect them but which they think should be put right. I have had the thought that that man is going to Manchester, that he has got what is left of 10s. in his pocket, and that he will get there at about ten or eleven o'clock at night with enough for a sandwich and perhaps a night's "doss". What is he going to do? If he needs more, he can, of course, apply for

543
National Assistance. I accept fully what the noble and learned Viscount said about that, but it is the case that these men do not get that information. In many cases these arrangements are not made for them to go to lodgings, and the accommodation is not ready. That is something that must he remedied.
Then there is the question of jobs to go to. One can see the wonderful work that is being done in these prisons, with men being trained to "City and Guilds" standards. When I was at Parkhurst I asked the instructors there: "Do you know any of your men who go to jobs for which they are trained? ", and not one of them could tell me of a single case. This is not the fault of the aftercare officers: they do their utmost in a devoted way on pitiful means. There is a visit by a Ministry of Labour officer a month before a man is released, but the men are not persuaded or pressed to go into the jobs for which they have been trained. Jobs should be found for them. If you go into Pentonville Prison they will tell you that if a "regular" who has been released is not in work within two weeks he starts looking for ways to go back to prison. He gives up. He does not apply at the nearest police station saying, "Please take me back"—he goes and does a job. That is why nine out of ten indictable crimes are larceny or housebreaking, and why those offences show the largest increase in indictable crimes—because the men are not getting a proper chance.
I say, my Lords, that this 10s. dole is a crime against the men and against society. All the protestations and White Papers are useless unless we do something about money and jobs to get these people over the first few weeks. I am certain that if we classify offenders in the ways I have suggested if we then train them according to their abilities and if, on release, we see that they go to the jobs for which they have been trained, our prison population will shrink to a size well within the capacity of the present Prison Service. What is vastly more important, we shall, whilst keeping the grey ones out of the pest house, give even the black sheep a chance to build their lives anew, and we shall be taking the most effective possible action to reduce crime in Britain.
10.58 p.m.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, there now comes a moment, rather late in the night, when, for my part, I am extremely proud to be winding up for the Government this extremely valuable debate which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has initiated. I feel that the noble Lord will understand me when I say that I am perhaps not quite so happy to do it in view of the many diverse, profound, and respected experts who have taken part in the debate prior to myself.
As to my first task, your Lordships may remember that the duty was laid upon me to refer in some detail to the question of juvenile delinquency and I would, even at this time, ask a little indulgence while I examine the extent of the problem, and while I refer, as I must, to a certain number of the statistics. Those for 1957 show a continuance of the upward trend, which began in 1955, in the number of persons under 21 convicted or found guilty of offences. The rise was in both indictable and non-indictable offences, among both sexes, and in almost every annual age group under 21.
In the age group 17 to 21 the number of offenders has increased, although the population in that age group is slightly less than it was in 1938. In that year, the number of persons of this group convicted per 100,000 was 767. By 1957, it was 1,555, an increase of more than 100 per cent.
The generation which was born in the years 1935–36 to 1941–42, and was aged between 17 and 21 in 1957, has shown throughout its career a higher degree of delinquency than its predecessors but, in addition to this, it has produced in its late adolescence an amount of delinquency even higher than its earlier record had led us to expect. A generation normally produces its peak of delinquency at the age of 14, and the fact that this generation has produced a further peak at 17 is a new factor, the significance of which I do not think has yet properly appeared. I do not know whether it is peculiar to this generation or whether it will be reproduced in future generations whose record, to which I shall shortly come, has so far been considerably better.
So far as juveniles are concerned, the increase in the amount of delinquency in

545
the years I have mentioned is partly due to the higher birth rate in the years from 1942 onwards. Even when allowance is made for the population bulge, however, there is still a marked increase in the number of children found guilty of some offences. Out of every 100,000 of the ages 14 to 17 in 1938, 1,131 were found guilty in that year. The corresponding figure for 1957 is 2,058, an increase of 85 per cent. With younger children there has been a similar rise, though not so steep. Out of every 100,000 between the ages of 8 to 14, 798 were found guilty in 1938 and 1,091 in 1957, an increase of 36 per cent.
I said that the upward trend began in 1955. The wave of juvenile delinquency, as most of your Lordships probably know, has fluctuated since the war at fairly regular intervals, rising to its highest peak in 1957, with lower peaks in 1944 and 1948, and particularly low troughs in 1954 and 1955. In general, things were really no worse and no better in 1957 than they were in 1951, though in one respect—that is, in the number of boys between 14 and 17 who were found guilty of indictable offences—1957 was the worst year since the war. No one can offer any good explanation of this ebb and flow, but we have to recognise that it exists, that the situation has been almost as bad before and that the tide may easily turn once more. There is no sign that it has turned yet, or that it soon will. The only comfort I can find is taken from the fact that children under the age of 14 have a better record at present than their predecessors, who are the ones who now cause us so much anxiety as young adults.
So far I have dealt in statistics, and I think that we have had a fair number of statistics today. I personally always think statistics are like artificial fertilisers: you cannot get your best results without them, but it is a mistake to think that they grow the crop for you. Consequently, there is a general point that I should like to make about what I have just been saying that is, that we should be careful about accepting statistics entirely at their face value as the true measure of delinquency, particularly when comparing prewar and post-war figures.
If I may take an example, in 1938 only half as many boys under 14 were found guilty of indictable offences as in 1951. I do not doubt that in 1951 that age group did commit more offences, but I
546
do not think one can correspondingly draw the conclusion that boys in that age group were twice as wicked in that year or committed twice as many indictable offences as their predecessors before the war. The statistics reflect changes in custom for which we cannot allow offences by children are, I feel sure, more readily reported to the police than they used to be, and I think it may well be, too, that the police are more ready than they previously were to bring the offenders before the juvenile court. And there are other somewhat imponderable factors which must have affected the figures but for which we cannot really allow. I think we are entitled to conclude that things are not quite so bad as they would appear to be from a simple reading of the statistics. That, I think, is sufficient about the extent of that problem.
The Government have no wish to underestimate its seriousness, and I can tell your Lordships that we fully appreciate the concern that the public feel about it, as has been voiced by several noble Lords during the course of this debate. We are anxious to make any necessary improvements in our system to deal with juvenile offenders, and we are waiting with interest to see what conclusions are reached by the Departmental Committee which is sitting under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Ingleby. That Committee has a long and difficult task, and I understand that it may be several months before it is able to submit its report.
I would agree that it is for the Government to punish crime, but the Government have only a limited part to play in dealing with its cause. It is only now, I think, that we are beginning to realise just how limited a part this is. For example, as my noble friend Lord Temple-wood (unfortunately, he has ihad to leave, having recently had influenza) told us, most people used to think that factors such as poverty, bad housing, and inadequate educational and social services were the main underlying causes. They must be contributory factors, and I have no doubt that they have been of greater importance in some times and places than in others. But they cannot be the whole story, because juvenile delinquency, rather like other forms of delinquency, has increased at a time when material prosperity and social welfare have improved. That itself, as my noble friend

547
Lord Templewood and other noble Lords have indicated, may be significant. But I will return to that point in a few minutes.
More recently, we have assumed that war-time experience has played an important part, and there has been some support for this theory by the discovery that children who reached the age of 4 between 1939 and 1945 have been appreciably more prone to delinquency than might have been expected on statistical probabilities. But most of these children are now 17, and still the figures for juvenile delinquency in the younger age groups have continued to rise. It would certainly be reasonable to assume that the causes of juvenile crime are more deeply rooted than was perhaps once thought. I would think they are so deeply rooted as to be largely beyond the reach of Government action. That is why, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor told us, our right honourable friend the Home Secretary earlier this year asked for that conference of leading churchmen and others who were prominent in public life and the voluntary services to assemble to meet him and discuss the causes of crime. In other words, he is endeavouring to arrive at that working hypothesis which the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, recommends as a point from which to start.
May I now say a word for a moment on the treatment of young offenders for which the proposals in the White Paper have. I think, found general acceptance? They are proposals designed to create a system of treatment for young offenders wholly separate from the prison system for adults, and one in which there will be the fullest possible scope for fuller and individual training, without any loss of the deterrent effect of the deprivation of liberty. The details of these proposals are still being considered by the Advisory Council on the Treatment of Offenders, and the question of introducing legislation to put them into practice will be considered in the light of the Council's Report. I must again he honest, and say that putting them into practice will depend not only on the introduction of that legislation, but also on the provision of the necessary establishments, particularly the detention centres, and all this is hound to take some little time.
548
I will now turn for a moment or two away from the general problem of juvenile delinquency, because I want to say a little about offensive weapons, which was a matter interestingly brought up by the noble Lord, Lard Pakenham. It is sometimes suggested that a useful purpose would be served if the manufacture and sale of some articles used as weapons could be either prohibited or controlled in such a way as to keep them out of the hands of those who had no legitimate use for them. If an attempt is made to deal with a particular article or range of articles in this way, difficulties arise over definition, and perhaps even over the need to make provision for legitimate use. Even if these difficulties could be overcome, and supplies of a particular article could be cut off, there would remain always a thousand-and-one other things which could be used as weapons instead.
The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, diverted us highly by his exhibition of strange implements which he brought into the House. I am not sure whether I understood him aright, but I gathered that in fact they were obtained as a result of the campaign conducted by the daily newspaper of which he rightly approves, because anything which will stop horrible weapons coming into the hands of juveniles must be a good thing. I rather gathered that they came in as a result of that.
LORD PAKENHAM: That is right—on the way to Scotland Yard.
LORD CHESHAM: I do not know how the noble Lord stood on the question of Order when he produced those to the House, but it seemed to me that if he could "get away" with it, I could. It so happens that this morning I collected something that had already reached Scotland Yard and had been taken off a juvenile delinquent. With your Lordships' permission, I would show you this article which I have here—no doubt out of Order—and which I brought for your Lordships to see. It is a pity that there are not a few more of your Lordships to see it. I shall be pleased to demonstrate it outside the Chamber, at the termination of the debate. I did that because I think it is necessary to have a word on flick-knives, because they are regarded as being a particularly dangerous weapon. This one in my pocket has been

549
extremely crudely but effectively filed to increase the sharpness of the blade, as any noble Lord may afterwards see. It is thought that it can be easily defined as of no essential use and as particularly attractive to young persons.
Before I go on, a point of passing interest is that the flick-knife is thought to he a very new innovation. In point of fact, it is mentioned by Dickens, in Martin Chuzzlewit, who refers to an American swindler called Scadder as picking his teeth with a knife of this description. So there is very little new under the sun. There is a Bill, as your Lordships know, by a Private Member in another place, and it has received a Second Reading. It is designed to prohibit the manufacture and sale of flick-knives. I know that your Lordships will not expect me to say anything about the merits of the Bill itself, but I think it is fair for me to say that the contribution which legislation of this sort, in particular, could make to the reduction in crimes of violence would not be great because of the wide variety of weapons that can be used. As an example, in the Metropolitan Police District in 1958, out of 2,857 persons concerned in crimes of violence, or with being in possession of offensive weapons, only 65 of them had flick-knives.
Noble Lords have asked me various questions, and perhaps since we have been speaking of offensive weapons I had better answer first that of the noble Lord, Lord Winster, who asked me a specific question—I see he has not stayed to hear the answer—about sanitary arrangements, which he criticised bitterly. The Prison Commissioners have for the past two years been engaged on an extensive programme of modernisation which will, within the next few years, have provided prisons with a system of sanitation that the Prison Commissioners believe will have removed most or all of the present grounds of criticism.
Most of the remainder of the questions seem to have "Lord Stonham" written at the top, and I will take those next. I know that the noble Lord will not expect me to enter into a long discussion with him at this time of night on the subject of the preventive detention system which he spent a little time criticising, but I would briefly draw his attention
550
to paragraph 77 of the White Paper which, as he probably knows, promises a review of that system.
He sought to draw our sympathy over a case of a first offender. It does sometimes happen that first offenders who come before the higher courts are charged with offences of some seriousness. The example I had jotted down happens to be exactly the example that the noble Lord quoted—offences involving serious breaches of trust. There are probably times when the court feels that it has no alternative but to impose a sentence of imprisonment. I would completely agree with the noble Lord that it is necessary that courts should be in possession of as much information as is possible about first offenders. But I would say to him that I thought his defence of the case (if I may call it that) tended rather to try to exonerate this unfortunate man, when he had so much to lose, from not taking a little more care in the matter.
LORD STONHAM: Will the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I said—and if he will do me the honour to read what I said in Hansard he will be able to confirm it—that the man was quite rightly charged and convicted. I am fully aware that people like postmen and other civil servants who commit a breach of trust are normally, in cases like this, sentenced to six or twelve months' imprisonment. This man was given only six weeks' imprisonment. Obviously, the magistrate took that into consideration. In such circumstances the First Offenders Act lays on the magistrate the charge to see whether other means can be found.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I am sorry perhaps I took the noble Lord a little wrongly. I was left with the feeling that he was indicating that this man had had rather bad luck. Turning to the new prisons which the noble Lord mentioned, I would say that these will not be "crenellated Bastilles" they will be designed in a much more constructive way, to express and carry out—I always think that this sounds rather artistic—modern thought on penal treatment generally.
Now I must turn to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald, who I am extremely glad to see is in his place. I regret to say that there is only one point on which I can agree with him in what

551
he said, and that is his opening remark, when he said that what he was going to say was not in the best of taste. I would go further. I consider that in his speech, whatever may have been his intention, he has managed to perpetrate a grave disservice to the police force. I hope that it will not go out from this House that we associate ourselves in any way with what he has said, because, as I say, whatever he was trying to do, he gave the impression that he was criticising and attacking police methods in this country, and he was doing so as a generalisation. It seemed to me that he was carrying out his attack and criticism largely by unsubstantiated allegation, casting considerable doubt on the integrity of the force as a whole.
LORD ST. OSWALD: Has my noble friend finished?
LORD CHESHAM: No, I have not finished. I have some more to say. Perhaps the noble Lord would prefer me to do so. This allegation which, in my view, does a grave disservice to the police force is based apparently on nothing more than hearsay evidence that he has obtained from his friends. The noble Lord invited me to challenge him if I liked. Well, I do like. I simply do not think that any of your Lordships would wish it to go out from this House that allegations can be made against the police on any such flimsy evidence. I would say finally, in regard to the last case, about which he did give direct details in regard to one side, that if he thinks that there is a miscarriage of justice in some way, there are rules under which statements are obtained and it is his plain and positive duty to bring the case to the notice of the chief constable or of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, and not to produce it in your Lordships' House.
LORD ST. OSWALD: My Lords, I must say I am somewhat at a loss to understand why my noble friend should take my remarks entirely out of context and give an entirely unbalanced version of the speech I made. Of one thing I am quite positive, and on this I am perfectly prepared to accept a challenge: that those who resent bad and corrupt policemen most fiercely are the great majority of the police force, who are absolutely honest and incorruptible. I
552
will make so bold as to say to my noble friend that that small and damaging minority of corrupt policemen will not he rooted out by any official determination to deny their existence.
LORD CHESHAM: My Lords, I can quite easily accept what the noble Lord has now said, but if he reads his Hansard to-morrow, as no doubt he will, he will find that he has given the impression of building up a very strong case affecting the police generally as a whole. That is how it struck me, and apparently it struck other noble Lords in the same way. We will say no more about it at the moment, but if my words seem to the noble Lord somewhat strong I use them only because, as I understood what he said, I consider they are justified.
There remains one highly important area of ground which many noble Lords have trodden to-day, some lightly, some more boldly, and perhaps my noble friend Lord Templewood boldest of all. I mean by this the concept of crime and its relationship to sin. I want to tread this ground a little, even if my steps may be slightly blundering ones. The noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, finished his speech with a quotation from the XVth Chapter of St. Luke in what I thought was well judged support of his plea for the treatment of prisoners. I have been more pleased to hear as much, or in fact a good deal more, and not least from the right reverend Prelates who have now returned to their sees, which might be based upon the XXth Chapter of Exodus. For those of your Lordships who have temporarily forgotten it, I may say that the first seventeen verses contain the Ten Commandments.
I have referred to the age group from 17 to 21 as showing the largest increase in criminal tendencies, and I think we should consider what has happened in the years since 1938, the years in which they grew up and were educated in the broadest sense. In doing so we must remember that these considerations are not applicable to them alone but will certainly colour the criminal tendencies of people of any age. It does not need me to remind your Lordships of the slackening of moral values that takes place in war time. As we all know, it is inevitable, through the cheapening of human life, the destruction of property, and the lowering of moral values through

553
desperation and frustration and the general feeling of there being no foreseeable future.
At the end of six years of war such activities generally known as "scrounging" or "winning" things became suddenly respectable. After the war there was inevitably a period of intense materialism—a period of personal struggle for people in which the only thing that really mattered was to rebuild their personal material position in life. During that period, as indeed during the war period, people got very used to being provided for in various ways. The noble Viscount., Lord Templewood, suggested that one factor contributing to the increase in crime among children and young people had been the growth of the Welfare State. So far as I can recall, he implied that we might have gone too far in taking over from parents the responsibility that they should bear for the welfare of their children.
The Government would certainly agree with the noble Viscount that there is a real danger in this. There always have been parents who were selfish and neglectful, but in recent years there seems to have been a tendency for some parents to feel that bringing up children is more an expert's job than it used to be and that the social services exist to provide experts who can do the job rather better than the parents themselves. This is, I certainly hope, no more than a tendency. Most parents realise that no social service can provide any substitute for their own love and care. But the point is that we must be on our guard to ensure that the social services are designed and administered in such a way as to give the least possible excuse for parents to shirk their own proper responsibilities for bringing up their own children.
There arose too, it seemed to me, in those post-war years, a new concept of man-to-man relationships, an emergent, if not very well-considered, equality, if you like to call it that and in many ways it took the form of rejection of the disciplines of life and of proper consideration to other people, which, when it is taken to an extreme, leads to a phenomenon that many of us have noticed, and that is an apparent lack of sympathy with any who might be victims of crimes, particularly crimes of violence. At that lime respect for others, either
554
for their person or for their rights, was neither sought nor taught and the tendency to rejection of social obligations and discipline extended not only to fellow citizens but to authority generally, except of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said, when people wanted to use it for some purpose.
I have said that, my Lords, because I believe it to be an important part of the causes of crime but, like anyone else, I am really more interested in the cure. I only stated those facts because I wanted to emphasise the action which I think is necessary for us all to take in the long run. To-day it is a popular conception, or perhaps I should call it a misconception, that the Government of the day are responsible for everything. One has, in fact, only to look at the subjects which are sometimes put down for Motions and for Questions in your Lordships' House and in another place to see that. We have heard to-day that various noble Lords and Ladies think that more could and should be done by the Government. We have also heard what the Government propose to do and of their awareness of the necessity not to do too little or too late.
The Government cannot do this thing alone. It will require a gigantic operation of the State in the form of the Government—and by Government I mean both central and local government by the Churches by the voluntary societies and last, but certainly not least, by an increase—or perhaps the word I should use is uplift—in the moral responsibility of the people as individuals that is, the true realisation and linking of crime in its proper relationship to sin. Only then, my Lords, can crime be reduced and diminished and only then can our present deep anxieties be put at rest.
11.34 p.m.
LORD PAKENHAM: My Lords, I know that I shall be speaking for all who are here and all who read his speech when I congratulate the noble Lord on his admirable reply in these difficult circumstances and at what is certainly a genuinely late hour and he also, if I may say so, apart from bringing the debate to a conclusion, displayed a delightful vein of honour which I hope he will never be slow to exploit in this House. It will always be very acceptable.
I rise simply in order to thank all those who have taken part in this debate. I

555
suppose I had better confine myself to those who are here, and I feel inclined to congratulate those who have not taken part even more than those who have, because to sit here for nine hours without speaking seems to me an almost greater purgatory than to sit here for nine hours with a speech thrown in. I can only say, although I will not promise, that I hope to do the same for other noble Lords on other occasions by keeping silent myself—though perhaps that is too much to expect.
I should like to thank the noble Lord. Lord Stonham, for winding up so admirably from our side. When I heard him speak, some words came to me from a book written by a prisoner who had had a very long sentence passed upon him—"life plus 99 years," as they call it in America—but who had received a great deal of help. He asked himself somewhere in that book: "What claim have I on all these people who are trying to help me?" He answered the question himself, saying, "Only the greatness of my need". However, that is apparently enough for all champions, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, showed himself a real champion of the prisoner and so did many other noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. I cannot agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stonham, about the Advisory Committee, but perhaps that is something which we can hammer out between ourselves in private.
Then I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor. While he was speaking I could not help but think of all those distinguished men in the picture of the House of Lords in 1893. Your Lordships will be aware of that picture, where the House is throwing out the second Home Rule Bill by 419 votes to 21, I think. I could not help wondering what those distinguished men would have thought of a discussion taking place in your Lordships' House between a female sociologist of great distinction and a professional psychiatrist who is domiciled in prison. I think it would have made them sit up even more than the second Home Rule Bill of 1893. However, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, who made a most interesting speech, as did many other noble Lords. I should also like to say "Thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Auckland, for a most interesting address, as I failed to
556
do after he had made another most interesting speech when we were discussing youth not so long ago.
I find myself a little embarrassed in dealing adequately with the noble Lord, Lord St. Oswald. It may well be that when we read that speech we shall all feel, including the noble Lord himself, that it is one of those things which ought to have been done differently. However, I am the last to condemn the noble Lord nor have I any right to do so. I recall that the noble Lord told me that he was going to speak about certain aspects of police methods that worried him, and I said: "Why not? Go ahead". So if any castigation is to be meted out, then, if I may put it crudely, he and I must bend over together. However, I think that on reflection the noble Lord will consider that it was one of those things which perhaps ought to have been done differently—but, then, of what speech is that not true? It is certainly true of any speech that I have ever made.
I cannot mention all the speakers, of course, but I should like to say how typically unselfish it was of the noble Viscount, Lord Templewood, to take part in this debate and to speak on his Motion when suffering from the effects of influenza. I think the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, should also be thanked, because I know he is still a sick man. The debate was strengthened very much on this occasion by the presence of the Bishops and by what I think has been a novelty—the very weighty contribution of the two Judges. Lord Denning spoke brilliantly, as always, and Lord Birkett made a tremendous impression, as all of us who listened to him are aware. He has that unique power of addressing any gathering in a charming and apparently light-handed way, and yet going, one feels, right to the heart of the matter.
I also feel that my noble friend Lord Nathan set a record which it is going to be very difficult to beat in this House, of offering £150,000 from the Front Bench. It is going certainly beyond the capacity of most of us on this side, and although I know noble Lords opposite are sometimes better breeched, it is perhaps going to extend them fully. We were told by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor, in his very important speech, that the Government were doing better in research this year they were spending

557
five times as much as in last year. That would be five times £3,000, making £15,000. The noble Lord, Lord Nathan, has offered ten times that figure almost "off the cuff" and we must congratulate him on a record that is likely to stand through all time.
The only other speakers to whom I think I should refer now are the Ministers. Certainly we must thank the Government collectively for providing us with such a strong team. I have already thanked the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, and I can assure the noble and learned Viscount and the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, that if I am ungenerous towards the Government I hope I shall not fail to recognise the very serious and thorough way in which they dealt with all the points raised today. I do not feel that in terms of debate, any of the difficult issues could have been better handled, and I thank them for the way they looked after us so nobly this afternoon.
It would be humbug to say that I am satisfied with the present situation. I repeat that I feel, as so many of us feel, that a great revolution in thought and action is necessary in regard to penal
558
reform, and still more perhaps in regard to after-care. But I can assure the noble and learned Viscount and the other Ministers who spoke that if the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary are initiating a great crusade to bring an altogether new atmosphere into dealing with prison reform—I do not speak for anyone but myself, but in so far as I do represent anybody I can assure them of this—both in virtue of the offices that they hold and of the great personal esteem felt towards them here and elsewhere, the response is not likely to fail. I hope that they will feel that that is a genuine tribute. I repeat my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this memorable, as I think it will be, debate, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

FALMOUTH DOCKS BILL [H.L.]
Committed to a Select Committee.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes before twelve o'clock.